Erwin

It's all good, FMB. It's simply that there are and have always been (at least) two customer bases, and there is a dynamic "war" between us re what features are most valuable to each and how we like to play the game and WHY we play the game. Personally I believe that too much "realism" leads to a boring and sometimes very technically hard game to play. And I think CM1 hit the happy medium almost perfectly. In CM1, once one accepted the level of abstraction, nothing stood out as horribly wrong (to me). The irony of the attempts to make the CM2 system have greater "realism" is that there are so many unrealistic aspects (artillery, snipers, recon vehicles etc.) that are now becoming increasingly "bright orange" and hard to ignore.

FMB: It's not really a big issue for me one way or another. I was trying to explain why some of the xnt features of CM1 were removed on the basis of "realism." It's the grognard/milpro members who seem to hark on that aspect all the time (while ignoring other aspects of the game that are very "unrealistic" - I have never understood the criteria). I come from the population that is looking for a great game that has the "the illusion of reality" (similitude), and I find some of the features of CM1 that are missing in CM2 to negatively impact the fun gameplay. I also find some of the new features that increase "realism" to reduce the fun of the game (vs CM1). CMSF is still a great game, and I enjoy it a lot and recommend it as the 2nd best game of its type out there. But, some of the design choices are puzzling - unless one is in step with the criteria of the grog/milpro population. eg: "The QB system was changed to avoid cherrypicking of ridiculous forces." If it's a game, what is the problem with cherry-picking any forces you want? I have been reading posters salivating that they will be able to pit US forces vs the Brits, or SS (when available) vs Wehrmacht. As a game that's fine, but it's also "ridiculous." I am completely puzzled at the logic behind some design choices, and it's pretty normal on these forums to see mutually contradictory arguments for and against features.

Haven't played for a couple weeks, but today, I find my NATO scenarios all greyed out as if NATO is not installed. (NATO used to work fine.) Before I get into the fun of reinstalling and relicensing, is there a check list I could follow to troubleshoot? Thanks...

"Anyone can kill a Sherman with a Panther but you have to be clever to accomplish the same thing with a Marder." This is probably a function of the smaller maps in CM2 games. The Nashorn was a great killer with its 88mm gun, but you have to be able to use it while out of range of any enemy guns. Ditto for the Marder. "Don't put your PzIV's in hull down..." In CM1, someone worked out that because the PzIV hull was tougher than the gun mantle, you were statistically better off exposing the whole front of the tank rather than being hull-down. The argument was that the % to hit the hull-down tank was smaller but a hit was much more likely to kill. It was easier to hit the non-hull-down tank, but a much higher % to survive as a large % of the hits would be on the tougher front hull. Doing the math they proved (IIRC) that you were better off not being hull down in a PzIV. It's not cut and dried as of course you also have to take into account range/penetration issues issues as well. Given the number of WW2 docs I have seen where all the German tank crews said that Shermans were no match for any of the German tanks (Mk IV and above) and that the Allies had to use 3-4+ to one to overcome the Germans, I sincerely hope that CM:BN has not downgraded the Germans (or upgraded the Allies) so as to make for an easier fight for the Allies (presumably to not upset the rah rah attitude of casual gamers).

Generally, it is a very BAD idea to expose ANY vehicle early in the "recon" period of the game. The CM2 maps are usually not large enuff to safely expose a recon vehicle (ie: equipped with special gear) without getting shot at and easily KIA. This is especially true of ATGM vehicles that have telescoping missile launchers. The CM2 game system does NOT give these units any special "hull down advantages" over any other vehicle. So, if your recon vehicle can see an enemy, the enemy can see your vehicle even if, in RL, all that would be exposed would be the telescopes/FLIR whatever devices... Better to dismount guys with binoculars (quite realistic) and have them get into good vantage positions (SLOW MOVE if necessary) and let them sit there for a few turns observing (UNHIDE them). The more time spent observing (and the more observing units), the more they will start to see enemy icons, and maybe enemy units themselves.

I have the suspicion that many great features of CM1 were eliminated due to the "milpro" influence of attempting to present CM2 as an accurate "poor man's/country's" military training sim. Many of the features that made the CM1 games such great games (as opposed to a great simulation) have disappeared. And imo CM2 is still not really suitable for training except in some very limited/defined situations with an educator supervising all the trainees' moves. The vagueness of the manuals and the removal of the xnt CM1 penetration tables almost mandates that one has significant knowledge of the units/weapons systems included plus appropriate tactics for using them. I have read many what I consider to be "intolerant/arrogant" posts that basically say that "players need to do their own research to find all this out." So, no realistic attempt to make this a user-friendly game system for average gamers. It will be very interesting to see how CM:BN is received by the average gamer looking for an improvement of the gaming experience they enjoyed with CM1. I know that I will enjoy the new system no matter what. But, that is after a decade of learning both CM1 and CMSF.

You are correct, however I am always puzzled when players spend most of their time in higher elevations. Being at ground level is imo how the CM series was designed to enable us to play. If one wants a top down game what is the point of all the wonderful 3-D graphics? One may as well play Steel Panthers or the Close Combat series.

Played it twice. I was too nervous of getting them so close to the action as I thought them too valuable to lose. I wonder if you play RT? That might make a difference. (I played WEGO.) Am thinking that whenever anyone comments on tactics they need to make clear if they play RT or WEGO. Huge difference in tactics.

It's hard to do an expeditionary force across water over other people's countries to get to an enemy, so I think Britain's position was understandable from a logistical POV before one even gets into the politics. I don't want to rag on the French but they had the largest and "most powerful" Army in the world and did nothing over the Rhineland occupation, or Poland when virtually Germany's entire army was in the East. That was the situation that gave the Wermacht fits, that France could have simply walked into the Ruhr. But, even now we're in a similar situation with the US having been seriously burned over Iraq and Afghanistan being very tentative about other more recent developments. So, we have to give our forbears some empathy/understanding when we see what is happening in today's world.

The use of text itself to show what the individual soldier is doing is a problem as our brains process visuals much faster and better. I never bothered even looking at that small text window. However, Vein and another guy have created mods that attempt to make the text on the LHS screen more "visually arresting." But, the best solution would be to do something with the colored weapons symbols at the bottom of the screen. Probably the challenge is that weapons get picked up and exchanged.

Looks absolutely gorgeous (of course). However, I also was surprised that the default gives everyone the same ammo levels. I liked the CM1 default that gave all vehicles varying ammo (as in RL). There also seems to be an opportunity for each crew member to have his own abilities, the gunner, driver etc. Would that be something that could happen in the future? It's the sort of thing that enables players to ID with and get emotional attachment to individual units.

I never found a good use for the SMAW teams (other than using their charges to blast thru walls). They didn't seem that accurate at longer ranges and I was scared of using em too close to the enemy as I felt they were too valuable while carrying the charges. I split em and simply used them for cover fire (LIGHT). How did you use em?

Looks vaguely like the Israeli Merkava. Is the engine in front? Any access or room in back?

I also recommend Road to Dinas. Excellent campaign and a great way to learn how to handle Red forces. I momentarily forget the designer's name (sorry mate), but he's done several other xnt campaigns/scenarios as well. (In fact every one I have played has been a winner.)

There is no reason not to go for Win 7/64 as it has a 32 bit emulator that runs older technology games like CM1 (and CM2).

From my observation (only) accuracy doesn't seem to be impacted. If you use multiple tubes you will use ammo from each gun, so you do use more ammo for the same amount of time from (say) one gun. But, you'd get more shells landing at the same time. Or, maybe I misunderstand your question?

Win 7 has a 32 bit option that enables one to easily play CM1 (and CM2) games. I simply copied my CM1 games over from my old machine via a flash card.

And then what? Another Iraq-like situation (that everyone criticized the US for)? That's what terrifies everyone into paralysis.

AFAIK there is still no release date. Hopefully after they recoup development costs of $435,864 in preorders lol.

"For certain people... you're clearly a satanic worshipping child murderer. If you admit an interest in wargames or WWII history, you're clearly a racist Nazi fetishist child murderer." So what's your point? We need to be more open-minded and less bigoted about alternative lifestyles... (Heh.)

Hmm... I wonder if his Hermes bags are any good, Wife needs one...

I wouldn't let a need for a realistic map get in the way of designing a fun game.

I have not had any problem copying my CM games from an XP to a Win machine. You may want to try a new download and reinstalling b4 contacting tech support.

I think many of us here are spambots repeating the same old thing over and over again, like "when will CM:BN be released?" etc.

Am SO flattered that zhengwei0 has plagiarized my comments on every friggin forum. Someone fry his ass please.