Erwin

"When it's clear we can not please more than a minority of players, it is better to shoot for the largest chunk and do the best we can to make that chunk happy." I completely understand and agree with that, Steve. And to paraphrase what Catacol said: "I am disappointed that operations, delays, and CM1-style charts will not be in, but the game will still be great." But, we'll have to agree to disagree that "people just don't want this stuff." I still play in numerous CM1 team campaigns etc. and even after 10+ years of serious play, I STILL need to refer to the charts. I have no idea what the stats are for a Matilda Mk whatever vs a Pz IIIG or a Pz IIIJ vs a Valentine Mk II vs a Valentine Mk IX or whatever. I could understand the vagueness for modern weapons systems due to classified issues and that there were relatively few different types of weapons systems in CM2, but WW2 is well documented. It will be very interesting to see how new inexperienced gamers cope. We here all want BFC to remain successfully in business as you are unique in making the sort of quality games we in this niche market love. And as YankeeDog said: "Spirited argument about game features and design is part of what these forums are for. But sooner or later, ya gotta move on..."

"Victoria 2... would be a good candidate for multi-core." What makes this game require multicore? I don't understand what the difference is between one game or another re processing requirements other than raw power etc. Thanks for the education...

"It's in his interests to keep us there." Couldn't have said it better. And that leads to the question of who on OUR side benefits from all this? How much has flowed back in kickbacks to OUR side of the pond? You know... when we all look back on this in two or three hundred years, I wonder if the history books will tell of this being the period of incredible corruption and self-interest on all sides that led to the downfall of western hegemony.

I heard that future games are supposedly to be made to take advantage of multicore, but I never understood the advantage. Can you clarify?

No, but if you're spreading your net, I can do one for southern Utah/Northern Arizona/Nevada. My wife is a VP of a college here which is one of only 2 in the US with its own commercial TV and radio stations, so could probably get some coverage.

Oooops... I forgot I am in the Normandy threads.

"Of the 35 posts (less multiple posts by the same person, less posts against the idea) is a fairly optimistic definition of “many of us”." Of course... IF this is the only forum you frequent... Do you frequent BoB and anyn other fan sites, or is this the whole bubble? I agree that you can't make a projection to anything from a couple dozen people, but that argument cuts both ways.

Hey ND: I found the info in the CMSF manuals to be very detailed and seemingly important, but in "RL" usage incredibly useless most of the time in terms of helping one play the game. I call it "infocandy." (Copyright 2011, Erwin Holdings) It took me a HUGE amount of time and what seems like hundreds of postings and reading forums here for a couple of years(!) to discover the realities of how CMSF has to be played. To play the game well, one needs to understand all the features in CMSF that do NOT work like in RL - like artillery for example, and how to game the system to achieve the desired result.

My understanding is that multicore is designed for multitasking. I am fortunate to have a dedicated game machine, so I didn't see the reason to spend more than singlecore. I put the savings into the 295 card, an SSD and other top of the line components.

"I dunno -- Karzai seems to me about the best we can expect right now from an Afghan ruler who isn't an out and out warlord. " The horrible truth may be that your assessment is correct. But, my understanding is that these guys, essentially the entire Afghan govt, don't even live in Afghanistan - they have their families in mansions literally in Dubai etc. and it's hard to see how they give a dam about their country other than lining their pockets with the (again literally) billions of dollars that have been "misplaced" by the US in the past few years. And when the rest of us are suffering thru the worst recession etc., there is something amoral and immoral about what is beng done with taxpayer money. So, I think Karzai basically IS a warlord... just more subtle.

Excuse me, but from the posts in these forums by the same two or three dozen folks, it's hard to see who is the "customer base." I thought the customer base and financial springboard to all else was similar to the base that loved CMBO and all the features it introduced into gaming. Are you claiming that you now represent the customer base, Major? And what do you consider that base comprises of? Am just curious.

Regarding PR, you are obviously correct. But, we have to bear in mind that Britain and the US had not been invaded, had families and entire communities massacred, cities deliberately destroyed and been labeled as untermensch to be destined to be slave labor etc. The Soviets came for revenge, and it's hard to blame them.

"you should at least try the alternative before rejecting it." Yes, of course I agree... However, my point was that BoB folks have never been shy about loudly complaining about stuff, and the Operations feature in CM1 was never one of the BoB issues. I would say that most thought the Operations feature to be great - just look at the number of CM1 Operations that were created in 10 years compared to the Campaigns created for CMSF in 3 years (or however long its been out). If it's technically or financially not viable, well that is that... But, from the posts above I would say that there are as many of us who enjoyed that feature and would have liked to have seen in in CM2 as there are detractors.

I agree with GAJ's assessment. However, if there is a choice I agree with astano that "the resources are much better spent on an improved tutorial and manual (vice what was provided with CMSF) than penetration data." (How is that for being political heh.) The sad thing is that BFC is providing neither. The way CM1 was is what made it such a huge groundbreaking success, including the Operations, the easily accessible Data Tables, the easy to use map/scenario editor etc etc. All of that is now thrown out the window. I can't help but speculate that if CMSF was the very first release, rather than CMBO, BFC may not have survived - the same way that the attempt at realism and much increased complexity killed the cardboard game industry in the 80's.

"It's foolish for us to try and please one of the smaller campaign factions with a system that is the most technologically difficult to implement." This is a very valid point and from a biz POV of course it makes most sense. However, from a player POV I just don't buy the argument that "only a few people liked it." There must be just as many opinionated and vociferous folks over at BoB, and over the 10 years we've been playing CM1 I do not recall any problems mentioned re the CM1 Operation system. If it's not working from a financial/biz pov, then fine. But, plz don't say that no one wanted it, cos of a "few" loud complainers here.

I get "fatal error."

Lovely. Thanks. Will this work with the "short sleeve" mod that the Brits have?

Quite right re human casualty cost vincere... What I was trying to allude to was that wars are not worth it if they bankrupt your empire in terms of treasure, casualties etc. A few years ago someone said that maybe we should just get used to a certain level of terrorism in the same way that we do about crime. The war on drugs hasn't worked either. I don't consider that the west is in any danger of Taliban tanks rolling over Europe or getting to the US. There IS a danger of our economies collapsing cos we spend too much on unwinnable wars. IIRC the Boer War, a small police action of the British Empire in S.A., is considered the war that started the decline of the Brits. Yes, we want to stop rogue WMD's. If we put a fraction of the resources we're spending on conventional wars and propping up people like Karzai so he and his "corcrons" (corrupt cronies) can live as multi-billionnaires in UAE towards the sort of intelligence and spec ops assets that are required we might get somewhere.

Yes, I understand that. Even with good C2, it does/did seem that the blue forces in CMSF are depicted as "unflappable."

The global moral issues in CM1 were impressive. In CMSF it does seem as if the allied forces are akin to supermen - always obeying orders, fighting to the death. But, that may be a political issue since the game environment is too close for comfort to today's situation and in deference to the high % of mil profs. in this market. It would be nice if WW2 cold return to the era of draftees who are mostly less motivated.

You are correct TankeeDog, it was possible to easily break the system - as in any game. But, it is just as easy to break the CMSF system as well. Much of the discussion of sim vs game that we enjoy here, turns around the argument that one needs to act in a realistic manner in order to achieve realistic results. Many people here are very against treating CMSF as a game in which one can game the system. And that is fine. However, gaming the system certainly can be done in CM2 as well as in CM1. So, the specific example you mentioned is not really an issue.

As someone mentioned, we experienced CM1 players don't need the tables that much, but there should be legitimate concern about new younger players for whom WW2 is akin to Rome vs Carthage. Unless there is little interest in the "new player market" it's surprising that there is so much resistance to useful aids. It's as if there is an experienced/military faction that wants the game system for itself and doesn't want any implication that CM2 is a game that could attract casual gamers.

"Definitely no return to a multiple battles on the same map with a dynamic moving "front line". That's not anything we're interested in trying to do as it is a development black hole." It seemed to work quite well in CM1. Just curious... why did it become a problem?

A slight aside, but Alexander (the Great) pacified Afghanistan by basically killing everybody. It must have taken a generation or so to recover, but they didn't stay pacified. There is something about human will... Many empires since then have tried to do the same to the Afghans. It's not called the graveyard of empires for nothing. There does not seem to be an easy answer, like "all we need(ed) to do is persevere" re Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq etc.

So many seem to be reporting this that there is probably something wrong with their computers, config, system, too many other programs running at start-up, allocation of whatever... I have only a 2.9GHz. (Altho' I do have a 295 card.) Game runs fine (60MHz) at 2880x1800.