panzermartin

Hah..nice one Sergei Dude, sorry, not an enlgish speaker..what do you mean by "goal posts going supersonic"? Hyperbole?? Just curious.

I mean a real mod, not adding an extra hatch on the turret I know there are some out there but you just cant compare them to the vast variety of ww2 camos. Really hope BFC includes some kind of multi-skinning for the Normandy release.

So many reasons WW2>Syrian for a tactical wargame. I needed and wanted the shift to a modern setting but now I'm ready to go back Tank battles suck in CMSF. Its overkill and they are over in a matter of seconds. I miss the gripping >1 min duels from CMx1. I tend to play only inf battles in CMSF because I dislike everything from ATGMs to auto-cannons. Too accurate and fast. You may have more toys in a contemporqary setting but they all more or less behave the same. Also infantry squads like the marines or javelin equipped army units pretty much own everything in the battlefield to the point tanks, MGs, support become insignificant. Combined arms tactics are no longer a necessity.On the other hand a well positioned MG42 in a ww2 scenario will always be a puzzle to solve and thats the magic of the setting. Now you can just bring down the whole building with a 13 man squad and laught at it. Slower pace..atmosphere, balance..water! And so many modding opportunities. Not suprisingly, I havent seen a single tank mod for CMSF.

Its hard to win a war with one testicle. But maybe if he had both he would never bother starting WW2 anyway.

I hope this time modules will add new world objects along with the vehicles/troops. It would be cool to see more dutch looking buildings in the commonwealth expansion, autumn trees etc. Not that I can really tell a french cottage from a dutch one though

Never mind, it seems it doesnt like Google Chrome..I managed to download it with Firefox.

It seems I cant download anything from there. Once I get to the final d/l link I get a web page not found error. Any ideas? I'm registered, I suppose you can download for free a couple of files?

Have faith..they are the same guys that deconstructed our wonderful cherry picking QB system for the sake of realism remember?..just kidding But really there is no indication that they wont pay attention to historical accuracy. CMSF is based on a fictional conflict and yet we mostly get down to earth MOUT and asymmetrical warfare. I think Steve even mentioned that Tigers might not make it in the first release for historical reasons. Modules will be quite strict in time periods and equipment anyway.

Very nice indeed..thanks for posting.

Given the low art budget of CMSF and the flexibility of the map maker, graphs are actually really really good with a nicely balanced pallete and even a classy feel that I much prefer over the glossy World in Conflict visuals for instance. Any chance we will ever see the horizon blending with the table map in CM? I would like to see distance haze set as default feature that will help map edges blend with the rest of the world and even make elevations stand out more clear(eg a hill close to our POV will contrast with the hazy valley beyond it). Theatre of war has done it quite nicely with atmospheric depth of field, map edges extending beyond game area and landscapes flourishing with light. Its very pleasant to wander around the maps, they seem so real (Of course they had the Il-2 engine heritage). Generally I think TOW can give CMSF some ideas about world graphics with nicely detailed touches here and there. Hanged clothes, hay stacks, carts, interesting and varied buildings come to mind. CMSF 3d models are richly detailed but TOW's landscapes make you want to call some friends and lay down on the grass to have some picnic

Of course, flags are limited. I'm not against the new victory conditions by no means. It is just that flags make your goals intantly recognizable and add the wargame flavour back in the simulation. It was satisfying to see the flag changing colors, now you dont really grasp the importance of your goals. Also, the neon green painted area just doesnt fit to a WW2 era atmosphere imo. Blasphemy!

I thought the Niva was quite tough..no? And that is an ugly vehicle..where are those sexy russian curves?

Personally I cant go back to CMx1 style gameplay, no matter how infected I was back then. Its higly desirable for me thought to bring back those things you mentioned missing in CMx2. Sound contacts, misIDs, QBs, etc. I would even suggest a kind of CMx1 flag system for those quick games you dont really want to bother reading briefings but just have a clear indication of score and victory conditions that make the game a "fight till death" and much more gripping in head to head with objectives changing hands etc. It would look more "gamey" but I dont see the damage in the prestige of the simulation aspect of the game if the current more sophisticated system is also retained for scenario building. As a side note, generally making the rules of a game more complex dont necessarily make it better. Its simple rules+awesome gameplay that leads to success. Take for instance football. Two sides kicking a ball trying to put it past a line. Sounds dull in paper but in reality it is the most loved game in the planet. The more symmetrical and balanced WW2 with a return of a point system in QBs would make things much simpler for the average wargamer.

At certain angles graphics almost look photorealistic like those screenshots above. The problem is when grass doodads dont get shaded, trees distort, elevations of terrain become invisible when light is direct etc. For instance check this screen: CMSF maps though give you complete freedom of POVs which is a huge plus compared to the restricted camera in fancy RTS with small maps and 100m visibility. With CMx2 WW2 , normandy scenery would be an instant boost to graphical aesthetics simply because of the colors and the less lego like buildings. Realistic water will be another thing to enhance visuals. Generally I think its the quality and the pallete of the textures that will make it look beautiful, not the extra FX and polygons. I will repeat that CMBO looked absolutely stunning with Magua's sublime and finely colored textures on the simple 3d models. Just hope Dan and co will get those greens right. Its a damn tricky color!

Offline its ok. Could be my bad luck that I had the worst lag with wooded maps in TCP/IP? My main complaint is still about the visual part mostly.

Yep, Obama cant pull a trick like that..yet. But an Iran raid would be far more impressive for McCain. Syria isnt risky enough. Its so safe that even the first CMx2 game takes place there

CM:WW2 should be delayed as long is needed to make it the flagship wargame of Battlefront. Polished CMSF engine, new quick battle system, a semi random map generator(?), water, bridges, ATs, mortars, new TCP/IP modes, balanced and humanly paced combat...I'm drooling already. Some extra care with the atmosphere and graphics and, really, what can go wrong and keep it away from near perfection? Possibly the above suggestions heh. Seriously, I hope they take note and update the scenario listing as well. Size, type of battle, designer, vs AI or H2H, all should be more organized and helpful. P.S Also, can we get that amazing pin up girl menu interface mod from CMBO as a default?

Since Normandy will feature a lot more wooded areas, will we see an improvement in tree modelling both visually and gameplay wise? Visually. Some tree types look subpar in certain angles. especially the tall ones. Normandy maps will not look really good with rows of distorted trees. Trees like olive trees, low, bush types look ok, since they suffer the least from the angle distortion. Tree bases in CMx1 made forests look more "tidy" and not that chaotic despite the primitive patchy tiles. Also, some tree types dont behave well in environmental lighting and look flat and with no volume. LODS for trees are average and maybe my last complaint about graphics in CMSF. Close up they look quite ok but at a distance you dont get a whole, uniformed effect of a wooded area but sparse little tree LODS here and there. Shadows disappear with distance as well and the whole result is far from looking aestheticaly pleasing and realistic. Gameplay. For me, there is a confusion with LOS/LOF and cover issues. Its more realistic to have every tree affect LOS/LOF but soldiers dont seem to notice that inside a wooded area, eg not taking advantage of every tree crown. If it was an FPS I would be prefectly ok with the true to life modelling but in an RTS which requires quick judgement its pure luck to get good cover inside a wooded area. LOS is a pain and there are times I almost miss the simplistic abstracted CMx1 system with the primitive wood tiles. I know it cant get better than 1:1 but I was thinking if we could get a sort of gameplay aid inside wooded areas or maybe a smarter defensive AI behind trees. Then there is the performance hit. I played two TCP/IP games that featured heavily wooded areas and I had strangely huge lags, while all my games since 1.10 even with many units have gone mostly smoothly. I'm not 100% sure about that but I suspect that pathing and LOS/LOF calculations inside trees with many infantry units might cause the problem.

I'm loving CMSF since 1.10 but I'm not very interested in playing the US side and this puts me kinda off. Sometimes you want to do something more with the syrians than just waiting in the corner for a passing tank/platoon. However I'm still impressed BFC managed to make an interesting game placing a 3rd world army against a high tech superpower, since scenarios are by no means turkey shots. Kudos to them, I never thought it was actually possible. Its just one more reason to imagine that the WW2 title would be jaw-dropping gameplay wise.

I loved the scrolling map to be honest. Gave you a sense of progress and continuation and allowed you to add a strategic element to the game. Wrecks from previous battles would stay there and add drama and atmosphere, while you could try to save immobile tanks to repair them. Some other parts were a bit flawed though. I'm not really fan of linked missions. There is something missing in between and its too black or white. There is something intriguing about objectives slowly reavealed in the distance. If missions were part of a larger CMC type strategic map I guess I would care more about the story.

Sometimes I get the weird shooting through multiple buildings. Last time I lost a Bradley from an RPG passing through 2-3 walls. Its like LOF finding a way through a series of windows which behave a little larger than you expect. I could understand maybe rifle fire but an RPG getting in a window and exiting from the other? Where is the damn fridge to stop the round?

I played the Bye Armour and it was fun. I just get the feeling that there is little room for manuever and units are bit too many. Same for Byte Orchard. The map is almost a soccer field large yet we get Artillery,Kornets, Recoiless and tanks. If you keep these units we need a bit larger maps. Personally I'm in favour of larger maps with few units. It seems you have the talent for good map making so it is a matter of adding a few more square meters.

Well I think more attention should be paid even with stock maps. Some qb maps are very plain and boring, like they were made in a couple of seconds. Its a vital part of the game and BFC should have a dedicated map designer that can actually commit some time to make nice and large maps. When I see hammertime by George MC, with the ditches, elevated roads, fields and all this nicely detailed terrain and then play a QB with a huge mountain in the middle and some trees here and there the contrast is disappointing. Also some graphics should be avoided. An all grassy map comes out uber ugly due to the non shadowed doodads and there is no way you can judge elevations. It can turn out worse than CMBO standards

I rarely pay attention to command links in CMSF. Icons are too small and its not clear in which circumstances your units are linked with HQs. Therefore you assume its not that important. Maybe a flashing light or something bigger could be useful. CMx1 had things much more straight forward with the red lines etc. It was great using the special abilities too..stealth for recon units, morale, combat. Would be nice to see some of these back.

Nice.. Lavs are cute but I always thought of modern american AFVS as visually boring. Where are the curves?? The caged Stryker tops them all in ugliness though. Russians on the other hand build some nice sexy armour. One of the things in CMSF that makes me less nostalgic about those cool german panzers