76mm

Actually I'm 110% interested.

i would have thought that these kind of issues would have been ironed out in CMSF and its several patches and modules?

Well, got it to start...not sure what the problem was, but I rebooted, uninstalled, reinstalled, and it worked. I noticed that when it installed it was trying to install it in the "My Documents" folder, which seemed a bit odd, and I put it in C://programs, if that matters.

Very strange, I've given it permission under zonealarm, and have tried after shutting down zonealarm, and I don't think I have any process explorers (although I don't what what they are!). Just nothing is happening...no error messages during installation or anything.

Oops, I wanted to whine first, facts later! It is a desktop, Windows XP, AMD dual core processor 2.7 gig, 2 gig RAM, NVIDIA GForce 8800

I've successfully downloaded and installed the demo, but it refuses to launch. When I try to do so, absolutely nothing happens. No processes start, nothing, nada. I have uninstalled and reinstalled three times, and tried to start about a dozen times. This is frustrating to say the least.

I'm really only buying CMBN so that I will understand how to play the East Front game when it comes out. Bought CMSF for the same reason but could never get myself to play...

anybody have a link for geccos? google has never heard of it... also, regarding maps...I've made a lot of maps, and have never found it necessary to base them on real terrain for a "realistic" feel. Sure, maps on real terrain would be better, but I'd much rather have a decent map that someone else created (and that I can improve if I want) than have to create every map, perfectly, by myself. I probably created about 60 3km x 3km maps (including numerous cities) for a solo CMBB campaign; I eventually (recently) stopped playing it because I didn't have time to create more maps. At the very least we should look at outsourcing map creation to some students in Russia or something.

I think one of the challenges for creation of metacampaigns would be the creation of all of the necessary maps. I think it would be a good idea if all of the people interested in meta-campaigns agree on a standard CMBN map size so that there is the chance to share maps among different metacampaigns.

Understood, I just know that I won't take more than a quick look at it if it is only available online.

Ooops, I retract my thanks, an online version is not super helpful, I spend more than enough time at my computer as it is.

Excellent, thanks!!

Gee one little comment and I can see I'll never hear the end of it...come to Moscow and I'll forget all about the fanboi stuff or maybe even drink the cool aid myself!

OK, when is the Moscow preview? Everywhere else seems to get one...

whew, just caught up with this thread... I find some of the points raised by JasonC interesting...my understanding is that if, say, two of a company's platoons have been wiped out, the remaining platoon will carry on as if nothing had happened? In other words, only the individual squads which have suffered casualties will suffer any morale effects from the losses? Is that right? I have not played CMSF in ages, so am not familiar with how it deals with "global" morale, if at all. It does not seem realistic to me that units (and player/commanders) can completely ignore the aggregate losses suffered by their side when determining how to proceed. I think Steve was basically acknowledging this when he wrote: *************** While we can, and in fact do, make game features to discourage historically incorrect and/or questionable behavior within the game, there's only so much we can do before we start alienating players. Since a game without enough players paying to play means a short life for the developer, there is an obvious reluctance to alienate customers for the pure sake of realism when that particular bit of realism risks alienation. Because the basic elements of a wargame alienate such a massively huge chunk of the potential market, wargame developers have to tread very carefully. ***********

Hopefully BFC won't be doing much gloating, it is a rather dangerous habit for a company selling to customers. Morever, I would not assume that everyone will come "crawling back" if BFC doesn't provide what they want...there are lots of other enjoyable games out there, and *gasp* plenty of things other than computer games to occupy my time with. For instance, I bought CMSF and played it exactly three times, didn't like it, and have never considered playing it again. Hopefully CM:N will be different...

I agree, and also agree that almost any campaign system that you create would only appeal to a minority of players. That's why I think that data import/export to allow for user-made campaigns, is the best way to proceed. However, I've seen in other threads, many times, that this is not about to happen either.

I agrree. No matter how well-designed or well-balanced a scenario is, I just don't find it very interesting to play if there is no campaign context. Win, lose, or draw, my reaction is generally "so what"?

Typical, patronizing fanboi attitude. Actually I don't just play WWII, but almost anything from Ancients, Napoleonics, WWII, SciFi...its just that I found CMSF BORING! Nothing more and nothing less. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, just like those of us who didn't care for CMSF. I haven't played in a long time, and it sounds like the engine has made large strides. I am very much looking forward to CMN and its successors, and hope that BFC hits it out of the park with them.

Or maybe we just find CMSF boring and don't like some of the design decisions?

I generally don't buy games unless I can create some kind of campaign with them, I just don't find one-off scenarios interesting. That said, I don't really want Battlefront to create some whizz-bang strategic layer that I would probably find was not what I was looking for. What I have asked for repeatedly in the past, and am asking for again (like many others), is the ability to import/export unit info and/or be able to modify saved games files. Supposedly modifying saved game files is not allowed to prevent cheating, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to only allow saved game files to be modified if the scenario has ended, thus eliminating any potential for cheating.

hmmmm, I must be reading different posts, I certainly haven't seen any evidence that leto is "unbalanced" or "potentially dangerous". You, on the other hand, have me wondering...

Um, that's exactly what a lot of us like about CM games (OK, I don't like CMSF, but still...). I hope they'll keep the "tricks" to a minimum!

Uh, I served in the military for 4 years and am well aware of this. I am talking about when the commander is on the ground, and looking at another piece of ground, not the map. You think people can't see the folds in the ground, obstructions, etc. that provide cover and concealment? Sure, you can't tell with perfection, but you can tell much better than you can in the game, especially when the pixeltroopers don't stay behind the cover or folds of ground that would be obvious to someone on the ground. Obviously it is impossible in the game to replicate someone's ability to this on the ground, but it should be better than it is (note--I have not played CMSF in many patches, when there were significant LoS issues--many of which may have been fixed by now...)

?? You think that a commander looking at a particular site on the ground in real life has no idea about the cover, concealment, and lines of sight at that site? Sure, he couldn't reduce it to percentage terms but that is hardly the point, is it? The point is that he would surely recognize that moving behind that grove of trees will PROBABLY provide more cover from direction X than moving behind that line of bushes, etc.