76mm

Well, I'm not really threatening...for it to constitute a threat, I would have to have some expectation that the recipient (BF) would change its behavior based on my statements.  But I have no such expectations, I've been around long enough to know that BF is gonna do what it's gonna do...  But honestly, I would think that they would at least be curious why a long time hard-care tactical wargamer and customer is losing interest in their products.  Given that many people don't seem to understand the points I'm trying to make, I've had to repeat them several times, although I'll try to stop soon!
Well, yes...
Not sure about that any more.  While I only look at the CMRT and general forums, both of those are quite dead.  While I'm sure there will be a spurt of activity after R2V comes out, not sure how long it will last.  And frankly, a lot of what I would consider to be interesting conversations get shut down very quickly because people who raise any concerns are immediately branded as whiners, haters, etc. and disappear...

Honestly, I find it hard to understand how anyone as involved in this game as you are to say that a historical sim cannot be "too historical"?  Every game developer, especially those as small as BF, has very limited resources and must strike a constant balance between what is actually historically relevant for their games and what is not.   
For instance, has BF done thorough research about the boots of all of the combatant nations during World War II?  Is sole wear being modeled properly, and are bootlaces the right color, and fraying to the correct degree based on manufacturing procedures and raw materials?  Is boot design factored into how quickly soldiers of various nations can double-time?  Are German soldiers wearing Russian felt boots in winter, as was very common? 
And while we're at it, we should probably have historical vehicle serial numbers accurately reflected in the game, because you know, it would be historical...right?
I hope you would agree (although maybe not, based on your statement above) that these features would be instances of a historical sim being "too historical"?
As you say, historical tactical sims are BF's passion, but that does not mean that precious game development resources should wasted on irrelevant stuff.
You keep bringing up this $700 title for some reason?  Has anyone actually suggested that?  You realize that it's possible to add content to existing games, right?  And I have no problem with complex TO&E as long as it they are not the reason for holding up the release of modules for years on end.  
Command Ops has an interesting system IMO.  They have a single game engine (which they actually give away for free), and then they charge for content to run on that engine.  Obviously you'd have to get the pricing right (and I don't really see the need to give the engine away for free), but imagine the amount of time BF could save by not having to patch/update/upgrade, what, seven separate game families now?  Obviously too late for CMx2, but I hope that BF looks at alternate models for future game engines, if any.

I don't mind having them, but I don't think that getting the TO&E right for different types of units is as easy as you suggest; just on the German side, you have Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjager, Mountain troops, Luftwaffe, Panzergrenadier, Fusilier, etc. etc. all of them changing over time, both in terms of OOBs and TO&Es), then add in the umpteen Allied armies in Italy (or wherever).  MikeyD implies that it was very difficult indeed for R2V, and I have no reason to doubt him.  Based on WWII research that I've done, one of the issues is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and sifting out the correct (or least wrong) version can take time.  Another issue is that while it can be easy to find about 80% of the information you need, finding the remaining 20% can demand lots and lots of time...
And I'm not saying to delete formations altogether, just delete little-used things like anti-tank battalions in favor of anti-tank companies (which would be used more often), so you could still select their components. Anyway, it was just a suggestion which I seriously doubt will be adopted so I would not lose much sleep over it...

I don't mind having them, but I don't think that getting the TO&E right for different types of units is as easy as you suggest; just on the German side, you have Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjager, Mountain troops, Luftwaffe, Panzergrenadier, Fusilier, etc. etc. all of them changing over time, both in terms of OOBs and TO&Es), then add in the umpteen Allied armies in Italy (or wherever).  MikeyD implies that it was very difficult indeed for R2V, and I have no reason to doubt him.  Based on WWII research that I've done, one of the issues is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and sifting out the correct (or least wrong) version can take time.  Another issue is that while it can be easy to find about 80% of the information you need, finding the remaining 20% can demand lots and lots of time...
And I'm not saying to delete formations altogether, just delete little-used things like anti-tank battalions in favor of anti-tank companies (which would be used more often), so you could still select their components. Anyway, it was just a suggestion which I seriously doubt will be adopted so I would not lose much sleep over it...

Honestly, I find it hard to understand how anyone as involved in this game as you are to say that a historical sim cannot be "too historical"?  Every game developer, especially those as small as BF, has very limited resources and must strike a constant balance between what is actually historically relevant for their games and what is not.   
For instance, has BF done thorough research about the boots of all of the combatant nations during World War II?  Is sole wear being modeled properly, and are bootlaces the right color, and fraying to the correct degree based on manufacturing procedures and raw materials?  Is boot design factored into how quickly soldiers of various nations can double-time?  Are German soldiers wearing Russian felt boots in winter, as was very common? 
And while we're at it, we should probably have historical vehicle serial numbers accurately reflected in the game, because you know, it would be historical...right?
I hope you would agree (although maybe not, based on your statement above) that these features would be instances of a historical sim being "too historical"?
As you say, historical tactical sims are BF's passion, but that does not mean that precious game development resources should wasted on irrelevant stuff.
You keep bringing up this $700 title for some reason?  Has anyone actually suggested that?  You realize that it's possible to add content to existing games, right?  And I have no problem with complex TO&E as long as it they are not the reason for holding up the release of modules for years on end.  
Command Ops has an interesting system IMO.  They have a single game engine (which they actually give away for free), and then they charge for content to run on that engine.  Obviously you'd have to get the pricing right (and I don't really see the need to give the engine away for free), but imagine the amount of time BF could save by not having to patch/update/upgrade, what, seven separate game families now?  Obviously too late for CMx2, but I hope that BF looks at alternate models for future game engines, if any.

Well, what I own and what are on my hard drive currently are two very different questions, but currently:  TOAW IV, several Panzer Campaigns games, several Battlefront games (including CMBB), CMANO, COTD, CSME, Desert War, Empires in Arms, FOG2, SoW Waterloo, SoW Gettysburg, SP, and ASL (via VASL).  I own a couple dozen more games but haven't played them in years.
Regarding my comments about not many units and formations, little to edit:  First, I think that the current unit offerings in the base games are tolerable, but not generous.  I'd be happy to pay for more units via modules but modules are very slow in coming.  MikeyD has said that researching/creating the various OOBs and TO&Es in R2V almost "broke" the relevant people, and that might lead BF to further narrowing unit counts/formations in future offerings.  That is why I suggest that rather than limiting unit counts even further, they could make their lives easier by not including little used formations such as anti-tank battalions, etc. and just provide their component parts (AT batteries, etc.).  
Finally, I have played around with the editor pretty extensively over the years; I've been waiting for the first CMRT module to really get into it, but still waiting for that.
 

Well, I'm not really threatening...for it to constitute a threat, I would have to have some expectation that the recipient (BF) would change its behavior based on my statements.  But I have no such expectations, I've been around long enough to know that BF is gonna do what it's gonna do...  But honestly, I would think that they would at least be curious why a long time hard-care tactical wargamer and customer is losing interest in their products.  Given that many people don't seem to understand the points I'm trying to make, I've had to repeat them several times, although I'll try to stop soon!
Well, yes...
Not sure about that any more.  While I only look at the CMRT and general forums, both of those are quite dead.  While I'm sure there will be a spurt of activity after R2V comes out, not sure how long it will last.  And frankly, a lot of what I would consider to be interesting conversations get shut down very quickly because people who raise any concerns are immediately branded as whiners, haters, etc. and disappear...

I don't mind having them, but I don't think that getting the TO&E right for different types of units is as easy as you suggest; just on the German side, you have Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjager, Mountain troops, Luftwaffe, Panzergrenadier, Fusilier, etc. etc. all of them changing over time, both in terms of OOBs and TO&Es), then add in the umpteen Allied armies in Italy (or wherever).  MikeyD implies that it was very difficult indeed for R2V, and I have no reason to doubt him.  Based on WWII research that I've done, one of the issues is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and sifting out the correct (or least wrong) version can take time.  Another issue is that while it can be easy to find about 80% of the information you need, finding the remaining 20% can demand lots and lots of time...
And I'm not saying to delete formations altogether, just delete little-used things like anti-tank battalions in favor of anti-tank companies (which would be used more often), so you could still select their components. Anyway, it was just a suggestion which I seriously doubt will be adopted so I would not lose much sleep over it...

Well, I'm not really threatening...for it to constitute a threat, I would have to have some expectation that the recipient (BF) would change its behavior based on my statements.  But I have no such expectations, I've been around long enough to know that BF is gonna do what it's gonna do...  But honestly, I would think that they would at least be curious why a long time hard-care tactical wargamer and customer is losing interest in their products.  Given that many people don't seem to understand the points I'm trying to make, I've had to repeat them several times, although I'll try to stop soon!
Well, yes...
Not sure about that any more.  While I only look at the CMRT and general forums, both of those are quite dead.  While I'm sure there will be a spurt of activity after R2V comes out, not sure how long it will last.  And frankly, a lot of what I would consider to be interesting conversations get shut down very quickly because people who raise any concerns are immediately branded as whiners, haters, etc. and disappear...

Well, what I own and what are on my hard drive currently are two very different questions, but currently:  TOAW IV, several Panzer Campaigns games, several Battlefront games (including CMBB), CMANO, COTD, CSME, Desert War, Empires in Arms, FOG2, SoW Waterloo, SoW Gettysburg, SP, and ASL (via VASL).  I own a couple dozen more games but haven't played them in years.
Regarding my comments about not many units and formations, little to edit:  First, I think that the current unit offerings in the base games are tolerable, but not generous.  I'd be happy to pay for more units via modules but modules are very slow in coming.  MikeyD has said that researching/creating the various OOBs and TO&Es in R2V almost "broke" the relevant people, and that might lead BF to further narrowing unit counts/formations in future offerings.  That is why I suggest that rather than limiting unit counts even further, they could make their lives easier by not including little used formations such as anti-tank battalions, etc. and just provide their component parts (AT batteries, etc.).  
Finally, I have played around with the editor pretty extensively over the years; I've been waiting for the first CMRT module to really get into it, but still waiting for that.
 

Honestly, I find it hard to understand how anyone as involved in this game as you are to say that a historical sim cannot be "too historical"?  Every game developer, especially those as small as BF, has very limited resources and must strike a constant balance between what is actually historically relevant for their games and what is not.   
For instance, has BF done thorough research about the boots of all of the combatant nations during World War II?  Is sole wear being modeled properly, and are bootlaces the right color, and fraying to the correct degree based on manufacturing procedures and raw materials?  Is boot design factored into how quickly soldiers of various nations can double-time?  Are German soldiers wearing Russian felt boots in winter, as was very common? 
And while we're at it, we should probably have historical vehicle serial numbers accurately reflected in the game, because you know, it would be historical...right?
I hope you would agree (although maybe not, based on your statement above) that these features would be instances of a historical sim being "too historical"?
As you say, historical tactical sims are BF's passion, but that does not mean that precious game development resources should wasted on irrelevant stuff.
You keep bringing up this $700 title for some reason?  Has anyone actually suggested that?  You realize that it's possible to add content to existing games, right?  And I have no problem with complex TO&E as long as it they are not the reason for holding up the release of modules for years on end.  
Command Ops has an interesting system IMO.  They have a single game engine (which they actually give away for free), and then they charge for content to run on that engine.  Obviously you'd have to get the pricing right (and I don't really see the need to give the engine away for free), but imagine the amount of time BF could save by not having to patch/update/upgrade, what, seven separate game families now?  Obviously too late for CMx2, but I hope that BF looks at alternate models for future game engines, if any.

Well, I'm not really threatening...for it to constitute a threat, I would have to have some expectation that the recipient (BF) would change its behavior based on my statements.  But I have no such expectations, I've been around long enough to know that BF is gonna do what it's gonna do...  But honestly, I would think that they would at least be curious why a long time hard-care tactical wargamer and customer is losing interest in their products.  Given that many people don't seem to understand the points I'm trying to make, I've had to repeat them several times, although I'll try to stop soon!
Well, yes...
Not sure about that any more.  While I only look at the CMRT and general forums, both of those are quite dead.  While I'm sure there will be a spurt of activity after R2V comes out, not sure how long it will last.  And frankly, a lot of what I would consider to be interesting conversations get shut down very quickly because people who raise any concerns are immediately branded as whiners, haters, etc. and disappear...

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

That is why many games use DLCs or in BF-speak, modules, to add additional content to existing games.  

While I can imagine that determining the various precise TO&E for a wide variety of units over a lengthy period would be a daunting task, I wonder how it will affect BF's decision-making?  Personally I don't understand why BF does not limit their TO&E efforts to smaller units (platoons and companies) and let scenario designers pull together the various components necessary for their scenario (based on their own research).  Just looking at the CMRT units in the editor, how many CMRT scenarios feature entire anti-tank battalions, regimental infantry gun batteries, or mortar battalions (as just three examples)--why even bother to include them?  For that matter, how many scenarios feature entire infantry battalions?  Further, how often did actual TO&E comply with these official guidelines?  Why not just provide the relevant building blocks to allow scenario designers to build the force necessary for their scenario in the editor?
If the alternative is to slice the game to cover shorter and shorter time periods and fewer and fewer units, I'll continue to lose interest in these products.  I would not care as much if the units/maps from the various games could be used in common under a  unified game engine, but having each game both narrow and stand-alone is a huge turn-off for me, especially when the relevant expansion modules turn out to be several years apart.
With all due respect to BF, I consider this kind of thing to be historically irrelevant minutia.  Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have a module in 6 months with a standard "sidearm" rather than wait six years to equip my digital officers with the appropriate specific sidearm.

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

That is why many games use DLCs or in BF-speak, modules, to add additional content to existing games.  

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

This is more or less my position as well, although I would add that I'd like full-year weather sooner rather than later as well, and that I'm happy paying for modules with additional content rather than a patch, as long as they are provided in something like a timely fashion.
As a similar matter, while CMRT features lots of units that I'd never consider using in a scenario, it does not include such items as assault rafts.  The Soviets conducted many, many river crossings during Bagration and its aftermath, so their presence is missed.  Yes, I understand that rafts would require oodles of new models/animations, so there is a business case against their inclusion, but I miss them nonetheless.

OK, but it sounds like modelling new weapons is not the only difficulty; rather figuring out exactly which weapon was used by whom, and when, is what takes up a lot of time.

You mean mix-and-match, like in forming kampfgruppe or task forces?  Forces were "mixed-and-matched" all the time, so I have hard time understanding what is ahistorical about that?   But if you'd prefer to "break" yourselves by fixating on the formal TO&E of units which have never, and probably will never, feature in a CM scenario, don't let me stop you, although to compare another approach to the inclusion of lightsabers is a bit rich.
Sorry, but in a game featuring up to battalions of digital soldiers in a digital environment built upon many thousands of assumptions and estimates of various degrees of accuracy, to suggest that the range and accuracy of officer sidearms can "make all the difference" is completely ludicrous.  For example, in a "historical tactical sim" I would expect that the TacAI would be vastly more important than minutia such as this, and yet it remains (and given the nature of the beast, will always remain) work in progress.

While I can imagine that determining the various precise TO&E for a wide variety of units over a lengthy period would be a daunting task, I wonder how it will affect BF's decision-making?  Personally I don't understand why BF does not limit their TO&E efforts to smaller units (platoons and companies) and let scenario designers pull together the various components necessary for their scenario (based on their own research).  Just looking at the CMRT units in the editor, how many CMRT scenarios feature entire anti-tank battalions, regimental infantry gun batteries, or mortar battalions (as just three examples)--why even bother to include them?  For that matter, how many scenarios feature entire infantry battalions?  Further, how often did actual TO&E comply with these official guidelines?  Why not just provide the relevant building blocks to allow scenario designers to build the force necessary for their scenario in the editor?
If the alternative is to slice the game to cover shorter and shorter time periods and fewer and fewer units, I'll continue to lose interest in these products.  I would not care as much if the units/maps from the various games could be used in common under a  unified game engine, but having each game both narrow and stand-alone is a huge turn-off for me, especially when the relevant expansion modules turn out to be several years apart.
With all due respect to BF, I consider this kind of thing to be historically irrelevant minutia.  Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have a module in 6 months with a standard "sidearm" rather than wait six years to equip my digital officers with the appropriate specific sidearm.

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

That is why many games use DLCs or in BF-speak, modules, to add additional content to existing games.