C'Rogers

Thank you for your help, everything working fine now.

I have the original version of CM:BN from 2011, reinstalled it, and got a UI not found error. Looking on the forums this seems to be a problem with windows 10 and that I need to upgrade it. No problem, I was probably going to do the upgrade anyway. So my question is what do I buy. Do I just get the version 4 upgrade and install that over the base game? Anything else I need to do for upgrading a original version?

Sgt. Joch: I'm sorry, but history is WeGo only. People sit around planning for an extreme amount of time, decide to implement a strategy, then they lose total control and can only watch helplessly as everything goes to hell in a shockingly short period.

My anti-virus (avira) is also getting set off by the demo.

I don't stop by the forums as much as I used to, but I had to take the time to make a comment on this thread due to some of the best news I've ever heard. Oh, not the news of the upgrade system. That is just really good news. The great news is that this may be my moment where I was right, and Steve wrong. It requires me to go back over six years to when CMx2 was still a work in production and modules were a twinkle in Steve's eye. At the time, many people were confused about what exactly modules were (six years later: whew, good thing we got past that issue, no one ever gets confused anymore ). I was serving as one of the many self appointed people who tried to (repeatedly) clarify just what modules were, when this minor thread came up: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74571 I made the suggestion that the module system would play a key component in identifying what the battlefront customers were actually interested in (instead of what we just complain about): At the time I thought I was making a pretty good observation. It made sense to me that the module system will serve as a feedback method. Then Steve replied: Okay, no problem. BFC has a schedule and a plan and neither God nor computer malfunction shall change them from that. However, I then see this comment from Steve in this thread a mere six years later: That sounds, to me, a lot like marketing research. Victory! Okay, I know what you might be saying. By me saying marketing and not marketing research, Steve may have misinterpreted what I was getting at. Or that I was referring to the type of content that will be produced for a game, while Steve is talking about the quantity of content. And maybe it is incredibly petty of me to bring this up over six years later. However, it's my moment in the sun, so I'm taking it. And, with that long and self-indulgent story laid out, I do have an actual question. I don't play CMx2 as much as I did CMx1 due to life changes over the last ten years among myself and the people I play with. I tend to dive into the game a few times a year when time permits for really intense playing. So I tend to come to things awhile after they have been released. So, question, what happens if two upgrades come out before I have upgraded at all? In this instance, let's say I stop playing CMBN, walk away for a year, and when I come back it is on version 3.0. Would I just buy 3.0, or would have I have to buy both upgrades to get to 3.0? Also, sad to hear that CoPlay keeps getting pushed back. It is one of the two features yet to be implemented that I was really looking forward (the other being battle replay, which I believe was permanently cut for being impossible to implement). I understand the technical difficulties of CoPlay, and that the amount of people interested in it may be limited (like CMx1 Operations), but think that it could be a massive improvement to the few people who could get the necessary players to manage it.

Real time player, use warrior. Started on Iron, but found it, and elite, to be more annoying then enjoyable. I played CM:SF on elite though.

MikeyD's answer is probably best that accepting you'll not see some things. Here's my simple, but serious answer, on how to play more than company sized engagements in RT. Don't. Personally, I find many of the campaigns and scenarios disappointing because of their size. I think with how CMx2 is designed a company or two is really the ideal size with real time. So if you're going to play the campaign, get used to doing things you might not in QB like pausing frequently.

I think this is probably the best explanation. I think it's just human nature not to want to relearn a system. If I already have a WWII sim I like (or a train sim in this instance) why invest the time learning another one? Steve has talked many times about the difficulty in keeping series going. Stray too far from the original material and you'll lose your fans. Keep too close to the original and people will be wondering why to buy it. I think that CM:BN is an improvement over CMx1, but if you're still playing CMx1 (which I tried somewhat recently and hated it), why change? Given the learning curve sim games have it can seem like a lot of work to learn to do something you were already enjoying. However, I thought Railroad Tycoon 2 was an improvement over 1, and 3 was an improvement on 2, but I knew many who just couldn't "get into" the latter games. Games like Myst are different though (story based, or RPGs). You're playing the game for a story. In a sense, Myst is one really long game that just gets better graphics. Sim games repeat the same thing. They don't have as much room to change as other games would.

On the issue of keeping one man in to hold a point: I agree with the above statements about perhaps dividing the points up based upon people in the zone, but here is perhaps an easier alternative. Designers, stop making such large victory zones. If victory zones are small, then the chance of it being contested radically decrease. There are times that a scenario might necessitate a large zone I understand, but in general they probably should not be so big that opposing forces could be in them without having any chance of knowing about the other.

They both might be humans, but the difference in technology and logistical support are tremendous. The modern US has such a great superiority in fire power, supplies, communications, and information that makes alternatives to 'standard' military operations is viable. There is also the issue of support for the country being occupied. Germany/Japan could have put up unified opposition to a US military presence. Afghanistan/Iraq certainly don't love the US, but don't have a central authority that they want to rally behind. Given the enemy that the US is fighting makes COIN operations, and not bombing cities, viable. History though still has to be written on the success of these types of tactics. Two things that I think aren't really arguable is that the terrors suffered by the Germans and Japanese in the war were hellish, but both emerged better (in the since of better for the world community) nations after the war. We have no idea were our current tactics will take us. Just for the record, I agree that the US could have ended the war earlier. The Emperor is still in Japan, and was never really the main villain to begin with. But I understand that I'm seeing this with hindsight. The US was open to talks and talks about surrender happened. The Japan wanted the Emperor to remain intact. The US did not see that as an option. See earlier comments about "breaking" the Japanese military to avoid future conflicts. Other then that, nothing I can add to Michael's points about inability to separate the war machine supply from the civilians.

Yeah, I'm interested in a few things as well to keep it going. To go back a few pages. It seems like the entire premise of the argument is what are good and bad actions in war. I don't think that is the relevant question here (though it is a relevant question for other topics, ie individual action in war and treatment of prisoners). War is bad. People die. No one is disagreeing with that. In a war on the scale of WWII civilians will be killed. If we're going to contend that war can be fought with civilians not being killed let's be up front about what we're discussing. I believe IMHO brought up COIN ops as a success earlier. One, I don't think they count as any type of ideal alternative, and two, they could not have been used against Japan/Germany (nations on par with the US militarily). As another issue, in our moral calculus, we are only discussing human lives. Now human life should take precedence, but there is the issue of dignity and rights as well. If Chinese accounts are to be believed, then Japanese treatment of the Chinese was inhumane conditions that can match anything in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Even if those stories (Rape of Nanking) are exaggerations by the Communist Party, China, Korea, and others were being undoubtly being oppressed by the Japanese. Hastening the end of the war also ended the Japanese Empire's oppression. Thirdly, it is brought up that the US wanted to break the Japanese state. Yes, they did. Would it have been okay to allow the Imperial military, and the entire military culture, to remain? If not utterly broken it is quite possible that the Japanese military would return later only to start another war. In hindsight, we know that is unlikely given the rise of the Soviet Union and the Cold War (and even the American military did not expect how strongly the Japanese would take to pacifism). But at the time, breaking the Japanese wasn't just an act of revenge, but likely seemed to many the only way to assure future peace.

He personally might not make the spot, but other guys should. From his position he should be able to see most of the map. Once your other guys engage the German defense, have him call in the artillery.

IMHO, you are coming off as the most Lawful Neutral person I've seen debate (sorry to those who don't get what I'm talking about, I wasted my life). I thought we were debating moral action (err, could Germany have won the war)? If someone is murdered we don't say 'well that was wrong because it is against the law'. Murder is wrong because it is immoral (under pretty much any philosophical or religious guideline you want). If you want to argue that the actions taken by the US in WWII were immoral that's fine. I disagree, but I see the argument. However, I can't possibly see the rational behind 'someone said it's a war crime, therefore it's wrong' as justifying the argument. If it was necessary for the allies to drop nukes on Japan to prevent even larger casualties to the US and Japan, to use that example, and the UN had voted it a war crime (who somehow magically came into existence early and knew about the potential of nukes), the US still should have done it. If it was wrong however, but legal, then its still wrong.

I feel like the 'war could have been ended without nukes' side is making the same error that started this thread of 'could Germany have won the war'. Yes, if they had perfect knowledge. But they didn't. It's easy for us to say 'the Japanese would have surrendered', but that doesn't mean the US knew they would. Even if the US was 90% certain that Japan was going to surrender, is that worth taking the risk that will be posed to US soldiers in a full scale land invasion? On the ethical question of comparing Osama Bin Laden to war time actions: To a degree, you're right. I've always been disturbed by the line 'the Japanese language shall be spoken only in hell' even if it was just meant to be rabble rousing. However, I think direct comparison between the two issues is invalid. I think society has gotten away from the notion of 'total war' for which we should consider ourselves very blessed. However, in a war the scale of WWII, or a war that Osama Bin Laden probably imagined he was bringing about, attacks on civilians are inevitable. To say that civilians and a military machine can be separated is not true (to reiterate, I'm talking only about something on the scale of WWII). That the means of war are ethically questionable and horrifying should be obvious. Thus whether the ends are justified should be the primary (but certainly not only) issue. I mean, we consider attacks like the bombing against Cole a heinous act, even though that is a clear military target. I'll end there, because I'm probably horribly off topic.

Longer battles usually favor the attacker, true, but I think variable length endings are a counter to this. Without variable length endings offensive players who are relying on, or have no other option of, one last rush at the target flag, are hurt by variable length endings. If the game ends at a preset time the attacker knows exactly when he needs to launch his attack and doesn't have to worry about being repelled from the area he is in.

From what I remember, BFC believed that very few people ever played the Operations style of gameplay. Some did, and some were fanatical about it, but they figured they would get more worth out of the campaign style they put in. It was nothing against operations (I think Steve even once said he was fond of them) there just wasn't the player base to justify it. Maybe one day they'll return.

Wait, we had all those arguments about command lines and no one knew about the green boxes? Geez, I thought the 'we need the command line side' was just really upset with how the information is displayed. Well I've seen the boxes go red a lot. I think it is a lot more complex then the CMx1 scenario. Distance, time, communications, line of sight, are all factors. As a quick test I just set up a map, put the platoon on one side, and fast ran another unit in the opposite direction. While moving the unit went in and out of command as they lost line of sight for awhile before eventually getting far enough away that they were completely on their own. Which is perhaps another reason the command lines disappeared. Not only could they at times have been very long (and then others very short before disappearing) you'd have them running to platoon and company HQs.

Please, no. Units can target multiple enemies. I would prefer they target multiple enemies and if I click on an enemy unit I don't want to necessarily prioritize it. I'm not sure what you're advocating here. I'd like that, not sure how many free keys they have though. Makes sense, but why you use the face command so much I'm unsure of. I only use it when I want my units in a particular section of building. I've also had problems with map edges, but this is more of a scenario design issue at the moment. Sometimes I really notice, but most maps it doesn't come up.

There are people who were paid, or volunteered to test, to do that. If BFC asks you to run a test it isn't because they didn't do the work, but because they did and it disagrees with your results. Until then it is anecdote vs statistic. I've noticed the scenarios and QBs favor a lot heavier weaponry then I usually saw in CMx1. So I'm not really surprised to see tanks going down quicker, just because there's been more stuff that can take them down. That's all a personal experience issue though.

It's a good thing we all agreed bogging worked perfectly in CMx1. Oh wait, we disagreed then too. A lot of this thread is about things that were just as problematic as in CMx1. What was the concealment in scattered trees? What was coverage in a wheat field? How many meters can a unit see into a forest before line of sight is stopped? Most of the issues brought up here were issues in CMx1, except people got use to them. The terrain is now more detailed and can't really be broken down into a simple 'what tile am I in'. Though you can just look at the map to give you a rough idea. Perfect, no, but I'd certainly say my 'educated guesses' about what the terrain does are a lot better than when I started CMx1.

I think you missed BFCs first post. Ammo sharing is the only answer (unless he found a bug)

And I, a QB guy, am incredibly happy with what you have done.

There already is one.

But the post doesn't say OMG, OMG, so it can't be true.

Does Steve need to show up and give his cow example? Many things in battle could be technically possible, and could have been done, that doesn't mean they should be in the game. If something is possible, but always tactically a bad idea, then why model it? The problem comes up when people use things in a "gamey" way. We'll use tank riding. US soldiers were instructed not to ride on tanks into battle. So you say, why not let them suffer the bad consequences? Well, the player could get around them. In a battle the player will often have knowledge that real life commander might not. The player tends to know where the set up zones are in attacks, assaults, etc. So he can mount up his soldiers on tanks, ride them a 100m forward, then dismount, knowing they'd never be in danger. However, that is knowledge that a real commander would never have. Let me give an example using American football. At any time during a game any player can lateral the ball to any other player. This can happen an infinite number of times so long as the ball does not go forward or out of bounds. So as this is always an option it should clearly be in football games (ala Madden. It isn't (outside scripted plays), for a very obvious reason. It rarely happens when a player who is not the quarterback laterals the ball. Occasionally, yes, but rarely. However, if it was in the game, players could use it constantly. In your scenario, you would have them model it, but also model the negative effects. So you need to model fumbles, chance of bad throws, but you also have to model the defense to be prepared to respond to this. And still players will use it in a gamey way because they can plan for it, while most players 'in the game' wouldn't suddenly think of it unless that was the plan. As much as I am for added features, you also have to factor in how people will be able to use it within the context of a CM game, and whether that is radically outside the context of an actual WWII battle.