WindyCity

**LINK**

As in the words of our esteamed colleges. OWNED! Prince of Eckmühl if you don’t play CM, you most certainly should. You would fit right in :cool:

nice

Outstanding...............again and again and again and again :cool: I look forward to your mods with the same enthusiasm as a bone on the Campaign forum

I think I remember 2003 getting trashed somehow, but what about 04 and 05.

1)CMBO 2)CCI 3)CMBB 4)CCII 5)CMAK Still play 3,4,5 to this day

Are woods abstract, or does a tree model represent a single count .

Thanks

The beatings will continue till CM is excepted as the only true wargame

This is a little more then a disagreement, especially in reply to one of them members requesting info on CM, it a asinine immature post that is nothing more then a bait to inflame another flame fest. It was meant as a insult PERIOD !

At the fringes, the game's devotees are really kind of pitiful, caged as they are by it's absurd turn-based mechanics. It's old hat, now, but some of these guys will go on for hours about how "realistic" it is, endlessly quoting statistical data related to ordnance, and the like. That, however, is a house of cards. The game rests on sixty-second turns, a brain-dead AI, EXTREME micromanagment and other conventions ported over from miniatures wargaming. TOW is definitely the wave of the future as relates to company/battalion level combat simulation. PoE </font>

Check out the Africa and Barbarossa forums here at BF also.

Right here at BF **DEMO LINK** Get Combat Mission Africa or Barbarossa forget Overlord

Get the demo

PS: anyone ever hear what happend to Sniperdoc from CC forums and the Zone, I know he was deployed back in 02-03 and never heard from him again. [ October 08, 2006, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: WindyCity ]

The real irony is that BTS/BFC have embraced ToW, which, if anything, is Close Combat 3D, and are making the CM2 games in a real-time engine (with optional turns to be sure). You've come a long way, baby. [/QB]</font>

My math/ 1% Lets say (for the sake of argument) the title has been in development for around 4 years. 1454.31 days @ 1% completion leaves 14.5 days left of development. WTF we are 6.5 days pass the target date , this is a outrage ! :mad:

Excellent point, But in return only brings up another question, LOL this is starting to snowball. Will there be the ability to utilize user created shell craters for infantry cover. ? Shell hole creation is a favorite pet tactic of mine to minimize the odds of crossing open ground. I would hate to see such limits put on the player considering the lack of building entry.

But the “where’s the demo dude” twitchy crowd is any more productive. I don’t think the majority of TOW lurkers have any idea the vast knowledge the CM community in a historical sense pertaining to WWII has to offer, telling the CM crowd to go away is just asinine (not that that’s your suggestion) . The few individuals that troll this forum with their bad attitudes that think their low membership numbers gives validation to criticisms and attacks is wrong and by a long shot do not represent the CM community as a whole, the CM community are for the most part one of few mature/literate wargammers you will run into on the net. This argument of the “Church of CM” V’s RTS has been fought on many fronts, and has roots back to the CC days, when the CC crowd opened up the “legendary assault “ on the CM community back in the early days. Now that CC has a fork in it, and the irony that their only realistic alternative is a BF published title will inflame many small arm engagements for months to come. So see, nothing new here.

Timed fuses are available/modeled in the TOW ? I understand and can even agree with the some your points. But on the same note I would hate to see that kind of large caliber ordnance readily available. My hopes are they implement a semi rarity and historical availability of such tools of the trade to combat the vulnerability of infantry. Short of having the patch of forest/target pre-registered , and advancing troops in the woods I still have to disagree. You allow a company of infantry even a short duration to entrench itself in a wooded area, I think the cost of resources spent to effectively rout your target just might be a defeat in itself. I would think there’s more of a risk to moral then bodily harm for entrenched units. Which brings up another question, Per-registered targeting ?

Nice

I disagree, I don’t think there is anything magical about the terrain bonus that would imply to “woods”. Grant it we have yet had any official discussions on the matter that I recall. But short of large caliber HE rounds slamming into the troops position, I have a hard time believing there would be a better place to dig a hole of self preservation.

You think this is bad ? Do a search of the 1999 CM archives, if anyone out there is equipped to combat gorgs its BF.

You don't need to be a PS master to have an opinion. Agreed, But if your going to attack the publisher credibility over a image at least you could do is offer up some alternatives. Nitpicking every screen, image, interface, unit is not on any level a productive conversation. Sure pointing out historical contradictions IN THE GAME is ,but we are talking about a image on a advertisement, its sole purpose is to catch ones eye.

Here is a idea, why don’t you and HOF get together and come up with a couple of adds that fit more to your taste. Then post them up so the entire forum can criticize every minuet historical contradictions. Anyone can sit there a dream up the perfect game or even the perfect advertisements , But the real question is what could you make ?