slysniper

Yes George, it appears you shocked a newer player once more.
I remember the first time I hit one of them traps set up by you also. it was like, what the heck just happened.
It was only after replaying the battle did I figure out what had happened. it was a wonderful dirty little trick .
 

Yes George, it appears you shocked a newer player once more.
I remember the first time I hit one of them traps set up by you also. it was like, what the heck just happened.
It was only after replaying the battle did I figure out what had happened. it was a wonderful dirty little trick .
 

oh, there is times that they do not pick up the weapon, like was said, its to depict that the weapon is not functioning.
ALSO , THE UNIT GIVING AID CAN BE A FACTOR, MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE BOLT ACTION RIFLES, IF NOT, THEY MIGHT NOT PICK IT UP
In otherwards, there is a priority of which weapon is better, they will not exchange, even if they are low on ammo for what they have.
If its the same weapon, they might get the ammo and grenades when they pick up.
 
But I recall smg's will not get picked up for almost anything other than a bolt action rifle
 

After playing for years, any unit that I am not familiar with.
I just enjoy trying to get the best out of every unit no matter what it is, weak or strong.
But to your point (how can you not like the quad 50) any time it manages to lock on a target its fun to watch the devastation.

The one comment I find interesting is, why do we not have many user made scenarios anymore, the answer is easy.
As they made the AI programming more difficult to allow the designer more ability to make better AI plans, Less players have spent the time to learn to use the tools.
Now adding more tools and increasing the complexity is good for those who want to design better AI plans, but keep in mind, as you create more complexity. Those who master it will be fewer and fewer.
So what you get from BF design team will be better in quality, but on the other hand, you will be seeing less output from the casual player who is just into it for their personnel enjoyment.
 
Keep suggesting concepts for better AI - its always good for that type of imput.
As for getting more content from the fanbase, I am sorry to say, the answer will never be by adding more features, unless you can also suggest on features that take away the need for the person to program the plan and that somehow the machine just automatically can do it.
 
 

Lets make it more simple, Any map design feature would be nice to do in the 3d view, I hate the time wasted in imagining what it looks like from imput in 2d- then verifying in 3d, then having to go back to 2d to try and correct it. All main features should be functional to change and add right in 3d . That would make a huge difference in map making time.

Lets make it more simple, Any map design feature would be nice to do in the 3d view, I hate the time wasted in imagining what it looks like from imput in 2d- then verifying in 3d, then having to go back to 2d to try and correct it. All main features should be functional to change and add right in 3d . That would make a huge difference in map making time.

Lets make it more simple, Any map design feature would be nice to do in the 3d view, I hate the time wasted in imagining what it looks like from imput in 2d- then verifying in 3d, then having to go back to 2d to try and correct it. All main features should be functional to change and add right in 3d . That would make a huge difference in map making time.

Lets make it more simple, Any map design feature would be nice to do in the 3d view, I hate the time wasted in imagining what it looks like from imput in 2d- then verifying in 3d, then having to go back to 2d to try and correct it. All main features should be functional to change and add right in 3d . That would make a huge difference in map making time.

The one comment I find interesting is, why do we not have many user made scenarios anymore, the answer is easy.
As they made the AI programming more difficult to allow the designer more ability to make better AI plans, Less players have spent the time to learn to use the tools.
Now adding more tools and increasing the complexity is good for those who want to design better AI plans, but keep in mind, as you create more complexity. Those who master it will be fewer and fewer.
So what you get from BF design team will be better in quality, but on the other hand, you will be seeing less output from the casual player who is just into it for their personnel enjoyment.
 
Keep suggesting concepts for better AI - its always good for that type of imput.
As for getting more content from the fanbase, I am sorry to say, the answer will never be by adding more features, unless you can also suggest on features that take away the need for the person to program the plan and that somehow the machine just automatically can do it.
 
 

If there was one thing I would love to see AI programming do, this is it.
When AI units attack, they will follow the path that seems correct to their programming to get to their destination. The problem is, they do not take into account if previous units have suffered losses taking that path.
Thus a human player can kill enemy unit after unit going through some obvious movement location choke point.
If some programming could be written to force the AI to stop using said path once losses has been taken to a certain extent and then recalculate and try other routes, it might be a easy way to make AI on the offensive much more competent.

Thanks for posting this, Its the best interview I have ever seen about BF and what is going on. really enjoyed it.

Thanks for posting this, Its the best interview I have ever seen about BF and what is going on. really enjoyed it.

Thanks for posting this, Its the best interview I have ever seen about BF and what is going on. really enjoyed it.

A little update on Conflict of heroes, Storm of Steel - Kursh 1943.
My Son now works from my house also, so we now have time to play a game during lunch.
So guess what we are playing. played 4 Scenarios so far.
 
If you can find someone to play against, then this is the best wargame I have ever played that is a board game.
The concept and rules are designed for head to head play and it brings in plenty of fog of war and with the mechanics of the game. plenty of uncertainty as to what to expect from your units.
If you can accept good and bad luck, its just creates a fun aspect in the play.
 
One example, my Son brought two hidden squads out of hiding, crested a hill and was point blank to two of my squads in a gully. he knowing it was a risky move before he did it. 
I then opened fire on his units, all I needed was a 6 or better with 2 dice to put some type of hurt on him. I then added two CP points to the attack (they are valuable and he did not think I would use them for this attack), meaning all I needed was a 4 or more to get a pin type result or a 8 or better to just kill him. 
Needless to say, I was grinning from ear to ear in that I was going to make him pay for a stupid move.
I then role a 3 and he is yelling in joy and I in pain. but we both laughed, made a story line about how the sudden shock of seeing enemy troops emerging at point plank range put my men in panic mode and they were not aiming as they fired at the enemy onslaught .
 
I thought for sure that was going to cause my loss in the game, and it has made it very hard but I have manage to bounce back on that flank and gain control once again and cause him equal losses. So the game showed me that even bad luck did not wreck good tactics in that having other units well placed allowed for me to make that loss at least pay off in the long run as a likely amount of casualties for both sides.
 
But the game takes turns and twist as to who might have the advantage and there is no certainty about anything until  one side finally gets a few positive events in a row and get more of a commanding presence.
Anyway, the only board game that I have ever played that has created excitement with how the odds are calculated and executed in the dice role and how damage is also uncertain.
Also in the fact of how simple the roles are determined and it takes only one role to get the results, the game flow is very fast and engaging most of the time.
 
 

A little update on Conflict of heroes, Storm of Steel - Kursh 1943.
My Son now works from my house also, so we now have time to play a game during lunch.
So guess what we are playing. played 4 Scenarios so far.
 
If you can find someone to play against, then this is the best wargame I have ever played that is a board game.
The concept and rules are designed for head to head play and it brings in plenty of fog of war and with the mechanics of the game. plenty of uncertainty as to what to expect from your units.
If you can accept good and bad luck, its just creates a fun aspect in the play.
 
One example, my Son brought two hidden squads out of hiding, crested a hill and was point blank to two of my squads in a gully. he knowing it was a risky move before he did it. 
I then opened fire on his units, all I needed was a 6 or better with 2 dice to put some type of hurt on him. I then added two CP points to the attack (they are valuable and he did not think I would use them for this attack), meaning all I needed was a 4 or more to get a pin type result or a 8 or better to just kill him. 
Needless to say, I was grinning from ear to ear in that I was going to make him pay for a stupid move.
I then role a 3 and he is yelling in joy and I in pain. but we both laughed, made a story line about how the sudden shock of seeing enemy troops emerging at point plank range put my men in panic mode and they were not aiming as they fired at the enemy onslaught .
 
I thought for sure that was going to cause my loss in the game, and it has made it very hard but I have manage to bounce back on that flank and gain control once again and cause him equal losses. So the game showed me that even bad luck did not wreck good tactics in that having other units well placed allowed for me to make that loss at least pay off in the long run as a likely amount of casualties for both sides.
 
But the game takes turns and twist as to who might have the advantage and there is no certainty about anything until  one side finally gets a few positive events in a row and get more of a commanding presence.
Anyway, the only board game that I have ever played that has created excitement with how the odds are calculated and executed in the dice role and how damage is also uncertain.
Also in the fact of how simple the roles are determined and it takes only one role to get the results, the game flow is very fast and engaging most of the time.
 
 

A little update on Conflict of heroes, Storm of Steel - Kursh 1943.
My Son now works from my house also, so we now have time to play a game during lunch.
So guess what we are playing. played 4 Scenarios so far.
 
If you can find someone to play against, then this is the best wargame I have ever played that is a board game.
The concept and rules are designed for head to head play and it brings in plenty of fog of war and with the mechanics of the game. plenty of uncertainty as to what to expect from your units.
If you can accept good and bad luck, its just creates a fun aspect in the play.
 
One example, my Son brought two hidden squads out of hiding, crested a hill and was point blank to two of my squads in a gully. he knowing it was a risky move before he did it. 
I then opened fire on his units, all I needed was a 6 or better with 2 dice to put some type of hurt on him. I then added two CP points to the attack (they are valuable and he did not think I would use them for this attack), meaning all I needed was a 4 or more to get a pin type result or a 8 or better to just kill him. 
Needless to say, I was grinning from ear to ear in that I was going to make him pay for a stupid move.
I then role a 3 and he is yelling in joy and I in pain. but we both laughed, made a story line about how the sudden shock of seeing enemy troops emerging at point plank range put my men in panic mode and they were not aiming as they fired at the enemy onslaught .
 
I thought for sure that was going to cause my loss in the game, and it has made it very hard but I have manage to bounce back on that flank and gain control once again and cause him equal losses. So the game showed me that even bad luck did not wreck good tactics in that having other units well placed allowed for me to make that loss at least pay off in the long run as a likely amount of casualties for both sides.
 
But the game takes turns and twist as to who might have the advantage and there is no certainty about anything until  one side finally gets a few positive events in a row and get more of a commanding presence.
Anyway, the only board game that I have ever played that has created excitement with how the odds are calculated and executed in the dice role and how damage is also uncertain.
Also in the fact of how simple the roles are determined and it takes only one role to get the results, the game flow is very fast and engaging most of the time.
 
 

CMSF2 will give you more content in that CMSF scenarios can also be played on it - so a lot of user content out there.
I would go Nato before USMC (but both will be good, no matter which way you go - they each will add their own feel to organizations.
 
Go CMBS if you want more traditional terrain, I think that the river crossing missions and such are interesting since they finally had units in the game that can be used to do such things. 
Of course, they went back and added that feature into cmsf2, so if my memory serves me right. There is Marines doing a few beach assaults also in its package.
 

Well, looking back at the challenges BF faced with the fans that somewhat turned into enemies, has in the long run proven that BF made good decisions and those that tried to tear them down were unsuccessful in their vengeful actions.
The game is still a masterpiece for what it is and there is plenty of us that see it for that. 
I am confident that we will see more come into the ranks with this new available platform as to purchasing the game.
the only thing that is sad is that it has taken this long to make it available on such a platform. But then on the other hand, it has not actually been all that long since CMSF was updated to CMSF2. So maybe the timing is not all that bad.
Now if they could just make enough money so they can relax and really focus on the next level of the game and come out with CMx3 with all the insights they have now gathered over the years.
 

The size of the battle does not matter, I like them all.
Personally I like them small because I then become invested in what happens to each unit. Every unit, becomes important to the success of the mission. I am watching the men's ammo, every weapon lost on the battlefield and that if it needs to be recovered and so on. ( I get down in the dirt and see every detail of the battle and see what the game has)
But playing large scale battles, you can detach yourself from that micro managing and focus on large scale maneuvering and playing for key terrain and positioning. Losing a tank is not a win or lose issue. Its, did my 6 tanks gain the firepower fast enough to take out the 3 enemy tanks, were my losses acceptable. also its not so much about did my unit save ammo as have I saved a company or platoon in reserve to come in fresh with a full load of ammo and take over the fight, while my initial units go back and resupply and recover a little before having to reengage in the fight. 
So if you get my drift, each level of combat has its good and bad points.
I think some people try to play big battles like they play little battles, it creates too much work and it does take the fun out of it.  I do it myself, but only when I am competing against some one else. Vs the AI, I like to stop the micro managing and give the AI a chance and enjoy the larger battles by not overthinking the details.

The size of the battle does not matter, I like them all.
Personally I like them small because I then become invested in what happens to each unit. Every unit, becomes important to the success of the mission. I am watching the men's ammo, every weapon lost on the battlefield and that if it needs to be recovered and so on. ( I get down in the dirt and see every detail of the battle and see what the game has)
But playing large scale battles, you can detach yourself from that micro managing and focus on large scale maneuvering and playing for key terrain and positioning. Losing a tank is not a win or lose issue. Its, did my 6 tanks gain the firepower fast enough to take out the 3 enemy tanks, were my losses acceptable. also its not so much about did my unit save ammo as have I saved a company or platoon in reserve to come in fresh with a full load of ammo and take over the fight, while my initial units go back and resupply and recover a little before having to reengage in the fight. 
So if you get my drift, each level of combat has its good and bad points.
I think some people try to play big battles like they play little battles, it creates too much work and it does take the fun out of it.  I do it myself, but only when I am competing against some one else. Vs the AI, I like to stop the micro managing and give the AI a chance and enjoy the larger battles by not overthinking the details.

The size of the battle does not matter, I like them all.
Personally I like them small because I then become invested in what happens to each unit. Every unit, becomes important to the success of the mission. I am watching the men's ammo, every weapon lost on the battlefield and that if it needs to be recovered and so on. ( I get down in the dirt and see every detail of the battle and see what the game has)
But playing large scale battles, you can detach yourself from that micro managing and focus on large scale maneuvering and playing for key terrain and positioning. Losing a tank is not a win or lose issue. Its, did my 6 tanks gain the firepower fast enough to take out the 3 enemy tanks, were my losses acceptable. also its not so much about did my unit save ammo as have I saved a company or platoon in reserve to come in fresh with a full load of ammo and take over the fight, while my initial units go back and resupply and recover a little before having to reengage in the fight. 
So if you get my drift, each level of combat has its good and bad points.
I think some people try to play big battles like they play little battles, it creates too much work and it does take the fun out of it.  I do it myself, but only when I am competing against some one else. Vs the AI, I like to stop the micro managing and give the AI a chance and enjoy the larger battles by not overthinking the details.

The size of the battle does not matter, I like them all.
Personally I like them small because I then become invested in what happens to each unit. Every unit, becomes important to the success of the mission. I am watching the men's ammo, every weapon lost on the battlefield and that if it needs to be recovered and so on. ( I get down in the dirt and see every detail of the battle and see what the game has)
But playing large scale battles, you can detach yourself from that micro managing and focus on large scale maneuvering and playing for key terrain and positioning. Losing a tank is not a win or lose issue. Its, did my 6 tanks gain the firepower fast enough to take out the 3 enemy tanks, were my losses acceptable. also its not so much about did my unit save ammo as have I saved a company or platoon in reserve to come in fresh with a full load of ammo and take over the fight, while my initial units go back and resupply and recover a little before having to reengage in the fight. 
So if you get my drift, each level of combat has its good and bad points.
I think some people try to play big battles like they play little battles, it creates too much work and it does take the fun out of it.  I do it myself, but only when I am competing against some one else. Vs the AI, I like to stop the micro managing and give the AI a chance and enjoy the larger battles by not overthinking the details.

Pick the one that interest you the most.
But if you want content, I would say your best bet is CMBN or CMSF2, since those two titles have so much more offerings as to scenarios that have been made by players.
So more likely will give you the most amount of small battles.
but you also will have the ability to make your own, I have used Avalon hill games to make  many of a battle or something similar. For head to head play with someone that you get along with, the options can be almost endless.
But if you go that rout, it does mean getting the big bundle with all the modules to get that content.

Pick the one that interest you the most.
But if you want content, I would say your best bet is CMBN or CMSF2, since those two titles have so much more offerings as to scenarios that have been made by players.
So more likely will give you the most amount of small battles.
but you also will have the ability to make your own, I have used Avalon hill games to make  many of a battle or something similar. For head to head play with someone that you get along with, the options can be almost endless.
But if you go that rout, it does mean getting the big bundle with all the modules to get that content.