slysniper

Does anyone actually talk about CMX2 anymore.
Not really, especially if on another site.
Face it , its a system that now has been around for many years. There is not going to be any great new or major changes.
For those of us that like the game and the system, its a time where us die-hard players get some new toys or features to let us
play around with a new scene as to area of the conflict, but no, its not a brand new toy that is going to pull in a bunch of new enthusiasm.
 
Until a CMx3  engine comes out with all sorts of new approaches to the same old challenge of how best to reflect combat as to how it actually plays out will we see any massive wave of forum discussions and tons of debate and discussion on how that system could be improved to do it even better.
But when a new engine ever does come, it will be as different as CMx1 was to CMx2
and I am sure that magically there will be plenty of activity on the forum from long lost players and new players that we have never seen before.
 

Does anyone actually talk about CMX2 anymore.
Not really, especially if on another site.
Face it , its a system that now has been around for many years. There is not going to be any great new or major changes.
For those of us that like the game and the system, its a time where us die-hard players get some new toys or features to let us
play around with a new scene as to area of the conflict, but no, its not a brand new toy that is going to pull in a bunch of new enthusiasm.
 
Until a CMx3  engine comes out with all sorts of new approaches to the same old challenge of how best to reflect combat as to how it actually plays out will we see any massive wave of forum discussions and tons of debate and discussion on how that system could be improved to do it even better.
But when a new engine ever does come, it will be as different as CMx1 was to CMx2
and I am sure that magically there will be plenty of activity on the forum from long lost players and new players that we have never seen before.
 

Does anyone actually talk about CMX2 anymore.
Not really, especially if on another site.
Face it , its a system that now has been around for many years. There is not going to be any great new or major changes.
For those of us that like the game and the system, its a time where us die-hard players get some new toys or features to let us
play around with a new scene as to area of the conflict, but no, its not a brand new toy that is going to pull in a bunch of new enthusiasm.
 
Until a CMx3  engine comes out with all sorts of new approaches to the same old challenge of how best to reflect combat as to how it actually plays out will we see any massive wave of forum discussions and tons of debate and discussion on how that system could be improved to do it even better.
But when a new engine ever does come, it will be as different as CMx1 was to CMx2
and I am sure that magically there will be plenty of activity on the forum from long lost players and new players that we have never seen before.
 

Does anyone actually talk about CMX2 anymore.
Not really, especially if on another site.
Face it , its a system that now has been around for many years. There is not going to be any great new or major changes.
For those of us that like the game and the system, its a time where us die-hard players get some new toys or features to let us
play around with a new scene as to area of the conflict, but no, its not a brand new toy that is going to pull in a bunch of new enthusiasm.
 
Until a CMx3  engine comes out with all sorts of new approaches to the same old challenge of how best to reflect combat as to how it actually plays out will we see any massive wave of forum discussions and tons of debate and discussion on how that system could be improved to do it even better.
But when a new engine ever does come, it will be as different as CMx1 was to CMx2
and I am sure that magically there will be plenty of activity on the forum from long lost players and new players that we have never seen before.
 

The details that these games go to, really does create problems as to getting things right and how fast the work gets done.
But keep in mind, I bet you if we looked at all the request over the years, its the players that have requested most of these details, and still do. 
I bet you I can find 50 additional things player are still requesting to be added to these games.
 
So if there is delays trying to get it right, you can blame the player that buy the game as much as you can blame BF for trying to provide such detail.
November is a good month ( most of us are starting to be indoors much more)

actually THE COPY MOVE COMMAND is a pretty good suggestion. Since they have never been able to program a smart follow command.
I could see the use of a copy command, then one would only have to adjust the command for the unit once it has the same move point locations shown.
 
 
 
 

If the forum lack discussions you want to have, then start threads about such topics and see what happens.
If you want to discuss tactics, put the question out there, and it gets replies.
In general, the forum has been quiet, as pointed out , most that visit here are old hands at it and don't have questions. Not much to talk about if there is nothing new to discuss and so until that changes the status will stay the same. And even when the next game does come out, the engine and how it works is still the same, so there will be discussions for a while on the new units and some of the new scenarios. but other than that, things will settle back down pretty quick once the new items have been indulged in by those that visit here.
As others have pointed out, unless a whole new game system is released, I doubt we will see the forum as active as it once was when CMBO first came out or when CMSF or CMBN came out.
When CMRT WAS RELEASED, I was amazed of how short of a time it increased forum activity and how few topics it created.
So I don't know why after all this time and all the other releases since then,  you would think the forum would suddenly get more active because it does not.
Until CMX3 happens, the forum will be only as good as you personally want to make it, that means, you help by creating discussions instead of sitting back and wondering why such discussions don't happen.

actually THE COPY MOVE COMMAND is a pretty good suggestion. Since they have never been able to program a smart follow command.
I could see the use of a copy command, then one would only have to adjust the command for the unit once it has the same move point locations shown.
 
 
 
 

Well, there is no question in that there are those that see the glass half empty and those that see it half full.
Yes, CMx2 has been around for a long while. Its like driving that old car you have with 200,000 miles on it.
Back when it was new you enjoyed it so much and cared for it in every aspect. Now its just that old machine that you are trying to keep running without throwing away any good money on it with any major expense, milking out the last miles of its faithful service.
But for me it also means I have saved tons of money, ready to used to purchase that new car I want when the old one is finally done.
 
BF has been actively engaged in new projects on those government contracts, they have produced continually new items in the CMX2 product line. I think you can rest assured that they have plans on a new engine and new product at some point to replace that old car with a shiny new one. (when and what will it look like is anyone's guess, but those boys are not ready to retire and I am sure they are not planning to run on the cm2 engine til their finial days.
And how can anyone ever get tired of playing these games. I never lose the thrill of playing in a h2h match and have a plan come together where I see my forces kill my opponent forces and succeed in the desired plan.

Well, there is no question in that there are those that see the glass half empty and those that see it half full.
Yes, CMx2 has been around for a long while. Its like driving that old car you have with 200,000 miles on it.
Back when it was new you enjoyed it so much and cared for it in every aspect. Now its just that old machine that you are trying to keep running without throwing away any good money on it with any major expense, milking out the last miles of its faithful service.
But for me it also means I have saved tons of money, ready to used to purchase that new car I want when the old one is finally done.
 
BF has been actively engaged in new projects on those government contracts, they have produced continually new items in the CMX2 product line. I think you can rest assured that they have plans on a new engine and new product at some point to replace that old car with a shiny new one. (when and what will it look like is anyone's guess, but those boys are not ready to retire and I am sure they are not planning to run on the cm2 engine til their finial days.
And how can anyone ever get tired of playing these games. I never lose the thrill of playing in a h2h match and have a plan come together where I see my forces kill my opponent forces and succeed in the desired plan.

If the forum lack discussions you want to have, then start threads about such topics and see what happens.
If you want to discuss tactics, put the question out there, and it gets replies.
In general, the forum has been quiet, as pointed out , most that visit here are old hands at it and don't have questions. Not much to talk about if there is nothing new to discuss and so until that changes the status will stay the same. And even when the next game does come out, the engine and how it works is still the same, so there will be discussions for a while on the new units and some of the new scenarios. but other than that, things will settle back down pretty quick once the new items have been indulged in by those that visit here.
As others have pointed out, unless a whole new game system is released, I doubt we will see the forum as active as it once was when CMBO first came out or when CMSF or CMBN came out.
When CMRT WAS RELEASED, I was amazed of how short of a time it increased forum activity and how few topics it created.
So I don't know why after all this time and all the other releases since then,  you would think the forum would suddenly get more active because it does not.
Until CMX3 happens, the forum will be only as good as you personally want to make it, that means, you help by creating discussions instead of sitting back and wondering why such discussions don't happen.

as a noob I would suggest you just play the battle yourself, both sides which you can do very quickly and that will let you understand many things that are possible or not possible in the game, then use that knowledge to play a real opponent.
In h2h matches which I have a few going at all times. If I have a match up or situation that I am not sure as to what the results likely will be, I just set up a test map with the similar condition and run it and see what the result are when running it enough times to get a sort of a average outcome, that helps me decide for my real battle. I have done that so much over the years I don't ever use charts or stats, I just know in my head what most situations will likely do because of seeing them play out so many times

Or you all are not accounting for the fact that BF has been producing and the reason it seems like there is a slow down is that they are producing products that are not us.
With the fact that we now know they have a couple of government projects is likely a big part of why we see the amount of finished projects we now have.
BF is actively producing, we just are not the beneficiary's of it.

Or you all are not accounting for the fact that BF has been producing and the reason it seems like there is a slow down is that they are producing products that are not us.
With the fact that we now know they have a couple of government projects is likely a big part of why we see the amount of finished projects we now have.
BF is actively producing, we just are not the beneficiary's of it.

Very well said Vet 0369
That is basically how I looked at this thread.
We live at a time where there is people that have no patience and all of their thoughts are self centered.
 
So this thread is a perfect example of that.
Person likes the game, wants more of the game and is not getting more of the game fast enough for their personal wants. - Thus there must be a problem and that problem must be from the source of who makes the game. They need and must do it faster.
Never in the process of their thinking is there a care or concern about that source or how it would impact that, the thought is focused on getting more faster, nothing else.
Never does the thought cross their mind that the method presently being used is what is already creating the thing they enjoy so much.
They have no respect for the efforts of others if it does not meet their perceived needs.
 
The sad thing is, their view does impact things and how people view this company.
But what is even more sad, I am sure this trait is impacting their life in more aspects than what we see here. I am sure their frustration  with life is constant.
 

Very well said Vet 0369
That is basically how I looked at this thread.
We live at a time where there is people that have no patience and all of their thoughts are self centered.
 
So this thread is a perfect example of that.
Person likes the game, wants more of the game and is not getting more of the game fast enough for their personal wants. - Thus there must be a problem and that problem must be from the source of who makes the game. They need and must do it faster.
Never in the process of their thinking is there a care or concern about that source or how it would impact that, the thought is focused on getting more faster, nothing else.
Never does the thought cross their mind that the method presently being used is what is already creating the thing they enjoy so much.
They have no respect for the efforts of others if it does not meet their perceived needs.
 
The sad thing is, their view does impact things and how people view this company.
But what is even more sad, I am sure this trait is impacting their life in more aspects than what we see here. I am sure their frustration  with life is constant.
 

Very well said Vet 0369
That is basically how I looked at this thread.
We live at a time where there is people that have no patience and all of their thoughts are self centered.
 
So this thread is a perfect example of that.
Person likes the game, wants more of the game and is not getting more of the game fast enough for their personal wants. - Thus there must be a problem and that problem must be from the source of who makes the game. They need and must do it faster.
Never in the process of their thinking is there a care or concern about that source or how it would impact that, the thought is focused on getting more faster, nothing else.
Never does the thought cross their mind that the method presently being used is what is already creating the thing they enjoy so much.
They have no respect for the efforts of others if it does not meet their perceived needs.
 
The sad thing is, their view does impact things and how people view this company.
But what is even more sad, I am sure this trait is impacting their life in more aspects than what we see here. I am sure their frustration  with life is constant.
 

“Patience is a Virtue”
 
I recently listened to a news report that said how societies are becoming less “virtuous” because many have no patience. The study attributes it to our modern “conveniences” such as cell phones, laptops, tablets, computers, and most importantly, the internet. “We’ve” (notice the apostrophe that indicate this is a contraction for we have) become so used to instant gratification, that we get stressed when we have to wait for a stop light to change, or for a walk light to cross the street. I grew up in a time when the F-51 Mustang and F-4U Corsair were still front line fighters, and the P-9 Panther and F-86 were developing jet fighter tactics in the Korean conflict. If you wanted to read the “latest” book, you walked or rode your bike to the library. I was a teenager when jet-powered commercial flights became viable for the masses, so we developed patience. I remember setting for one or two hours, patiently untangling a bird’s (notice in this case, the apostrophe indicates possession, the nest of the bird) nest tangle in my fishing line because the the only alternative was to cut the line and lose half my line (as an impatient person would do) that would mean that I’d have to buy a new line, which I couldn’t afford.
What has this rambling have to do with the thread? The BFC staff and owners are patient. They are not rushing pell mell to create content for sale, not caring if that content is correct, accurate, or as free from bugs as possible. While we are all free to “suggest”changes and “improvements” to the BFC business model, NONE of us know anything about the specifics of their decisions. “We” are nothing more than the children who constantly whine “Are we there yet?”
Take a break, sit back, and play a scenario that you haven’t played yet. BE VIRTUOUS!
A previous poster sardonically questioned some word usages;
Loose - the opposite of tight (My trousers are so loose that they fell down in the middle of the mall.)
Lose - the opposite of win, or to misplace something (I hope the New York Yankees lose the next game to the Boston Red Sox. They might if Mookie Betts doesn’t lose his edge)
Whose - generally used as a possessive for a group (The council, whose responsibility is to manage ....)
Who’s - possessive for an individual (That loose woman who’s dog peed on my trousers on the floor of the mall ....), or the contraction for “who is” (who’s going?)
While a spellchecker can be a buddy (I actually consider it a crutch for the lazy), a dictionary is your best friend. I was a technical writer for more than 30 years, and used a dictionary for that entire time, unless I knew that the spellchecker was correct.

Aurelius is correct and he has it down to perfection on his times as to how to get a shot off and then run back into cover.
And his proof was how he managed to keep one ATGM team alive after multiple firings on my American force that I could not get a lock on him with.

Aurelius is correct and he has it down to perfection on his times as to how to get a shot off and then run back into cover.
And his proof was how he managed to keep one ATGM team alive after multiple firings on my American force that I could not get a lock on him with.

Well, it all depends on what is wanted from the design.
For those here that are wanting a feel in the game that seems realistic. Then any design done with that 3 to 1 ratio, will likely get it. No matter the size.
For no real life commander is going to order a attack with infantry unless he believes he has at least that type of a advantage.
( but as to the challenge of game play, there is hardly any at that ratio unless there is some great defensive terrain advantages.) thus boring to many players.
 
Where as, to create a battle in CM that gives the chance of the battle to swing either way in its outcome generally requires that ratio to be 3 to 2 and limiting the time so that the offence cannot take its time to dismantle the defense piecemeal.  (which none of these things are realistic to as to situations that commanders would want to commit there troops to.)
But when the goal of the design is not to portray history as much as it is to create a situations where a player decisions will either bring a victory of defeat type results. Then that is where the design for a single scenario goes. (So I would not expect that to change in many of the scenario's that get created)
 
Just feel fortunate that you do have campaigns that you can have as one sided battles as you like and that there is interest in the fact in that you are wondering if the losses you do suffer will cost you down the road as battle upon battle adds up. (That is how the interest is created) 
But no matter what you design, there has to be a way to create a interest as to your decisions making a outcome as to the results.
I personally hate most campaigns, why, because after investing way too many hours into them , I find most, even when making poor decisions allow me to go on from map to map, continuing to give me the impression I am doing a good job and rewarding me. Where as in truth, there is no real punishment towards me for bad choices.
 
I don't care how the designer creates the battles, what I care about is has the designer made a situation that I feel my decisions matters - that is the key to a good design.

Well, it all depends on what is wanted from the design.
For those here that are wanting a feel in the game that seems realistic. Then any design done with that 3 to 1 ratio, will likely get it. No matter the size.
For no real life commander is going to order a attack with infantry unless he believes he has at least that type of a advantage.
( but as to the challenge of game play, there is hardly any at that ratio unless there is some great defensive terrain advantages.) thus boring to many players.
 
Where as, to create a battle in CM that gives the chance of the battle to swing either way in its outcome generally requires that ratio to be 3 to 2 and limiting the time so that the offence cannot take its time to dismantle the defense piecemeal.  (which none of these things are realistic to as to situations that commanders would want to commit there troops to.)
But when the goal of the design is not to portray history as much as it is to create a situations where a player decisions will either bring a victory of defeat type results. Then that is where the design for a single scenario goes. (So I would not expect that to change in many of the scenario's that get created)
 
Just feel fortunate that you do have campaigns that you can have as one sided battles as you like and that there is interest in the fact in that you are wondering if the losses you do suffer will cost you down the road as battle upon battle adds up. (That is how the interest is created) 
But no matter what you design, there has to be a way to create a interest as to your decisions making a outcome as to the results.
I personally hate most campaigns, why, because after investing way too many hours into them , I find most, even when making poor decisions allow me to go on from map to map, continuing to give me the impression I am doing a good job and rewarding me. Where as in truth, there is no real punishment towards me for bad choices.
 
I don't care how the designer creates the battles, what I care about is has the designer made a situation that I feel my decisions matters - that is the key to a good design.

Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
 
But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
 
But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
 
 
 

Had not played much CMFI lately so decided to mess around.
Set up a QB against the AI on a very small map and selected Italian infantry as my force against a AI attack using forces of its choice.
Normally I hate these things as to what they create.
 
So the battle starts and I quickly see I am against Canadians with Sherman V's and a little bit of supporting infantry.
I have MMG's and 45 MM mortars,  well perfect stuff to take on Armor, oh I did have two tanks, if you want to call them that. But hey, at least they had a chance of taking out the armor.
But I started this thing , so lets see what I can do with infantry and having to use them in close assaults verse armor.
 
It came out it had 8 Shermans, and about 20 men in brems and such.
I started hiding all my men behind walls, hedges and in grape vines.
 
Since the map was very small the AI kept the armor together as it moved to its objectives.
Thus doing a good job of covering its own units if and when I let the infantry attack.
 
But this turned into one of the funniest battles I have played in a long time. .
My armor only accounted for one enemy tank.
My infantry destroyed 3 Shermans and immobilized 4.
The MMg's kept what little infantry there was at bay.
I used the mortars on the tanks trying to help immobilize them. they accounted for one immobilization and maybe aided in one or 2 others.
 
In came down to swarming infantry on the armor and close assaulting (Too bad there is no graphics other than HG's flying. but they were busy doing that.)
 
It cost me 110 Italians, literally using ammo support troops on the mmg's as part of my attacks.
 
Bloody and fun - sometimes this game really delivers.
 
When I was done, It was like I started thinking, this would make a great scenario. What a mismatch .
(and amazed that what is or should be the weak side did have strength in only one thing, numbers, the number of men I had to throw at those tanks).
 
 
 

Had not played much CMFI lately so decided to mess around.
Set up a QB against the AI on a very small map and selected Italian infantry as my force against a AI attack using forces of its choice.
Normally I hate these things as to what they create.
 
So the battle starts and I quickly see I am against Canadians with Sherman V's and a little bit of supporting infantry.
I have MMG's and 45 MM mortars,  well perfect stuff to take on Armor, oh I did have two tanks, if you want to call them that. But hey, at least they had a chance of taking out the armor.
But I started this thing , so lets see what I can do with infantry and having to use them in close assaults verse armor.
 
It came out it had 8 Shermans, and about 20 men in brems and such.
I started hiding all my men behind walls, hedges and in grape vines.
 
Since the map was very small the AI kept the armor together as it moved to its objectives.
Thus doing a good job of covering its own units if and when I let the infantry attack.
 
But this turned into one of the funniest battles I have played in a long time. .
My armor only accounted for one enemy tank.
My infantry destroyed 3 Shermans and immobilized 4.
The MMg's kept what little infantry there was at bay.
I used the mortars on the tanks trying to help immobilize them. they accounted for one immobilization and maybe aided in one or 2 others.
 
In came down to swarming infantry on the armor and close assaulting (Too bad there is no graphics other than HG's flying. but they were busy doing that.)
 
It cost me 110 Italians, literally using ammo support troops on the mmg's as part of my attacks.
 
Bloody and fun - sometimes this game really delivers.
 
When I was done, It was like I started thinking, this would make a great scenario. What a mismatch .
(and amazed that what is or should be the weak side did have strength in only one thing, numbers, the number of men I had to throw at those tanks).