GSX
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GSX
-
-
Haven't seen that happen esp the drive blindly..the AI is as good as the scenario maker..one reason why playing a QB against the AI isn't going to show the game at it's best. I never bother with QB because of this. Though I'd like the AI to be more responsive to the situation as it develops and the scenario makers to be given the tools\features needed to really make the AI play as well as it can I will say I've had my backside kicked god knows how often over the last couple of years.
I've had ok results against the AI if I attack them. I prefer to play with quite small forces for RT mode and have found this not too bad. The AI is generally rubbish at placement though.
I'd go with better AI as high up the wish list.
-
I think the biggest effect of allied air superiority was actually defensive. It made it possible to land entire armies over open beaches and keep them supplied, with thousands of ships and small lighters working close off shore for weeks. That was about the juiciest target for defending air power in history - but the allies lost nothing to German air.
I think the second biggest effect was observation, the little L-5s directing allied artillery fire. From all reports that helped their own artillery and multiplied their counterbattery by tons, detering German guns from opening fire whenever they were overhead, silencing firing German batteries and like.
Tac air had a marginal attrition effect beyond those, especially on soft transport. However, they also lost a lot of aircraft getting that effect. The allies lost several thousand fighter bombers over Normandy, mostly to light AA.
Allied heavy bombers tried to intervene several times, and certainly inflicted loss and especially disruption on the ground when they did so. That helped Cobra but made little difference in Goodwood. It was a blunderbuss, in other words. Not reliable but occasionally destructive etc.
Beyond all those direct effects during the main battle, it had delay effects on the German build up, and morale effects. It made the German retreat more expensive - tac air did more in the pursuit / Falaise pocket smashing than driving the Germans out of position.
None of which won the war on the ground. The first was necessary but not sufficient to even have the ground fight, logistically speaking. All the rest were minor supplements, not any substitute for defeating the German ground force by direct attrition in ground fighting. That is what had to do the heavy lifting to win the battle, and was the decisive struggle, throughout.
I think the Allies had Air Supremacy over Normandy, this enabled the Allied tac Air to range far and wide, and while it may not have effected the battle at the front lines, it certainly affected the ability of the Germans to conduct their operations. 2 TAF alone had almost 30 Sqns of rocket firing typhoons on Cab rank daily providing a huge number of sorties.
While they might not have killed the German AFV in any great numbers they certainly dominated the battle space. For instance they flew a massive number of sorties during the Mortain campaign, which was praised by Eisenhower himself for being a decisive part of that battle.
During the Bulge, the Germans planned their offensive in bad weather to counter Allied airpower, and when the weather broke, well, the rest is history.
I think, since 1940, the side that consistently controls the skies, wins the battles.
-
Absolutely! The cool thing is you don't need to purchase it- not interested- then don't - save your money. However many of us as noted above definitely want to see CMSF get upgraded to be current engine not only because the new features that it will get immediately, but also because it adds to the number of families that will be kept current going forward.
If you haven't played Normal Dudes Airborne campaign TF Panther then perhaps you can be forgiven not understanding why those of us who really love all the scenarios and campaigns that have been done for CMSF get a second life. That one alone would justify the effort...that and LLF's Ramadi map.... dang I could go on all night citing all the great work various folks have put into the game.
Yes, I can understand that, haven't played TF Panther but might just try it soon as my CMBN isn't working because of DRM issues. Still, I'm not convinced that it will significantly improve CMSF which can at times be simply a NATO fire power demonstrator.
-
Good news is that eventually we will revive Shock Force to use whatever the latest engine is. It's a huge amount of work, but we think it will be worth it.
Steve
Is that really worth the effort since SF2 will be out next year? After all SF is set 6 years or so in the past now, and while I still enjoy it occasionally I'm not sure I would upgrade an old game set in the desert.
-
Correct. CM is written for one core and will forever stay that way. The amount of work it takes to support multiple cores is far in excess of whatever benefit we'd get from it. Do not think 8 cores = 8 times faster. It simply doesn't work that way. The GPU is far more important than the CPU.
As for performances issues, we are aware of some changes made to drivers/hardware in newer cards which don't work the way same way as older cards (which CM was written for). More about that soon.
We are also in the unfortunate position of having limited programming resources. The cost of the programmers on a single AAA game probably exceeds everything we've spent on CM since 1997. There's just no way we can deliver that sort of experience within this niche.
Steve
Doesn't this mean that as time goes by and more people move to newer and newer technologies that at some point the games will be unplayable.
My new PC is now 2 years old and CM is probably the worst game to play on it, where as my laptop which is now 7 years old plays it OK. It was a top of the range Viao at the time but CM is about all that works on it now, where my PC can play loads of modern games without any problems.
So when I want to upgrade my PC in a year or so, will I still be able to play CM?
-
"the US should really hand back a significant portion of your country to native Americans."
Why, were they a high school glee club? Did they construct the land with their hands?
Or did they consider publicly torturing captured enemies to death in the village square a rollicking form of entertainment? They were all at war with each other endlessly and held only what they could with the tomahawk, long before any settlers arrived. Their tenure was successful murder, nothing else.
The native Americans are still here, by the way, as many as when the country was formed. They drive pick up trucks instead of riding horses, and live in houses not tents, and they don't torture people. They live better lives and are better people. The only thing they "lost" was the right to kill people with impunity when they felt like it - they were pushed west when they attacked settlers and lost wars against them.
Long before all that, disease certainly hurt them. Modern medicine doubled their life expectancy. Both mattered more to life and health than political anything. But hey, if anyone (native or not) wants to go back to riding horses and living in tents, living off deer hunting, they are perfectly welcome. They just don't get to murder anybody for sport.
Your moral equivalence nonsense is just that.
So you dismiss a whole culture because you believe that it was based on murder and torture. I find that very naive. Although I don't presume for a minute to be an expert on the way the west was won, it seems that the US pushed back the natives, offered them many treaties which were broken at a whim, forces the natives into reservations and basically destroyed a whole culture with little or no regard to their human rights. All this carried out by men who just a few years earlier proffesed that slavery was so wrong and all men were created equal.
So the same men who fought to rid the US of slavery, then went on to practically exterminate and enslave a third race.
I think it comes back to my original point that we can't really moralise on the past as they had an entirely different set of morals to us, we can however learn from the past and move forward, trying not to repeat their mistakes, but that's not something were good at either.
-
Good quite Vanir. Assuming that BFC can get the pixeltruppen to perfectly behave like a flock of birds (who move in an environment notable mainly for its lack of obstacles), then that would still be unrealistic because in the real world leaders constantly screw up their terrain assessments, are surprised by change in terrain they can't see until they get there, and soldiers constantly seek the oral and psychological support of their mates regardless of what their leaders tell them to do.
tl;dr: formations work great in training and on parade grounds.
Oh I agree there, I once led a whole platoon into ambush and capture on an exercise in Germany because I screwed up both my terrain appreciation and my night navigation (pre GPS days).
However, I did learn from this debacle...
I try and recreate formations by splitting up the sections into their composite parts with the gun group to the rear and off to one side or the other but do get frustrated because I probably equate real life with the game too much.
What gets me going is that if I'm crossing open ground with my Platoon or Section and they take fire, even when split the entire group tend to just lie there waiting to die, where as in reality, a line for example probably won't all be taking fire and the remainder can carry out their IA Drills.
It tends to spoil the immersion for me a wee bit, in what is a good infantry simulator.
-
No. That is, of course, not what military trainers aim for.
Too right Jon. I would think that in today's military especially when forces are much diminished and so much emphasis is on training and casualty minimisation that blind obedience to everything is definitely not sought.
However, the higher ranks do tend to be very political and this has consequences for the lower ranks in today's forces that can at times mirror the situation and commanders outlined here.
The Germans had some excellent commanders, but all of the higher ones were politicised to a greater or lesser extent.
-
Great many thanks
Some banks, like mine, won't charge for the transaction, depends what kind of account you have I think. I was looking at the CM MG module earlier and it will set you back £21 for the $35.
Just google current exchange rates and it will give you a reasonable idea of what you will be charged.
-
"I cant in all conscience impose my morals onto them."
Yes, you can. And plenty of them had actual moral sense at the time and were acting upon it. You get to live in a world where their morality is accepted by all as a matter of course, because they built that world for you with their blood. Not because of any virtue you possess just by being born later. And certainly not by any imaginary virtue you hand yourself for lacking their moral courage.
No I actually can't. First off I wasn't around then and secondly, my country didn't have slavery then either. Britain led the way in the anti slavery movement in the 1800's. You could argue that if it wasn't for this then slavery might not have ended I the US when it did. After all if Britain was still heavily into slavery in 1860 then it may have actually supported the south? In this case the north would have lost the war I suppose.
I do however stand by my original statement, I wasn't there and can't moralise for them. If you apply your analogy then the US should really hand back a significant portion of your country to native Americans.
I haven't seen much moralising on the colonisation of the west of the US which happened after a civil war, didn't these Indians have the same rights?
Then I'm heading way off topic.
I'm like the OP here, I think I can have a high degree of interest in the civil War and the characters in it without getting caught up in the whys and what fors. After all I play CM as the Germans and don't constantly dwell on the fact that they were essentially a murdering bunch if Nazi swine.
-
I suspect that in Real Life™ the primary reason for not moving to contact in column has less to do with what type of target they present to the enemy and more to do with maximizing LOS/LOF
Sorry, but your suspicion is wrong, the real reason is to minimise casualties and provide a far larger target for incoming frontal fire. If you read through the link it explains it in detail. Unless the US Army isn't good at knowing what happens in real life, I'm going to stick with them on this subject.
-
I believe that proper infantry formations would add even more realism to the game. What we see infantry do now is move either in a gaggle or moving forwards in a column.
Imagine the infantry moving across an open field and they have not contacted the enemy yet, but we know they are out there. In real life infantry would not as a rule advance to contact in a column. The obvious reason being that if they were engaged from the front they have presented a very concentrated target to the enemy. One single enemy MG could then devastate a whole section or Platoon of infantry.
What real infantry would do in this situation would cross the terrain in some form of line formation, a thing that CM does not reproduce at this current time. Although you can approximate this by splitting up your sections into individual teams and micro managing them, something I'm loathe to do while playing and something that takes the RT enjoyment away.
My question to BF is, and was, why can't there be proper infantry formations? I believe that Steve answered my question a long time ago that it was too difficult to implement at that time, and although more than satisfied with the answer I still think that having Infantry formations would further enhance the games realism.
To counter my argument, others stated several suggestions, chief amoung them was that infantry didn't use formations outside of training. I don't believe that infantry did this in advance to contact situations. No sane commander would move his men towards the enemy in a column or gaggle unless there were specific reasons to do so.
Modern tactics and infantry formations still require that soldiers adopt the same basic formations for the same reasons. The difference in Afghanistan being that when moving on foot the threat from an IED is far greater than the threat from small arms fire and so the column is a preferred method of movement. If it was a general war, say in the Ukraine, then soldiers would revert to normal formations.
I do not doubt, that when in combat, infantry find the best available cover and this results in bunching up at times, I've seen it myself, but this is a different situation borne of immediate necessity.
Below is a link to a US Army publication that explains these formations in much greater depth than I have and it's also basically what we in the UK are taught as well. Having worked with many NATO forces including Germans, in the field, I can confirm that their practices are almost identical to US ones. These aren't new inventions and have been around for a lot of years.
My questions are:
1. Can infantry formations be implemented into the game as it is?
2. Would the addition of realistic formations be worth the effort to implement them?
3. What does the game do now, if anything to prevent the bunched up infantry taking excessive casualties in the situation described above?
-
"I dont have an opinion on the rights or wrongs of the whole thing"
You say that like it is a good thing. Do you have any opinion on whether it would be just for a pack of strangers to show up, kidnap your family and beat them with a bullwhip? Or are you agnostic about that too?
That would of course elicit an opinion from me. The US War however cant elicit an opinion from me. I cant really put myself into the times. I personally think women should be allowed to vote and that Slavery is wrong and that no good person today would really think otherwise. In 1860 those opinions were pretty mainstream and accepted by the majority, but I cant in all conscience impose my morals onto them.
Nothing riles me more than seeing a politician stand up and apologise for something that happened a 150 years ago.
SO should the Southern states have been allowed to leave or stay? Doesn't really matter now as its in the distant past.
However, if say Texas wanted to go it alone now, then I say, yes why not, as long as the majority of the State voted for it, just like here now. Next year Scotland will vote on whether or not it will leave the Union and Im sure the rest of the UK wont start a war if its decided that it will happen.
Anyway, I feel im ranting now.......
-
Y
So if I'm understanding you correctly then, everything that is in the game that has nothing to do with the game's actual mechanics is all just a bunch of eye candy. Scenarios are eye candy. Campaigns are eye candy. TO&E is eye candy. Terrain is eye candy.
I can see where someone would have that viewpoint. I don't know how you play and enjoy the game, but I guess if you played nothing but Quick Battles and you had already figured out to the last point what your perfect Quick Battle force was and you selected the same force every time you play then yeah, nothing but features would matter to a player like that.
I actually didnt say any of that, but if thats what you read, then I apologise for not getting my point across as well as you have.
I will try and simplify it.
I was asked a specific question and answered it specifically by stating that there is plenty to talk about. You made it into some crusade against any new additions to a game which I did not.
Simply put my thoughts were that the Bulge could be a simple Module for CMBB as it didnt really add anything different from CMBN and that the cut of was not recognised back then.
Your premise is something different and I dont really understand where your coming from with it.
As for infantry formations, I was simply stating that it was one of the features Id like to see added and was something worth talking about.
Im sorry for spoiling your day by asking questions about a game I like which can still be improved a lot in my opinion.
As usual, some folks here cant take any discussions on this subject without labelling the poster as some sort of looney malcontent hell bent on trashing CMBN.
Anything that improves realism over 'eye candy' in my book is better and I never said new formations were eye candy, I did say a windmill was though.
Ill leave this thread to the guys who seem to want to claim it as their own now or the circle will just continue....
Cheers
-
"while it was the right of the original 13 states to secede from Britain! it wasn't the right of the southern states to leave that union"
Did the colonists have representation in parliament? Did they control half of it, and then leave when they lost an election? Did they insist that the laws they made for the colonies must be applied in downtown London, and insist that the Londoners had no say in the matter because it was a matter of the colonists' property rights?
Everyone tries desperately to pretend there was some moral equivalence in the matter or that the south's position was somehow more reasonable than it actually was. But those who know the actual history leading up to the war are not fooled.
If you don't know the history, the south's position was that if South Carolina declared a man a slave and property, no one in Illinois could say or act otherwise, even in Illinois. Lincoln said their court made that decision, now let them enforce it. The southerner's party then split, and 40% of the country elected Lincoln. The south said they would not stand for not ruling the north, effectively, and left the union, firing on federal posts within their territory, in the name of their imagined sovereignty.
Not exactly the same issues as 1776, were they?
I didnt mean it that way at all and wasnt moralising about representation. I just find it an interesting point that while it was fine to break from one country, regardless of the representational rights etc, it wasnt fine just a few years later.
There was still a huge proportion of the US population that had no representation. I can think of two huge groups right away.
I dont have an opinion on the rights or wrongs of the whole thing, but the period has always fascinated and will continue to fascinate me. Just like the Victorian Empire has always done. They were entirely different times with entirely different outlooks on life from the ones we have today.
-
Thanks for the heads up and for us non US out there just copy the title and open up your countries store, paste it in and it works every time for me.
Cheers
-
Many of the basic formations are intended to prevent masking of fire in the most likely direction of contact. Soldiers within a CM squad do not mask eachother's fire, so many squad-level formations are mostly irrelevant.
Regardless, much of what is discussed in the link is already in the player's power. Also seems you skipped right over the most important part of that text:
This is why I dont tend to post here and many posters just plain give up. In your world and many others here, anyone who has anything to say against the game is instantly ganged up on by a few select posters who then hound the original poster to the point where they just give up.
Please explain to me how the infantry abstraction system works then so that I do not need to have a formation?
Surely if my troops are travelling in a big bunch and they take fire from the front, then all of the tracked bullets are hitting a smaller target? Why wouldn't they benefit from being in an extended line??
Or are you saying that the game automatically abstracts both incoming and outgoing fire to compensate. Because thats not what Im seeing.
Im not getting into an endless debate about formations as Ive been there before and Steve was kind enough to explain why it wouldnt happen.
I mentioned some things Id like to see and I would still like to see realistic infantry formations. I believe it would add to the games realism.
Cheers
-
This is long. Can you give us the Cliff Notes version? Remember, theories, training manuals, parade grounds and DoW bulletins don't count. Anecdotes, photos and films do. We need flying bullets.
Edit: I ran into this useful post from Michael Emrys buried in the thread cited above:
Oh, the teamwork was there, but from what I can recall after looking at hundreds of photos over the years of infantrymen in combat is that the formations were pretty amorphous most of the time. That is, men placed themselves wherever there was cover and/or they could get a shot at the enemy, and all that was determined by terrain. An exception being when they were moving through terrain that forced them to move in single file, like when following a jungle trail or confined mountainous terrain. In an open field, they might shake out into a loose skirmish line, but I wouldn't expect them to be evenly spaced or equally advanced. In wooded country, their formations would best be described as "blobs" with each man trying to keep within visual range of at least two or three of his squad mates. In urban fighting, two or three guys were usually very close together, but with spacing between such groups dependent on the tactical situation.
All this is for troops with some combat experience. Green troops tended to bunch up more except for stragglers.
Of course they dont count, in your world, they certainly count in mine. No decent infantry would ever advance to contact in a bunch. It is plain common sense and no matter how you try and dismiss me to prove otherwise it is and has been the truth for a lot longer than the last few years.
Infantry formations are proven to work and are used and have been used in battle for a lot of years.
Try this one, prove to me they arent used and werent used.
Cheers:)
-
As infantry really moved? Please furnish an example of a WW2 squad assuming a formation under actual combat conditions. A photo or link will do.
You are pulling my leg, right?
You can start here if you like:
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Tactics/Formations/rifle_squad.htm
What do you think soldiers learn in basic training and practice constantly throughout their careers? How to look good in green?
-
You are wasting your time because he is a 'feature' guy. The only thing that matters to him are new features. He would happily continue playing the CMBN base game without any additional scenarios, campaigns, nations, formations, terrain, or weather conditions as long as he continued to get new features because none of the other stuff counts as 'value' to him. Fortunately, the way things are structured now he now has the option to simply play the CMBN base game and just buy the upgrades when they become available and patch his game as the patches are released. With this strategy he won't have to feel ripped off when he actually has to pay for scenarios, new TO&E, or a couple of bridges and windmills since he can just opt out and stick with the CMBN base game.
Seriously? What makes you think that? I could easily say that your view lacks realism or that what you call a feature is pretty much integral to the way infantry for example actually carry out their business.
You can be classed as a 'eye candy' guy then, someone who doesnt care about any realistic features but only wants nice things to look at.
In truth Id rather have a functioning infantry formation than a nice looking Windmill.
-
I do wonder why people who don't comprehend the historical differences in equipment over time, or the variations in terrain across theaters, or the tactical effect of changes in TO&E are even visiting the chat board. What's left to talk about besides that?
Of course I understand the historical differences over time, imp not saying here that a WW1 game would play out the same as a WW2 game and that equipment doesn't change over time.
But surely even you can understand that from Jun 44 to May 45 is 11 months of war that was essentially fought with the same equipment and TOE. You can arbitrarily choose the Bulge as a cut off point to somehow redefine equipment and tactics all you want but at the time it wasn't noted by anyone as a significant change. Both the allied and German armies remained essentially the same throughout the whole period.
The main tanks were still the Sherman and the PzIV,Stug and Panther. Yes there were other vehicles, some extremely rare but nothing that mattered one fig to the fighting power of either side.
Allied infantry formations may have been tweaked slightly but in reality it still came down to the few grunts at the tip of the spear that pretty much fought the same way they did for that 11 months.
I just can't see your argument about things changing in such a small space of time holding water. Terrain wise, well I have travelled over the battlefields and lived in various parts in my time and while terrain is different is that something that cannot be modelled without a new game? There's not any significant terrain changes on the German border! or Belgium that would need a whole new game to model. If you can point some out I'd be very grateful.
So what's left to talk about? Plenty I think. Here's my list of hopes for CM:
Infantry formations
CM models individual soldiers but does not track them or treat them for game purposes as individual. The game also models and tracks individual rounds. The combination of the two leads to a less than perfect infantry fight because there has to be a fudge between how accurate the game is and how inaccurate the individuals are portrayed. Soldiers in CM bunch up and real soldiers almost often don't because if they did they would all die when that MG42 opens up.
So I'd still like to see a state where soldiers are true individuals that are part of their section and are able to adopt at least 3 formations. Line, column, extended line and a V echelon would be nice. I could then move my infantry as infantry really move and not at the present where I have to micro manage them to get any real simulation out of them.
Cover
I don't understand it and at times am wondering if it even exists for infantry at all or if it's another fudge. I can never trust any cover to really protect my troops and there's times when they do a lot better just being in the open.
Understanding fire power/suppression
Although I roughly know what a British squad is capable of pumping out against that enemy there are times when I don't understand how or why the enemy could possible shoot back. This inability to suppress has often lead to failures in tactics as my flanking forces has been spotted far too easily and shot up, which doesn't happen too often in real life in these situations.
Armour accuracy and experience
Still too great in my opinion and I still get the wonderful moments of a tank concentrating on another target to the front, suddenly turning on my bazooka team and killing it when it was to the rear. I've also had far too many instances of tank crews killing other tanks when they have appeared fleetingly off to a side arc for literally a few seconds. Real life instances iof this are very rare, even in modern tanks. I still feel like I'm playing CMSF in some instances.
Spotting
I just don't understand this and get really inconsistent results. Some times as above I can spot for miles and kill for miles and others I've had a tank hunter team sit about ten yards from a panzer and they can't see it! it's been very inconsistent for me.
So to answer your questions, there are certainly loads to talk about in the game and the way that it works other than talking about something which apart from snow we can make with a current game and certainly if a few more modules were released could easily be made into a Bulge game. Steve's already explained to me why that won't happen and it makes financial sense for hi. But a bulge Module and various packs could easily have brought CMBN into Bulge as the differences are minute, not huge.
Cheers
-
GSX, why are you arguing semantics? What's the point of that exercise? Have you looked at CMFI Gustav Line? The module BRZ is considerably larger than the basegame itself, the entire terrain was redone three times over to provide fall winter (with snow) and spring. Four nationalities were added. Gustav Line covers a significantly longer timeframe than the basegame. There was nothing stopping BFC from making Sicily one title and the Italian mainland another. I can imagine the howls of protests from 'some quarters' if they had, though.
My opinion is that it would have been better to make a CMETO game and have all of the modules from Italy to Normandy to the Rhine in it. No pratting around with differing versions, more guys may have bought into all of it, me for one and possible more money overall for BF.
Only one game to patch and update makes more sense to me seeing that they are essentially the same games set in different areas of the same continent.
I'm not against the game, or the content, which you say is huge for a module in the Italy game, but for me, the Italy game just looks and feels like a CMBN module. Yes I've played the demo and it's just not different enough to warrant a purchase from me but I probably would have sprung for a couple of modules. Same goes for the bulge game! I won't be buying it as it will be more of the same but I would have bought a bulge module as opposed to a new game covering essentially the same theatre...
I'm sure someone with more business sense than I have worked it all out years ago though.
Cheers....
-
I'm not sure what you think I'm redefining. To us a game and a release are the same thing. A Base Game and a Module and a Pack are three different types of releases.
But anyway, you are correct that something that was said 6 years ago might not be as accurate as something stated today. I'm not sure what relevance something stated 6 years has to do with where we are today. We are where we are.
If your point is that things have been going slower than expected, no argument there.
I really wish I could figure out what your point is, other than you want us to do things faster so that we can please your wants/desires quicker. We want to do things faster too, so no disagreement there.
Steve
My point is I don't actually have a point, you can make games as slow or as fast as you want and you can re-define your products as often as you like. I'm cool with all of it and while I'm looking forward to the next Eastern front game I'm not in a hurry to see it rushed out. Do it when it's done.
It's your company after all, not mine, I just help to pay your bills now and again.
Cheers for the reply....
-
I can and I do
They are huge efforts and they extend the gameplay to an extent almost equal to the original Base Game's content. And they don't magically appear out of thin air, so it's a pretty good guess that we have to spend time making them. If we spend time making them then we don't have time to spend doing other things. I assume that concept is a familiar one to you, yes?If you don't want to count the Modules as "games", that's fine. You can define anything you like however you like because it's irrelevant. Because in the end the only thing that matters is that we use our own terminology consistently.
Steve
LOL, I don't call moving your own defined goal posts as being consistent at all. However, if your now calling modules separate games and re-defining something that was pretty much defined six years ago then that's your choice as the game vendor I suppose.
I will continue to believe that modules add to the game family as stated years ago and that new games are just that, a new main title and modules to fill it out.
If modules are now new games, why not just have CM ETO and then put out Italy modules and market garden modules for that. This actually makes more sense for me and I would probably have bought into an Italy module rather than yet another game and yet another module.
Your company, your choice and your spin. But at the end of the day, my wallet and my opinion too.
They are huge efforts and they extend the gameplay to an extent almost equal to the original Base Game's content. And they don't magically appear out of thin air, so it's a pretty good guess that we have to spend time making them. If we spend time making them then we don't have time to spend doing other things. I assume that concept is a familiar one to you, yes?
Wish list?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Wish lists are always fine but perhaps some of the features you want are impossible to implement, I'd like to see the BF wish list.
What are their priorities for the series going forwards. I find this much more interesting than mere speculation.