GSX

Not quite true Mickey. I have already stated that I did not buy the Italy game or it's Module. CMFI is only 1 game with 1 module and so you can't count it as two games. I purchased all of the CMSF modules and Afghanistan too and so you are not right there. Also Steve stated that 2 games have been released in the last year, I thought there had only been one game released in 2012 which was CMFI and two modules in 2013. Unless there's a game out there I've missed then if there are no more games out in 2013 and one is published in 2014, then it will indeed be 2 years between new games.

I have always been something of a US civil war buff and have bought more than a few books, Footes ones included and grants Memoirs as mentioned above. Steven Sears also has written books than are interesting and pretty much in depth, Gettysburg for one but more interesting to me was his book on Chancellorsville which directly preceded the aforementioned doomed campaign. Someone once wrote (perhaps Foote), that every southern boy can imagine that it's a minute before Pickets charge and the War is not yet lost. Yet I think the war was lost for the South by Anteitam/Sharpsburg. For me both this one and Shiloh showed the future of attritional warfare and a portent of the future 60 or so years where the defence trumped the offence. The South just couldn't afford to fight a war against the massive forces that the North could bring to bear. If the South had headed straight for Washington after 1st Bull run then perhaps it may have been possible to secede in a form of negotiated peace. However, that may have precluded a United States intervening in both world wars and where would that have left the world? It does seem strange from a British persons point of view though that 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 only a few decades later. Still, it's a fascinating period in world history and I'm currently re-reading Pickets charge by George Ripey Stewart, which probably explains the whole war in one action, initial Southern success and zeal followed by inevitable failure and disappointment. Cheers

Ooh I dont like the sound of that 'well underway' statement. That usually means 1-2 years out for your guys and I was thinking 2014-summerish. Please dont tell me your going to put out a Bulge game before an EF one? I didnt buy the Italy one as it was more Westfront and Im not even sure I will buy the CM module for the same reason. Another Westfront (Bulge) game would just bore me to tears I think. Over a year ago BF stated that Id be playing 3 new games by now and so far Ive not played a single one, so any update on when Ill be playing a new game that isnt a Westfront one? However, I do understand that you all have to eat and if the ETO is providing a well balanced diet, please dont make the game I want if you have to live on potatoes and soup. Cheers

Maybe it wasn't used by MG times?

LOL, I just can't play CM1 games anymore, the mouse wheel does it for me. But groupies? Seriously, I don't know any CM1 groupies, I do know a few BF groupies though and at times it makes me smile that some posters attitudes can change in a heartbeat depending on the latitude of the post they're replying too. I'm not bothered about reviews. Why? Well, who will read a review and buy CM? I've not seen CM games advertised anywhere on the web except the BF site and so why would that influence anyone to buy anything? It seems like new players either stumble upon the game or are introduced by a friend. I have introduced dozens over the years who had no idea that these games existed. So in a world of other games and nn WW2 things, why wouldn't people not enjoy a simulation experience.

Wee bit harsh Jon, wee bit harsh......

Its a long time since I decided that getting frustrated with the lack of communications ceased to bother me. I agree with you that some form of Dev Blog or similar would be appreciated but then I doubt it would be maintained or updated on a regular basis and would lead to further frustration. We have to accept that BF is a very small company operating in a very niche market and that any time, however short spent away from producing their product just may be time wasted. There have been times in the past when they have declared that within a year we would be playing up to 3 new games (thats games, not modules) and what actually happened is they produced one new game. So whats better? Drive unrealistic expectations, or just produce what they can when they can? Given the track record of the last few years Ive come to expect a Game every 18 months or so and a Module a year. I didnt buy CMFI but will probably get the MG module when I get home just to round off the CMBN experience. I know it will be out sometime this year and so Im happy with that. If you dont expect anything then getting something has got to be a bonus!!!!

While the above is true the evidence shows the following: 2007 - Shock Force 2011 - CMBN 2012 - CMFI 3 main games in just six years which have been enhanced by: 3 x Shock Force modules. 1 x CMBN module 1 x FI Module I would say the future is looking rosier as since pre 2011 there were 4 iterations of the game and post 2010 there have also been 4 but at a faster rate. Oh and we did have the CM Afghan game that was made by another company but no doubt aided by BF. However, Im sure the speed up has been helped by the fact that a lot of the models and vehicles are very similar to those in other modules and so a fair bit of work must be saved there. Although Im happy with this rate of publishing I wouldnt mind a wee developers log snippet from time to time. A few lines giving some simple information about game development would be good, nothing specific but a general indication of where they are at with various games and modules. I have no idea where they are at with anything right now, CMBN-MG seems very close, possibly by the end of October, which would suit me as Im not home until then and have been unable to play anything for the last 4 months but the east front game seems to have dissapeared and that is what Im really waiting for. I didnt buy the Italy game (a first for me) as I have no real interest in another Western European game and I wont be gettig the Bulge game (for the same reasons). Would be nice to have an indication on the EF game but Im thinking mid 2014 going on past releases, but I do stand by to be surprised.

Based on whats been said we are actually playing the Bulge Game, the next Modern Game and looking forward to episode 2 of the EF Series right now! Based on reality I imagine the next game might be out in 2014 as BF do have a long tradition of bringing out a title or module almost every year since 2007. Although, Im not entirely sure which game will be out next year I am looking forward to it and fervently hoping that its the Eastern Front one and not the Bulge one. Another Western European Theatre right now would just be too much for me and far too samey. Hopefully we will see an Eastern release Jul/Aug next year.

That would be my ultimate modernish type of game. I thought this would have been one of the biggest sellers. Main game would be US Vs Warpac forces and then you could have a huge amount of Modules with Brit, German, Dutch, French just to name some NATO ones, not to mention non Soviet Warsaw pact. I would buy them all as well and Im sure the market is there for this type of CM. Sadly, it doesnt even seem to be considered.

Aye they will, just ordered both titles now for free from UK Amazon. The link takes you to the US Amazon site and when you try to buy it tells you to go to UK Amazon where a quick search for the title gets you both books linked here for free.... Now I just have to find a way of getting them on my Kindle down here which may involve a long journey tommorrow!!!!:mad:

I am in agreement here. Theres much much more to CMBN than Bocage and theres much more user made stuff available for it as well. Its the reason that I dont feel it necessary to buy the Italy game and after trying the demo I think I made the right personal choice. If you can only have one, then I would go with BN, however if you can afford it, then just get both. Im saving my few remaining pennies for an Eastfront game and the MG Module.

Although you could well be right, Im not entirely sure that old vehicles would be kept when new ones arrived. Say you had twenty crews for a PzIII and twenty new PzIV were allocated to you. Where would you get the crews to keep the older models, where would the fuel and ammo come from now that Logistics know you have been re-equipped and are only supplying you 75mm ammo and parts for a newer vehicle. Of course it all works if your re-eqipped in drips and drabs as Im sure was often the case but keeping older equipment wont work if you dont have the means to either carry it around or repair it, or more importantly, fight with it.

One family for each year with at least one module I imagine. Wouldnt 2 Families and more Modules be better? 1941-Early 43 could be one family and Mid 43 to 45 another. Just a thought as I cant see any difference in 1944 to 1945 which you are saying would be a seperate family. I cant think of any significant change to forces from 44 to 45 that would warrant a family of a new game and modules. Can you please expand on your definition of Families and Modules for each year of the Eastern front. This is my personal favourite and so Im really interested in how you envisage these games rolling out and in what order. I know its 1944 first, but will this be followed by 1945 or 1941 and how many modules would you plan for 1944 as Bagration starts half way through the year I imagine a winterized Module could follow the initial game? Cheers

I agree with JonS. Mode doesnt make the game easier or harder to do the basics, it just takes away information doesnt it? Anyway i also agree with JonS's comments, I very much liked the way it was done. Nice to see someone new doing something positive. We should be encouraging new guys in any way we can.

I'd echo that statement. Iused to love playing head to head but due to circumstance and various other elements have pretty much come round to playing solo these days. I appreciate anyone who can design anything in CMBN as I have almost no talent for it whatesoever. So to everyone out there that can and do make anything, I'd say thanks for all the effort and please keep doing it, whether its designed for solo or H2H. Cheers

Firstly, dont be sorry for your English, its better than a lot of native speakers can manage in the UK these days!!!! As to your question, each to their own but personally I have much more fun with CMBN, although I would caveat that with the fact that I have only played the FI Demo and not the full game. For me, CMBN is where the action is, not a sideshow campaign. The games seem identical though but your right, there is much more content for CMBN which probably stems from it being that much more popular. Bocage notwithstanding, there are a lot of excellent scenarios that have little if any Bocage out there, the units for me are more interesting and there are more and better Mods if your into that kind of thing. In sum, I would say theres much more longevity and variety in CMBN.

I remember being drawn against Fionn in a CM1 tournament a long time ago and thinking that given his awesome reputation for playing CM I was just going to get blown away. It was a CMAK game and I was given a British force against his Africa Corps one. The game swayed from one side to the other but in the end I managed to get a solid win. At the time I was the Blitz ladder leader and should have been a lot more confident but I definitely wasn't as Fionn knew not only his forces and how to apply them but also knew the game mechanics inside out. I am truly honoured to have played one of the CM greats and I have to say that during our game, although he did a fair bit of moaning he was a gracious opponent. I can also readily identify with someone who was banned from somewhere because they got to involved in something that at the time seemed more important than it was as I've been there too. Everyone deserves a second chance to prove they have reformed their outlook on life and realised that a small thing like a game isn't really as significant as they once thought it was.

Hmm, your argument is sort of self defeating. Why would any country risk Nuclear War over the Ukraine? What you have to ask is if the Russians would go Nuclear after their airbases were degraded, then why would the US even be there? So why is the Ukraine going to be so important that its worth getting into a Nuclear exchange over? I get that CMSF is a game though (see my previous post) but surely it would be easier to arm a Ukrainian insurgency than risk Nuclear Winter? Gamewise though, I see it no different than say Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty back stories. Its just something to hang a game on to sell it.

While I accept your points in theory, in practice the US and its allies have enough stand off weapons to degrade AA systems that are a major threat in the medium to high level areas. The Israelis while no doubt capable operators, do not have the same quantity of weapons that the US does. I just cant envisage a situation where the US cant achieve at least Air Dominance, let alone Air Supremacy. What you have to remember with a modern Air-Land battle is that there is a whole arsenal of air-power, ranging from satellites to small drones. However. If your after a fun game with modern weapons systems dialled down to enable it to be some kind of even match, then CMSF 2 might just be that game.

I don't particularly mind any match up for CMSF 2 as long as its slightly more believable than the last one, which was, when all is said and done, a thinly veiled Iraq war game with a neighbouring participant. So to CMSF 2. What is the most important thing in modern warfare between conventional forces? The answer is always going to be airpower. Airpower decides battles and really has done since it was invented. Coming to the fore in ww2. So in any war in the foreseeable future, the nation that controls the skies, essentially wins the battles. I cant see anyone but the US not doing this for the next 30 years and so any conflict that CMSF 2 will ever represent, no matter who the opponent is will only ever be the same as CMSF. To depict otherwise will be pure fantasy. The last time that there was ever parity in a battles outcome may have been 1943. Russians vs US will always result in a US victory in a conventional type conflict when you remember that the US spends more on war fighting than almost the whole world combined. CMSF would be better off being 1975 Germany, Soviets Vs NATO pre Nuclear holocaust. This was probably a time when the outcome was stacked in favour of the Soviets and not the West. Other than that, it's just fantasy land.

Are things hanging off vehicles modelled in the programme?

Loving these, is it possible to do a Pew, Pew, Barney Magrue Mod, not forgetting Cuthbert and his mates?

No time travelling either, what the heck is going on with movies lately!

One of my favourite battles from my very favourite scenario designer for CMBN. I've played this solo from both sides and it plays out differently although I played Germans first and so I knew what to expect when playing the Brits. Tigers are at their best when used as far back as possible and even this big map doesn't play to their ability to stand off at great range. My only gripe was that I spent about 8 turns stalking a rig Sherman with my Recce team only to have hem not see the thing from some ten meters behind it. During my creep forward to try and spot it, it killed my Marder that could see it. Then, when my team knocked it out, the crew bailed nd preceded to outgun my poor Landser, killing all but one with their pistols and Sten. Apart from that bit, the scenario is excellent and I'm looking forward to seeing how Bils plays out compared to mine.