Yair Iny

Umm actually, Gavin lovers will be too busy taking their medication to use the FV432, as no-one actually calls the M113 the "Gavin" except for a certain looney Unless of course, they actually do love a bloke called Gavin, in which case, I fail to see how an FV432 (or any other APC) can be a substitute... I am curious about the re-supply, however. I mean, both use the same 5.56 round, don't they? 40mm grenades are the same AFAIK. Are there differences in the Javelin variants? Has anyone tried to resupply marines via an Army vehicle or vice-versa?

Arggg!!! there're few things more annoying than that line - "it's only four lines of code". If they implement the toggle, aside from the UI, they have to access it in umpteen places in the code that deal with bogging, they have to allow for these "toggles" to be synchronised in multiplayer, they have to balance scenarios, etc. across all the permutations these "toggles" allow, etc. Do you think they don't do "toggles" out of the meanness of their hearts, that it's only 4 lines of code but they are just being spiteful or dogmatic? really dude...

Surely not, as that would make it a Friday. E-e-e-veryone knows that BFC never release anything on Friday, at least the releases always slip into the weekend I call it May 16th then!

Given that the module was supposed to be out months ago, and the fact that Steve felt a need to post an explanation for the delay (i.e. the OP of this thread), I doubt the Brit module is being delayed for any reason other than that it's not ready yet...

As far as I understand previous posts by Steve, Brit module will also bring CMSF up to v1.20 and a standalone patch will be released shortly after the module, as it was with Marines.

I was rubbing my eyes in disbelief - seeing on map mortars which I thought would only be in WW2. Can you please provide more info about them? Will we be able to target indirectly? Will we be able to use someone else's LOS? How will they work? Cheers

OK, I completely agree that a western armed force is heaps more expensive than the insurgents they face, no doubt that is one of the big asymmetries in the whole asymmetric warfare situation. Was just pointing out that as far as, call it incremental costs (as opposed to the fixed cost of maintaining the force in theatre), artillery is one of the more cost effective weapon systems out there. Compare this to firing a javelin at a sniper with an M14, now there's a 100,000:1 cost differential I remember it used to be one of the big selling points of the F16, saying it has such a sophisticated Fire Control Radar that it can drop dumb bombs with precision. In fact, the Osirak reactor was hit with dumb bombs, and everyone, except for the US and Israeli Air Forces, who understood the capabilities of the (then new) F16, thought they had to have used guided munitions given the hit ratio they achieved. Kind of the same thing with artillery nowadays, very sophisticated systems for aiming, but the rounds themselves are pretty cheap and dumb. Never mind that my F16 analogy now falls short, because everything being dropped nowadays is guided

What's all this 100,000:1 cost thing? 155mm arty rounds don't cost that much, a few 1000$ each. The arty bns are there anyway, etc. It's not like they're shooting back tomahawks... I'd say that as far as firepower/$, a regular arty bn is pretty effective...

Der Alte: I think one of the limiting factors to doing the entire western front in one go (time-wise) is the transition from summer to winter. As I recall, Steve said they would need to do the terrain and vehicles with new textures for winter, hence the need for a module, so as to not delay the initial game.

Michael: I don't think it's fake. It looks like it might have been made as a training video for insurgents, in the sense of, this is what you can expect the enemy to do, so fire and get the hell out of there.

Marwek: what Steve means by not doing CMBB again is that they will not make another game which covers in one go the entire eastern front with pretty much all nations involved (hungary, finland, italy...) and all equipment. For half the work they put into CMBB, for example, only germans and sovs, they could have gotten pretty much the same results in sales, and we would have gotten pretty much the same results in fun. Steve and co have stated many times that they will cover eastern front with at least one game and modules, so if you're worried, you shouldn't be Cheers

Because compared to the ETO, PTO was a boring slog with little manoeuvre warfare and a lot more hand to hand, heavy casualty fighting. This does not belittle the efforts of the men involved, indeed it highlights their perseverence and bravery. But in wargaming terms, it is less interesting. That being said, I would love to see it anyway

They're not late, everyone else is simply early...

I was reading the thread about Javelins missing their targets quite a bit, and was thinking to myself that probably more Javelins have been fired in CMSF than in 100 years of their RL usage. I also remember someone saying that more Tiger tanks were fielded in a week of CMx1 than in all of WW2. So, here's my idea, and I realise that the chances of it happening are close to nil, but anyway, here goes. Charles codes the game engine to count the number of units fielded, and destroyed, and the number of weapons fired. Every once in a while, the engine sends this information to a centralised server, and the BF web site displays a running counter for each game and module. It would be totally cool to see something like CMSF: Marines - 13000 SMAWs fired, etc. So, shall coolness prevail over gameplay and utility? of course it should! Join me in promoting this awesomely cool and futile feature. Together we can make a difference!

Well, I have to say I'm not too disappointed about co-op not being in the plans. As a software developer, I can imagine it taking a good many months to code, and given that Charles has created CMSF in about 4-5 years of coding, I'd say he can do quite a bit in 6 months, and that we would enjoy that "quite a bit" a hell of a lot more than co-op multi-play. Now, if you said it would come with friendly AI and that you could play, say, a platoon in a company sized engagement, that would be more useful, but how many times are you gonna get together with 3-4 other people and play co-op?

Steve, IIRC I remember reading about TacOps CPXs where it looked like co-play was part of the game. Are there any lessons that can be learned from there? In terms of player adoption as a percentage of player base, or in terms of mechanics, etc.? I'm sure you already thought about it, but just in case

You say that like it's a bad thing... I lived in LA once, the US would probably be better off if that DID happen

Hi Wodin, BFC have stated that CM:SF (1) will stay in the Syria setting. Now this doesn't mean that there couldn't be another red force module, rather that if it were, it would be a middle eastern force, say Iran. They plan on making CM:SF 2 which will go to a temperate climate and, presumably, field NATO forces vs. Russians. As for a red-force module for CMSF 1 and it's middle-eastern setting, I can't see BFC making one based on the above. I'm no marketing guru, but how many people do you think would shell 25 USD for Combat Mission - Iran, or Combat Mission - Hezbollah? Fast forward to CMSF2 and I can definitely see Combat Mission - Spetznaz generating big bucks. In the meantime, if by "I shall purchase" you mean the module, I can totally see that. But if you haven't purchased the main game, all I can say is you are missing out on a seminal masterpiece of a sim/game, which, while having its flaws (as all things do), is head and shoulders above anything else out there. Cheers Cheers

Looks like not only the spelling is giving you a hard time today

just being curious here, what exactly is the point with making it a jointed tandem vehicle? Couldn't it just be longer or would that just make it the "super gavin" (oh the humanity)

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some of the forum members, I'd have to say I kinda felt the same way as GSX when I saw the screenie. Differently to him, I don't think the choice of picture has any bearing on how the game is designed, and I have fairly high confidence I will like it when it comes out. But I would have preferred to see a Sherman, just cause it's a bit different than what everyone else does, and hey it's a picture which is seen by the forum members and avid fans anyway, so marketing appeal isn't that important in this context. Maybe it's just me, but in CMx1 I never played the Nazis and enjoyed it, I tried a few times, but didn't feel upset enough when I lost soldiers to engage in the game and enjoy it. So for me, and I recognise my solitude in this, a Tiger tank is just a target and come CM: Normandy, I'll finally have the air support to kill it right good and dead

Two Modules???? Does this mean that the RestOfNato module is in advanced stages as well?

Fair enough, If scenario designers had this option, and not the player, I can't see the harm in it.

I don't think the challenger 2 is any less survivable than the M1A1.

Yes it would. A player could (purposefully or not) have his forces exposed a long distance away from the AI for a long time until the AI expends its ammunition. As a human player, you might not mind using up some ammo at a distant enemy when you have lots of ammo, however, as your ammo supply dwindles, you might be more selective as to what you fire on. Such behaviour would have to be coded into the AI as well.