PLM2

Hmmm... That really sucks. I don't know how I'm supposed to do a report on CM if the sales figures are not available or unreferenced. For most games you can get them through some add service deal a friend of mine has. But I really doubt a game like this will have one. I'll maybe have to do another game.

I'm doing a paper on games and their sequels and I was hoping to find sales figures for the original CMs and the new ones. Does anyone know where/if that info can be found? Thanks

Very well done. I got sucked into it. Now its 4am. Thanks a lot I love how the narrator explains how "sonic compression" from a near miss incapacitates a member of a GI squad when in reality it scored a direct hit on his face as the first round from every tank does when fired on infantry in my humble combat mission experience.

Inhumane as opposed to what? The Union soldiers at Fredericksburg? The Soviets at Stalingrad? The Volkssturm deserters swinging from lamp posts? At least the US had the capability and forebearing to remove psycholigical casualties from the frontlines when they possibly could, and there were lots of them. I'm not aware of any of the other major players who operated similarly

I just tried a QB vs AI using 60mm mortars direct fire thanks to this thread. I had no idea they were such a big deal being used that way. It definitely beats using a forward observer as long as you can keep your mortar crews safe.

It's a movie..... I think the combination of having no chance to fight back (in most circumstances) and the exponential danger of standing up makes it particularly terrifying. On one hand you might wanna crawl away but on the other you're wondering if you'll crawl right under the next one. Hollywood has never been too interested in marketing to people who'd actually know anything about it because ignorance is a much wider demographic as you can tell through the comments in the following video.

Need Moar Russians

Yeah... saying you don't need e-mail for PBEM is like saying you don't need e-mail for outlook express or any of those other "e-mail" programs. Haven't touched one of those in a decade probably. Bottom line its a 3rd party program you need when it shouldn't be required. Im not trying to trash your traditional game values or whatever but... like, you know that still doesn't suffice for even unnaverage gamers that might find this game attractive otherwise.

Who cares what one single female soldier in a brigade thinks. When I was in the Army I wished death on one of my battalion commander and half the rest of em including the officers hated the guy too. There's nothing wrong with WeGo for larger maps or even small ones. The problem is in relying on e-mail to communicate moves. And having to meet someone out of the game platform and get their IP just to play with them. Its not just young people who expect basic things from a video game. And there are plenty of younger people who can get into stuff as in depth like Combat Mission. I play a super realistic shooter called Resistance and Liberation. Its a Half-life 2 mod... I try to get people from other stupider shooter games to come and try it out. Many of them including a 50 year old guy (who says he loves the ideas of the game) don't want to because the game isn't supported on Steam... which means you have to manually download and install it and get updates for it instead of just letting Steam do all the work. Even games that don't work through steam (like Company of Heroes) and other's have an automatic updating system once you log in through the game. Welcome to the 21st Century. How much revenue does BF lose because the game doesn't appeal to gamers who started playing in this decade because I'd feel like a moron recommending this game through word of mouth. There's always a mandatory "but its an old fashioned game where you have to find an opponent yourself" when answering a question about whether it supports multiplayer when unsuccessfully trying to get someone to check it out as if the realism doesn't already exclude enough people. I'm not complaining about the realism its basic features that aren't there. You're talking to a guy whose willing to accommodate for a game like this... bottom line is I haven't played in mutliplayer yet and I'd like to (Not PBEM). I'm actually still a member of We band of brothers but I had been out since '07 and I can't retrieve my forum password for some bizarre reason (it doesn't send the e-mail and can't remember my password). The only reason I joined them was because I literally couldn't f ind players anymore after the old online chat went down from that unnofficial CM site. At the very least there should be an official player-matching chat, preferably through the game platform, but anything would suffice. How many resources can it possibly take to have a simple place to chat and meet up for games? Not much and that's the kind of thing that turns modern gamers off and keeps people from being referred here.

I'm 25 so I've played older, turn-based games without even the WeGo of Cm1... but PBEM is not something in my mind that is acceptable any longer for a game for at least 10 years. Tried it... hated it... don't want to have anything to do with it. You can't seriously expect a modern gamer to convert to PBEM no matter how good the game is. Unless BF just wants to stick with the same niche of gamers until they die out then some things need to change. That doesn't seem like a logical marketing strategy to me. If you don't like playing with typical gamers then you're more than welcome to stay in an old man only club. Just because somebody is a realism junkie with tactical strategy games doesn't mean they're also going to be willing to load a file from their freakin e-mail for one minute of game time. There's no logical connection between the two. Maybe maturity was a common trait in gamers that liked those type of games and would do that 10+ years ago.... but that just plain isn't going to happen for anybody born within the last 2 decades except for your occasional oddball. We live in a society where people expect instant communication... Who the hell even uses e-mail nowadays? At the very least PBEM should be done through the game platform. And there's too drastic of a difference between WeGo and real time to leave RT players depending on doing their own work to find an IP address to play with in RT.

A live chat group like there used to be would help out a lot... Can't Battlefront sponser some sort of realtime convenient way to setup multiplayer games? Company of Heroes has an excellent system for multiplayer but something even remotely resembling that would show that BF supports the real time gameplay they created.

I played CM before I played Company of Heroes. CoH has its pros and cons but I think you'll find Combat Mission to be a much more fullfilling experience. There are vastly greater constraints and its a vastly more realistic simulation of combat. The attention to detail in CM is phenomenal. You can pause and read the label on a mortar round in mid-flight. I fully support Battlefront's by mail only deal. The problem with games lately is that the disconnect between publishers who finance the game and developers who actually create the game is getting very large. Games are getting way too expensive to produce and it takes big companies to market these so theyre actually profitable. Battlefront is in the middle ground somewhere, sure they could sell more games if they were on shelves but the price would probably turn customers off or the profit margin would be too low for battlefront to justify it. I'm sure this game cost many millions of dollars to produce and they need to remake that investment with interest.

Shouldnt this thread be locked as politics? Bottom line is nobody burning down buildings or looting businesses deserves an ounce of respect from anyone. Anyone who gives them respect loses every molecule of respect from me. The US should rent out the LAPD to foreign countries for situations like these. I guarantee you they won't ever whine about some low life getting shot again in self defense or executed by a police officer or whatever happened. Everybody on the streets, when we see 'em, **** em.

Why dont all those evil people just close their businesses and you can all eat each other.

Less action oriented? Not sure what you mean. Bigger maps? There's a couple custom map that might fit that description but standard maps already run in the range of 60mb+

I've heard it compared to Darkest Hour but I never played it. It has no vehicles (at least officially). I played RO once upon a time and personally I don't think RO has anything on RnL but there's lots of arguments to be had there. You can get TF 2 for free on steam... that would come with the engine. You can also get the Source engine for free.. not sure how. Either way you need steam if you don't already use it. Correction someone just told me that when you download steam and right click on the tab it gives you an option to install Source SDK base 2007. Not sure if it works because I already have it.

This is a mod i posted about a little over a year ago. At the time it had a lot of bugs and shortcomings which messed up the gameplay. Just this weekend they released an update which definitely sorts out the overwhelming majority of deficiencies. Its not a traditional/crappy/trendy shooter and I highly recommend if you are into gameplay realism and teamwork. It is nothing like your typical anti-social/lone wolf shooter. You will not have shooter teamwork experiences of equal caliber in any game and on public servers with no admin enforcing teamplay. Its a free mod and you can actually obtain the engine for it for free now if you do not have any Half-life 2/source engine games. It concerns itself with airborne fighting in Normandy in WWII. http://www.resistanceandliberation.com/ The game has a morale system which upsets your weapon sway and is helped by the presence of nearby friendlies. It works 2 ways so its not just a point and click shooter. Area fire has effects on enemy and vice versa. The maps are realistically made and absolutely nothing like your typical shooter. Theyre very atmospheric and well laid out. There is no individual score whatsoever, absolutely not HUD, no crosshairs, no death messages, no moronic weapon tweakage for gameplay "balance." The community is teamwork oriented, you can literally lead a fireteam/squad or coordinate teamwork. There is a local 3D voice chat which exponentially enhances teamwork and immersion. You can hear enemy voice chat if theyre within earshot too. here's a couple videos. These are'nt trailers ... just public servers. And on the first day of new patch when half the people are goofing off. Those aren't top notch examples of gameplay. If you search for Resistance And liberation Gameplay on youtube you'll coem up with a lot of examples that'll get you off.

I mentioned this before. A lot of campaign maps I've had large forces which I can't immediately commit to combat responsibly. Or vehicles like jeeps and trucks which would make no sense to move forward... I finished all the campaigns and have been working on individual battles and I'm finding the same crap happening. I have not played any games vs humans yet. But the AI continues to have a pattern of habitually shelling my rear areas liberally rather than even targeting units that are maneuvering against him. TBH in situations like this i'm not even sure how he's observing these areas... Whats to stop human players from putting TRPs in your "safe" attack zones? IMO there should at least be some portion of the map that is deemed "safe" or a "retreat" zone of absolutely no strategic value where units cannot fire out of or be harmed. It seems ridiculous that something like this is necessary. But with artillery being much more devastating and accurate than in CM 1... It seems appropriate. Is anyone else not experiencing this constantly. There's rarely a map where the AI doesn't at least attempt to pull this BS off and TBH I've just about had it.

Nobodies expecting theoretical ROF for a weapon. American infantry squads didn't exactly have LMGs.... the BAR probably holds one of the lowest percentages of firepower of any modern infantry squad. OBviously the Garand is soemthing that compensated for the enemy LMGs. I remember in CM1 it was pretty useful to have the chart of firepower and ranges. The American squads typically had an advantage at close range, is it still the case? American infantry divisions took pretty insane casualties in WWII compared to other wars and the majority of these were infantry. Even units that were only in the theater for six months lost 7/10ths of their total manpower. Others there longer lost 200%+ Sure you're average riflemen didn't kill anyone. But then again millions of troops never even made it to the party on time. My grandpa was a truck driver and he went still went through some serious ****. As you close in on the enemy the necessity of dominating them through firepower increases exponentially. That's not anything that needs to be told and you've gotta be nuts to say it isn't the natural reaction. Its definitely what your NCO wants to see before the enemy get in grenade range, especially if the enemy is exposed in front of you. They certainly fired faster in CM 1. Through all my training and experience in Iraq I can't imagine if I actually had seen the enemy and at a range where I could hit them that I wouldn't fire really really ****ing fast recoil or no recoil, they're gonna drop or change their mind about moving one way or another. I can understand if the guys were cowering. But they sit there exposed nonchalantly taking aim half the time. And its not just occasionally that they do that. I think its safe to say your average CM2 engagement is more intense than your average WWII firefight. So when the enemy's right in front of them they should at least pull their trigger with a purpose, some of them, some of the time.

Training and reality are kind of 2 different things. The excitement of actually getting a target acquired at 25-50 meters kind of negates the fact that you would wanna put precisely one bullet in it on the range to conserve ammo for other targets. It does seem painfully slow sometimes if you watch individual shooters with an enemy fully exposed at close range. I can't imagine myself doing that, especially with the excitement and adrenaline. Whether you know you can shoot that well that fast or not, you're probably gonna bank on you can if its a life or death situation, I certainly would especially if he's shooting at me. It's kind of hard to notice all that in the scope of the game though because it works both ways.

I tried several times doing something with my isolated platoon. The enemy is literally surrounding them at the start. Even knowing where the enemy positions around me were, every attempt to break out was still a disaster. I dont see how anyone could possibly have a different experience with HMGs surrounding you and enemy artillery called in on anything that moves, as well as being under observation from the other side of the stream behind you... that's where the AI called in mortars on me.... after I so much as moved a few squads around on tool shed

When I was in the Army I was always told specifically to not use a wall/concrete barrier for cover, but peek around the sides of it instead. Something to do with sillouetting?

This thread reminds me of the big shootout scene at Ma's house in "Four Brothers" with Mark Wahlberg.

I don't wanna add fuel to the off topic fire but something I've noticed about this community is that members are eager to make excuses for parts of gameplay that feel faulty as if they are explaining a real world simulation. I have no doubt in my mind the developers of this game are the best of the best and as a guy who absolutely hated and deplored the concept of 1-1 after CMSF was released, they've definitely made it worth the transition. I literally dream of shooters stemmed from the concepts of CM. But that doesn't mean everything is perfect. Its version 1.0 we're playing. Remember CMBO? Was that perfect? Heck no, but i'll bet there were people here defending the suppressing effects of HMGs as being spot on. Just my two cents.