blow56

What does this mean for those who bought the complete package and do not have the original games? We just have to wait?

I gave up on the physical copies when I realised they were shipping from the US and not from Europe (where I thought they were based). I have been caught twice having to pay additional import taxes on their computer games, so I will always get the digital-only version.

The USAAF saw the greatest innovations in 1944 under Gen. Elwood Quesada, commander of IX Tactical Air Command, supporting the First U.S. Army. He developed the "armored column cover", where on-call fighter-bombers maintained a high-level of availability for important tank advances, allowing armor units to maintain a high tempo of exploitation even when they outran their artillery assets. He also used a modified antiaircraft radar to track friendly attack aircraft to redirect them as necessary, and experimented with assigning fighter pilots to tours as forward air controllers to familiarize them with the ground perspective. In July 1944, Quesada provided VHF aircraft radios to tank crews in Normandy. When the armored units broke out of the Normandy beachhead, tank commanders were able to communicate directly with overhead fighter-bombers. However, despite the innovation, Quesada focused his aircraft on CAS only for major offensives. Typically, both British and American attack aircraft were tasked primarily to interdiction, even though later analysis showed them to be twice as dangerous as CAS. I am aware that, after 1943, the Luftwaffe could not provide CAS and the Russians were not as sophisticated with it - but I think, for Western Theatres CM, some form of area control, however sketchy, should be allowed using a FAC. That is all ... over and out

It isn't realistic in the slightest. Cover, imo, is not an issue - Allies in Normandy and Western Front theatres in general had air supremacy and were careless about cover because they were seldom, if ever, attacked from the air by ANYONE. So parking vehicles out in the open was not a problem providing you couldn't be spotted by enemy artillery, which WAS a problem. The 3.0 upgrade of aircraft, I am afraid, is a crap shoot, regardless of whether your troops are in cover or not. I appreciate hugely the work that has gone into this, so it comes as a bewildering disappointment when I see something so flawed and yet allowed to perpetuate. Surely SOMEONE must have noticed that, instead of improving aircraft use, the 3.0 upgrade had removed all command and control to an AI which is just not clever enough to be doing that? At least give back a measure of control by allowing, say, a pre-battle delineation of an air operational area, the equivalent of someone saying to a pilot that 'south of the river/ridgeline/treeline are friendlies'.

No, Yankeedog, we are talking a 3.0 upgrade problem, which now applies to all WWII CM (if you upgrade for it, which I have. It's a good upgrade, aircraft apart) You have no control over the aircraft anymore - you simply plan them into a scenario and they arrive when they like and do what they choose. I replayed the Normandy scenario and had two Typhoons bomb, in quick succession, a park of Bren carriers 1km from the FEBA - in the open and behind a defile to be unseen by enemy artillery - and the British Company mortars, in a cornfield shrouded by a fringe of trees and unseen by enemy artillery. It was 978m from the FEBA. That is now seven missions on CMRT and CMBN where aircraft have been involved in blue-on-blue - in fact, EVERY mission under the 3.0upgrade where I have assigned aircraft. That, to me, is a mess. And you are right - there is no FAC. Because there is no need for one; you have NO control over aircraft. I am sure the designers of CMRT thought this was a good idea - Russian front, a lack of liaison by Russian forces, a lack of aircraft on the German side, bigger maps etc etc - but even here it was annoying enough to mostly abandon the use of aircraft. In Normandy (and CMFI and Market Garden) cab-rank air power was inherent in battles in these theatres and to have to abandon it is a travesty of history and makes for a bad game. There must be a way to fix it and I I cannot believe the designers, good people that they are, are satisfied with the modelling of airpower now. Incidentally - if you upgrade to 3.0 every scenario, campaign etc, old and new, in your games will have the aircraft in it placed outwith your control.

The five occasions concerned fictional scenarios. The weather was clear in all of them, my troops were mostly in cover - and none of the strikes seemed to take it into account, one way or another. At no time was the enemy closer than 450m - in fact, in four of the scenarios, the enemy was at 600-700m (I like big maps). In the case of the RAF (Normandy) scenario, the enemy had AA, was at 690-720m away - and the first arriving aircraft bombed my FO, in a six-storey building, in the middle of a village. I agree with YankeeDog almost completely - but it is sad that it has to be that way. As for my 'coming off rude', I thought I was restrained. From the follow-up posts, it is clear there IS a problem and rather, as I said, than shooting the messenger it might be better to focus on what can be done about it. Fixing the mess, in short. And it is a mess - under current parameters, the only thing you can do with air power in CMBN/FI/RT is not use it at all, or throw it in if you are feeling masochistic, as YankeeDog says.

Sorry, but this 'you need to read more' attitude just irritates me. Clearly - and with no justification in fact - certain contributors dismiss my criticisms of whatever algorithm this game uses re aircraft as simply the witterings of the ill-informed. Wrong. I am considerably well informed re close air support operations in WW2, from Allies and German sides. That's what leads me to believe the usage in this game is flawed and unrepresentative. You would do better to look at that rather than try and shoot the messenger down with the flak of ignorance. I always thought CMx1 air use was a little too precision and looked forward to, say, a compulsory wider circle of operation. But NO restrictions? It would have been better to reflect that the chance of a successful outcome was slim (ie hitting anything of worth) and the loss rate high. Instead we have a situation where you are throwing the equivalent of powerful artillery up in the air, literally, with no idea of where it will land. That's hardly an accurate representation of close-air support in WW2.

I updated my Normandy/Market Garden. Now I have the same aircraft mess - and Allied forces had good liaison - unless you were US Airforce high-level carpet bombers. Basically - the air use is horrifically imbalanced now and makes the use of aircraft in a scenario too much of a problem to risk. I know it was my own aircraft because the opposition had none. I set it as a benchmark test - clear weather. Five out of five blue-on-blues - three Russian, one German and one RAF on British troops who were nowhere close to the enemy.

Will someone in BF please fix this mess? I have used aircraft in five games now and in all five I have had an air strike on my own troops. I know blue on blue is a possibility, but it seems the percentage chance of it is far too high for me. There should, at least, be a liaison between ground and air to some extent, not just a random search by aircraft for any targets it can find, regardless. Bring back the old method - I still have no idea why you decided to change it. It worked perfectly well and even if you thought it was a little too accurate for the period, there is an interim between that and free agent, go bomb who you like.

I think the Russians are a little artillery light for this task - not a problem for the Germans, who can also plant it accurately given their FO and TIs I would add Soviet aircraft, but I think the aircraft use is broken in this iteration of the series - every time I have used them, I have ended up being bombed and strafed by my own planes, which seem to take a totally random approach to targeting. Adding more art helps, considering the approaches are bottlenecked to facilitate a mined defence on what is essentially a frontal attack. I know it looks as if you can flank them, but actually you can't.

Any ongoing/planned megacampaigns, for Normandy or RT?

Start by creating a New battle in Scenario Editor. No map, just use it to make the Core units you want for Blunting The Spear. Name it as you please (call it X for the sake of clarity here). Place it in the Folder where all the other BTS battles have been unpacked and which you will use to reconstitute the campaign, complete with Campaign briefing, designer notes on the campaign in general etc etc. Call up the first BTS Battle you wish to redo and Import the units from X. Repeat. Create your Campaign txt script and place it in the same Folder as everything else. Make Campaign from X Bingo.

I disagree that you can 'walk all over the AI' given enough time. Ammo is an immediate factor as regards time already and you have to factor that in when planning. And a stubborn, multi-facteted AI defence is still a challenge. In a single scenario you can, at least, replay the affair and reduce the time constraints yourself. In a campaign, you don't have that ability - and if you are pushed with a time element into making mistakes, an entire series of scenarios can be ruined. Perhaps the solution might be to permit the player to set the time limit in each game of a campaign. I suspect it isn't possible, but it would be good. Better if it was tied to a Victory Condition, so that you had to achieve a greater success the longer you took.

This had always been a problem with scenario designers. The tendency is to foment an artificial sense of urgency by compressing the time-frame, thus forcing irrational and destructive casualties. There is, as I have always stated, little or no justification for this other than to engender a bit of an adrenaline rush in single-play. The second factor is - for the same reason - a tendency to lose realism in favour of Hollywood. Too many scenarios seem to rely on the last-gasp arrival of some reinforcement - or, in the case of the new toy on the block, the AI Trigger - or an artificial constraint on attacker and defender. When it comes to designing campaigns, these two faults en masse frequently prove the death of a decent campaign. Force balance and extra time - then you will see thoughtful tactical maneuvering, imo. And fix the goddamn awful air support, please. Why anyone thought this was an improvement is beyond me.

Is there a version for CM:SF?

Tried to get into this after a long lay-off - only to discover the desktop shortcut wouldn't work. All the components are still in place, so I reinstalled CMSF, patched it back to 1.08 - and can now get entry. Save that accessing Scenario Editor crashes it. What do I do to fix it?

I was a professional game reviewer for many years, so I DO know whereof I speak. The review you cite, especially in the second par, suggests to me that methodical play wins more prizes than any other style. If he was comfortable and pleased with the time limit, good on him. Others aint. I am criticising, I am not scathing and I really do admire PT's work and, if he had put this up like any other modder I wouldn't be banging on about it quite so much. But this is sold as an integral part of the price tag for this game, so he has to expect to defend his work without resorting to phrases such as 'whining about time constraints' or suggestions of gaming inadequacy - it isn't helpful. I am fairly familiar with the deep workings of the AI and hope that it is possible to use it without the sticking plaster of time constraints to make the design work. If I am wrong, I will happily admit it.

A late PS - I am working on a Campaign of my own, Operation Pomegranate and the 59 Div. I read the accounts and I find that the leading elements of the H-Hour force began their attack at 05.30. By 08.00 they had battered their way to the first objective and were making little headway. By14.30, an enemy counterattack forced them back. Read it - three hours to make their first objective which was only a few hundred yards away. Six hours fighting to achieve little progress. Then a retreat. Sounds like a ding-dong battle to me - and hard enough without time limits.

Semantics. What I am paying for is the package - it is still such a good game engine that I might well buy it if it came with no Battle or Campaign missions at all, but that's my personal preference. What the game is SOLD on includes said Battles and Campaigns and if BF manages to persuade PT and others to volunteer that is their good fortune. My reference to volunteered work was for all the legion of modders who put their own Missions/Campaigns out there, without it being included in the paid-for game. But PT's labours being voluntary - and more power and respect to him for it - does not abrogate the responsibility he has to answer to criticism. Let me make it clear - I am full of admiration for the work of PT and playtesters, but if I think it is flawed I surely have the right to say so without being dismissed as an FNG, or someone trying to diss a happy volunteer. I like the Missions PT does - I just think he is obsessed with squeezing the time to increase the adrenalin levels.

What's the obsession with winning every single mission? Why am I willing to throw away my forces etc etc? Because points mean prizes - missions are, especially in The Scottish Corridor, linked to the extent that failure and/or heavy losses in one make the others harder or impossible. I throw away my forces, as you put it, to achieve a victory inside the time limit. The CM series is great, but the designed missions in this and CM:SF have always been too tight for time - I am clearly not the only one who thinks so. It wouldn't matter save that a) you can't adjust it in a campaign and this is part of a paid-for package and not someone's volunteered work - so when this is up for debate, I get irritated at you simply reducing all us carpers to 'casual' players who need to stay in the shallow end of the pool and leave the real fighting to 'experts'.

Glad to hear it - I have had to work really hard on it, too while playing. What would probably help everyone get round the argument about who's right or wrong concerning time constraints is to allow campaigns to be deconstructed. Or release the individual games. That way all us 'lesser' saps who can't cope can adjust to our liking and remake the whole deal. Incidentally, chess has time constraints as an OPTION, as does ASL and most other great games. The pressure should not come from the time element but from the tactics employed. If you have to force someone down a gameplay path, then you have failed in my book.

I love this 'stay calm and keep going' atttitude. Sure I can play the campaign over and get it right but, surely, barring bad luck, knowing where the enemy is and what to expect is a huge advantage to winning. A good scenario should play straight out of the box and not be trying to force me with time limits into taking risks. I am intrigued by the variable-difficulty plan - very nice. But why not just take the time limits OFF? Hasrabit in CM;SF was a good campaign spoiled by this tendency to force time constraints. I know why it was done - if you failed Mission X then you were late getting to Mission Y. That's fine - write it in the briefing and let me know the consequences. Then give me three or four hours playing time and let ME decide how fast I want to push it and how to conserve my men and ammo etc etc. What IS this designer obsession with squeezing the time? For the sake of 15 or 20 minutes, the whole feel of the thing is transported from realism to a rubbish console FPS (run here and shoot, run there and shoot - oh crap. Reboot, try again).

The basic premise of this is flawed - most the Germans are Veterans and Fanatic, almost all the Brits are classed as Green. That isn't the case. The German SS were refitting after Russia and most of their troops were no better than Regular, albeit highly-motivated. The British had not been sitting on their thumbs for four years and were at least the same. If you want to give the Germans an edge, then make their officers Elite - that's the cadre round which the divisions were rebuilt. Coupled with the irritating time constraints I have mentioned earlier, it means that you do have to rush the attacks, which causes mayhem and screaming and a high body count. Nice if you want a movie. Not remotedly nice if you want a serious game.

Nice new module - same old campaign mistakes. Please, please PLEASE can designers stop putting artificial (and far too low) time constraints on battles. 'You have 40 minutes' etc etc. No-one ever had 40 minutes, or half-an-hour or any other time limits - you did the mission at the fastest possible speed given terrain, enemy and assets. If it took four hours, then you would get a kick in the pants for being too slow - and could argue for more artillery or air or men next time. You were more likely to be court-martialled for wasting lives - which is what you have to do with time constraints, taking chances you would not do 'in real life'. The low time limit is an increasingly irritating facet of console gaming for adrenalin-rushed teenagers, something I thought CM was not. I wouldn't carp except that Campaigns don't allow you to change the parameters.

Ah - that's what I was looking for. The CMSF Troubleshooting link doesn't direct you to this, only to a reference, now removed. However, it doesn't seem to help - I still can't get a launch screen in order to enter the key. Double-clicking on desktop icon or ingame icon does not seem to have any effect.