Canada Guy

Great Idea. I want the "guy who quietly praised you but still has not been able to win a Friggen game patch v1.10" Between this game and the 5 games that I have played against a CMAK opponent (going 0-2-3) I feel a little challenged here.

I guess this does bring up a question. When you release the WW2 game, will we also get the terrain that is in CMSF? Meaning that if it does not break any code, can we expect each game Family to build on the previous family. I do not expect ever to see water in CMSF but it would be nice to have desert terrain (as a QB or DIY option) in CM: Normandy. Eventually we would have something close to CMBB or CMAK in 3-4 years when we have desert, temperate, winter... I guess this could open up another revenue stream for you guys. Lets say 4 years down the road (as an example) you introduce the CM: Barbarossa family. You have new terrain and in each module you could introduce some new equipment. When all modules have been completed, you could create an expansion set with no new rules, no new units other than what has gone before in previous families. i.e. Desert terrain, already created vehicles from CM:Normandy and CM:Bagration. You would then have created a mini-CMAK with very little effort modeling and coding.

Yes, bring in the Finns. Without them on the eastern front, it just won't feel right. I want sneaky Sissi skiiing in and burning buildings to the ground. You probably already have the equipment in Bagration, just need the formations.

There is a very interesting article in the 6 September 2008 issue of The Economist entitled “How to Disappear” (Centre technology section pg 21-24). It deals with recent improvements in camouflage and detection. Some interesting tidbits. • AK-47s reflect light and allow greater sighting distances while the French Famas is non-reflective (I am assuming that the army/marine weapons would also be non-reflective). • Canada has improved it camo so much in recent years that to spot soldiers in some conditions, observers must be 40% closer than they would have to have been in 2000 • Heat insulating foam applied 1 centimeter thick can make an APC resemble a motorcycle. This may be outside the scope of the game but are heat signatures taken into account in CMSF? I think that Syria would lack squad based heat/light signature detection equipment but the Americans (Brits, Germans Canadians etc) would have access and so would have a greater sense of the enemy on the battlefield at night. It would be nice to flip a switch and see what a unit is detecting in a night action with the aid of equipment. This would also mean that we are seeing units at a much greater distance (with greater information) in CM:Normandy and CM:Bagration than we can see them in CMSFduring the day (and reduced detection at night).

What about using dollar values. An M1A1 is worth $1 million and an M1A2 is worth $1.1 Million. Training costs for each American soldier is $120,000 taking into account inflation and exchange rates (-20% for ages over 35, but always start fatigued), this seems like an easy thing to implement (tongue firmly planted in cheek). Cherry-picking still has to be based upon some sort of intrinsic value to have a fair QB system. If I have a love of PzIIIs and you have a Love for JS-IIs, and there is no intrinsic value assigned, then I might have 5 x PZIIIs vs your 5 x JS-IIs. No fun to play. Or everyone ends up with just the latest and greatest units. You have to take Command & Control into account. With much less C3I in yesterdays battlefield, it may not have as much of an impact but your troops still fight better when under the eyes of a senior unit. I just want the ability to create some of my favourite scenarios from CMBB/CMAK. As long as I have the ability to create a scenario the way I like it, (broken units, special one-off units, fragmented units) then I am happy. If I can re-create "Meeting in the Wind" from CMAK and "Royal Opponent" from CMBB as well as other memorable scenarios, I will be a happy camper.

BF, don't get too upset even though I am sure that you have replied to this countless times. I think most of us agree that releasing the code would be a bad idea in the long run for everyone. You would get those people that would say X and some would say Y (just like the QB unit values from when QBs were first introduced) and who would there be to say who is right and who is wrong. I would prefer to have your company make the final decisions and the only way that will happen is if you control the source code. This is also your stream of revenue and without your dedication (and revenue reward) this would not have occurred. I am sure that the same complaining went on when you first introduced CMBO. It would be nice though to have the same access that modders had to CMx1. I know that I have changed the splash screen and the interface graphics to make it more to my liking for both CMAK and CMBB (Red ? something mod) and I appreciated that you allowed this to happen and that there were people dedicated enough to work on this. You have only a limited amount of time to dedicate to making this game work and all the time having people on your back asking for even more.Modding the interface might not be possible in CMx2 as it would require access to the code though. You may have said it before but what can be modded in CMx2 and what kind of tools have to be used?

I was a bit confused though after I read the text from the 4 new Marine videos. It sounded as if the module had already been released. Thank god my holidays start on October 3. I can get some marine action in before Fallout 3 arrives. With 2 sons, I have to book time on the PC as well as the XBox 360. (who knew that having kids would force me into becoming my own network administrator and IT dept - trying to stay one step ahead of my kids in terms of technology is a daunting task)

From what I understand, a game and all of it's moduels will be able to intermix all troops together but play between games will not be viable. This makes sense as I imagine that each game will be introducing new technologies and improvements to the engine and they may not want to go back and recode an entire game+modules to take these new features into consideration. This there will be no water crossing tacAI in CMSF and no modern British army (from CMSF) laying waste to the hordes of Soviets in Bagration.

CMSF and it modules are one of the best out there (not withstanding the terrible mouse control that I experience for some reason). I still have to admit that WWII (and probably Korea) holds much more interest though. When men were men and you got to see the whites of their eyes. I know there is a fascination with sending an AT rocket into the side of a tank but what about crawling up behind a KV tank that has put the hurt on your platoon and lobbing a grenade bundle under its treads. Operation Bagration (and to a lesser extent Normandy) will provide me with that thrill. The same one I get every time I fire up CMBB/CMAK. My biggest problem is that I will have to choose between running either CMBB/CMAK (Best bang for the buck I have ever had in a game) and soon to be CMC and running CMSF with all the bells and whistles if I finally get that ATI 4850/4870 card.(and yes, I am investigating a dual boot system).

I have never liked the later war period. Watching my men get cut down by JS-IIs or SU-100s is not my idea of fun (though I do love the PzV). I like games where the infantry is still a potent force and the tanks still have to be careful. My money would be on Bagration but I would like to see either 1. Case Blue - 1942 strategic summer offensive in southern Russia that lasted between 28 June and 19 August 1942. You get some decent tank vs tank action PzIV vs T-34 which isa mainstay. 2. Operation Typhoon. Sept-January 1941 in front of Moscow. Germans - 90,000 men in 70 Divisions USSR - 800,000 men in 95 Divisions (plus reinforcing Siberians) Fall - winter weather.

Thanks for the insight Steve, I can understand your reluctance with a P2000 system if you had to deal with expired credit cards. I have just always had an affinity to customer driven requests and liked the Multiman system as it allowed them to continue producing a good game to a limited audience. Great to hear that the new QB system will be included in CM: Normandy. I am looking forward to that but what about the meta-tile change? Has there been any judgment into its feasibility? I would welcome it as I know I do not have the time (or creative skill) to create the gorgeous landscapes that some have done even with the limited tools of CMx1.

MedLinke, I agree with you and time has shown that no matter what is thrown at BF, they all seem to have a passion for making quality products with great care and devotion. I would not characterize this as a poll but rather a dedicated commitment to buy. I know that being such a small company, they cannot afford to have very many missteps in product development. Look at Atari, they have had a rough couple of years because of poorly received games and they have (or had) very deep pockets so could suck up a $5 million loss. I do not think that BF is in that position and so I would rather that they devote their energy and enthusiasm to things that the community wants so that they can continue to be a viable solvent company. I have ordered things through both GMT and Multi-man and am happy to show my support by my credit card vote. That does not mean that BF could not pick the choice of modules that they would be excited to build and see what the response is. In this day and age with 1000s of game companies, anything that they can do to keep the customer happy and coming back for more is worth a little bit of crass capitalism. - and I am not referring to the grognards that inhabit this board, myself included that they should just keep happy. If I was king of the world, it would be Ost front with a choice of 27 follow-up modules and the Korean War.

I just want to be straight on what is on offer. (Please someone correct me if I am wrong) CMSF - Main Game M1 - Marines M2 - Brits M3 - Germans/Dutch/Canadians? CM-Normandy - Main Game M1 – Brits? M2 – Commonwealth? CM-OstFront - Main Game M1 - M4 - ? CMSF 2 - Pyongyang or Bust - Main Game (Will this still use the same engine or will it be a new engine so a completely different paradigm (Don't shoot me for using this word please)) M1 - M3 - ? CM-Bulge? - Main game M1-M3 - ? ---------------------- A little bit off topic but still connected, and I have asked about this before but never gotten a response. What about adopting a P500 or P2000 system to gauge interest in a particular area. Not so much in terms of the main games, but in terms of the modules. To give an example, how do you know that the Hungarians will not be warmly received as a module and at the same time make you money? Since you have the basic infrastructure in place to create a pre-order system, you could gauge interest by having people commit to the module (along with credit card information) before you even begin to work on it. e.g. Let’s say that you want to gauge the interest in 4 new possible Modules for "CM-OstFront" just before you finish the main game. Before you even put finger to keyboard, you have your site ask people to commit their interest to each module. Gamers know that production is a possibility but know that the module will not be built (and their credit cards will not be charged) until a certain number of people commit to buying it and you commit to producing it. You put the minimum commitment number at 2000 for each and then let the marketplace do its job. after 3 months you see that CM: Budapest (1865) CM: Karelian Front (2647) CM: Rostov (392) CM: Operation Bagration (1374) You now know that you should work on "CM: Karelian Front" first as it has the most interest (those crazy Finns) and the most guaranteed income You can also surmise that 3 months later you might have enough interest in CM: Budapest so you can begin preliminary research. BFs work plan is then justified by committed cash inflow and your action plan is set to use your limited resources most efficiently to make money. It also takes some of the guess work out of surviving as a company. Both GMT games and Multi-man Publishing use this system and it also saves them from having to repeatedly justify their choice of products (which, unfortunately, you seem to have to do on a regular basis). It seems like a win-win situation for both us fans and your great staff.

First off - I want to give a cheer for my 100 post - I agree with Other Means. I think there is info missing that is crucial to running your units. My order of important required information is 1. Morale 2. Occupied Terrain 3. Facing 4. unit casualties I think that the cone indicting incoming fire is nice but takes up too much real estate that could be used for more important information. One thick vertical bar (colour coded) would be better. I hate that when I need to see how many casualties a unit has taken, I have to click on the unit and then hunt for the red (soon to be also brown) circles to see how the unit is fairing. E.g. The 3 active /5 incapacitated (for an 8 man unit) in CMx1 was crucial to many of my decisions in the game. I also am not sure where my unit is actually located. As the dimensions of the squares gets smaller, it may not be realistic to say that this unit is in rubble as an example but sometimes my units are in the open when I think they are in cover. I know that BF wants to get away from most thngs CMx1 but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Please realise that some of your design decisions in CMx1 were very well thought out and perhaps bringing them back into CMx2 would not be a bad thing. The design of the interface in CMx1 was great and it may be that I am just used to it and adapted my playing to use the available information but some things are very important (casualties) and some things would be just great to have to make the game more fun (kill record at end of game).

You have forgotten the most important country of all in the last expansion you mentioned...Canada (along with some groups called the Germans and Dutch- whoever they are???). I have talked to a few guys who said that once the Canadians are in the mix, they will see if this would be a good training tool for the Canadian Forces. As an aside - I have just finished the book "Fiasco" and would like to try to replay the 2nd battle of Fallujah. With the Marine pack, will we have all the required units/weapons or are there items still missing??

I ordered the download + physical package and did receive the $10 reduction in price. $25 instead of $35 for both. But $14 for postage.

Since there seems to be some interest in updating the glitches with the Vista/DX10 combination (at least from the players perspective) has anyone at BF ever thought of trying the P500 system that other game companies have tried? You put out a notice that BF will produce a specific product (in this case a Vista/DX10 fix) and give a price (e.g. $20). You then ask for interest from players who would register their names (and their credit card number). If the number of registered buyers exceeds a certain number, only then is the product developed. So lets say that BF puts that number at 1000. Then we could all track to see interest in this being completed and when it would be completed. It would stop the *****ing and moaning if that number is not reached (if there was a lack of interest) and give us an idea of whether the product will be released (if interest was overwhelming). I know that I would pay $20 for this and probably $40 if some other fixes were also included. This game (CMBB and CMAK) has given me countless hours of fun (over 500 hours in 3 years - though you would never suspect this if you see how badly I play ). I think this would be a great way to have the complainers see if this is viable and also allow BF to gauge interest. Grunt work like this could also be contracted out and lead to a continued revenue stream. Anyhting to help the future viability of BF and its great games.

This is very impressive. Now I only have to wait for my 2 top mods to get done (because I am a lazy a** and have no creative ability). 1. Interface mod (I have modded the heck out of all the CMx1 games and love it but have not yet seen one for CMx2) 2. Mustache mod for the Syrians (want those handlebar mustaches)

I like the online manual. It is a good resource. Is it possible to make it a little larger? The font comes out on my monitor at about 6-8 point which is hard to read. Also, when we download the Marine module, will it include a manual and if yes, will it be updated to 1.1? Just curious. If that is the case, I will just wait for the Marine module and re-read the manual then.

Why does CMSF not allow riders on tanks? Is this just modern SOP when transporting infantry in a modern environment? I would think that some armies (Syrian, certain African or Asian countries) would allow this as they do not have enough embedded motor transports or APCs available.

I have modded CMBB/CMAK to the hilt (and hope to with CMSF as soon as I see a new interface mod - I do hate those neon green weapon icons) but I have never used the grid. I find it takes away my immmersion in the game and I could never see a useful way to use it. Maybe that is why I lose more games than I win (either that or I am terrible at CM). Most soldiers in WWII probably just used the Mark I eyeball anyway.

I was thinking more in the line of Mod-ifications like the ones you get at http://www.cmmods.com/ (I hope I am not breaking any rules by listing it here). I know I have modded the cr*p out of both CMBB and CMAK but would like to have one central repository for all these. I am sure that there will be some awsome mods come out for CMx2 once this has time to filter down to the players with creative juices.

That Moon, He is a joker that one. 1. If I buy the physical CD, will I still be able to access the game information (though not the download) as well as other goodies through the new Customer Account System? Or will this be for the downloaded games only? 2. The downloaded goodies (Mods, Maps, Scenarios), will these be restricted to CMSF+ and CMWWII+ or will these go back to CMBO/BB/AK? [ June 04, 2008, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Canada Guy ]

Thanks Phil and KellysHeroes. This seems then to be a combination of Vista and a DX10 graphics card. If I stay with XP, I can upgrade my card to a 8xxx NVIdia or an ATI 3xxx card as the DX 10 capability will not be unlocked if I continue to use XP. And vice-versa - If I use Vista I should probably stay at a DX9 level video card. I am not really interested in DX10 (s I have not heard that it performs much better than DX9) - I was just so thrilled to finally see fog with my ATI card a few months ago. Unfortunately, all my scenario designs now have heavy fog to show this off. There is then hope yet.

Vista is not really the reason I want to upgrade. I will probably stay with XP for the next 1-2 years as I find it stable (relatively speaking) but I would like to go with an upgraded MATX MoBo along with more RAM and better DX10 graphics card (that utilize PCIe 2.0). When you have a computer that is used for CMx1 (directX 5.0) and you have kids that want to use it for other things (Spore, Simcity 4, Company of Heroes) that require a good video card, it is hard to find compatibility. If I could confirm that CMC (and it’s CMBB version) would work with DX10 cards, I would upgrade everything but the operating system. From reading these boards though, it is no Vista that is creating the problems but the DX10 cards that are now out. It is getting more difficult finding a vendor that carries non-DX10 cards around.