Guderian's Duck

I mean modular as in West Front module, East Front module, Early War module etc. Splitting it up into different releases. I know, but since it's been "Battlefrontized" anyway I was curious why they didn't copy CM's new modular approach too. The CM developers have made a very good case why they switched from huge releases to a modular approach. Anyway, it may simply be that they don't want it to run parallel with the CM series when it returns to WWII.

I'm just wondering why the same modular approach that the Combat Mission series now uses is not used with this game? It seems like a perfect fit for Theatre of War.

Moral of story: Don't get in a tank and fight the US. Use IED instead.

Here, here. Imitation hasn't exactly hurt the FPS and RTS genres, has it?

The CDV versions are the ones in the anthology pack, right? In what way have they been edited?

Isn't that the entire point of Battlefront's new modular approach?

So how about it?

Some non-PC suggestions: Combat Mission: Operation Syrian Freedom Combat Mission: Syrian Crusade Stryker Brigade - Force of the Future Neocon Wars part III: Operation Damascus Combat Mission: Jihad Combat Mission: Shlock Farce

But does that include the majority of hastily trained junior officers in world war two?

As I understand it it was/is actually pretty common due to the poor ammo protection in the Soviet tanks. The splinters from the DU rounds would frequently ignite the ammo and the overpressure from the explosion would blow the turret off.

The problem with that game is that you have to slow it down to half the default speed to make it realistic. Fortunately it's fairly easy to mod (via text files). But the graphics and the interface are really state-of-the-art for wargames as far as I'm concerned, which isn't so strange considering their budget is probably equal to all other wargame developers put together. Anyway, you can see a lot of work went into the interface and the controls.

I really like how air support works now. It's just as unexpected and inaccurate as it should be. Air support and (especially) artillery are two areas where Combat Mission really moved the goalposts forward. And "realistic" in the case of world war two close air support means not very effective.

Ok, if you say so. But the brown-green colours and the Il-2s really had me fooled for a while. Well, yes and no. Designing the graphics engine and the 3D models is certainly one of the most expensive and time-consuming parts of making a game. I can think of several possibilities, including the most obvious one which is of course a wargame.

I understand and agree with the argument about view restrictions, but it should never be an excuse for clunky camera controls. In Rome Total War there are several ways the user can restrict the camera (and thereby the access to information), like the "Restricted Camera" where you can't move the camera too far from your own units or the "General Camera" where your viewpoint is slaved to the general's unit and can't be raised above shoulder level. The last mode is a lot of fun when you gallop around the battlefield like a madman to try and control the troops! The need for a pre-battle plan is certainly brought home. In fact I believe something precisely like these restrictions would suit Combat Mission very well. There's a demo available for Rome Total War so you can try it if you haven't already. It's almost worth it for the camera controls alone.

Aha. But why not make a game while they're at it? They seem to have done most of the work already. And it is the Il-2 engine in some form, right?