sburke

You'll have an M1 that looks like a T34, but shoots like an M1.

It was called the Guns of Retimo. All I have (still surprisingly) are the actual PBEM turns. I don't have the BTT file. @Broadsword56may.

It is a very subjective thing. You like something or you don't based on your preferences etc. Personally I did like GL, but I reserve my real vote for CMSF2. While I like CMBS it doesn't scratch my itch the same way. I am not so sure I understand your comments though on maps - from the website - Four campaigns, 18 stand alone battles, and a large number of Quick Battle maps. Not sure why you think there were just 4 if that is what you are saying, I could be mistaken. BF did lavished more attention on CMBN than any other title. There simply is no way they were going to be able to do that for all of them. We got spoiled. I basically look at it this way. Every title is going to be different. Trying to compare two and say one is not worth it because it doesn't have X while ignoring that it does have Y where the first one didn't is a rabbit hole I avoid. You're gonna like what you are gonna like and not every title is going to scratch your itch the same way. CMRT doesn't really do it for me while for others it is the best title.... go figure.

They already do that, only the base game doesn’t get a notation.

There was a scenario done for the Crete landing already for CMFI. I played one against @Broadsword56a while back that was pretty fun. The Gamers had a tactical combat series game on the Battle for Leros with some interesting info.

They beat front doors. Remember SPR scenes?

May have changed, it mentions them now but does not give a count. They likely don't yet have the final number on that.

The current GA release does not have any R2V material. That seems to be a recurring bit of misinformation based on the default text that all modules share. Nothing from R2V is in the copy you have yet. What you are installing is base game, GL and the patches. And no it isn't likely they goofed up your install. More likely you have somehow gotten additional BRZ files in there. What you are seeing is some typical effects. You can confirm by looking in your data folder. You should have the base game brz files, GL files and more Fortress Italy BRZs going up to v201 I am 99% sure of that as I know someone else who just reloaded and they don't have any of the issues you seem to have. Those 4 QBs may actually have come with the patch assuming they aren't something else entirely.

I think it is mostly wildly inaccurate generalizations. Any honest look at how American units performed in Iraq would tell you different, but hey easy answers and all that.

Keep in mind that was just a hypothetical. I don't know what the final count would be or timing or anything... no I don't know much.

You are likely thinking models, the ToE has been a bigger issue. Issues there cascade down into QBs and the like. CMFI has always been the bastard child for ToE issues. It is both it's strength as a unique game and it's Achilles heel for development. Most of what you are citing as work they don't have to worry about is stuff that wouldn't have been much work to begin with (voice acting for example). As to scenario count I can't speak for BF but let's just say hypothetically they said sure we can add a half dozen more scenarios- want to wait several months? Would that be something you would consider worth it? - keep in mind scenario work is typically done by beta testers so the cost factor wouldn't change for BF, just the timing.

SF was a specific fictional scenario of conflict in 2008. So yes it is done …. sadly. CM families tend to be very restrictive anyway, even if it weren't done it would never cover 1948/1956/1967-1970/1973 etc etc. Heck most base games don't cover more than a few months. If BF decides it wants to cover any of that it would be a specific family per each....not that I would have a problem with that.

That was my best chuckle of the day. thx!

Just to be clear, I don't know if that is final count however the cost of a module is not simply the scenario/campaign content (other than specific battlepacks) , it is the work BF has to do... and CMFI has been a b***H.

Have all items and not having any issues with mine. Have you had any PC updates or graphic card updates recently? I'd gather your specs and turn in a ticket with the helpdesk as they have a lot more exposure to issues and possible culprits.

see pm

Making a Sergeant a contract soldier versus a conscript does not result in anything different unless you treat the position different. That is a bigger cultural issue in how officers approach the position. Other pieces can also give one perspective for example what is the retention rate for enlistment. Is that reflective of interest in the position or lack of general opportunity in the economy etc. Data may be hard to get, this is a link for US service reenlistment rates that seems to be relatively current. https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Awr9CWz5NBVdPg0ApARXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEwbHI2ZzczBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNyZWwtYm90?p=us+army+reenlistment+rate+sergeants+association+2018+schedule&ei=UTF-8&fr2=rs-bottom%2Cp%3As%2Cv%3Aw%2Cm%3Aat-s&fr=opensearch The link may be funky but I did find the doc Saying essentially Russia is a fully modern army should be able to compete on equal footing because they can …….ride a train. Doesn't inspire much confidence. Snap drills versus what we do with regular rotations in our national training areas is like night and day. there needs more actual data based on actual experience if you want to make an argument for BF to change the models in game for capability. Re enlistement rates.pdf

Wasn't using it as a particular argument for that, simply saying stated Russian capability versus the reality is sometimes quite a different kettle of fish. Can someone show what real life Russian capability in response time is given real battlefield conditions? US at least has some projections based on actual combat from veterans who contribute feedback to BF. Not sure we have the same data cycle when it comes to Russian experience.

It isn't just an issue of technical equipment but also in use. Russia severely lacks the experienced NCO capability of the US forces and that significantly affects how you can use the capabilities you might have. Sending a smoking stink hole of a carrier to support troops in Syria also didn't inspire much confidence in the "modern" Russian military. Yeah the balance point should likely be a little more in Russia's favor particularly as their better troops would presumably be deployed for a head on conflict as represented in CMBS, but you can't ignore the reality that it is an army still struggling to transition with layers of bureaucracy and corruption impeding that transition.

For a guy sitting sidelined for a serious medical issue you are getting far too worked up. We'd like you to be around a bit longer so please try to mellow down a bit. If you don't we'll have to speak to the nursing staff about cutting off your wifi privileges.

Yeah unfortunately not likely. As @Xorg_Xalargskynoted CMSF2 is pretty much considered done as in no more future content. It would have to be under some other new CM family and if that is even a glimmer of a thought for BF they haven’t told anyone.

I took a quick look, assuming the old files I have are correct there are 2 versions, one with EW, one w/o. The US player has 155mm arty support and organic 120 mm mortars off board. As far as I can tell the AI plan does not have the enemy aggressively responding into player set up zones and those areas are in depressions to conceal. I do recall playtesting this one and having a blast. I don't recall any issues at all with my set up areas. I may have to play this campaign again as I really liked it.

Yes I have the full stack pole collection. Great reading!

Don't get me wrong, the game may be a lot of fun and there are definitely folks who will like it and probably consider it the best WW 2 game they have ever played. However I think you are correct, it is the nature of RTS that you loose a lot just trying to keep up with the action. Also it isn't clear to me how much of an editor it has. Unit formations for example are a "deck" It kind of reminds me of Close Combat Campaigns. Also the statement "25 maps" infers there is no map editor. As has been said on this forum by others there is a whole other game in CM with the editor. Case in point - I watched and read Generation Kill and thought that could be an interesting campaign. Marine Recon mounted in Humvees advancing on the backroads through Iraq with the express intent of confusing the enemy and well... running blindly into them. So I plodded through various maps edited a few and came up with a core unit. I took a US Marine Bn and added vehicles to the platoons, dismounted the crews and spread the Marines through the vehicles.....and presto- Generation Kill. (No Sgt you can't save the scenario as such, you have to do the dismount etc in the first turn... still) I can even rename the team leaders to reflect the actual individuals. I don't believe there is another tactical combat game out there even close to this versatility AND has wego.

There seems to be a genre of RTS games like that. Personally I don't consider them real alternatives or competition to CM. Graphically they have lots of glam, but playwise they don't compare. Twitch games have an audience for sure, just not necessarily the same audience.