sburke

If you own CMSF and all 3 modules, CMSF2 and all 3 modules will cost you $35. It is a little weird looking at it if you ignore the big bundle upgrade it appears as if it is $45........ don’t ignore the big bundle you get $10 off “Yup, for $35 you can Upgrade the CMSF2 Base Game Engine 4, Marines, British Forces, and NATO in one go. Upgrades can not be preordered, so for those of you looking to Upgrade you should skip the preorder and wait until things start shipping. “

I have suppressed enemy infantry in an adjoining room by area firing into a room while adjacent and outside. It is standard practice now for me to enter a room if I don’t think I have cleared the enemy completely from the area.

There are no IEDs in CMBS. Are you posting in wrong forum?

US expects to have air supremacy. Question is more appropriate to ask which adversary would you realistically expect to see a threat from. Answer hint. If you are the army the next biggest air threat would be US Marine aviation.

You really do need to give up your abacus.

The cloud will solve all your problems.

Lol I love that movie!

It gave Steve the excuse to sample beers there while doing “research”. If he were more into wine the likelihood would have been we would have seen the French army.

I think the volume of lead led to slaughter. Lead poisoning.......

Question - If the unit settings and clock were changed would it change your opinion of the worst battles? Both are easily done in the editor if you so choose. 2 of the 4 that seems to be an option. Highly recommend tailoring a scenario to suit yourself. Hey you paid for it, you earned the right.

I routinely take scenarios I really like and if they don't have multiple AI plans, I add them. It really is easy to do with the copy and paste function. Just copy existing plan, paste, then make a few different edits to each one and bingo, now you don't know for sure how the enemy is gonna behave. And being experienced doesn't mean I don't get burned CM has a way of punishing you no matter how experienced you think you are when you get lax. Also one thing I don't get wrapped up into too much is "winning". I play mostly to see the action. If I get to the end of a scenario and haven't met the victory conditions it doesn't much matter to me as long as I enjoyed it. Yeah I am probably odd man out but the victory point tally at the end of a scenario is the least interesting thing to me (unless I want to see how a specific unit functioned).

no new animations that are not in the other CMx2 4.0 titles.

My attitude in testing is any scenario I can beat in anything short of a difficult slug the first time is too easy. Not much replay value. The first time should be hard, preferably very hard.

interesting thing to post in the midst of a Romaine Salmonella crisis

Helpdesk ticket- only place that can answer that but one question. Are you worried about it's license relative to CMSF2? If so you needn't worry they are totally separate. CMSF is not at all under the new license system, but CMSF2 is.

Not me. I wanted to play the Marines. I was psyched when ASL released Gung Ho.

No Bil, that is just a map of your fan club membership.

The surrendering items are not a rough cut. That is how it works in all 4.0 titles. It is not the best solution, but I think the best of available options. That they won’t complete the surrender gives you intel on possible other units. Not very sporting but I just write it off that they blabbed to my guys to save their skins. And you do need to do the clearing otherwise you turn your back and those guys will end up attacking you.

No his pixeltruppen have been working on getting in touch with their emotional side. Next up they will be doing mindfulness.

Hell yeah. The CMSF scenarios got a lot of attention. You may have seen some of the comments from MikeyD. Back then folks were just learning and had many more limitations on what they could even do. If folks concern on this issue was restricted to early CMSF I would think this would no longer be an item but from some of the comments it isn’t clear that is the case. It does also vary based on the user. The same scenario can have one player frustrated there isn’t enough time and another forced to do a ceasefire to end as they have eliminated the enemy, but are now just standing around. With the current limitations it is hard to satisfy both perspectives.

I have to ask this with all the hue and cry and yeah this might be a bit much to ask but I am going to anyway. Which scenarios are folks saying suffer from this timeline issue? We are ranting in generalities here and the way folks are expressing it they apparently feel this is a very common practice. Generalities don't help though if person x and person y don't agree that timeline is an issue with scenario b. It would help me to have a sense of whether folks are actually in agreement on which scenarios have this as an issue. I realize this may be like lighting a match at a gas station, but without talking actual scenarios I can't tell you if I agree or not on any of this.

You could just as easily say that. Going back to an earlier point you may have passed over - opening the editor and adding however much time you want to a scenario takes all of a minute. Campaigns, yes that is a little more difficult, but I really don't get the gripe about scenario length when you have the tools in hand to adapt them to however you like with very very little effort. Now that we have established again that there is no real issue of cheap time limits (in scenarios) just folks who have not realized they have the tools to have their cake and eat it too, let's talk about the whole issue of real life and mission length. You have been given an objective that other actions are dependent on. You are not the main effort but your job is important for the main effort. Therefore you have to complete your mission by xx hour. That is a very possible mission that has a fixed time limit that you have to adhere to. Time is in fact your most critical item, achieving your objective late harms the main effort. I would accept the critique from veterans who could tell us - no how no way would that ever be how we would approach a mission. You never have an issue with taking however much time you need. If you have served, my apologies and let us know what your real world experience has been like. However from most of what I have read, unrealistic ,missions with poor intel and short timelines is not all that uncommon. Time constraints themselves are very common. I don't think I have ever read a mission report where someone was told, just get it done today. The commander of RCT-1 Col Joe Dowdy was relieved of command at least partially for the delay in punching through Al Nasiriyah in 2004. Here is the commander on an entire Marine RCT having to launch an attack through a built up area with an enemy of unknown size. He doesn't meet Gen Mattis timeframe for the mission and that's that. Now on the other hand not every mission should be like that. Variety is the spice of life. I have played plenty of missions that end up with an AI surrender with plenty of time left. I've also had plenty of missions where I have moved slowly early on and forced myself into a position of having to fight the clock to make my objectives. Now as an aside I do have one question - probably more for Mattis than you. In the statement below, what CM scenario had you storming 5 heavily defended villages in 45 minutes. I don't recall that one.

no one with a sense of humor should have zero reputation points!! Fixed!!!

no fair, you need to provide a link http://www.usmc1.us/marine-corps-five-5-paragraph-order-smeac

Ha well there is writing an AI plan and then there is writing a good AI plan. I am still working on the 2nd.