sburke

if you have never done a scenario you are definitely biting off too much hopping immediately to a campaign. The biggest hurdle in designing seems to be mostly based on folks being overly ambitious their first time out. You set yourself up for failure. I'd suggest learning to design a scenario first and once you've nailed down those mechanics you can set your sights on a campaign. You'll have a much better idea whether your campaign missions will or will not meet the expectations you might have now. There is a guide from JonS on Scenario design in CMBN.

CMSF is premised on a fictional war in Syria 2008 not 2018. That is not changing.

It is official, actually a while ago but us old folks need a sticky thread if we are gonna be expected to remember stuff http://community.battlefront.com/announcement/18-new-repository-and-opponent-finder/

Excellent, long overdue!

There is a cost to everything. Stopping to change the engine would have meant stopping the release of new games and if there is one thing I think we can all agree on is our intake of new product from BF sometimes feels like a crash diet. Within that CM is still one of the most stable games I have. I get crashes quite frequently with others and it takes a lot for me to cause that with CM. I pretty much have to keep loading really big maps in the editor to 3d view over and over.

Interestingly in CMSF AT weapons actually seem a bit stronger than what I glean from reading on events in Iraq. Some of that has to do with experience levels of the insurgents.

Actually have no problem with that statement snowflake, but you seem unable to understand the point and not be so subjective. But hey good idea, Burke’s diplomacy award. Today’s award goes to bulletpoint!

Exactly my point about better optics etc. the M1 of CMBS is not the M1 of CMSF. To compare the two and expect BF to patch CMBS to make it act like CMSF mises the point of the state of things for CMSF. Personally this is one of the reasons I prefer CMSF. Advances in technology make the game (CMBS) and combat into something that is just a bit sci if and for me anyway less appealing. In CMBS I tend to stay more infantry focused. (Well even more infantry focused than normal j

CMBN starts in June. It sounds like somehow the map that got selected is somehow flagged for the vehicle pack. Doesn’t make much sense, but then again we’d need to ask the qb guru on that.

Really, that is your response? Okay so I expect you will be able respond with the same diplomacy as bulletpoint did when someone responds to you with things like what a bs, get a clue. Also wonders me that a guy with 3k posts still has troubles like this. Using the term snowflake when requested for a little more use of civility isn’t exactly a grown up response.

Thanks @Bulletpoint @MANoWAR.U51no need to get hyper aggressive. Even if you disagree with him you don’t need to make it personal. Relax

I suspect what he is referring to is the much better optics and responses in CMBS. It reflects a decade of technology improvement. CMSF2 ATGM weapons working “better” has nothing to do with anything in the engine, it has to do with the tech available in 2008 versus 2017. So no there is no planned patch to make CMBS “dumber”. You want dumber, play an older environment. Welcome to CMSF!

I am finding that movie mode somehow looks better in CMSF2 for me as well. I've started viewing stuff in that mode more. Bil you dastardly sneak!

DLing now! Thanks @IICptMillerII

They won't. The only mods you might be able to count on is Kieme's buildings, maybe some sound mods, nothing vehicle or infantry related. The models are all new. Modding has never been a matter of need so much as want so I expect we will see some, how much they can do always surprises me. The uncons do look good, but I am sure that won't stop some enterprising soul with a few different ideas.

I would stick to this thread- seems to be where Steve is answering these questions

My guess would be it would be roughly comparable to other games. Base games generally go for 60, modules for 35 and bundles for somewhat less.

CMSF2 will not require a functioning CMSF install. It is complete in itself. The only thing your CMSF license determines is your discount. As to mods,yeah I’d say most mods for CMSF will not work in CMSF2

umm after 10 years I'd say pretty clear- overly ambitious and it died. Sadly You can fake it as a few have done, but nothing real time

yeah I don't see much reason to unbutton a LAV, I expect it actually lowers your optics. Still it would be better to have their posture be more realistic.

agreed @sttp and in that vein Welcome to the forum @EpicFlamo

Internet archive reveals all and that thread is definitely worth reading. Like good wine it gets better over time. All the ice cream truck pics alone were worth their weight in forum gold and for those who didn’t get to enjoy

Not sure but one of the reasons for using iron mode is to more explicitly see what info units are getting from C2, but if you are really into the role playing side you can use the soft factors to decide how quickly a particular unit can process orders or even if they will respond correctly for modern generally you theoretically have better comms, but the issues Joker 1 had for example in Ramadi trying to establish comm links is hard to replicate in CM. Trying to overrule our god mode view is the heart of all these role playing concepts - instantaneous reactions, absolutely correct location info etc. one issue I know I struggle with is understanding how quickly a QRF might be expected to take to rollout much less how long it would take to appear on map. Mogadishu is another good example. Getting lost, missing turns etc. it just doesn’t happen in CM but there are ways of kind of forcing it in a scenario. You can force some improvisation in CM using obstacles but you never really get lost.

I feel a discussion of the nuclear armed ice cream trucks comimg

that was just mean. and by mean I was referring to your backhand way of reminding me how old I am. Get off my virtual lawn.