sburke

They never did “appoint” anyone, Chris just enjoyed doing it. From BFs perspective that is way way way down the scales of a productive use of very stretched resources and likely not something anyone on these forums would consider paying for. Hell we bitch about upgrades having to be paid for. So yeah I’d bet the answer to that is no.

Wait a minute, if there is a power outage then I can’t play CM? Damn maybe we should surrender now.

Check your download directory. This is typically a problem with the brz files. Either they aren’t all there or you have some crossover with another combat mission game.

And frankly BFs implementation is not particularly difficult. If you find the current licensing model that hard, I can’t imagine how you manage to play the game.

open a ticket and stop being frustrated. It actually isn't that hard. Not dumping on ya, just noting that the system has gotten much better and with a little guidance from BF you'll be up and running and a happy gamer.

mmmm I am not so sure about that one. Yeah fire can be fairly common, but any footage? Nah. Would I like it.. maybe. But if I take a frame rate hit that limits map sizes and density (forests are already an issue, forests on fire will likely cause a lot more crashes) I think you'd have folks wondering quickly what the toggle key is to turn it off. Yeah they had in CM1, but that honestly really means nothing. Different engine, different requirements. I am with MikeyD on this that odds are I would want it shut off pretty quickly and be using it very very sparingly. But yeah, it would look cool.

hehe your age is showing there. I have visions of my father threatening to toss his Christmas present VCR out onto the lawn when he couldn't figure out the instructions. I reload and relicense CM as much if not more than most here. Between beta testing, upgrading my PC, doing new hard drive configurations etc and CM has gotten pretty darn easy.You download the full installer and you use the activate short cuts for the modules you have purchased. If you are having to change things on your machine to get it working, you are likely f**king up your machine independently of the game. As one who is getting close to retirement I sympathize. I am sure I'll be there soon enough...

more like - damn do I have to pull my mods now.... kidding.

I look at it this way. You probably just avoided calling in an air strike which would drop one bomb, miss and then declare “i’m Winchester” at which point you’d probably drop kick your pc. CM just saved you the cost of a pc. You are welcome.

"just happened to come into possession of"? You stole a busted T34?

wait I thought your secondary weapon was the tank itself- grind em under the tracks.

yeah didn't know his rep, but I have heard of Stalin, Kruschev and Zhukov so the point I think it well supported even outside that guy. How about Medvedev, Zhores A? Looking up his bio seems reputable and I love that quote true or not. LOL Saw your correction. Yeah I would say the US armored Division was a better asset (caveat I am a total armchair historian with no credentials or experience). Why? Because it had the logistical support to do what it needed to do. The Panther was hands down a better tank in the purely tactical sense, but that didn't help which is why I don't sweat this "Russia had these huge tanks that would chew up the US armor". The tank is only part of the equation and the thrashing that the US and France gave to the brigades Germany fielded in the Lorraine shows what happens when you use good equipment poorly. Now going east.. the one item that gives me a different view of the western allies versus the German experience is again logistical. The allies could supply their armies through the Baltic ports and do so on a scale Germany could never have conceived of. A thrust through Estonia etc towards St Petersburg would not have the same logistical train issue that Germany faced. The US could also consider opening a second front through the Crimea using naval assets from the Pacific. Again doing supply in a way Germany could never consider. It would be a different war against an adversary with far different capabilities than Germany. No offense to the Russian Military and it's achievements, but I don't think it would stand a chance. The western allies fought major wars on opposite sides of the globe. Concentrating those assets towards one adversary would have been overwhelming.

most people when they are not contesting a point say something like, yeah I agree, or true, or something to show they actually agree. they don't present counters or alternate data etc etc. My angle now is to bow out of this as I am confused now as to what the point of this is.. other than to say I think we all want CMRT units in CMFB... likely won't ever see it, but what the heck.

Really? Who is everybody else? Germany and Japan? I don't think they fared too well.

yeah really sucks that they could only drop 5,000 lbs of bomb per bomber on Moscow taking off from anywhere from Norway to Iraq... and oh wait, they weren't going to Moscow, turns out they were going to the Baku oilfields and were carrying incendiaries..... Point is that the US airforce was capable of reaching out to ANY target up to and including Moscow. What the target would be ...... so what does the Red Air force do? Disperse?

I am not sure why you keep reminding me of that. The only thing I have said about Nukes is that the USSR would need to attack before that projection of 1948 as they had no nuke of their own and by 1948 The US would have more than a few. One nuke is all they would need to take out a pretty good chunk of the Red Army concentrated for an offensive. They wouldn't need to go to Moscow. My argument is more focused on the sheer logistical juggernaut the Russians would face. They had beaten a Country that was it's own worst enemy when it came to production. They were not going to fare that well against the greatest industrial power the world had ever known. Hell the US built 24 Essex class carriers by 1945. The US Army was an extremely mobile veteran organization at this point with an air force and Navy to back them up that was overwhelmingly way more powerful than Russia. Look at your chart - peak production from Russia 40,000 airframes, peak production US and UK over 120,000. And unlike Germany, the US could hit some those factories. I wouldn't count on that peak production lasting. I don't think it is an issue of the US "eventually" overwhelming the Red Air Force. It would happen rather fast. I don't say that because I discount Russian experience, bravery or air frames. It is just they were going up against a far more powerful force that was not at the end of a long logistical train that was vulnerable. The US could and would hit the major train yards for sure. They would also be hitting the oil fields so from a logistical standpoint alone, the Russians would 1 have to spread themselves to cover a lot of vulnerable locations and 2 do so without the logistical supplies they had been getting from the west. Losses would not be able to be made up as quickly etc. As to striking Moscow. Forget Nukes, just a straight out raid. Saipan to Tokyo is roughly 2500km. Go to google earth and take a line 2500 km long line and see just how many directions the US could launch from (hint Norway to Iraq). The Red air force was never forced to protect all that terrain. Protect the oil, protect Moscow, protect the rail yards...... choices choices..... oh crap we forgot to protect the artillery park..... A significant portion of the factories from the Ukraine went to the Caucasus. Imagine when those carriers show up with some 2000 combat aircraft.... I am not sure where you heard differently about artillery - take the below with a grain of salt, however it is consistent with material I have read on German experience in the west. Considering it is subjective and hearsay I doubt we'll be able to establish a convincing case either way. https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-German-soldiers-of-WWII-think-of-British-US-Canadian-and-Soviet-soldiers Soviet artillery did not receive the kind of respect British and American gunners did, because despite the Soviets being able and willing to mass vast quantities of guns and munitions to support attacks, the lack of radios and trained forward observers (typically officers, and thus a victim of Stalin’s purges) meant that Soviet artillery had no flexibility or responsiveness. There was no ability to adjust fire, no ability to call in sudden support. Once a fire program was set, generally days in advance, there was no changing it. When the Germans learned of a coming attack, which they regularly did thanks to a well-trained radio intercept service that had many personnel fluent in Russian, as well a limited number of Russian radios, generally belonging to higher headquarters, to listen for, some German commanders would simply have their troops vacate their positions immediately prior to the attack, letting the Soviets waste their lengthy preparatory barrage on an empty position. When the barrage lifted, the Germans, waiting just beyond the zone of fire, would re-infiltrate their own position, taking the new Soviet occupiers by surprise and driving them out with heavy losses. Sometimes, this scenario would unfold several times in a row in the fight for a given defensive line, because even when the Soviets understood what was happening, their was nothing they could do about it.

Romeo, oh Romeo, wherefore art.... BAM!

I am aware of a lot of things, and I can be daft if I want to You brought up the game as an example not me. If it wasn't to make a point in this discussion then I'd say it was misleading and out of place. When those uber Russian tanks are out of gas it really won't matter what gun or armor they have. It wasn't like the Allies hadn't already run up against an opponent with heavier tanks...they managed then too. One mistake I think you make is you presume all the good aspects of how things went for post war Russia are still there and all the bad things go away or can be ignored. If the war was not going to occur until 1948 when the uber sneaky Russian were "ready" I am afraid they were already screwed as the nukes now become a much more serious affair. Either Russia commits to an immediate offensive in 1945 for whatever reason we are projecting for the war to continue or they don't do it at all. 1945 was the only time to do it where there was a slender chance of trying to shoot for the Rhine. Russia didn't have a successful nuclear test until August 1949. I don't care if Russia supplied Tito with tanks,. the question was who's side would Tito fight for if Russia went to war with the allies. He wasn't exactly enamored with Russia. Neutrality is the most likely option. Though he did actually fight the allies in some skirmishes after the end of the war. That is different than actually declaring war though. Tito was the chief architect of the second Yugoslavia, a socialist federation that lasted from November 1942 until April 1992. Despite being one of the founders of Cominform, he became the first Cominform member to defy Soviet hegemony in 1948 and the only one in Joseph Stalin's time to manage to leave Cominform and begin with its own socialist program with elements of market socialism. Stop sending people to kill me. We've already captured five of them, one of them with a bomb and another with a rifle. [...] If you don't stop sending killers, I'll send one to Moscow, and I won't have to send a second. — Josip Broz Tito[132] (^ Medvedev, Zhores A.; Medvedev, Roy A.; Jeličić, Matej; Škunca, Ivan (2003). The Unknown Stalin. Tauris. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-58567-502-9.) As to the artillery, uh yeah. Really you think the Russians were even close to the proficiency of Allied artillery? Even the Germans said they had never experienced anything like what they got hit with in the west. They would presumably be the best ones to compare. Russia was good for a static barrage to launch an offensive, but once the lines started moving forget it. And the odds they would get away with the tactics they used on the Germans is slim to none. Allied airpower would be roaming the battlefield looking for those supply convoys artillery trains etc and there is no way in hell I think the Russians were up to facing the full might of allied air power. The US produced some 200,000 combat aircraft in WW2. As Stalin supposedly said: "Quantity has a quality all it's own". And that quantity was of a very high quality as well. Time on target, proximity fuses, counter battery...... I mean geez the Russians being better? One word - communications net.... okay two words. If you really think the Russians were more proficient in artillery I think I will pass you the daft cap. - but only if you promise to give it back. if you want your own you'll have to register with the Daft Board.

Just some perspective on what Russia was capable of if NOT for US Aid.. which would kind of come to a halt in a war .... my bold Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers decreased severely production of non-essentials, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military-industrial complex. For example, the USSR was very dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically ended rail equipment production. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war,[24] with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945.[25] In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease,[23] including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars[26] which augmented the existing prewar stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.[27] Furthermore, much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed, by 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.[28] Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 13% of Soviet wartime aircraft production.[23] And while most tank units were Soviet-built models, some 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks were deployed by the Red Army, or 8% of war-time production. According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war: Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs: In a confidential interview with the wartime correspondent Konstantin Simonov, the famous Soviet Marshal G.K. Zhukov is quoted as saying: Net conclusion- if Zhukov felt that Russia would have been defeated by Germany without Lend lease, how well would they have done against the allies without it....

basing what might have happened on a game with scripting that is questionable is not a very valid historical argument. Regarding Soviet military capability. I think you highly over rate what Russia would have been capable of with out lendlease. Forget RR stock replacement, food stuffs, critical components, oil industry would be devastated as ASL vet noted. The thought that there would be uprisings all over the British empire gives way way too much credence to Comintern capabilities (a fortnight? You realize this is not the internet age right? How did those units even get info in 2 weeks?) As it was they had already done as much as they could given their logistical reach. To think they would do more in an active war footing scenario is pretty funny. Every single Russian Embassy would have been shut down depriving them of a base for activities. Makes one wonder about Tito with allies in the west. Not to mention, the Soviets would actually be even more vulnerable to an anti Russian partisan movement in Poland and the Ukraine. So you have a Russian army in Germany under assault from everything the Allies can throw at it with a logistical supply line going back to the Urals that is under attack throughout Poland and the Ukraine while US carrier groups are raiding the Baltic coast all the way back to St Petersburg...mmm I am not thinking this is a winning scenario. The Russians had never experienced the artillery power of the west either. That was gonna be a real bad experience as Russian artillery capabilities weren't even close. As to the Soviets taking Hamburg. No not in the 1940's. With the full might of US and Allied armies still in Europe (that were far more mobile and with a logistical base the Soviets couldn't even begin to hope to match) and the Soviets facing a logistical burden trying to keep supplies coming east (yeah that is more what ASL Vet is referring to - think Normandy prior to D Day when the US air force targeted every RR route coming in towards the front.) As to China taking Taiwan.. How did that happen when they couldn't do it in real life and wanted to? How did they manage in your game with no navy or air force to speak of? Mind you that wouldn't stop me for a moment in wanting CMRT units in CMFB.

Well you'll have to convince Steve. he actually works off their real numbers and he says.. nope. Consensus is irrelevant unfortunately if that consensus is not shared by BF.

Ha love that movie!

Yeah really. If this is limited to just BF replies then they might as well lock up the thread and start a new one when they have news. Some people just go through life with a chip on their shoulder. Anything that generates additional excitement for the products BF has commented on here is a win as far as I see it. Looking forward to what you do next with CMSF2 @Sgt.Squarehead Mosul was fantastic, with all the new options the next will be even more so.

Heck who cares who attacks who, the idea was for BF to just introduce the material, no extra effort so their costs and effort are kept to a minimum. You could just assume it was a case of total miscalculation and combat getting out of control. The US didn’t have the bomb ready to deploy in the pacific till August and even then very few. So the allies hit Germany in 1945, Russia is suspicious, Patton goes bonkers, the 82nd drops into Berlin there are no nukes for 3 months at least....... sounds like it works for me! Now that is dreaming

I used to be a big advocate for this. What finally changed my mind was playing around with various scenarios to try it using different existing games. The biggest issue is how the game engine handles different terrain and vegetation. Examples you are in a field of elephant grass. You can’t area fire towards a known enemy location because you can’t see the base tile. Pretty similar to issues right now with grain fields forget actual jungle, it becomes tedious. Fortifications aren’t up to par for what we need calling in artillery would have to mean putting in a bunch of TRPs as you can’t use grid coordinates. Maybe at some future point it might be tenable but if they were to try and do it now I think most would be disappointed with the result. For sure there are many battles you could do, but the number of things that would not work well is daunting. Pretty much some of the same issue with doing WW2 pacific. Sure there are many engagements possible, but some really iconic ones would not work. That then impacts sales and the viability of taking on the effort. BF doesn’t need more ideas. They already have a project list. We (myself included) need to temper our wishes with the financial and resource limitations that BF has or we will simply continue to be the source of our own disappointment. What I would love to see that I think is not too much of a stretch is some unit/ToE packs that would alllow us to expand what if scenarios without BF having to take on a full game. Simple example. Add the Russian forces from CMRT to CMFB. That would allow players to do some really fun stuff. Yes totally fiction even, but I think it would be a big seller.