sburke

No, because if they had to expand it we would not have gotten it at all. This is one of those where you either see the glass as having something of value, or you simply get no glass. Considering BF is already going to be discounting this for all current CMSF owners and they aren’t even sure financially how it is going to work out, the fact that they even decided to do this for all those who are avid CMSF fans is pretty awesome. It is an amazing demonstration of their appreciation for their user community and a major undertaking on their part. To try and put a negative spin on that is kind of lame.

using fraps on windows 10 as well, no issues.

can you give a specific example (date selection)? I tried a few random ones and am not seeing this.

open a ticket with the helpdesk, there isn't a good logical reason that I know of for 2 CM games at the same version and having an issue with one opening scenarios.

play something else? yeah I know not the answer anyone wanted to hear. There are a bunch of things I'd like to see BF do but honestly I barely have enough time as it is. I am already having to choose between titles. Once CMSF2 is out I know where most of my time will be spent.

I think we are kind of talking past one another here. I agree that Pacific fighting was not all about Jungle warfare. I did not say it couldn't be done JUST because of Jungle warfare. What I don't agree with is considering the scale of the theater it is remotely comparable to the types of non Jungle like combat you see in EU (maybe an obvious point as there aren't any jungle in Europe... durh). I realize maybe the jungle angle is a bit overdone, however the fact is the primary areas of combat for US and Commonwealth forces were New Guinea, the Philippines, Burma and the island hopping. There is some basis of truth to characterizations of the pacific theater as jungle warfare. The point is for the average CM purchaser, the types of combat and inability to duplicate certain content and combat techniques are going to limit the appeal. Yes you can do Manila, maybe Singapore, Hong Kong even for urban combat. China is a whole other aspect that while I might find interesting, the Japan/China conflict is not going to be a big seller. For Marine units the non island hopping combat is going to be pretty negligible. Not non existent, just what the average purchaser is going to expect. Japanese tanks while cool looking sucked for most of the war. The number of issues that CM does not handle well is daunting for the theater and that is problematic. So I think bottom line is you and I agree that the theater is not likely a financial winner for BF. Yes there is some variety of combat, but not to the extent needed for your average wargame purchase. That financial hole is BF's problem. It just isn't going to generate the return. Still I'd love to see WW2 Marine units in CM..... somehow..... I can still fondly remember opening up my ASL box and comparing the firepower of the Marines to standard US squads... if only the Marines had done the Normandy landing..... I have to admit to doing just that with ASL. on a total tangent, does anyone remember the old Microsoft game Task Force 1942? Nice combo of naval warfare, troop supply and resource management (basically struggling to keep your ships functional and able to support the 1st Marines). Cool game for it's time. Still available despite being 20+ years old.

Think about it, that was all you could come up with in 4 years of combat, you are making the opposite point of what you intend. That there are examples is not what anyone is denying, what they are saying is there are very very few in the scheme of things.

No we aren’t ignoring it, but the reality is there are limits. Manila was one of the few if not only large urban engagements. Players like tanks... there were exceedingly few armor engagements especially if you don’t include the early Russia engagements. Over the course of 1940 to 1945 the vast majority of US and commonwealth engagements were jungle fighting or island assaults. Yeah I am sure you can find some examples of other type battles, but if you apply the same logic to CMBN how well would it sell if you could only portray maybe 25% of combat? Seriously a pacific game where even Guadalcanal is difficult to game? Forget Tarawa or Iwo. Even the Burma campaign would be difficult. I have long advocated a CM Vietnam game but have since come to a similar conclusion. CM just wouldn’t be able to do it justice so why invest effort and time when there are other areas that could be done..... Fulda Gap!

Well until you try it...... I have and it wasn’t nearly as interesting as I thought it might be. You are limited to engagements that happen with some reasonably clear terrain. That pretty much eliminates a good portion of the pacific theater. Throw in that extreme rarity of tanks, inability to properly simulate defenses, no close quarters combat etc and the financial piece starts really sounding questionable. Unless you can convince BF that they should create it at a loss I don’t see getting any traction.

I am not sure what your confidence is placed in. Try it with one of the existing titles and see what you come away with.

Actually I don’t think the issue is their interest level but more a question of the financial viability. The product has to sell well enough to make the effort worthwhile. There are some of us who would definitely buy it, but I suspect the view is not enough of us. That and as was noted above certain aspects simply can not be simulated limiting what the game could actually cover. also as a side note I have experimented with jungle type terrain fighting in other titles just trying to get perspective. It really is not all that appealing. Basically imagine setting scenario parameters to where visibility is measured in a few meters then try playing with a battalion of infantry. Because of fortification issues you can’t really portray the island hopping - end result is you are not left with much.

I am totally there with you! I also wish there was some means of Infantry going over a tall wall with some kind of penalty, but that would require new animations etc.

Yep same book

Just re read The March Up - Taking Baghdad with the US Marines. 2 Items jump out. In one instance an M1 had old swollen 120 mm rounds. It locked up in the breach. The loader hopped out and cleared it through the barrel. second item, the FAC that rode with the armor unit took the position of the loader in the tank he was assigned to (seems they figured he could at least be able to load a round) those sound like 2 decent reasons for keeping the loader around not to mention the maintenance work that the tank overall require- oh yeah someone already mentioned that... that alone seems to be a really really good reason for keeping that extra set of hands around.

hmm interesting as I am noticing some less than stellar behavior in certain instances as well. So far none affecting CM though.

to @panzersaurkrautwerfer's point If you want to understand the SBCT you need to do a little more reading than just looking at vehicles. The concept that it evolved from is almost 25 years old now. If you want to read a good document on development of the concept and it's eventual deployment and combat experience you can pick it up for $3 on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/transformation-combat-first-Stryker-brigade/dp/B003HKRPNA The concept was 6 years in the making before the vehicle was decided upon. The MGS was the most problematic variant and should give pause to those trying to fit the concept with heavier weapons than fit that concept. For those critical of the Stryker, it's initial evaluation from the NTC OPFOR is interesting. Although Millennium Challenge 2002 demonstrated the brigade's capabilities on only a small scale and minor problems with equipment occurred, the units that deployed did well in the exercise. After the first simulated mission, the soldiers of the National Training Center's permanent Opposing Force, the 11th Armored Cavalry, noted that the Stryker went places at greater speeds and with less noise and more agility than any vehicle they had previously encountered. The vehicle's digital communications suite also permitted it to call quickly for a lethal array of supporting fire. As a result, the 11th Cavalry began preparing for the full brigade's upcoming certification exercise at Fort Irwin long before it would have done so for a Bradley- or M1-equipped unit. Department of Defense. From Transformation to Combat: The First Stryker Brigade at War - The Test of Combat in Iraq in 2003 - 2004, Mosul, Baghdad, An Najaf, Tall Afar, Carter Ham (Kindle Locations 260-265). Progressive Management. Kindle Edition.

As Ian noted - yes they do and once the 4.0 patch is released all new downloads will include the patch. That is BFs new (er) way of doing it. The full downloads are all up to latest versions. If you had downloaded 4.0 to get through your previous problems you do not need to reactivate anything if you purchase a newer module, you just need to use the activation shortcut to activate that module. You don't even need to download anything as the full download already includes everything, it just needs activation of newly purchased material.

You guys really need to get past the pics. This is beginning to look like an Otaku site with a bunch of nerdy kids wanting anime manga girls. Yes there are female CM players and no this does not improve on the image of male players.

I think you are too personally invested in the suggestion you are making. You set a situation as one necessary for AFV design but the view of most here is that is not how you design a vehicle. You design it to assume a particular function. Taking it out of that function and creating an unusual situation is not then the basis for designing the vehicle. The assumption is flawed. That is all folks are saying. There isn’t the same interest to redesign an AFV which does not start from what is its primary function. Dont get too wrapped up in it.

Yeah I am totally confused by the supposition. How the hell did the vehicle survive if all the infantry which is the very reason the vehicle existed are dead? If you wanted a tank why didn’t you start with a tank. You’d have saved a few lives in infantry. I think i am I am starting to slip into a rabbit hole of non logic. @MOS:96B2P can you share some of that popcorn? I actually hate the stuff but if I keep my pie hole full maybe it will save me from further confusion.

If the vehicle is carrying javelin armed infantry why does it need to have its own heavy AT weapon (that then requires additional ammo storage space, weight etc). For example your statement about being able to set up and manage the vehicle weapons system remotely looks like a messed up reverse engineering of a dismounted Javelin team Trying to create a vehicle capable of all things means it likely does none of them individually well. i think this is actually one of the weaknesses of Russian vehicle design (and some western ones as well). Too many things are piled onto a vehicle without making sure it does it’s original intended role first. Too many compromises leads to a vehicle that can’t accomplish it’s original mission.

Forget it, even if you could you’d be stuck with the whole family of knuckleheads. This is one of those moments where you just back away slowly and hope no one notices you.

One of if not my favorite CMBS scenario.

Did you open the ticket with BF?

Yeah I think the actual boat crossing wouldn’t be that appealing to play. Just getting shot at for an extended amount of time. There is a reason it is considered an amazing feat. I think even C3k’s men would object.