sburke

deleted. This isn't worth investing any effort in. I take that back, one thing is worth it. for the record. Other examples of passive-aggressive behavior might include avoiding direct or clear communication,.... playing the victim,.... sarcasm, backhanded compliments, and hiding anger.

you are so freakin passive aggressive. That wasn't an observation. it was a snot nose response worthy of a 5 year old. You want to play at that level do it with someone else.

tell ya what, I'll pm ya.

you are a real class act Erwin. Having a tough day trying to figure out what to complain about? Maybe you can join CarlWAW and decide the latest conspiracy theory about BF.

Please don't start that again. That has been debated so often here and every thread eventually gets locked because of it. BF has explicitly stated they are not interested. They have given reasons, but they frankly don't matter here as they aren't going to debate it and will simply close this thread when they get tired of us debating it. It isn't gonna happen.

I just tried a rough run. If you use the stone 24 bridge, set all the tiles around it to say 20 and the bridge endpoints do a ctrl click at 27 it fits pretty well with a 3 story building. You can adjust for lower if you want to stick with 2 story buildings, but the arch won't look as good. When you review it I think you may agree with combatinfman's observation that it is likely more than 2 story.

Perceptions can be very misleading. I have two neighbors on my street who have suddenly expressed interest and one is actively trying it. You’d never know that from a forum post so I pretty much distrust anyone telling me what they think is going on that does not have access to actual sales and download data. No offense but you and I don’t have anything but circumstantial data to work on. i do however agree that some new content could not possibly hurt. BF however is far more acutely aware of that than we are and has a lot more skin in the game. I have a lot of faith in their business acumen and track record. Their history speaks for itself.

lol you might be starting a meme.

Getting that arch in may be tough too. I tried a couple different options on one map but the closest I have seen for anyone succeeding was to use a bridge.

That is one of the cool things about this special is it is also provoking a discussion in Vietnam about whether the decisions by their leadership were correct and who actually made them. Was this in fact the best strategy to unite their country and how much responsibility do they own for it escalating the way it did. I have seen some of the criticisms and complaints that have been made about shortcomings in how Ken Burns focused the story, but if he has both Americans and Vietnamese debating the origins of such an enormously costly war, he scored pretty big.

How is comparing a completely different game relevant to this? I could just as well ask why are war in the east, war in the west and war in the pacific 3 different games? Pointless, they are not CM they don’t have the same issues and it does nothing to further this conversation.

Not sure what your point is. Maybe not ideal, but I don't think I have heard a better option from anyone who actually knows what the limitations are that drove BF's decision. As an example- you complained that having multiple families means wasted space on the hard drive for repeat files. Compare the size of the data folder to the over all game folder. I'll give you a hint - most of the game size is the data folder. Going back to your complaint. If everything was in one single Combat Mission game as individual modules and I did not want CMFI, I now have 10 gb of data unnecessarily. That is more than the rest of the files combined for every single family including modern. The data folder generally represents about 90% of the file size of the game. All told if you add up all the data files for the CMx2 families it is something like 47 gb. The alternative is to do what you complained about previously and keep the modules as separately downloadable. So which is it? How is breaking up the modules from what is now a single download for all of CMBN better? Another example - tank riders. Having CMRT as a separate family allowed BF to introduce them without impacting existing games. The single family model would have meant a discrepancy of behavior within the single game depending on which theater you selected and the time frame of that theater. The alternative is that BF would have to redesign ALL the models in the game and we would have even less content now. Rather than criticize BF's decision I'd like to hear someone explain how they would do it differently that would have worked better and not do it by making assumptions like "they could do it in CMx1 so obviously they should be able to do it with CMx2". BF explicitly said that wasn't an option so unless you think you know better than Steve how the game works, that is pretty much a non starter. For someone who says of course we understand about the ToEs, you seem to forget the ToE structure in CMx2 is very different from CMx1. Hell just look how much trouble the ToE difference in CMFI gave Steve in getting that game up to 4.0. You can't compare apples and oranges when you are baking lasagna.... or something like that... I don't consider myself an uber fanatic, but in looking at the constraints I would have to say I think BF made the right call. Would I like something simpler with everything in one place that allowed me to select Russians versus Americans in the editor? Oh man you bet your ass I would. I just take a step back though and look at what would have to work for that to happen. And what would have to happen is that Steve would have to be wrong. That isn't something I am likely to bet on. Besides is it really so difficult to have 4 shortcuts versus one?

Looks like ISIS morale is crumbling. There are still for sure going to be some diehards, but the collapse of the caliphate is here. What remains to be seen is what happens next. The underlying disaffection that feeds these organizations isn't changing so inevitably it will simply morph into something else given time and no change on the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/world/middleeast/isis-iraq-surrender.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0 For an extremist group that has made its reputation on its ferociousness, with fighters who would always choose suicide over surrender, the fall of Hawija has been a notable turning point. The group has suffered a string of humiliating defeats in Iraq and Syria, but the number of its shock troops who turned themselves in to Kurdish officials at the center in Dibis was unusually large, more than 1,000 since last Sunday. The fight for Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, took nine months, and by comparison, relatively few Islamic State fighters surrendered. Tal Afar fell next, and more quickly, in only 11 days. Some 500 fighters surrendered there. The Iraqi military ousted the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, from Hawija in 15 days, saying it had taken its forces only three days of actual heavy fighting before most of the extremists grabbed their families and ran. According to Kurdish officials, they put up no fight at all, other than planting bombs and booby traps.

They could theoretically do that with the license model as well, but BF has explicitly stated on several occasions that the issue is they can't build the game that way, not that they can't price it that way. They can't be any clearer about it yet people keep making this suggestion that somehow they could, but decided for pricing or some other reason that they didn't. It is a false assumption. We gamers seem to not understand that the game engine is dependent on a lot of things including the ToE structure. The ToE for even the German Army alone is all over the place throughout the war. That factor has been a big part of BF determining how the families get built. Folks might just want to consider some of the items BF has been pointing out that we seem to conveniently ignore if it disrupts our pet theories on why they do what they do.

There is no "complex system of upgrades and modules". There is a single download per family that you apply your license (s) against. Likely as simple as it can get. If you buy just the base game of CMBN you DL the same thing as if you download the big bundle. Your license decides what you get to play. Yes it did take some time to get to that point, but that has been the reality for a little while now.

not sure how you can conclude it would be easy when BF explicitly states that it would not. I appreciate your impatience, but that does not reflect BF "abandoning" CMBS. Hell look at how long it took between the first release of CMSF and CMBN coming out. Everyone is in your position regardless of which game family they prefer. Eastern Front folks waited a long time for Red Thunder. Those of us who really like Shock force have waited 6 years from the release of CMBN before we even heard BF would actually consider updating it to the current engine so if you want to start on the "abandoned" bandwagon, get in line. We CMSF fans were here first.

It has been 70 years since the US has been in a near peer conflict. What we have been in since is conflicts with countries that are nowhere close, but for various political issues have us fighting in environments where the AA threat is considerably higher than those countries alone would normally represent (N Korea, Vietnam, Serbia). Our aircraft can't be assumed to be operating in a low intensity environment even if we don't go toe to toe with China or Russia. What we need to be looking at is what kind of air defenses are potentially available to any adversary we face and then develop our armed forces accordingly. If the A 10 can only be expected to operate in a low intensity conflict then dollar wise it probably isn't a good spend in the long run. If you are fighting desert yahoos, the Apache seems to be a pretty good alternative. Not to mention a few drones loitering over the area. The limitations the A 10 has seem to be more an argument to figure out where can it be utilized and why can't one of our other weapons systems accomplish that same mission. If they can......

Believe or not Lagos makes that look like a veritable wide open freeway.

It contains everything. The language reflects when they first created the big bundle. BF doesn't always get back to all the fine details on the store page Note it says packs, I think you could make a pretty good case with them that even had they not intended it, they did say it. Just to be sure I'll point it out and see if you can't get confirmation from the horse's mouth.. uh sorry Steve no insult intended.... Best value! This Complete Edition Bundle contains it all: the base game and all modules (Commonwealth Forces and Market Garden), packs (Vehicle Pack) and uprgades (2.0 and 3.0) in one package, all updated to the very latest version! If you are new to Combat Mission Battle for Normandy, this is the one-stop-shop package for you, no patches or any other files required!

I think it is doable, in many ways more flexible than CMSF. What it lacks though is what I originally wanted... uncons I wasn't originally intending a US/Russia conflict. It is just all I ended up with as options. Basically it is a placeholder to play with until CMSF2 comes out. I also started a "Vietnam" map trying to see what I could do using CMFI (CMSF and CMBS weaponry is too advanced and CMSF just doesn't have the same terrain to utilize). I found I could create a very very dense forest using various foliage, heavy forest tiles and hedgerows placed to break up line of sight. In many ways it was too successful. I think I understand BF's reluctance to do a Vietnam era game- you'd end up with a lot of very close quarter battles that would get kind of repetitive. They'd also need to have really long scenarios if you wanted even a medium size battle. You spend a lot of time slowly marching through the jungle seeing nothing. Much as I thought I'd really love to see CM:Vietnam. Now I am not so sure... unless of course we could see Hueys hitting a hot LZ to drop troops! Yeah not likely....

I am not known for defending posts and links from JK (boy is that an understatement), but in this case I don't see anything wrong with the subject. He followed it up noting the author's credentials and maybe the author does have bias. Could one expect that would not come through from a Ukrainian patriot? Russia has done nothing to show any regard for Ukrainians other than try to project it's power. It has done so at great cost to Ukraine and particularly to the citizens in the East who now live in a frozen conflict war zone that only exists because Russia continues to feed in military supplies and troops. Your allegations earlier of "remember NATO marched pretty much to their border, member nations then interfered massively (both covertly and overtly) in the elections of a country very close to the Russian heartland, so Russia reacted and it all went tits up!" acts as if Russia suddenly reacted to Western activity and denies decades of Russian involvement and subversion of Ukrainian institutions and the actual reason NATO "marched", distrust by all the nations of the former Soviet sphere of influence. These were supposedly Russia's friends. Not to mention those allegations are questionable to begin with. It is exactly what you accused JK's post of and yet in your case you provided nothing other than an allegation and a very biased view of what Russia's activities in Ukraine have actually been. No NATO troops have been involved in this conflict and yet Russia's commitment of regular troops, downing of a civilian airliner, disruption of OSCE activities etc all get a pass. I mostly avoided getting involved as I saw this as another thread heading for the old "lock it up!" demise, but you can't criticize JK for behavior that you then double down on worse. When you live in a glass house..... put down that rock Eugene.... If you can't hold yourself to that higher standard that you infer he violated then you maybe really shouldn't be posting an objection. *shrug* As to it's relevance for CMBS, heck none of our discussion has any relevance. It is a tactical game. Bigger strategic even operational issues aren't necessarily important. Meanwhile I am working on a map that is theoretically in Syria to show US and Russian troops going head to head there..... man I am way out in left field (hopefully) but so what. It makes for a neat map and terrain that doesn't appear in any CMBS scenarios. Heck it probably wouldn't exist in any real battle anyway, I don't think any US troops are based near mountainous terrain. ooh I just thought of a possible way to make mountains trails look a little better! Off I go! Wish me luck!

He has a point. You threw a fairly substantial allegation out there that you have only one questionable source that admits it really has only circumstantial evidence. I saw that adarapress item. One thing that I have always liked about most of the discussions here is the request for hard evidence when it comes to figuring armor penetration, mobility etc to the point that we see these advanced rha calculations, modeling of armor etc, yet when it gets to the political/social side there seems to be a willingness to forego that same standard of evidence. We are all here fascinated to some degree or another by history. We should hold ourselves to the same standards in our social/political discussions as we do our technical discussions. At least we can try. You know I have a high regard for your work and the discussions you have brought to the forum, but in this particular case if you want to be truly honest it was not an allegation you should be defending. Better to simply say "my bad, I thought I had some info but it seems not". Then go to Germany, met with Angela and ask her forgiveness. If you can get Obama there to speak for you I think Angela would be okay with it.

Do you have anything to cite on that as it doesn't match what I can find. It frankly would not have been surprising as the Stasi had everybody reporting on everyone else to some degree, but I can't find anything to substantiate that she in fact did.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel Near the end of her studies at the University of Leipzig, Merkel sought an assistant professorship at an engineering school. As a condition for getting the job, Merkel was told she would need to agree to report on her colleagues to the Stasi, the GDR's secret police. Merkel declined, using the excuse that she could not keep secrets well enough to be an effective spy.[31] Merkel worked and studied at the Central Institute for Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof from 1978 to 1990. After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry in 1986,[32] she worked as a researcher and published several papers.[33

@Sgt.Squarehead This would not have FOW but you could put some of your civies in a room with no exits forcing the player to fight their way in and not being able to resort to heavy weapons. You still wouldn't know the size of the enemy force around them but you'd be limited even when you start spotting them from resorting to flattening the structure.

Isn't that the norm? Pretty much everywhere we are represented by a bureaucracy we can't freakin understand.