sburke

You underestimate the power of griping. For some it is more fun than even playing CM.

Well yeah, BF are not exactly smooth talking PR types. That has an up and down side. I don't disagree that clarity would greatly improve the process. While the announcement page is clear that not all features in CMRT are included, it is not explicit on what didn't make it nor why. I don't know that it would have stooped the multiple threads on similar issues, but it would at least have provided a better starting point. At least we aren't having to pay for some smooth talking PR team to tell us what we aren't getting. Oh incidentally I think the closest BF gets to a PR dept is Chris's twitch program. That seems to be THE place to be for informational tidbits.

Not so sure that the issue is based on who it was made by, but that very well could preclude BF from doing anything with it. I think from BFs view they just have too much right now to even consider this. There seems to be quite a base for CMSF. Enough to justify in BFs eyes to bring it to the current engine and support model. Unfortunately I don't think that is the case with CMA. BF hasn't even hinted on redoing this title. Who knows given a couple years though.

Lol, don't be too hard on them. Map making in CM has come a long way. I can remember the first time broadsword and I used a QB map from CMBN for a hth game. We were both very disappointed. Since then we have stuck to our own maps but a lot of the maps released these days are gorgeous. One of my favorites is still Studienka in CMRT. I can't hold snowball accountable to a standard that is still developing. And I agree with others, this is an overlooked game. I just reinstalled it on my new PC a couple weeks ago, but never seem to give it the attention it deserves.

When BF announced they were going to support a continuing upgrade process they made it clear they would only support the current release and one back. CMBN base game was 2 releases behind CMRT. CMFI however is only one release behind. In effect BF with the newer installers has brought CMBN to a comparable state to CMFI. Updating CMFI is a single patch. CMBN was quite a bit more effort. Honestly I am a little confused by your wording of the question. Upgrading CMFI to 3.0 is kind of like when 2.0 came out for CMBN. The primary difference being that 2.0 was co-released with a module. If there were a module release you likely would have seen a bundle deal. There isn't, you won't. Perhaps you meant you don't own CMFI and were hoping they would bundle it. Worth asking them, perhaps they just didn't think to do that.

This is where I would disagree with MikeyD, THE game changing addition is triggers in the AI in the editor. That capability alone is worth the $10 and I dare any player who doesn't play solely hth to say otherwise. If you don't think that is a huge change I have no idea what you are doing playing this game. And Vanir is exactly right, AA fire was not a bug fix, it was a feature add. If you can't tell the difference I politely suggest maybe you should reconsider posting on the subject of the upgrade.

Lol I was just thinking that. People have a funny perspective at times. It could simply be not having read enough material. Depending on authors you can get some really ass backwards views of how things really worked. I tend to be real wary of using aircraft. Only when I have a lot of distance between my troops and the target area.

Lol don't take my word on it, it is purely a guess. Steve did post in another thread that it isn't out of the question, just a matter of what they can take on right now. It just seems to me that it makes more sense from their end to incorporate that work into bulge where they have more room for costing in the additional labor than trying to rewrite all that code into a a patch and then having to price the patch accordingly. People just never seem to apply a business perspective to patches etc. if a new feature being back ported to an older game is going to require a lot of code, I just assume it won't be done as a simple upgrade. It may show up in a later upgrade, but the work for it will have been done in some other development project. In this case the logical place would be the next NWE game family. Longer term it does present some possible issues for BF. For example suppose they introduce some feature that requires a lot of model work after the Bulge game is out. Porting that work back without a newer family to pay for the work becomes a difficult proposition. None of us want to see BF go through any more difficult financial periods. It could very well be that we may see a time when an upgrade isn't just $10. If we want the feature in the game, the labor has to be paid for. Only time will tell how the continuing upgrade process will work. I think most folks really don't understand the headache BF committed to and why it is such a big deal. Instead they nickel and dime the company to death. Disappointing, but frankly and depressingly I am getting used to it from some very vocal members of this community. They continue to act like BF is some big gaming house with oodles of resources or that changing code is simple work. They don't appreciate the complexity of the task nor the fact that BF is really pushing very very hard to maintain long term value in the game for us. When the last of the material for CMBN is released we will still be getting options for additional grades as features are added in the CMx2 game family. Some of those features may be quite labor intensive. Do we want them or not? Personally I do and I am willing to pay for that and am willing to be patient as BF works through what that means for them. I just wish a few of the nickel and dime crowd understood and appreciated what BF is trying to do. Yeah I know, what the hell have I been smoking right?

We all love a little bit of hyperbole, you seem to like a lot. Whatever floats your boat. So BF announced a plan to keep all games current (yeah!!!) and they are still struggling to figure out the best way to do that. Your response? Complain. Christ get over it dude, if you thought this was going to be picture perfect than you obviously never gave it much thought what it was they were committing to. Some of us actually work in software industries and had some idea of the headache BF had now committed to. It is going to take time and there will continue to be rough patches. Despite that BF has shown they are serious and for those of us who really want it and appreciate the effort required to follow through, we applaud BF. You want a game you can mod in laser toting dinosaurs, go somewhere else. You can argue till you are blue in the face, it is Steve and Charles company and they say no. You are free to go design your own game, have at it.

Well there are a lot of comparisons. With the continuing upgrades offered CM now has comparable shelf life.. . . almost. A hostess Twinkie is a helluva lot more fun in the microwave than a CM disc

Probably when 4.0 is out.

@Rankorian are you kidding? PT has produced quite a few campaigns, JasonC has not only created none but expressed in a very negative manner what he thinks of creating anything for this community. You criticize PT's thoughts on scenario creation in that kind of tone and in the same post suggest someone else implement JasonC's design? Poutiness as your termed it may be unbecoming, but good lord what the hell then is the above?

No you can't. It was cloudy that day. (Meteorologist grog).

You are mixing two different points. One is normal expected use and function for vehicles that is already done. Tank riding regardless of when and where it is done historically requires a heck of a lot of extra work right now. It will probably come, just not right now. Relax

Bite your tongue!!

Western PA isn't that Podunk country? After all it is damn near Ohio. (Spoken as a Phila boy)

We seem to be running the same subjects across multiple threads now. In regards to this particular item BFs response had to do with the sheer amount of effort required, not an objection to the feature. My bet is the work for this will be in the Bulge title and could then be part of a future upgrade. It makes it far simpler for BF to get a return on their labor then rather than trying to price it on a patch. Don't give up hope on seeing it.

I would not necessarily count it out, but it was simply too much effort to do now. I think there is less actual historical reasoning in Italy than NW Europe, but if you think about the bulge title there is plenty of historical argument. If they re do the models for that title I could see that being incorporated in a future upgrade to CMBN and CMFI . Why do that work now and try to price the labor into a patch versus an outright family? We have to try and look at things from BFs view as to where they should invest the labor and when they would expect the best place for a return on that labor. With no other basis for guessing than just that bit of business sense, I think you will see it after the bulge game maybe next year or shortly thereafter? I haven't seen any projections from BF about the last year of the war in NW Europe.

This is the exact same discussion we had when MG v2 came out with the MG release. Nothing has changed. It is yes another $10. And when v4 comes out it will be another $10 and so on. I do not believe I ever heard a single voice on this forum suggest to BF to not go the route of keeping the engine up to date so suck it up people. This isn't a non profit charity organization.

Damn I didn't even get a chance to check as testing has to be on stock games. On road trip now and can't look. If it isn't I hope he has an update when I get back.

Actually there you go. The point Jason was making is that a thorough defense has major advantages that become very difficult to overcome. Some times the attacker simply doesn't have the resources or command experience to succeed. You are now caveating that defensive position by requiring the tools necessary to defeat it not the tactical skill. I know people who beat school of hard knocks on the first try. I am not one of them. The scenario is difficult not impossible. And yet the vitriol on that particular scenario has poisoned the atmosphere for designers. Players rarely feel they should have to be better tactically, they invariably claim they weren't supplied with the right tools. And it was NOT always successful in RL otherwise this thread wouldn't even exist. And to be honest, despite my extremely modest contribution to the scenario community I do take offense at that characterization. That is a very sweeping negative critique of a community you are begging to do work for you. Pretty bad form I think.

There are a number of really good map makers and they seem to be consistent on a couple items. Make it look natural. Normal terrain has all sorts of terrain alterations in elevation. Flavor items add a ton of immersion detail. Detail work in General has a huge payoff particularly for players who like to be down in the trenches. Worry less about size than quality. A great mid size map is far better than a mediocre large one. It will also likely get more use. And for god's sake have fun with it.

I suspect the first time someone designed such a a defense for a player to attack into we'd be buried in complaints about how hard it was along the lines of Courage and Fortitiude. The reaction of the community or parts of it about difficult scenarios (C&F and a few in CMFI come to mind) effectively discourages the community of those who create.

"Panther managed to absorb all the 75 mm ammo in 3rd Army" Chris you have some great quotes on twitch

Lol you KNOW somebody out there heard only that.