sburke

it looks great. His mod and your scenario- welcome to the Eastern Front Kamerad!

And some times you have a welcoming party... And they bring gifts oh man that hurt...6 men lost.

be glad you don't have to sit through commercials. They eventually killed SOA for me. I have since learned to just record shows and fast forward through the garbage. Fargo was a great series, Justified is good as well. Just started watching Tyrant. Haven't yet made up my mind on it yet.

A text book assault by 3 British Paras captures a German HMG crew. Gotta love these guys, they LOOK tough and are armed to the teeth for close quarters fighting. I think they simply had to stare at this crew to make them surrender. I think one was heard to mutter "Stay thirsty my friends".

i used to like the board game flattop. WitP AE is a decent alternative. HPS also has some naval oriented games. bummer about the crash

sort by date submitted and it'll be right there on top waiting for our greedy little paws...or mouse clicks or sumfink

Well you have some potentially valid points. I say potentially simply because I haven't the data to evaluate. On the other hand those same views have been expressed here before and BF's comments are essentially "we feel we have been around as long as we have because we do have some understanding of who our customer base is and where the line is between too high and too low". edit - I would be wary of using a first person shooter as a comparable reference to a tactical simulation- but I didn't put any type restriction on the question - so my bad. I'd expect the sheer audience difference creates a different set of capabilities for tripwire marketing. Just thinking aloud there, I really have no idea. That is pretty much my approximate summary, probably BF would like to express it differently or sumfink. You can search and find a fair amount I'd expect. The point is a change in their direction would imply risk. Their current model works, another may not so as you said why rock the boat? Asking them to do so is asking them to take a risk of failure of their business because you have evaluated the product as being beyond what you think you should pay for it. Or something like that, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to make the point that your interest and concern is for you as an individual buying a product, their concern is the viability of their livelihood. My concern is to see a company continue to grow and produce a game that for me is unlike any other. For that I am willing to pay.

The only possible alternative is for BF to make less money. Unless someone thinks they are just rolling in dough and cavorting around like a bunch of adolescent dot com billionaires, then the suggestion is they should make do with less. This is their income, it has to cover their salary, health care and retirement beyond simply the costs to produce the game, maintain the website and all the rest of the costs to run a business. And yes it is a truth that CM is an amazing value. Ask anyone of us that have been playing this product for years while other games have long collected dust in a corner or been discarded and that includes games that cost more. You say $10 will get you that game that will provide all of the above and 100s of hours of entertainment. Name one and then let's venture out into a true comparison. What $10 game am I going to be playing day in and day out for the next 10 years. If you truly think you know of such a game, I suggest you save your money and go buy it instead. Oh yeah, last question- is that/will that $10 game company still be here in 15 years? If you are really interested in understanding what the game cost buys you, you need to look at the whole picture.

These are actually linked questions and come up frequently on these boards. This is not addressed specifically to you chohan85 (and welcome aboard) but is a general response to the community as I haven't seen it quite expressed on this thread. We are a niche community with a niche game. Personally I think CM is a niche to itself. This isn't to denigrate other games in the genre, but face it no other game plays quite like this in the WW 2 ground tactical simulation genre. That being said we are going to get what we pay for. These constant requests or suggestions that BF needs to find a way to reduce price deny that reality. If we aren't willing to pay for this then it simply is not going to happen. The BF team is small. They don't have a lot of overhead and last I knew Steve wasn't able to buy near the amount of military memorabilia, vehicles etc he'd like and Charles still doesn't have an Olympic pool size fish bowl to float around in surrounded by scantily clad female ... brains. (though I hear that there is grumbling from Chris's agent about his new found twitchtv stardom and salary caps just kidding) Let's face it guys, until I win the lottery and decide to fund BF then we are stuck having to pay the costs that include having a game that is continually upgraded. (in case you are wondering, no I don't buy tickets for the "tax on the math impaired" so don't hold your breath on my winning). You don't like the price then don't buy the game because if BF has to lower it too much we won't have a game anyway. As to the price of the game, I disagree it is high. You can't separate value from price. A car that costs $50 and only works for 10 minutes and has no features whatsoever is not cheap compared to a car that costs 20K and runs for 10 years with loads of features. It is just useless. I still play CMSF which is quite old now and lacking the features introduced with CMBN. CMBN and all following games come with a package deal that includes at a minimal cost (yes $10 is minimal, friggin get over it) keeping the game on the most current engine. CM is frankly an amazing value at the price- in reality it is ALREADY cheap.

I'd say the conservatism we see in Islam has much more specifc roots- Saudi Arabia. Couple interesting items from wikipedia. I expect the authors will be on the receiving end of a fatwa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism 1 -The Arab world – the original heart of the Muslim world – has been afflicted with economic stagnation. For example, it has been estimated that the exports of Finland, a European country of five million, exceeded those of the entire Arab world of 260 million, excluding oil revenue. 2- Starting in the mid-1970s the Islamic resurgence was funded by an abundance of money from Saudi Arabian oil exports.[63] The tens of billions of dollars in "petro-Islam" largesse obtained from the recently heightened price of oil funded an estimated "90% of the expenses of the entire faith." Throughout the Muslim world, religious institutions for people both young and old, from children's maddrassas to high-level scholarships received Saudi funding,[65] "books, scholarships, fellowships, and mosques" (for example, "more than 1500 mosques were built and paid for with money obtained from public Saudi funds over the last 50 years"),[66] along with training in the Kingdom for the preachers and teachers who went on to teach and work at these universities, schools, mosques, etc. The funding was also used to reward journalists and academics who followed the Saudis' strict interpretation of Islam; and satellite campuses were built around Egypt for Al Azhar, the world's oldest and most influential Islamic university. The interpretation of Islam promoted by this funding was the strict, conservative Saudi-based Wahhabism or Salafism. In its harshest form it preached that Muslims should not only "always oppose" infidels "in every way," but "hate them for their religion ... for Allah's sake," that democracy "is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century," that Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslims were infidels, etc. While this effort has by no means converted all, or even most Muslims to the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam, it has done much to overwhelm more moderate local interpretations, and has set the Saudi-interpretation of Islam as the "gold standard" of religion in minds of some or many Muslims.

Unfortunately I am in the same boat as ken regarding NDA however I don't believe I am violating that to say, no BF has not forgotten nor to my knowledge decided not to pursue it. Rather they are simply having a real bitch of a time with it. I honestly don't think BF would take that stance unless they really knew the cause and it was something outside their control. If you ignore something like this it usually comes back to haunt you. There may only be 15 reporting it but I don't think anyone knows for certainty how many are affected. Sorry there isn't a better update with clearer info than that, but only BF could provide that.

I have a couple guys in a current battle who were starting to surrender. I was able to put a Coy HQ team and a HQ support team adjacent. I have gone several turns now trying to talk these guys down from the ledge, but I think the only way I am going to get them back is by driving off the enemy that I know is nearby. Yeah I'd say I am happy with things the way they are. Not interested in playing CM:MP duty or CM:Medic. Just my worthless two cents.

Hign Noon on the Russian Front. The Russian had the drop on this Wehrmacht soldier. Question was, could he prime and throw the grenade prior to the shrek being fired. Umm no, of course not. What was the idiot thinking?

LOL or accepting surrender. I can still remember one of my first CMBN games watching as my men overran a German position. A couple guys were in this field surrendering and unbeknownst to me there was one German hiding behind a nearby hedgerow. Apparently he was able to convince them to rejoin the fight at which point my squad gunned them down. For a very horrifying moment I thought my men were shooting prisoners.

agreed, was watching Chris on twitch playing Sacrifice for a New Religion - he noted an enemy unit surrendering and promptly paid it no more attention. They were out of the fight, that is all he cared and kept pushing forward. Good attitude.

the really sad thing is that Islam was for a while the bearer of light in a very barbaric period in the West. Even into the late 1400's Islam was far more tolerant than Christianity. (medieval Spain being the classic location to compare how the two groups ruled.) Now it seems like a good portion of the Islamic world feels it missed out on something in that period and wants to live the dark ages all over again.

You don't need to be in the same action spot at all to my knowledge. However you do need to make sure no other good order enemy unit is nearby. Nearby being a somewhat relative term in relationship to how close you are to the surrendering guy. As I understand it there seems to be an "influence" factor for lack of a better word. If there is a good order enemy unit close enough it seems it will give the guy hope of rescue I guess. per the 3.0 manual in CMRT which has removed some of the legacy stuff from Shock Force. Surrender Heavily shaken or panicked troops in proximity to strong enemy units may decide to throw down their weapons and attempt to surrender. Surrendering units are indicated by raising their hands. Surrendering units cannot receive any further commands. Surrendered soldiers appear as MIA (Missing in Action) on the After Action Report. After a short while (usually about 1-2 minutes), units attempting to surrender “succeed” to do so, and disappear under a white flag icon. It is possible to prevent units from surrendering, by “rescuing” them. In order to do this, you need to first clear out all nearby enemies, and move friendly units into the proximity. If successful, the surrendering units will return to their normal unsurrendered status (but will probably still be panicked). Troops will not fire on surrendering enemies, but they will fire on unsurrendered ones that may be nearby, so it is possible for surrendering troops to be hit indirectly. Note: Fanatic troops will never surrender. Doesn't exactly give precise terms, surrender appears to be a fairly fuzzy logic.

fire, brimstone, lots of folks with strange wings and horns. Overall I found it to have too much melodrama though. Weird thing is my computer was constantly giving me trouble so when I found I could never get CM to run I just split.

Unfortunately you are not going to be able to rely on that kind of schedule. Sometimes BF is all over this forum discussing projects, plans etc and other times it is like being dumped into solitary confinement. The good news is when the forum is quiet it usually indicates they are very very busy. Considering the number of things they have mentioned (v3 updates, new modern game, patch fixes etc) you can definitely understand they have a lot on their plate. BF has always shown they are more interested in getting things done than talking about getting things done. I wish my bosses worked that way.

and when they have something worth communicating they will. I can't say anything more than that, you are just going to have to be patient. We all know there are at least two major issues to be resolved before BF can release a patch, think about that a moment and draw your own conclusions.

rtfm From page 81 MARK MINES This command enables engineer units to detect and mark hidden minefields so that other units are aware of them. Other units can then move through the marked minefield, albeit slowly. Mark Mines is a very slow movement command that takes the unit’s full attention and reduces awareness and returning fire. See the Encyclopedia chapter for more details about Mines. Restrictions - only Engineers can mark mines. Example - Marking mines under fire is suicidal unless you have other forces suppressing the enemy or call for a large scale smoke screen. From page 195 MINES There are three “flavors” of minefields in the game: anti-personnel, anti-tank, and mixed (meaning: a mix of both anti-personnel and anti-tank mines in the same field). Obviously, anti-personnel mines are meant to harm infantry primarily, while anti-tank mines are usually bigger and pack more punch, and are intended to disable or at least immobilize vehicles and tanks. Note: Anti-tank mines cannot be set off by infantry on foot, but anti-personnel mines can be set off by vehicles. Troops moving through minefields have some ability to notice the mines without exploding them. This is much more likely when: .......................................... - The soldiers are crawling or walking (and to a lesser extent, “hunting”) .......................................... - The soldiers are engineers .......................................... - The soldiers are experienced .......................................... - The minefield has already been discovered (e.g. by setting off a mine) Engineers have the ability to mark known minefields. After a minefield is marked by an engineer unit, other units may safely (but slowly) move through it without running the risk of setting off additional mines. See the Mark Mines command in the Command chaptommand in the Command chapter for more details.

good point, actually Chris's twitch program seems to also have a secondary function of providing a few bones on what is going on. In his play through of Sacrifice for a new Religion he did mention the v3 upgrade for CMBN and CMFI is in testing. Not only is he entertaining, but also informative- BF's own Red Green Show.

rotflmao - you were probably not on the forum when the 2.0 upgrade came out and the s**t storm started over it's $5 cost.

If BF were to give you an update honestly I don't think you'd really know anything more than you do right now..... unfortunately.

Just to second everything that has been said. This scenario was an utter blast to play. Within 10 minutes of my first play through when George was still creating it I was hooked. The desperate struggle of my recon infantry to maintain a toe hold in Studienka was intense. Then there is this huge tank battle while my infantry regrouped and tried to force their way through the back streets and gullies to hit the Russians around the church. Everything that makes CM so special is evident in this scenario. Hats off again to a master designer