sburke

I don't know of any game that has a decent map for this, but I have been thinking of an alternative history campaign for some time. The scenario is plausible and probably fairly easy to come up with a decent OB for both sides. I don't think you need an actual boardgame for an OP layer, just a map and OB. Premise is, MG never happens. Eisenhower does the right thing and tells Monty "Antwerp and the Scheldt first before any consideration can be made for a thrust to Germany". Third Army is therefore not quite as short of supplies, but Ike is still reticient about how far to let Patton go. However a crossing of the Moselle and siezure of Nancy is still desired so the plan is to drop the 82nd to sieze commanding terrain for the Moselle crossings and possibly isolate Nancy. Probable drop date maybe the night of Sept 4th (IRL the 80th ID attempted a crossing on the Moselle on Sept 5th.) So you have a whole mix of German units (92nd LW, 3rd PzGr, 3rd FJR and 553rd VG are all in the vicinity) as well as American Airborne and once the crossings are siezed American Infantry and Armor. Depending on the scale you want, your campaign could be the whole shebang or just the story of one regiment of the 82nd holding it's ground (or not) until link up.

Rev. Burke? Rotflmao You have no idea just how wrong that is.

Ha I was wondering if you ever found time to play the game. Nice screenshots except that I can't see your unit icons in the UI.

I already got my thanks and it consists of an incredible amount of material we can expect from BF over the next year (and years after that). I swear it is like Christmas coming every few months. however if you are thinking of categories and candidates, I have a few to suggest. User Interface Artwork Jean-Vincent Roy 3D Models Dan Olding Animations and Models Cassio Lima 2D Art Dan Olding Mike Duplessis Marco Bergman Florian Schroeder Fernando J. Carrera Buil Christopher Nelson Michael Andersson Cover Art Jean-Vincent Roy Music Daniel Sadowski Konstantin Savin Constantin Cat Quick Battles Michael Andersson Mark Ezra Tutorial Christopher Nelson Stephen Grammont Campaign Designers Max von Bargen Christopher Nelson Jon Sowden Scenario Designers Kip Anderson Alan K. Davis Stephen Grammont Anthony Hinds Jon Martina Jari Mikkonen Christopher Nelson Kari Salo Peter Wenman Jurrie van der Zwaan Martin van Balkom

Honestly, I don't have a solid opinion about spotting in the game one way or the other yet. That is largely because I think it really depends on 2 things 1 The map 2 Your opponent In my battles with Broadsword, spotting has been really really difficult. A recent example is our Hamel Vallee battle where we both fought really hard for this wheatfield. What surprised us both was how difficult it was to spot units in it. Once they went to ground they vanished. You knew where they had been, but that was it. Broadsword was actually able to creep some teams up to the next hedgerow, but unfortunately I think they were really worn down by the time they got there and had little support. Fact is however they got really close with me having no clue they were coming. Playing the AI has it's own shortcomings. It is what it is and in the near term it isn't going to change. The AI doesn't think, it does what it is told. I have seen some very creative AI plans in a number of scenarios, but that is about as close as you'll get. The AI will never roll a Tiger up behind a wall then blow it down to catch some Churchills on the other side by surprise nor will it smoke the hell out of an immobile Tiger and close assault it. As to the Makin Island example I have to ask, what is the elevation difference for the tanks versus the Island. I would think theoretically there should be very little possibility of them seeing forces beyond the immediate beach regardless of foliage etc. Water level has to be some degree below land or there'd be no land.... LLF I know the detail level you go to in mapping so I feel stupid even asking, but what is the elevation difference for the Shermans relative to the main Japanese forces?

Some books Amazon just flagged that I might be interested in are I think potential examples for creating campaigns that are interesting and odd at the same time. Granted they aren't theaters we have available yet, but the ideas are thought provoking. Red Christmas - The Tatsinskaya Airfield Raid 1942 Soviet 24th Tank Corps advances toward Tatsinskaya to seize the airfield on Christmas Eve and cut off 6th Army at Stalingrad. Knight's Move - The Hunt for Marshal Tito 1944- On 25 May 1944 800 men of the 500th SS Parachute battalion descended on Drvar, a town behind enemy lines in north-western Bosnia; their aim was to kill or capture Tito. Airborne drop in Partisan territory.

I am of a similar bent, Sicily being more interesting but overall I have studied Italy a lot less than any other theater of WW 2. Just never grabbed my attention, but I have to say, I really really like CMFI. Why? Well I think mostly because it is so very different than CMBN that it is kind of like taking a break while still playing the same game. The Terrain is drastically different than CMBN or CW. Not just the fact that the scenarios are predominantly hilly, but the ground itself is different as well as the houses etc. The units are far different. No dreaded PzShk (which really sucks when you are the Germans). The Sherman is in it's element and you begin to understand why the Allies took so long upgrading. Other than a rare Tiger (really rare there being only a company on the island) there wasn't much for it to fear. The Italians while difficult to command are really interesting to try with. The scenarios. It may be simply I haven't played enough in CMBN and CW to appreciate them (which is probably true as I mostly play PBEM now- and you have no idea how odd that is for me to say that). I was helping to test CMFI however and ran through as many of the scenarios as I had time for and was really impressed. These guys have gotten really good. Yeah we'd all like more AI capability for single player, but within the limits of what they are working with there is truly some very creative, smart and challenging material here. If it were a financial decision and I had to choose, I'd likely wait for MG. However I don't think we have a very clearly defined time on that. If however buying one now and another module in say 3-4 months (yes I am still optimistic) is within your budget I'd say go for it. You won't be disappointed.

Friggin hysterical, hope you opened fire at point blank range... after they gave you the beer of course. Had a similar but slightly different ending story playing a game of capture (our version of tag) in the woods near our house. I was pretty adept at sneaking around and at one point was crawling up to free all our guys currently held at "base" I was within about 25 feet when two guys on the opposing team who were going out looking for more passed by not 15 feet away, I froze and one just happened to look my way. His face was priceless. It took a second to register what he was seeing despite me being in plain view. And yes the snow scene was something like that. It is a pretty good memory.

Fat chance. Even if they don't update CMSF and release a version 2 modern game, I am still likely to go back to it for a fix. I would pay all over again for them to update the game, but if they don't it will still have a place on my PC.

Small world. I later moved down to Roslyn VA before heading out this way. Yeah I have a lot of good memories of Tyler and the adjacent Ridley Creek State Park. Took my wife there about a year and a half ago during a snowstorm. We don't see snow here.. ever. She was thrilled, she had never had a decent snowfall in Beppu Japan so this it was like something out of a movie.

woot! Thanks for another AAR! Give em hell Tiresias!! oops sorry wrong thread Seriously, glad to see you guys going at it again BD.

LOL Dalek's on the move. Nice video, love the vintage feel. Poor footsloggers eating Pz dust though.

Hmm somebody at BF take the expression "smoke em if you got em" too literally?

IIRC correctly when this was brought up about Off board artillery, what was said was the smoke count is possible rounds. The HE is total rounds. So if you fire off all the HE, you are done. Honestly am not sure if that is accurate or not. If it is, it is still confusing as you then have to try to hold rounds if you want to keep a reserve of smoke.

Funny it got repeated in one of these other two as well. Probably September Hope.

Too funny I just read that same story - Been reading too many MG books ltely though. Was that George E. Koskimaki Hell's Highway: The True Story of the 101st Airborne Division During Operation Market Garden, September 17-25, 1944 or September Hope?

Sorry Skelley. Things do tend to go sideways here pretty easily. I don't have any easy advice, but I can pass on a few things I have learned or more correctly, been taught. Foliage has 2 aspects. Trees and brush. Trees actually offer little themselves in ground level concealment. The base terrain and brush are what actually provide ground level concealment. Light and heavy forest tiles, wheatfields, tall grass and brush. Distance is the other item. CMBN because of the preponderance of bocage gets you thinking in shorter engagement ranges than what most weapons systems were designed for. JonS and I played one of the Shadow of the hill battles and I was questioning the AT gun placement, but figured what the hell. I have found a lot of times scenario designers specifically design keyhole terrain. What I found wasn't so much that Pete had designed the terrain, he simply set up the guns following their intended use. They were way back in concealed terrain (wheatfield) and I think JonS was never actually able to spot them though he knew generally where they were firing from. The heavy rock terrain is new and honestly, I haven't had much time to really get a feel for it.

Not that I know of, but I am one of those fools who wouldn't mind seeing it included...

Sorry, as far as I know there isn't some secret pool of knowledge the Beta testers share only amongst themselves...or maybe as a noob tester they aren't sharing with me...rat bastards probably are withholding.. I don't think it is a matter of leaving folks in a deliberate state of ignorance. There are 32 types of base tiles and 8 foliage types and that doesn't include the hedge variants. I don't think anyone expects a listing of all the variations and potential effect on concealment. there has to be some amount of expectation already - on page 29 of the CMBN manual COVER AND CONCEALMENT A word on these two terms, as the distinction is very important. Cover comprises obstacles or terrain that will physically stop enemy fire. A bunker, a trench line, or being behind a hill are good examples of cover. A unit inside cover will be harder to hit for the enemy. Concealment only prevents a unit or soldier from being spotted by the enemy; concealment provides no or very little protection from projectiles. Laying prone in a wheat field or hiding in bushes are good examples of concealment. While granted that is pretty sparse for such an important topic I think they made it pretty clear that you need to think about the effect of different terrain and provided specific examples. While it might be nice to have some kind of chart that lists all the terrain types and some kind of scale it can also be impacted by the unit doing the spotting as well possibly by the unit in the terrain trying to hide. Net result is I think folks are looking for a simple answer when there really isn't one. On the other hand trees are just that, trees. Without a decent base tile they are no different than the ones you see in your local park. How much concealment do you think they provide? I used to go to a park in PA called Tyler Arboreteum. They had this one area that was all a more recent planting and even being an area that no one was manicuring, you could see right through the whole dang thing. The base tile is what provides for underbrush. I can't say I know BF's thinking on this, but I am guessing they figured folks understood the difference. On the other hand it wouldn't take long to set up a simple test to see all the possible variations and where they have a more explicit impact if one is so inclined. I don't. I just play the game on feel and most of the time it seems to work for me. I went through the same learning curve as everyone else and some things I am still struggling to get a handle on. Wheatfields in particular are one of those things that make my hair stand on end. Sending my troops into one has me muttering the same things that you are calling out to the screen in those crappy horror films knowing the murderer is just behind the door.

LOL yeah I turned to Task Force Panther for a break. Even if they don't ever upgrade it, I still love the game. Love the video Sergei, funny and a nice stroll down memory lane.

Not to mention the time factor involved. Our campaign is waiting on a battle or 2 to finish. Poor Noob has I think got the next 40 years of his life planned out. Not that he won't enjoy it, but part of a campaign is knowing you have actually affected it. A battle that is too one sided simply becomes extraneous effort to set up and play out if you have no hope of truly affecting the OP layer. Even then you can have some disappointments. I am still mourning my men from Hamel Vallee.

You may not be referring to me so I am not responding with that perspective in mind. It isn't that I can't understand why someone might prefer CMx1 over CMx2. As we both said, they are different games and it would actually be surprising to find some who didn't prefer CMx1. What I don't understand is the criticisms that get laid on CMx2 as if CMx1 somehow wasn't full of it's own flaws. As an example, let's talk about all the concern about spotting. For myself the primary reason for not going back to CMx1 is borg spotting. For me that has become a huge immersion killer and makes all the claimed spotting issues in CMx2 pale by comparison. Yes there are times when I have run into oddities that show up in CMx2. They aren't as often as one might expect from the forum chatter, but yeah they happen. Borg spotting in CMx1 however is a constant not an occasional flaw. For me the impact in game play is simply overwhelming. The tactical battle becomes so much more simplified that it takes away from my ability to plan a battle to truly take advantage of terrain. Some people feel that tanks in CMx2 uber spot, well how about tanks in CMx1 that immediately spot anything anyone else sees in their LOS. It is hard to take those criticisms seriously under those conditions. As a simpler game that takes less effort, yeah I can see why some might want to play CMx1 games. For me however it is all the extra meat of how things work in CMx2 that aren't a chore, they are EXACTLY why I prefer it. To each his own though. For those who prefer CMx1, all power to you. You don't need a reason, you can just like it cause you like it. However those who claim it is more consistently reliable and therefore realistic.. well sorry I don't buy that one.

Paid? LOL Yeah in my dreams. I did get a copy of CMFI, but I had already bought one and I'd have contributed what little help I was able to without that anyway. As it is my free copy is going to someone else who I am hoping to get more interested in the Italian theatre as well as time in with the mapping tools before they are applied to CMBN. Getting mentioned in the credits just makes me one more person folks can blame if they find something in the game that blows their immersion "sburke how the hell did you miss that!" I think it was Steve and Charles' way of getting back at me for some of their fictional dialogue I wrote. Wait did I say fictional?

I think the issue isn't so much lack as it is players assuming too much about what grants cover and concealment. As others have noted, woods do not automatically grant concealment. There are more options in CMx2 with the base tiles in conjunction with woods. Are there still times when the perception is that the given terrain should offer more concealment? Yeah probably, but it is far from a systemic issue. I would beg to differ there. IMHO there is far more realism in CMx2. I am not even sure what you mean by playing time efficiency. Checkers is far more "efficient" than CMx1 and there are no spotting issues whatsoever, but what has that got to do with anything? I didn't realize that was a quantifiable thing. There is no efficiency for me about CMx1 vs CMx2. One for me is a better game and it isn't about the time I invest to play. Hey when you invent a game with a better AI and the ability to run it on the average machine out there I might take this criticism seriously. Yeah we'd all like an AI comparable to playing a human, but that is not likely to happen for quite some time and sits more in Steve's example of having a freezer that would flash freeze your food. What might help those of us that don't see this as a simple thing to do would be to give us an example of a game that has this uber AI that is not something ONLY played against the AI. At least then we could understand this as feasible and not just another gripe. As to the LOS and spotting tools, we have all been over this before. Exactly what conditions would we have for a spotting/LOS tool that are feasible given the dynamics of the game? This one is getting old. It's a new game they didn't "remove" anything. You of all people should understand this isn't a "new version of software". If they removed something from CMx2 version 1.10 in 2.0 that would fit the bill, but they haven't. In fact they added features. Now there were certain capabilites in CMx1 that were nice, like an armored covered arc and BF is going back and adding or improving features as they go but CMx1 and CMx2 are different games. There are certain features in each game that are wholly inappropriate for the other. This constant attempt to compare them as apples to apples just keeps ignoring what BF has to do to make things work. It also didn't help that the first CMx2 game was a modern setting which alters how useful some of those commands are as well. In addition there are new commands in version 2 that haven't existed at all before. You don't need rose tinted glasses to see that BF made a really good move switching to the x2 engine, you just have to be patient enough to allow them to flesh it out. Yeah I know, we gamers are a pretty impatient lot. Still you have to admit what we are seeing in version 2 should be changing people's perspective on where we are going and yet it would seem folks are stuck in this loop like change is not part of the process. The sky is not falling and most of us have never had to ask for another install. If BF (god forbid) ever has to close their doors I expect they will then present us with something to deal with this. This sounds more like looking for an excuse to criticize by finding a worse case hypothetical. You'd be better served saying what if all the BF people were in a room and a meteor struck. I have no idea how you come up with that evaluation. You have this propensity to make statements about where the company and the game should be and I honestly have no idea what you base any of it on. You don't provide anything other than a simple statement as if it were incontrovertible fact. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in the end that is all it is - your opinion. In my opinion, yes I have had to be patient, but I would say BF is delivering in spades. I haven't been this excited about developments in this genre of gaming in a very very long time.

sigh. Never gets old does it. Here's the deal. You can continue to get pissed off everytime something doesn't work the way you expect, or you could come to terms with the fact it is a computer game with limitations that they all have and get on with the game. Note this does not imply at all that observation of poor behavior is not desired. Hell the game can only be improved by pointing those out. However having the behavior first checked to make sure it really is inappropriate is simply good judgement, not immediate grounds for calling folks fanboys. Somehow I don't hear the "But it was this way in CMx1" fanboys ever start crying about why that tank that had no way of knowing about that squad in the woods is now firing on it from 1000 meters away because some lone infantry guy happened to see it. At least in CMx2 when I spring an ambush, only the folks who actually spotted my unit can return fire instead of every unit with a possible LOS. Here is a question - Why are the folks who are adamant that CMx1 was better so willing to forgive it's inadequacies, but are completely unwilling to accept the same from CMx2?