sburke

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?

I would assume by "modders" we include the folks who actually produce the models in the game, not just folks modding the finished game. You'd also definitely want categories otherwise I'd be stuck having to cheer for Mord and/or DC all the time as the unit mods are still my favorite.

Oh yeah sure, there you go again talking about 'facts". Geez if we all stuck to facts we'd have had no invasion of Iraq to be able to then game out in CMSF. Facts just get in the way.

After a bottle of Absinthe I am not sure what Kylie looks like, but that isn't what his mug shot looked like.

rotflmao!!! I'll have to admit to overdoing mine by a bit as well, but I don't think by quite that much.

and cropped to not include too many RR bends. As you may have noted Broadsword has very ambitious plans for an OP layer for MG. I just hope whatever I churn out is good enough. The bar is kind of high in the maps I have been fighting on from the Normandy Campaign.

yeah it will be a really great time saver. 4x4 is a ridiculously large map to do, but trying to do it by hand prior (and yes I was working on a 4x4 map by hand of this same area) is even more ridiculous.

Figured I'd start a thread on this as it hasn't been getting much air time here on the forum and almost nothing in the reviews. So here is a screen shot - I took the Veghel map from the link Broadsword provided (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105867) and cut out a 4x4 map of Veghel and the vicinity that was the attack direction of the 107th Pz Bde. Saved it as a BMP and renamed "special editor overlay" then put it into the mods folder. Is this perty or what? This is fully zoomed out. It gets a bit blurry if I zoom all the way in, but I think I could manage quite a bit of the basic map creation with this. Yes I said 4x4, those are 1k grid lines.

This is one of the things I like about the TCS system. You really do not know when you will have a fair fight and then how long will you be stuck with one that isn't fair until you can actually implement an OP sheet to reinforce etc. I agree with the overall view though that trying to fight out the op layer on a divisional and higher scale is .. well kind of a life long commitment. Broadsword's method of using the Op layer and looking for interesting battles to play out in CM has been very rewarding. I am actually looking at a lower level, a campaign that covers only a couple days at most and a few battalions spread over a couple sq kilometers..