sburke

LOL I think it just overwhelms the search engine.

I think your expectations may be wrong. The MG module will likely include some new ToEs, whether the british paras would have a new ToE to be included in that module though has not been said.

Now that's love. I am speaking about your wife, not your love of the game Enjoy

I believe there was a similar post by another user. It seems it depends on progarm you use to unzip the file. The other individual found they could simply rename the zip file to "m" and were able to make it work. The alternative would be to ask the folks who are not having an issue which program they use, many of them are free.

I honestly don't know having only PBEM'd 4 individuals. Personally I think you should always try to play someone you believe is better than yourself or at least has a different playstyle. How else will you learn? Sometimes you are the one learning, sometimes you are the one teaching, sometimes both. The only thing you know for sure is your opponent does have the capability to react to your moves. Unpredictably. All that is dependent on your units. Broadsword and I are slowly reaching the conclusion of what has been for me one of the most intense battles fought in CM (yes there will be an AAR, screenshots are being collected). My Battalion has been hamstrung with a poor fitness rating and it has completely altered my playstyle. I'd highly recommend trying it, but be prepared as your units can not be pushed very hard. Trying to maintain an aggressive defense is very difficult and without decent terrain it will almost certainly fail. Fortunately the map we are playing on is demonstrating just how difficult attacking through the hedgerows was and for me just how good a job BFC has done.

Tactical problem. The Tiger is covering a road through town that is covered in smoke. That an enemy tank is down that road beyond the smoke is almost certain. Meanwhile another enemy tank has been observed in an adjoining field...what to do... how to deal with two threats at 90 degrees and neither in LOS yet. Answer back up behind building facing wall. Hmm okay now only have one potential threat, but line of fire is blocked... to drive through wall is to expose flank both on road and in orchard. Answer: Apply high explosives and wait for dust to clear. remove threat Meanwhile threat two attempts to catch now hidden tank in flank To do so means having to come in nice and cozy. This was an infantry team protecting my Tiger. The scenario by the way is In the Shadow of the Hill 8-30am and is a lot of fun. Damn I love this game

Want to know why the AI will never ever be as good as a human opponent? Cause it isn't crazy or desperate. Tactical problem. The Tiger is covering a road through town that is covered in smoke. That an enemy tank is down that road beyond the smoke is almost certain. Meanwhile another enemy tank has been observed in an adjoining field...what to do... how to deal with two threats at 90 degrees and neither in LOS yet. Answer back up behind building facing wall. Hmm okay now only have one potential threat, but line of fire is blocked... to drive through wall is to expose flank both on road and in orchard. Answer: Apply high explosives and wait for dust to clear. remove threat Meanwhile threat two attempts to catch now hidden tank in flank To do so means having to come in nice and cozy. This was an infantry team protecting my Tiger. Nothing that we have or will have in the near future is gonna allow the AI to come up with that. It is what it is, but if you want more, go find a human opponent. The scenario by the way is In the Shadow of the Hill 8-30am and is a lot of fun. Damn I love this game

No turn? Okay then I'll just have to post some screenies. Insurgents practice customary welcoming of guests with gifts..... More neighbors come over to visit. This team will make short work of the Shabiha sniper team that had gunned down an unarmed civilian just minutes before.

Now there's a guy with his priorities in order. It wasn't time wasted..at least not totally. As one with no experience or firsthand knowledge that would like the game to be as accurate as possible (within the time and resources BFC has), I for one am happy to hear from someone with actual experience and footage to boot that says "sorry BFC is closer than you think to being correct no matter what you might want to assume". Thanks BadgerDog. As for me, I am only here because I am either at work and can't play, or am waiting for a turn. (hear that guys..I am waiting for a turn )

+1 on that, but heck in a game that now has more helmet mods than there are hats in a department store it kind of goes with the turf. Good point, not being a coder I really do not know technically what is or isn't possible. It seems we all tend to minimize what it would take to make a change we'd prefer. It is after all easier than saying "I think this would be really hard but could you change this"? The video certainly challenges the assumption that they do not rock at all and to Childress's point would minimizing it almost eliminate the effect? Maybe, then you get into the question do you want it to rock too much or not at all? I am with BadgerDog, I like em rockin.

To be honest I never really got the chance to play it out, but I suspect that if I had my findings would have been similar to yours. What interested me enough to try was the rules system. Bloody 110 is just a huge map area to try and pull off. Screaming Eagles though still large is not so ridiculous and one wouldn't have to map the entire AO from the game, just the likely combat areas. Broadsword has been using St Lo as the op layer for a campaign and it has really been an outstanding experience. I think The Gamers scale (125 meters per hex, platoon and individual vehicle/gun) may work a little better though and I really like the opsheet format they use as emulating the staff problems in trying to fight a battle. Screaming Eagles essentially covers about 48 hours with a couple regiments on each side. The Germans are basically split into two commands that have difficulting coordinating while the Allies are defending with interior lines and a single command staff well organized by General McAuliffe. It looks to be a much more fluid battle than Schmidt with some interesting units on both sides.

I haven't given it up, just took a pause to give BFC a chance to address some of the issues that had come up (not being able to exit bunkers, issues with loading large maps etc) and wanting to wait for possible new terrain or flavor items more appropriate for the area. Large maps do seem to be functioning a lot better and bunkers now work, but there does appear to be another issue with wire and I am eagerly awaiting any news at all as to what kind of terrain/building/flavor objects we might see in the MG module. It was also suggested to me at one point to possibly wait for the Bulge game to really get this right. I am not sure I'd want to wait that long and I could simply redo it for the game family. With the work that was recently done with the mapping tool by Stoneage, it may just make that a little bit easier. All that being said, yeah I think you are correct, the battles in the Huertgen are going to have a somewhat narrow appeal. Kind of like the Omaha beach landing. Not everyone is that excited about getting slaughtered on the beach for a while, but at least there you do have a clear victory condition that actually was achieved. Vossenack is a good example of how this could be just the opposite, the US put a battalion in an exposed position and the Germans pounded the crap out of them with artillery for so long, the unit simply broke and ran. As The Gamers noted in some of their footnote discussions, this is a battle fought because those planning the Strategic and Operational levels failed. It is not the type of engagement an attacker should ever have pursued. For those (like myself) who have jumped on Montgomery for the MG plan, that at least was a gamble that failed. Huertgen was simply really bad generalship on the US part with a cost far higher than MG. For those interested I would recommend A Dark and Bloody Ground by Edward G Miller. My real preference would be for a Lorraine campaign, but I'd have to really learn mapping techniques from Broadsword and LLF AND learn how to use that mapping tool. I've also been looking at using the gamers TCS game Screaming Eagles. It would take 4 4x4 maps to cover that entire AO. They specifically cite in their game specific rulebook on the use of windmills as FO locations so I'd like to see how BFC implements them as a building before trying to deal with maps on that scale. I am also still tinkering with an urban battlefield. LLF and I are trying out an urban fight in CMSF and I think he has done an outstanding job of making a map that gives infantry a fighting chance. The only premise of that is the ability to fire some AT weapons from inside a building. I'd really not like to turn this into a rehash of that subject, but I think it is very possible to create an urban battlefield that will allow for better infantry AT capability even w/o being able to fire from within buildings. My ambitions are far and above what I actually have time for.

What he said! As a PBEM player that has mostly been on defense, I shift mine a lot IF I have units of a fitness level that can physically take it. For example if I have two teams behind a hedgerow. I might start both in limited arcs to prevent them exposing their position too early. On turn 5 say I remove the covered arc on team A, give them a 30 second pause and then a quick move back and away to another position. On turn 6 I give the same command to team B and check team A. The plan for team A is to get back to a new position just prior to team B displacing. The end result here is a feeling for the attacker of whack a mole. At the start of each turn one of my teams should be firing from a new position while the other is displacing. It makes targeting with mortar fire pretty difficult and directed targeting is usually just shooting up empty hedgerow. Just to mix it up, you can simply give a unit a hide command and your opponent isn't going to know if they displaced or not. The AI can't do this and I have found it to be fairly effective at suppressing an enemy and stalling their attack (even if they don't have significant casualties) long enough for MY artillery to start hitting them. If pulled off successfully, your enemy is now getting suppressed and the whole assault starts to fall apart as they go to ground and take casualties. During that period you can retreat, shift to new positions, or move up reserves to take them under fire from a completely different angle. Add other possibilities into that of using a TRP, direct fire mortars etc and you start to realize how limited the defense is for the AI. Once in a while if the designer plans it really well AND you hit it in just the right way for it to make best use of it's assets you might run into a tough defense, but the AI is never going to be as difficult or flexible as a human opponent. Asking it to try to react is all going to be a matter of lucky timing.

This screenshot is making me feel a little ill. I have already experienced how good LLF has designed this map for the insurgents to take quick snap shots and retreat into cover and LLFs skill at applying those tactics. The avenue that my tank is sitting on is a very long one and my troops are not too keen on getting that deep into built up terrain.

? I never said anything about being subsidized other than that if they had to rely on just DLCs they'd have to apply for food stamps. As to the game being bugged, it is a computer game. To assume that it will not have any issues is like expecting rain when and only when you need it. There is absolutely no and likely never will be a bug free game. As to it not working as advertised, other than the occasional issue (and the serious ones get worked on pretty darn quick) I'd be hard put to say the game doesn't work. Is it 100% of what we would all want? Absolutely not, but ask yourself this (and answer honestly) do you ever think there will be a day we won't want just one more feature, item or even have full agreement on how behavior should be modelled?

It's a labor of love, not just a business. I don't think BFC has ever said they were solely in it for the money. If they did, I would definitely assume they were loony as this is surely not going to lead to a multi billion doller IPO...unless they come out with some way of just turning it into something that allows you to tell the entire world what inanely stupid thing you are doing right now in less than 128 characters...

Oh.. sorry you thought Mitt was gonna save you tax money? I assumed that since you were worried about the cost of future games you weren't already wealthy. No sorry, the rest of us aren't getting a tax break, we are just going to see fewer services with what little is left to go around. You will still pay the same amount, you'll just see less for your money. And before somebody flames me for being too liberal, I never said the other side had a better option. Just making a joke about the lack of social services left to support our friends at BFC under one side's plan.

Yep. I started with a map that actually had Vossenack as well, but the only way to fit that into CM was to do a proportional rather than scale map. I started down that path and then started thinking about the implications of it (penetration characteristics, weapons ranges etc) and realized while it might make for an interesting map, it would not make for being able to quite reproduce the battle. Here are links to a screenshot and the file on the repository. It is simply the first mock up. I am hoping for buildings that better match the area as well as other flavor objects before attempting to really complete it. I know other folks have also expressed interest in recreating some of the earlier battles as well prior to commitment of the 28th Division to this sector. http://www.battlefront.com/components/com_remository_files/file_image_1574/img_1574_01.jpg http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1574

I think you are assuming too much about what goes into development and how much they can keep things going backwardly compatible. If it were really that simple they should have been able to add a CMBN module to CMSF. If they were a bigger outfit perhaps they could do so. I don't know whether the issue is primarily a technical one or a resource concern. If you also look forward though, they are going to have to deal with developing a 64 bit engine, dealing with Windows 8 (my company is already talking about being on Windows 8 next year). That being said, if you really think BFC can continue to produce ANYTHING for you going forward based on cheap sales of DLCs then I think you may want to consider what that business model means for them. Food stamps are gonna be phased out by Mitt.

Do you think I would look better without a helmet? I really don't like "helmet hair". Safety is not as important as looking good.

I'd posted a mostly complete map based on the AO of the Battle for Schmidt featured in the Gamers TCS game Objective Schmidt. I have yet to experiment at all with creating a scenario or campaign, but I may consider one for that. What I am more likely to do is adapt the Gamers TCS op sheets rules for those interested in running a campaign game of this. The TCS rules would make for a really outstanding OP layer as they will determine your reinforcement levels, ammo supply, battle plans for a C&C level etc. The downside is players whined for months about Courage and Fortitude. DO NOT expect to win as the Americans in the Huertgen. Victory levels would have to be based on how badly you lose. If you are only interested in fighting battles with a better than even chance of winning and don't like getting hit constantly with artillery while your exhausted troops plod through muddy forests filled with mines and machine gun nests, I'd stick to MG battles and what I would assume would also include Lorraine campaign battles. (If you are assuming it is going to be any more fun as the Germans, don't count on it) Huertgen will make the Bocage look like an elementary school picnick outing.

Not likely. There is no planning as far as BFC has ever said about "jumping between Families of games. They are inherently different games based on the same engine, but still different games. Also not likely. If you do not have the CW module you are missing core units for MG (British tanks for example). There was even I believe talk of changing the ToEs available for US airborne units. BotB would add potentially fire, UI changes, maybe armored covered arcs, different ToEs for the period, additional units etc. (and who knows, maybe tweaked hunt commands etc) Based on the way BFC has explained the game family system CMBN and BotB would not be interchangeable. BN is the core game for it and it's modules. It is NOT the core game for BoTB. CMx2 is however still the core engine. BFC has stated they intend to basically finish each family and keep going forward, meaning they probably aren't planning to patch backwards to CMBN. One never knows though, they may decide based on how much effort it is to actually do that.

I thought that was part of the definition of a modder, and we love you guys for it. edit- purely platonically of course, no need to bring up that court order about stalking again....

love how you signed it, so this is why they developed google earth.

The downside of the uber kitty. All your eggs in one basket with a barn size bullseye painted on it. I have found I really love the StuG when I am defending in hedgerow country.