Lethaface

Steam certainly has it's benefits and I'm a happy user. Admitted the toolbar is a 'bit' out of date , the BFC store isn't a major hassle imo. Yes buying for a friend and auto updating would be nice. But you can just share a key you bought for a friend or send them paypal $ so they can open their own account. Apart from all that, AFAIK there are no CMRT patches as of yet?

@Erwin, While playing and background thinking I came upon an argumentsupporting your position regarding scouting abilities: the fact that sappers/engineers are better at spotting mines.

And to add another post: currently playing the third missions and my snipers are really wreaking havoc upon dug in infantry! My scout teams in the forest have spotted enemy mortar teams so I will position the HQ to call in fire support from my mortars. Meanwhile my guards rifle battalion is moving up through the village and taking casualties from enemy Mortars and distant MG's.

Just checked my scouts, busy scouting out forests on the mined side of the map in the 3rd mission of the Soviet campaign. One squad is veteran, HQ and other squad regular. All have +0 or +1 leadership. Motivation unknown to me. Normal rifle squads vary between green and veteran and -2 to +2 leadership. They are Guards so the average is on the plus side of leadership and quite a lot of veterans. At least, that is how I value the decisions.

Nice AAR, the English captions are fine! Ook een mooie ansichtkaart trouwens!

Lol are you a communist? Or did you fail at economics? If one sells 20,000 $50.- games a year = $1,000,000.- Let's say all operational and overhead costs for everything from packaging, hardware, hosting, office supplies, etc etc are $300,000.- yearly. That leaves $700.000,- for salaries and buffers. Lets say a median company salary costs (before tax, including all company costs like insurance, pension, etc) $100,000.- times 6 workers = $600.000,-. So that's $100,000.- profits (buffer). Of course this is just plain made up numbers, I don't know how many unit BF.C sells yearly, how many employees they pay what salaries and what their costs are. I don't need to know either. They won't however be selling millions of copies of $45,- games on a yearly basis. So I guess they make a decent living from operating BF but probably invest loads of energy/workhours into it. So like most people running their own business they are mostly in it because of gratification of the work itself ('hard work, little earnings' as the saying goes ). So when you're talking about squeezing out the last bucks I don't know what type of company you think you are talking about. You could say you don't see the value for money, but demanding everything should be cheap because it should just be like that is actually quite dumb or just communist Me thinks they aren't squeezing you out, they are trying to make quality games while staying in business and keeping the wife and children happy with some food on the table. Personally I have a soft spot for these type of companies and happily support them buying all CM games when they come out, whether I have time to play them or not. Apart from that I've probably sunken thousands of hours in CMx2 since CMSF in 2007. One thing I would like to see is Steam statistics of spend $ per hour played for CM games. I reckon CM is way above average.

IIRC I only suffered 1 casualty among my scouts and I'm in the 3rd mission of the campaign. Perhaps you are moving them in such a way that gets them shot more easily. I try to move them as masked as possible, in slow fashion (hunt or move). They DO have a special ability: their formation and equipment and available soft attributes. Apart from that even scouts can get shot . This is how it works in the game (marksman/sniper is the best shot in a unit), although a scenario designer is free to decide to have a green sniper in a crack platoon. Why abolish that freedom? Scenario design decisions. Although I notice quite some differences within units in CMx2. Perhaps the Soviet forces in the campaign are a bit more uniform? I haven't really paid attention to individual squad attributes in the Soviet campaign, I'm too busy commanding about 2 battalions worth of troops to tinker around with details This is not my experience, both German and Soviet squads have weapon differences. There are plenty of differences in Soviet squads, PPS43 vs PPSH, Mosin Nagant vs SVT, etc. If you want to have real rag tag type of formations you should try CM:A Mujahideen! Lee enfields mixed in with m16's, chinese machine guns and whatever they could get their hands on. I haven't actually registered anyone as being against the general idea that snipers/scouts should have higher average experience (and other soft factor) settings. However, this should be done at scenario design level, not in game design. The game design is imo good in this regard and that's where we differ (?) on opinions.

Well one can dream, can't I? I don't really play ARMAIII because like you say it is too hard for ordinary casual people (like me) to play the game in a proper coordinated fashion, while I have had my fun with BF4 but have moved on. CM on the other hand is a main stay since 2007, hence my dream. Decent AI can cover for fleshly incompetence

Isn't only the TO&E of a scout / sniper platoon with appropriate training/fitness/equipment/moral settings exactly right for modelling scouts/snipers that feature in the game? Yes sniper missions are outside the scope since sniping is mainly FPS terrain. However in the field a crack marksman in a 2 men low-key operating team with a scope equipped weapon IS specially trained to operate a long range precision rifle in a stealthy manner (=sniper). The player is required to provide an appropriate position and stance for a sniper in a tactical battle. For example positioning a sniper on high/favorable terrain, for example in a church tower and using a covered arc to ensure untimely detection. Regarding scouts: I am playing the Soviet campaign and I have used the scouts appropriate: to reconnoiter unknown (difficult) terrain. The kind of terrain that doesn't feature known enemy positions or fortifications. Their specialization is their formation: it gives you the functionality of using specific troops for the task at hand without sacrificing firepower in your main Rifle/SMG squads for the same task. Those are intended to be committed against known enemy formations, not to swarm out of C&C in 2 man scout teams and attrite (fitness/manpower) against terrain features and enemy listening posts/scouts/ambushes. It is a bonus Soviet scout troops are armed in a fashion that is advantageous when encountering a small enemy ambush; the kind of enemy positions that are not easily detectable, not qualifying for line unit deployment. Their armanent is also suited for other CQB type of action, for example urban assaults. In a campaign it might be favourable not to expend recon troops on (urban) assaults, or it might in dire situations. In scenario's or H2H battle's any bullet can be of importance so I use any available troop as I see fit (victory at any and all cost!) I don't see the problem with scouts or snipers in the game. A green sniper is basically an untrained soldier given a sniper weapon, he shouldn't be given extra powers for being designated as a sniper. Scenario designers decisions regarding attribute sets of said units is something else, which can be agreed/disagreed upon. Issues resulting from those decisions should not be confused with the deeper workings of the simulated action, all imo ofc

Well dreaming is a good thing to do I have dreamed about a CM:BS (Black Sea) with graphics like BF4 and players being able to play anything from a soldier to BN commander AND have a decent AI to fill up empty player slots. Unless someone on this forum or at BF HQ strikes an oil well with spare money to sink in leisure projects, I'm afraid it will stick to dreaming

Steam would probably be good for attracting new players, but at what costs? Risking a tangible steady flow of income from the current customer base, which seems to be working for BF?. So, since they know about Steam and about the financial impact they will probably be in the best place to make the decision. I'm guessing the probable advantages of the marketing concept Steam offers are not lost on BF.C, but the financial details are lost on us. So, I guess this discussion has no real merit.

The Strategy and Tactics subforum has a lot of information in it, helpful for new players!

The one thing going for Kauz, IMO, is that it's not he who started the lecturing tone. Perhaps he was sometimes rightfully lectured , but tone is something else. Anyway I agree with Baneman that it is not possible to extrapolate average casualties to firepower because there are many variables at work. As a scientist I would expect Kauz realizes this. To name a few: 1-1 simulation (!), random spacings of soldiers, hit chances varying, etc. Now, I do agree it would be strange if HMG MG42's are only 10% more effective then LMG MG42's, if setup in a proper defensive position. However, that's not my impression of them in the game. It would be very difficult to actually calculate a effectiveness percentage for any small in the game, due to the 1-1 simulation. There are actually two subjects being discussed: * RPM for HMG/LMG * HMG effectiveness vs LMG Those are very different subjects, even though there is correlation, and should be discussed separately. Anyway apart from any tests playing the game my experience is HMG's are significantly different from LMG's and perform >10% better when deployed in a good position against close and far targets. I have little experience engaging enemy troops with small arms >1km, even only because there are few opportunities to do so in the game.

Never missed, although I never played CM1 I do miss a similar option in WEGO: to be able to mount infantry in a vehicle and have it move upon completion. It is possible now with adding pauses, but unreliable and sometimes leads to infantry becoming half mounted and unavailable for the remainder of the game.

Not so sure regarding Germany and France staying out of the war when a full spectrum conventional war erupts in Ukraine (very close) between their ally the US and Russia. Iraq is a whole different ballpark, since Iraq never posed a military threat to any European country (in fact probably only Kuwait). Especially if China would enter the war on Russia's side, all of NATO will be activated join the battle. I'm pretty sure the EU still exists lol, there is no remote chance of the EU disbanding all together. In fact, I suspect that WWIII would lead to a very fast creation of the United States of Europe. Serbia will be likely want to be neutral, IMO for the wiser. Perhaps some personnel will volunteer to join Russia. Agree with you regarding Turkey. Their might be regional conflicts in the middle east as well to monetize on the situation. Im quite 100% sure China will stay out of such a conflict since it will mean WWIII and a destruction of their economy, since NATO will rule the oceans. Going nuclear is not really an option for anyone not willing to destroy the world. Anyhow, CM:BS is a (luckily) a fictional war so BF.C could decide certain things even if they are not 100% plausible. I would like to see China featured in the game

+1 Wow, 2 miles a day for a PD.. Might as well conquer Russia on foot It's almost like a comedy hehehe. The Germans expected nice a orderly kept clean highway complete with ready available fuel depots every 50km, instead they got themselves a deserted goat trail.

Where they unbuttoned? I had an open topped SU-76 survive a 81mm round on its front yesterday, so I guess a Panther should normally survive.

AFAIK it's not possible. However the current order suite makes it possible to give infantry orders which will they will execute upon arrival of the vehicle. Having them jump out at a slow turn would deny me this feature. So not sure if that would be an improvement.

Things being bugs or not hings on the question: are you a customer or a programmer If it were/is really a reproducible problem, the technical classification should not matter on this forum (improvement, bug, new feature, design flaw, whatever). I personally always thought internal damage was simulated. Since it seems so be abstracted, I agree that it would be a little far fetched to address this as a problem, when it could just be an incident

Agree that the post colonial situation would probably be fubar anyhow, but then again who had been keen for the adventure? One has a responsibility to leave affairs of which one is in control in a decent state when abandoning ship. Besides from the divide et impera type of releasing nations... Anyway it's not that I feel responsible for (the aftermath of) colonization, even if my grandfather fought in the Dutch post WWII colonial wars in Indonesia. Still it's important to recognize what was happening in the world before and how that has had it's influence on the here and now, ugly or not.

Well that at least explains how they got themselves into the thing, my gratitude for filling up some blanks! I guess the Nazi party leadership standard practice of 'frowning' upon critical feedback decided their demise even before their rise to power, as has deservedly been the fate of so many similar minded before.

The British empire (primarily, apart from other European nations) is responsible for most of the 'ruler' type of borders in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. Partly the reason of the instability that has ruled those parts of the world since. The USA followed up intermingling in the so called 'nation states' those borders created to cater its own interests and the rest of the west is guilty for helping to maintain those nations regimes that are 'friendly' (profitable) to the west, be it a dictator or a democracy. According to our norms by which we judge other nation states, this is hypocrite at best. Indeed for another thread ;-) Back to WWII: Knowing full well that the history I know is written by the victor, there is still much reasoning in favor of my statement that the German leadership was the main responsible party in the escalation of the war that we know as WWII. Perhaps it couldn't have been avoided because of previous events which I think for a large part find their origin in Germany becoming a proper nation state in 1871 and other nation state's reservations about that. But, the when and how of WWII derived from the initiative Germany showed in 1939, 1940 and 1941. The rest is history.

Apart from the turning point IN the war, there is the strange phenomenon of Germany not really having a war economy until 1942-1943. They theoretically could have begun working on that from around mid 1930's, somehow one would say that they weren't planning for a world war... which they begun.

Interesting discussion, all thanks for contributing! Personally I have nothing to add since I'm not that thoroughly informed on the subject as others here. Regarding the turning point of the war I believe the blunt success of German armies in 1940 helped to 'establish' Hitler as a military genius, which (luckily) contributed to many of the German fundamentally flawed command decisions on strategic and operational scale. It reminds me of one of my friends style of playing poker. Always re-raises everyone no matter what hand he has and counts on his luck to have a decent hand when someone decides to challenge him. Works quite well, until a majority of players found out about his habit and call him to death

Nice video! So far the only time I enjoyed those tanks/guns is in the tutorial campaign. *** Soviet Campaign SPOILER *** Am currently fighting the Soviet campaign. First battle cost me weeks, now the third is of similar scale Only SU-76's in support until now. I enjoy those large scale, almost sadomasochistic, battles but only the time (!) necessary to play one. It's a good thing my first CMRT PBEM has finally come to start after hardware problems on my opponents side. Got my first CMRT H2H kills with smg infantry riding on t-34's in proper soviet doctrine fashion. Davai davai davai!