Lethaface

That would be a better way to restrict points for tanks imo. No at the moment it is not a problem, but if all tanks would cost rarity points it might be a problem. My point being that rarity is the question of how rare something is among it's peers, given a certain formation and time period. So for the standard US infantry division, a standard outfitted rifle platoon shouldn't have a rarity cost. Neither should the tanks that usually 'man' tank formations. That's not what rarity is for, at least imo. So my point is that if you want to limit purchase points for tanks, limit the purchase points and not (ab)use the rarity points for such outcomes. Just my 2cts though

I think that depends on the game and timeframe. Or is only Panther 0 rarity? I know at least there are tanks without rarity, for both Allied vehicles and Axis vehicles.

Yeah but setting the rarity to none comes with other consequences. I understand the wish for a setting to limit the amount of tanks more finegrained than allowed/not allowed, but imo giving the 'standard' tank a rarity cost is a solution that gives another similar problem in return. I would consider it bad design if you go for a mix/armour QB and select a company of tanks from the OOB, but than face the issue that under normal rarity you can't even select a company of tanks. 'Standard' (common whatever) tanks should have no rarity cost, imo.

Isn't the 'infantry only' setting more appropriate for a battle without armoured units? I mean if you select a mixed battle with armoured units, I feel it's not really logical to give the 'standard' tank a rarity cost, just because many battles in WW2 were fought without armour. Also, giving every tank rarity points will result that a tank battle perhaps can't be simulated with normal rarity. So, I think the solution for restricting tanks is to either fight an infantry only battle or make some houserules regarding maximum amount of tanks.

Good I mean that in general PzIV's were not 'rare' tanks, they were the 'standard' tank. So if a battle with a tank formation is chosen (or individual tanks attached to other formation), they shouldn't cost rarity points. Of course for specific variants that can vary, but for example in 1944/45 I'd say the Pz IV J (which was imo the most ubiquitous at that time) shouldn't have rarity points. Now if you want to select a tank which wasn't common during that time, it should cost rarity. But I don't think 'standard' German tanks should cost more rarity because Allied forces had more tanks.

I don't see the merit in that, rarity should be about the relative rarity of assets inside the faction. Not relative to how much other factions had of the asset type group (for example 'tanks').

Those are in the manuals that come with the games. Along with the units covered by the game etc.

Yeah right, Marvin Gaye paperwork; I shall not ask what's going on.

My pleasure.

The DLC's are imo definitely worth it. Commonwealth module adds commonwealth faction and SS troops among other things. Market Garden adds terrain, paratrooper forces, among other things. The vehicle pack adds a bunch of more obscure vehicles (flame tanks, AVRE, Mine flail tanks) and the battle pack adds a campaign and some scenario's. More info: https://www.battlefront.com/battle-for-normandy/ Personally I haven't played much of the battlepack yet, but I guess that's mainly because too much things to play. Overall I can say that if you like the games you will get plenty of hours out of it. So $110,- might look expensive but the value you can get out of it is definitely worth it. Combined with user made scenario's and campaigns there is more content than you'll probably have time to play.

Although all titles have smaller battles, I think for the most smaller battles you'd be looking at CMBN all in one package. CMFI might be a good contender as well, with quite some campaigns. However none of the games feature the option to command only a squad by yourself in a larger battle. You are always able (and sort of required) to command all forces on your side. Edit: and MikeyD is correct, if you're into Modern as well (which is great imo) than CMSF2 should probably be number one on your list. Many missions feature small but very powerful forces, fighting against larger less powerful enemies.

Geen forum post maakt het ontwikkelproces sneller, dat is misschien verstandig om te accepteren :-). Ik ben waarschijnlijk niet zo'n Oost Front fanaat als jij inderdaad. Al heb ik toevallig tijdens Corona wel het gelijknamige boek van Jaap Jan Brouwer gelezen. Ik vond het een goed boek, redelijk macro totaal overzicht. Misschien helpt het dat mijn werk ook software product ontwikkeling is, dus ik weet hoe dingen gaan. Al is het een totaal ander bedrijf dan games maken. In ieder geval, ik vind het natuurlijk wel interessant om te horen als er een nieuwe versie van CM uitkomt maar in het algemeen maak ik me nooit druk om zulks soort zaken; ik heb er geen enkele controle over dus waarom zou ik me er druk om maken? Ik zie het wel wanneer het zover is. Maar goed, dat is natuurlijk een beetje een levenskunst die ik door 'allerhande praktijkervaring' heb geleerd. Het is iig veel relaxter om je niet druk te maken om zaken waar je geen invloed op hebt.

To be fair you didn't believe in the 8 January release date anyway ;-). Neither did I, but then I'm happy with just observing the release when the time is there and firing up a game.

Double post.

Worst case is a massive solar flare hitting earth right now.

https://discord.gg/rAqhDKqV This one?

For a 9mm perhaps. Not for rifle cartridge and the like. Sources are very easy to find, so no doubts are warranted: see your yourselves

I hope the cooperation with Slitherine will eventually result in more content, quicker. So we don't really disagree conceptually We do sometimes disagree on the proper vehicle used for communicating our desires ;-). I for one already expect that BFC is working as hard as they can while keeping things healthy. Don't forget there is actualy people working on the products and in theory people can work 18hours a day for a bit. But that usually doesn't turn out good for long, healthwise and product quality wise. Plus, improvements on an existing development process which is actually 'in operation' are rather difficult. Usually they'll end up slowing the current development down. But indeed everything can be improved, it would be great if over time they can increase their output and who knows the Slitherine deal, Steam integration etc will do for that.

The line has gone dead so it seems. I guess there are deadlines and deadlines. There's the type of deadline A: 'if we don't finish this before X, all work will have been for nothing / we'll lose bigtime'. Or deadline B: 'Let's work towards this date as if it were an actual deadline'. My experience is that while it is always good to work towards something, requirements change and so does the 'imaginery deadline date (B)'. So I wouldn't get your hopes up too high ;-).

Now you're just giving people a false sense of hope

That's what I suspected, among the other things mentioned. The Schreck carrier seems to be acting as a ammo feeder for the MG-42, having shouldered his rifle. The Pz Schreck is probably laying down on the floor somewhere, plus he's tired and cautious of being noticed by the tanks. They seem to have a 'Target Order'? Is it directed at the tank? Would the same situation happen to me I'd try to give them a covered armored arc to see if that makes him more willing to fire that Schreck.

The only issue is people making an issue out of people looking at things from different perspectives, half-full vs half-empty. Some people will like CM above all other things Some people will dislike CM above all other things. Some think perceived delays regarding videogames launch dates are enough to get worked up about. Some think videogames are never enough get worked up about. Than there are people so get worked up about others standing on the other side of the spectrum. -- In essence what you say is that there are more games than CM and that for some players CM has gotten stale and or had enough about that. I for one can fully understand that. I was playing CMSF back in 2007 or so. It is not a 'new' game and plenty will have burned out on it or just played enough of the game and have moved on. (Edit: although it might be new for quite some people discovering it through Steam). Although I always keep coming back to CMx2 and have recently been playing much more PBEMs because IMO it's just the best game for the subject (and I have various other games and tried to like for example Graviteam and Armored Brigade; but I personally can't recommend them). So, for me yes is the best game in the genre and is alone with regards to the quality of play I get from it. Your mileage might vary, but I don't see the issue with that I have such an opinion. Besides not everyone has the same social norms. Some may be more allergic to perceived complaining, while others might be more allergic to perceived downplaying. You can decide to end your issue right now. I for one don't care that people stopped caring about CM. The forum is for sure less active than years ago, but years ago CMx2 was a new game. I guess with CMx3 it will be more busy again, as there are new things to discuss

Happy new year! Excited for F&R. Also good news all the BFC titles are going to Steam! So the CMSF2 Steam release was a success . I guess that's the feature which creates one 'movie' from all turns in a game? Personally (and I guess quite some others) would really like such a feature (unsupported), so that I can view / record a full AAR of a game without having to load each individual turn. The required high-end system seems not that big of a problem (for me and probably other 'computer enthusiasts'). However, if it requires hours of number crunching it's probably fair to say that I might use it a couple of times at max. Perhaps I'd like to use it more often, but than comes reality. OTOH for some of the better 'content creators' out there, who already investing many hours into putting together AAR video's, things might be different. Better to twiddle thumbs (or some nice napping) while the PC does the hard work, instead of loading/recording each separate turn and joining that in some editing studio program. Anyway that's probably just a very small portion of the 'audience'. In Dutch we have a great saying 'for nothing the sun rises'. So I understand why you don't see it as a 'commercial viable' feature.

Good points. Something which is imo easily overlooked is the protection HTs give against mortars/artillery. For a example the situation where you have to attack an enemy position with good observation / TRPs and mortars/artillery on either area denial missions or targeting your infantry moving to their attack positions. Without HTs your infantry would be vulnerable to harassing fire along their approach, weakening them before they are able to join in battle or suppressing them enough to keep them out of the fight. HTs can make a big difference in such cases, transporting infantry with speed and reasonably protected against HE fragments and stray bullets. Of course good blocking terrain or a smoke screen are required to limit the chances of your infantry laden HTs being targeted by direct fire weapons.