Lethaface

Good one. Hunt is indeed a great tool. When I get the feeling described by @ncc1701e I try to use it as a reminder for security. Are my flanks and rear secured? Are my moving elements under friendly overwatch? Am I advancing to contact with the smallest element possible? Did I do any recon or do I have any clue about what to expect? Are the big guns pointing at the enemy? Should I deploy smoke or arty? etc. The point where I am usually caught of guard is when I should regroup and reorganize but don't. For example after capturing objective A and going on to objective B. I usually sort of spearhead right out of my previous fighting positions and forget everything until I start to take casualties. I hope for CMx3 they'll be able to smoother the transition between the map and the background. I would also welcome more fidelity on the graphics and audio side of things. And last but not least further improved tacAI.

Like you can rant about ranting, but not directly directed at another ranter. Good rules me thinks!

Hehehe nice one. Can't wait to restart my career! And don't forget the RED forces, playing them successfully is a whole different ballpark compared to the Blue forces.

Lets stop doing the same thing while expecting different results. At least, this threads seems to revolve about exactly that. It's insanity. Ill try to be productive and think of a realistic way the 'bone updates' plus 'expectations'/ planning could be handled in such a way that everyone is happy. Maybe others can chime in, as I do seem to remember Steve saying something along the likes that 'if anyone has a good solution for the updates that works for everyone, he's all ears' in the last bone threads a few months ago. Not sure though, could be the pod At least coming up with a productive and realistic proposal that most of the community supports seems better than the repeating infighting about the ever recurring 'when is it finished?' subject. Realistic in such a way that BF.C will still be BF.C and Steve will still be Steve: weekly/monthly dev updates/diaries whatever are not on the table. Neither are accurate release dates. Those, gentleman, are the facts. Now, my 0.02: * Quarterly bone updates. Similar to the 'bone' updates Steve has given in the past. Quarterly doesn't mean a fixed date, a bit more flexible than that but still people would know sumfink more about when to roughly expect info's. Maybe Steve and or others at BF could find themselves in something like this which is a little more 'regular' compared to the current bone update schedule. I'd think it would be a welcome 'gesture' to the raving refresh monkeys too. * No predicted 'release dates' since they don't work, it's all fantasy which somehow gets people angry. If there need to be relative moments in time posted, I would suggest going for 'strive quarters' for predicted release windows. As in 'we strive to have you guys playing this in Q3 2018'. These striving quarters could be updated in the quarterly update and are sort of expected to be subject to change. * Separate rant threads for people that wish to rant, where only rants are allowed.

Thanks all. I've ordered crashed, his other books seems interesting too indeed.

Already taken care of

Some people already went into details about the different weapons systems. Some great advice would be to learn about the weapons systems in real life as they seem to work similar in CM. In CM the biggest notable difference between Mortars and Howitzers is that mortars fire in a more vertical path and that most mortars can be employed both on- and offmap, while howitzers and field guns are usually only available off map. Apart from that they all lob rounds over to the enemy. There are various shells (smoke/airburst/groundburst/precision iirc) and various firing patterns. The accuracy and time to call depends on the unit calling the artillery (their training and communication capabilities) and the artillery piece itself. How I use them: 60mm mortar -> nice for (direct) support of small units in firefights. 81mm mortar -> suppressing and destroying enemy strongpoints. 120mm mortar -> like the 81mm but better. It's a great mortar, however munition is usually limited. 105mm howitzer -> weaker howitzer but usually a lot of rounds. Use it on targets of opportunity or else in a large diameter strike with a lot of rounds over a longer time 122mm howitzer -> stronger than 105, more useful in urban area bombardments. 130mm field gun -> maybe a more lower trajectory that's significant? otherwise it's just a larger 122mm. 155mm howitzer -> This is the goto artillery. It will basically destroy what it finds, even tanks. This is good for almost everything, use it on where you expect important enemy positions. They will suffer. 180mm and 203mm are also great. Basically larger calibre is better, however then downside is that larger guns usually have less rounds and or feature a slower rate of fire and response/setup time. In real life there are more relevant factors, but since this is about the game I guess this will suffice.

I'm all with you with regards to keeping calm etc. Things will come when they come, as that is how life works. Time is relative. However, I don't agree with regards to the issue. Sure in a PBEM one can use the pause feature, however against the AI playing campaigns/scenario's the enemy can't use those commands. Sure, the impact depends on the specific scenario but having troops fleeing trenches upon some nearby arty can sure make a campaign/scenario less interesting. Edit: I see I wasn't the only one I do agree that the AI doesn't always put up a good fight, however there are quite a number of scenario's where it's at least (more than) good enough for me to have fun with. Some of that fun is impacted when the enemy runs away the instance I put their (prepared) positions under arty fire. Given the commonality of indirect fire in CM, one could value that impact as significant. PBEMs are my favorite however I don't really have the luxury of playing those. Anyway just wanted to stress some people actually play against the AI and have some fun at it, so I'm surely anticipating the patch for all CMx2 titles. Still I'd rather have them release a patch in November over October if that means the difference between a good tested/quality product vs something rushed. Given the BF history I'm quite sure that quality will be the most important, so I'm happy to wait a little longer. Yes, they could update us given the presumed delayed demo and or CMSF2 release. I would appreciate it. However, since that update will basically entail nothing more than 'somewhere soon (Q4 2018)' realistically, I don't really bother if they bother the effort to come posting about it. That's how I feel about it anyways, in a free world everybody is free to agree or disagree.

Steve told me on snapchat that the new CMSF2 roadmap is 'late 2018'. Patch to follow up shortly after. (joke)

Well, 'learning a new OS' (or getting to know any new 'thing') can be a steep barrier for some.

This game has a steep learning curve compared to arcade games. However, compared other complex games it isn't too bad. Knowledge of tactics and weapon system capabilities sure does help.

Aye aye! -- I'm planning to order Adam Tooze's book 'crashed' after I read the link provided by @LongLeftFlank. Too bad the chapter about Turkey didn't make the cut, although the article provided goes quite deep into the Turkish situation. Anyone here read 'Crashed'?

Hehehe I was trying not to keep him from working on the release Good idea though, I'll probably file up a ticket sooner.

Same situation here. I am sure that I do have the CMSF disc, manual and map although the license number isn't on there anymore. The sticker has probably come off after 10 years . I can't remember how I got hold of it though and my mail archive doesn't reach that far, although I think there is a good chance I ordered it from battlefront directly. Anyhow, Steve informed us that he has the data although it's not available in the webstore. My plan is to check/ask when the game comes out.

Not sure about the 'lore' but IIRC on the original CMSF map the Turks do have some presence. I can't find it although I'm sure I saw it somewhere this year. I tried googling it and found some images of it. It's easy to find if you look in google images searching for cmsf map scan. There are arrows into Syria from Turkey, so I guess the Turks are involved (which would be logical since NATO article 5 was invoked in the lore).

Yes, unfortunately I fear the battle for Idlib will also feature more of those brutalities. One can hope one day Assad will see trial for his crimes, not holding my breath though.

I don't think anyone doubted the existence of certain articles (although thesun? seriously? ) Anyhow it's still bullocks. Besides; how does 'a growing population' equal to factual tangible pressure to 'include' Sharia law.? Also, like... what laws? Stoning people for 'avin a pint? Come on get yourself a break and go meet a Muslim near to you. He or she probably won't bite. They might invite you for tea though. Personally I feel the 'politics' line was crossed with your first post about the Muslim subject. I had to reply but I'm happy to steer it back to the more on topic macro geopolitical / military stuff. --- It will be 'interesting' to see what happens in the region after the, sort of, inevitable regime (Assad) victory over the rebels in Idlib. I hope it's not just the next phase of conflict, but I have some fears. There are a lot of players on the board, with converging interests. Turkey will be among the first with the ball in their court. Will they pull their (proxy) forces out of Syria and how about the Kurds? The Iranian block becomes stronger. Israel is not happy, there is always something about oil, wuddabout US, etc.

I'm glad there is no mention of those sorts in the article, for I would have stopped reading them. I'm not going to debate these subjects, I think it is suffice to say that both ('floodgate muslim immigration from Turkey' and the 'EU Sharia') are populist myths. Also, I miss how those are correlated? Turkey doesn't feature a Sharia law; besides there is no such thing as 'the Sharia law'. In The Netherlands (and I suspect the UK also) there already is the possibility for mediation, instead of formal courts, when parties want to settle a civil dispute. If they do wish the mediation to follow certain religious rules, that is fine as long as it is within the boundaries of the law (and all parties agree to it). Different religious groups do make use of this freedom and have been doing that for a while. It is nothing new, nor is there any small chance of our constitution being replaced with religious books.

Thanks for the link, interesting read.

Well said.

LoL nice one.

I'm with 'combative man' here I don't see the merit of artificially limiting the pauses to 15 , 30 , 45 secs and so forth for RT. Basically that's like WEGO with a twist. I'm personally not against adding options for WEGO games which allow you to do that (although also not on my wishlist). But why limit RT? You can already limit yourself by just hitting the pause button according to the rules you make up. I think it's a bad idea to force those rules upon every RT game.

First, nothing wrong with a critical while civil discussion. I consider your post as civil What I find interesting though, is how you come to feel disrespected because you had to check for yourself that the game didn't release in July. You even agree that not much was lost, just the activity of checking the website.

Thanks for the interesting video! Based on his video I would draw a different conclusion though (different than that of the video author). A significant faster boot time or load time for games (which ofcourse depends on the rest of the hardware and the game), is worth it for me as a 'boot' disk and or disk where I put my stuff one that I want to load quickly. Price per GB might be double, but so are certain load times. Anyway obviously in a budget system one wouldn't go for a highend SSD like the 960. But when your building a highend machine and spend 1500 (or in my case more like 2500) on it in total, It's my opinion that a 50-100 euro difference is worth it. It might be double the price, but that price is still in proportion to the build. Maybe if one goes for a SSD only setup that the NVMe's get very expensive. I need at least a few TBs of storage, which would become quite expensive if I build that on 960 evo's. Like everything, in the end it always comes down to requirements.

Another thing that I noticed after my previous post: the '1.000 GB HDD' is a bit underwhelming, as there are 2TB (and 3 or 4TB) HDD's available for more or less the same price (from €20,- more). Since your (also) dutch I can advise the following website for (regularly updated) reference system builds: https://tweakers.net/reviews/6497/desktop-best-buy-guide-september-2018.html PS I see they also advise on the Crucial MX500 (1TB), which strangely enough implement a SATA interface over a M.2 connector. So, they are vastly inferior with regards to read and write speed compared to the Samsungs 960 series that use a PCIe interface. I haven't actually tried comparing them in a setup, so I don't know if I would notice the difference with regards to speeds. I do believe in math though, 6x read speed and 3x write speed is substantial.