Paper Tiger

Guys. I think you should know that something is being prepared for you and that your questions about the WW2 title are not being ignored. Give them a few more days and I'm sure that all your questions will be answered.

Agreed that 1 minute is too long to be hands off in MOUT. It might be more realistic in WW2 but I'd much prefer to play Modern Era MOUT with 30 second turns. In MOUT, the side that moves is in great danger whereas the defender gets to hide in the buildings and fire first. I need to manage my units quite carefully when approaching suspected enemy positions and, for me, RT works best here. I guess the way to do it in WeGo would be to give your units two or three 15-second delays before they start advancing so that you only have to wait 15-30 seconds before you can intervene. BTW, I've had this problem while playtesting in RT too. I got around it by focussing on one part of the action while the other group rests/defends etc. It feels very slow paced and I'm sure that when other players more adept at clicking like crazy in RT will have no problems playing this mission. But that has rarely been the case. I suspect most RT players play the missions this way too. Or WeGo, when they can't do anything for 1 miinute excpet watch.

I'd say the name will be announced when they open the new forum for the Normandy game. Along with a huge pile of bones for your delectation.

I may be alone in this -- and I may incur the wrath of others for saying this -- but I wouldn't mind if CM:N didn't come out till, say, January 2011. ("Gebt Sperrfeuer, Männer!") In the meantime, the NATO module will certainly tide me over. Heck, there are still scenarios I haven't played and campaigns I haven't (quite) finished! There is going to be a lot of playable content shipping with the NATO module so it will certainly keep those of us who enjoy Modern Era content until WW2 arrives. I think folks will want to do some work creating missions/campaigns for the new NATO forces as well so it would be nice to have a bit of space to relax and enjoy the new stuff. However, I doubt it will take THAT long to get WW2 out. And contrary to certain individuals' snide allegations that playing any modern-warfare game turns you into a shooteristic spazzstronaut Amen to that. It's their attitude that rubs me up the wrong way, and not their opinions. They just can't help demonstrating that they are oh-so-superior to us because we enjoy playing this game. And contrary to what they say, they can come here and post negative remarks about CMSF without fear of getting banned. They just can't stand it when people here disagree with their opinions. That's what riles them. I think the CMSF experience shows us that the new Title/Module approach gives the community an enormous amount of material to play with. No doubt BULGE will come along before folks have had a decent amount of time to explore the NORMANDY content to the full. Me, personally, I'm looking forward to the Commonwealth module for Normandy and after that, CMSF2 in a Temperate climate.

1984: Soviet Invasion of West Germany. Combat Mission:Fulda Gap. I'd buy that.

I would imagine (and I'm probably wrong) that those models belong to Snowball. Any stuff that appears in both NATO and Afghanistan was made specially for NATO by BFC's model designing team and not 'nicked' from Afghanistan.

France would be the new RED Force... seriously, I'd love to see the French in the game too.. They're already on BFC's original Syrian campaign map. (Mind you, so are the Spanish and the Greeks...)

Thank God this has finally been announced. It's been getting more and more frustrating posting out here and having to be mindful that you don't let this slip accidentally. You won't encounter the Shilka very often in the NATO campaigns as it is a very high level asset and to have it appear regularly would be unrealistic, and a bit lame too. However, I expect that you'll see it frequently appear in the stand-alones where the above argument doesn't apply. There will NOT be any Syrian air support for the RED side in the NATO campaigns either as that would require an astonishing suspension of disbelief on the part of the player. However, I plan to redo 'Hasrabit' and 'Dinas' shortly after the module is released so that RED has real air support and not the hack I had to use before. And I expect the Republican Guards in Hasrabit will get a Shilka or two to play around with too.

Kiwi101 One solution to accessing that ammo with a full infantry section is to create an AT-team from the section. That usually results in a 2-man team being created from the section/squad and they can get in, acquire the ammo, exit and reform. Ta da! Not a perfect solution I admit. And welcome to the boards as well.

I'm not a big fan of Modern Era MBTs either. Although they are vulnerable to ATGMs I find that the fun in missions with tanks against enemy tanks-ATGMs ceases when one side loses their AT assets. (However, I have made a few of these myself.) I found the Marines to be a lot of fun to play with without tanks. They have some interesting vehicles to play around with, and they could take on an armoured opponent. Same with the Brit Light Infantry and the IBCT. My all-time CMSF favourite vehicle is the Jackal. Tough, it ain't, but that's where the fun factor maxxes out for me. When I played ASL, the scenarios I enjoyed playing the most were small ones that featured some infantry supported by a very small number of light vehicles, the smaller the better. A lot of folks got all excited playing with Tigers and Panthers. I preferred to play with some infantry supported by a truck with an AAA gun mounted on it. (Massive exception to the above: I LOVE Churchills) Once we get NATO finished, I want to devote a significant amount of my CM hobby time to making missions like this.

That's a nice surprise. I'm glad to see you're back, Adam. I hope you're fine.

I want to deliver an apology here in this thread to MikeyD. I misinterpreted his post and managed to read some criticism of myself into it. Talk about an overblown opinion of one's self. I apologise completely to you Mikey. You didn't deserve to be treated like that. I'm ashamed of my behaviour and I'm very sorry that I did so. (Oh, and by the way, to anyone other than MikeyD who is reading this, trust me - nobody made me or asked me to do this. This is a genuine apology)

I have created a thread elsewhere for continued discussion of this point. I will not participate in discussing this issue further here so please direct your remarks to me there. Thank you.

You appear to be focussing on a single, recent iteration. That is not the totality of it. Of course I am because it's the only part that is relevent to what's happening just now. We have not been discussing the broader question of 'should it be done' but the question of whether it 'can it be done?'. I am not the one who decided to bring this subject up for discussion on the outer boards and you must surely agree that I can't ignore what he is saying.

You wish to pursue this here further? Very well then. Your point was that the campaign scipt can't resupply core artillery units. You concerns were not ignored. My response was to go and do a whole load of testing and found that it can indeed be done. Your objections were noted, investigated and proved to be unfounded and you didn't say anything further after I reported my findings. Now, here you are raising it out here and misrepresenting my case to boot. It's beginning to look like you just don't want me to do this. Its been so long since I looked at Marine and basegame campaigns I simply can't recall what they do. Well, isn't that rather disingenuous of you. You know very well how it was done in the Marines campaign since that was the keystone of your point so what's the purpose of this pretence? Once again, there has been no disagreement on this, simply a 'heads up' of a potential pitfall. The pitfall was subsequently investigated by the warned party. Where's the debate?

There's been an ongoing debate about whether or not to include artillery as a core unit - The argument against is if the next battle is three days later it would be odd if your supporting howizers hadn't replenished by then. Well, aren't you funny. Please direct me to this debate MikeyD as, prior to reading your post here, I was unaware that anyone was disagreeing with anyone and surely that is an essential component to any debate. Obviously you do and have decided to start a debate out here. And frankly, that 'argument' against is utterly irrelevant to the scripting of the NATO campaign as you surely MUST know as we are talking about artillery assets being shared by two or more companies fighting in seperate missions either at the same time or within an hour or so of each each other.

Should I possibly be moving other infantry platoons across Malcolm? The 'pincer' is my favoured approach to this mission but you certainly can go via Malcolm. As I said, it will give you a very different playing experience indeed, usually because you will have to fight very hard in the town as there will be quite a substantial number of Syrian forces stationed outside the town to prevent a surrender. However, you do benefit from having your units all on the same 'front'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/edge/ There you go. Just doing that wee search makes me want to watch it all over again. And yes, take it S-L-O-W when playing the mission

Nope, never seen it. The title actually comes from the UK eco thriller that was made in the early 80s.

As the author of this particular scenario, I can tell you that I designed it and intended it to be a slow burner. I play only in Real Time and I wanted to have a mission for the Brits that allowed me to take my time getting my units into position, performing recce and preparing the Syrian positions before the real fireworks began at around the 1 hour mark. I suggest that you take your time for the first 30 minutes or so, and don't attempt anything too ambitious. The first half of the mission is just prep. I take it you're going over 'Margaret', right? The game plays out very differently if you go via 'Malcolm'.

The Dutch side looked like they had an easy time of it. Was the AAR played against another human player? Or was it A.I. controlled? This is intended to be a campaign mission and so, when played with the full Dutch core OB, should be easy. However, I doubt any of you guys will win this mission quite as handily

The Marines are a blast to play with, aren't they? I can't wait to hear your reaction to the Brits when you get around to them. Fun but in a totally different way

It's perfectly understandable...that very few Stryker-oriented scenarios have been made since, well, v1.10. Ha! I have been thinking along those lines lately as well. The Strykers are really good fun to use and I like the MG. I REALLY want to do something with the US Heavy Mech Infantry group as well. I've got some ideas for doing some 'macro-scenarios' along the lines of my early 3-mission Perdition campaign for each of these under used formations. Once NATO is out of the way of course...

Michael: Because the average sized units in play are not battalions; they are squads or individual vehicles... And you see, as a long time board wargamer (my history in the genre goes back to the summer of 1964), my definitions were acquired in that way. And since the definitions strike me as perfectly pragmatic and clear, I see no reason to discard them. As an old time board gamer myself, I can understand your classification of CMSF as a squad level game and I agree with you. Old boxed wargames frequently had the game scale on the back and if CMSF were to be released as a board game, it would be scaled at the Squad/individual vehicle level. Fair enough. I admit that I misread your original post and that my reply to it was inappropriate. My apologies to you.

Now if we were talking about a battalion or divisional level game I might be interested. But that's not CM. Definitely NOT a Division level game but I don't understand why you say it's not a Battalion level game. Sure, CMSF was designed to be played as a Company level game, just like the CMx1 games were, but the community insist on upping the intended scope of the game to this level. Agreed? Both my Red v Red campaigns featured not one but two Battalions of core forces so perhaps you meant to type Regimental level? (Hey, come to think of it, 'Dinas' featured practically a whole Regiment of Core forces). Again, just like CMx1 allowed us to do but in a different manner. The CMx2 campaign system allows those of us who don't wish to have the entire battalion fighting on a 4kmx4km map to fight Battalion sized actions. Instead, you can create a set of smaller, near interlocking maps and have the individual companies do their thing and the result of that mission will have an effect on a later mission in the series. The system is capable of producing some interesting battles. I, for one, plan to explore its limits when the WW2 game is released.