19Kyle72

Well, after reading that super extensive list of what it means exactly to supply an updated version of the original CMSF, I'm going to hold off on spending any dollars on the UK and NATO expansions, and save them instead for the rerelease. Thank you for all of the info!

Argh! Don't say that too loudly. We don't want to scare the developers off of a brilliant idea. When it comes to China, I know very little about the actual performance capabilities of its troops and its equipment. I can't think of a recent "classic" invasion being carried out by China in modern times to analyze. Their tactics to conquer the world look mostly like them building schools, water treatment facilities, wells, and roads in whatever third world country who's mineral and labor resources they want to exploit. They do this before first blowing them to smithereens, and then they haven't, thus far, tried blowing them up afterward. And, honestly, this tactic to "win hearts and minds" seems to be doing very well for them. Of course, it helps that Western countries are endlessly pouring their capital to build state of the art factories on China's mainland, but that's a topic for a different thread, isn't it...? So, I "sort of" get why you feel the developers would need a lot of time to dig up research on modern day Chinese military capabilities, but I don't think that China is anytime soon going to put on an all out invasion for anyone's behalf, so that leaves us in a perpetual state of guessing. There was a group of Chinese modders who invested a TON of hours into creating amazingly detailed PLA mods of Chinese units/gear/equipment for ArmA 1 and ArmA 2, but how accurate its depictions are is anyone's guess. I say that we cheer the developers on in making their best educated guess as to what the Chinese can/can't do, and I'll be happy to open up my wallet in deference to the released product. Who knows? If some irate Chinese national wants to correct an error that Battlefront makes, they might just end up turning over valuable information over to prove their point. A month later, we'll have a patch! Well, if a man's going to dream, dream BIG, eh?

Yes, the details that you supplied have convinced me. Russian Airborne units it is then! That said, God forbid a real war breakout between NATO and Russia. We're not talking about a third rate military here. And there's this "little" detail of them having nukes like we do, so... The other Russian "ally" that could be added, in light of the massive energy deal that they've just signed, is Turkey. I know, I know, might seem "farfetched" now, but even ten years ago, who would've ever thought that they would've entered into such a massive energy pact with Russia as they just have? Not to mention their tremendous reluctance in opposing ISIS and their types in regards to Syria. There's a lot of evidence that they're actually supporting them. Being that this is a "fictional" campaign, it wouldn't hurt to have us experience units that would make for some pretty unique and dicey scenarios. It's a given that having Chinese units would be a smorgasborg of possibilities, but having Turkey ally itself with Russia - ho boy - would that create a nerve wracking mix. It'd be surreal to see their super modernized Sabra's (M60Ts), Altays, and Leopard 2A4s on the battlefield! Having a Cobra go up against a Humvee? Having officers/reserves armed with FN P90s? And by 2017, their new MKEK MPT-76 assault rifle will be fully in service. Yeah, imagine having to contemplate countering a battlefield with a mix of Russia's, China's, and Turkey's best units and gear... Eep!

I'd like to suggest that for future modules, the following be strongly considered: For the NATO allies, there would be... Germany Poland (big time on this one for obvious reasons) UK For Russian additions and allies, there would be... Russian Naval Infantry (if not already present) Chinese marines (whoa yeah!) For all sides, I'd also like to see a significant integration of drones and low profile (meaning hard to see) combat robots.

Holy Moley Chris! That's one ENORMOUS list of updates! Thanks for it! Oh yeah, I definitely plan on "coming home" to all things CMSF related. Well, not right away - took a huge pay/benefits decrease recently , but I aim to slowly work my way back fully into Battlefront's domain. Yes indeed. To be clear - the update to the first CMSF "Syria" material, this update will not be a "standalone" series of products, correct? In other words, if one already owns the original versions of CMSF, then all one will have to do to get the update is spend something like an extra $10 to upgrade it to the latest build of the engine, or is a whole new release planned? If it's a purchaseable upgrade to the original titles, I hope that you don't mind me suggesting that you also include in the missions/campaigns a greatly expanded role for survelliance/strike drones, as well as combat robots, such as the SWORDS system (like this one here: https://www.google.com/search?q=SWORDS+robot&client=firefox&hs=7sD&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=zi6nVMwDgvbJBIfOgJAB&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=523 ). I would think that especially by 2017, that such systems would have some significant applications. I also wouldn't hesitate with incorporating some of the Real World massive "egg in our face" blowback from CIA machinations in that part of the world. I'm talking about all of the funding/training we've given to the rebellious "locals" (who oftentimes really aren't all that local) that later end up using the weapons/training we gave them against us, and who also use our enemies captured weapon caches for their own ends. You know, the tragically typical ISIS and Al Qaeda type stuff. Alright, thank you again for feedback. It's greatly appreciated!

27012015 At 1215. And what makes me deserve it more than the other guy? I've stepped away from Combat Mission Shock Force titles for years because of my disappointment with earlier design decisions (see here for more details: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117357-what-version-of-the-engine-does-shock-force-now-use/). After reading about all of the major improvements to the CMSF engine, I'm very anxious to get my hands on a copy of the series' latest release. The added bonus, of course, is that I'll be extremely rusty at playing the game. Making me genuinely "easy pickings" in the AAR match. And regardless of who actually wins, this is a VERY generous gift to a lucky winner. Who will, of course, ironically, later lose the AAR match. Thank you in advance fore the opportunity!

Thanks for all of the replies! Even after all of these years, this community is still great and generous. MOS, the list of new features that you supplied above: WOW! I'm drooling over my keyboard now. That must be the source of all of the sparks coming up from it!

Thanks for the info MOS. Your reference to CMSF2 - will it "simply" be the old content in the new engine (same campaigns, same map designs, same equipment, etc.), or will it be the "original" content but heavily modified so that water and bridges are finally exploitable, or will it be brand new content, with a different region, updated gear and equipment, etc.?

Hello Folks, It's been, well, years, since the last time I posted here. During a chunk of Shock Force's heyday, I was a semi-frequent poster here. I ended up leaving some time after the Marines module was released, as it became ever more clear that the long-promised moveable waypoints feature was not going to be integrated into the game. This was a very big deal to me (and others) as the AI needs quite a bit of handholding. Getting a unit wiped out because one couldn't simply grab and move a waypoint a little bit this way or that was pretty frustrating. Is that still the case? I was contemplating purchasing the British and NATO modules, but it's highly likely I won't if moveable waypoints were never integrated. It's also a tossup to me as to buy any of the WWII era Combat Mission titles if moveable waypoints are still absent. Are they? Also, are moveable waypoints integrated into Black Sea's design? Thanks in advance for any feedback.

Wow. It amazes me how many of you COMPLETELY miss the point. They do NOT have to program anything "for me." Yes, that IS stupid, which is why I'm NOT thinking it. But it says a lot about YOU that you think that I'm formulating my thoughts that way. So, let me try, ONE MORE TIME, to make this PAINFULLY OBVIOUS to those of you who are missing the great big red target that's one stinking meter in front of your overheated M4's. THEY said that they were going to put a feature in. And THEY said it MORE THAN ONCE. THEY are NOT doing it. And you're blaming ME for THEM NOT following through on what THEY said! Now THAT is ignorance on a cosmic scale! If it makes you feel any better, I'll award you First Prize in Missing the Obvious. And if you ever lose your keys... Check your pockets. I can hear them jangling from here.

My reasoning for why I greatly prefer repositionable waypoints has nothing to do with command delays. It has to do with what meatheads the AI can be when it comes to utilizing the terrain optimally. As I stated before, I am MORE THAN HAPPY to take a loss due to a true tactical blunder that I make because of my shortsightedness, or out of the fog of war. What I do NOT appreciate, AT ALL, is when I take a loss that is inexcusable, like plotting a waypoint that you THINK goes around a rubble pile so that maximum speed is achieved from going from Point A to Point B, only to watch as your braindead unit decides to go through the debris pile anyway, and then, because of the slower velocity, gets hit by a RPG. These "blunders" aren't blunders on MY part, and they certainly wouldn't be blunders that any real driver would commit, especially when it's done over and over and OVER again. Now, those of you who can play this game, and not have any issues with these NEEDLESS blunder-events happening, well, I salute you and your ability to ignore such a NEEDLESS gaff. For me, however, it chafes me to no end. Because when one of these NEEDLESS and ridiculous blunders occur in game, I reload. And then wait. Wait. And wait for it to reload (this is "fun," right?). Then, what's even more "fun" is that I have to go and delete a whole set of waypoints, re-plot them, and then stare in the hopes that I nudged it "just right." Here's the real kicker for me. If I nudged it just enough so as to ensure that the AI doesn't do something obviously stupid, I'm still chafed. Why? Because I'm frustrated at the amount of time I had to waste because I just couldn't SIMPLY grab and drag that waypoint over a couple of meters. And what happens if my nudge doesn't work? Yeah, you guessed it, I'm chafed again, because I have to reload, delete, and reposition those waypoints again. Fun? Nope. Does it feel "tactically smart?" Are you kidding me? How can one "enjoy" one's smart decision making when your AI gets itself killed by doing something truly stupid? And to be clear, I'm PERFECTLY fine with the AI doing stupid things when its fear is ratcheted up, or at a state of full blown panic, BUT I do take issue when it's happening during the opening moves, when a single round hasn't been fired yet, and your maneuvering as quickly as possible around OBVIOUS areas of ambush and the AI decides to casually drag itself through rubble right in the midst of that OBVIOUS ambush zone. And I'd be PERFECTLY happy to sit through the long reloads, if I didn't have to delete all of the waypoints to nudge the one that I want to adjust a bit. I want to point out one REALLY obvious reason why I so badly want the capability to simply readjust a waypoint. There was this awesome WWII game that was released a number of years ago. And they decided that it was important, for a number of VERY good reasons, to supply their customers (and more than likely returning customers) with a feature that would make them appreciate the game a lot more because of how thoughtful it was of the players' needs. For some reason, this same company left this feature out of its latest release, but they said numerous times that they "would" implement it. No, they didn't pull out a bible, and photograph themselves placing their right hands on it to make a "promise" that they would do it, but they did say that they were going to do it. And if not by the release of "Patch C," then after it was integrated into Battle for Normandy, and then it would be later incorporated into Shock Force. And now it's perfectly clear that it WON'T be in Battle for Normandy. But who knows, maybe in a later patch, right? Excuse me if I don't hold my breath for that, and excuse me if I don't pull out my credit card to buy the game either. But the fact that I'm here, asking again if the feature will be in the game, and I'm WILLING to buy the product if it's there, proves that I do appreciate what the company gets right (very right, in fact), but to me, that doesn't overlook what's been done wrong. I'm not some d@mned troll "looking for trouble because it's fun," I'm just a frustrated customer who is upset that the game and its modules that he purchased is NOT getting the support that was said they were going to get, nor is this feature in their newest product, which I'd be happy to buy if it had this feature in it they said that was going to be in it. And one last point: the repositionable waypoint feature was stated in a way that distinguished it from the usual "Wish List" of things that they'd like to add. Go back and look at what was said. It's that distinction, paired with everything above that's got me so irritated. Bottom line: if a feature is declared to be put into a product, or will be put into a product, it better be there. Now, if Battlefront ever follows through on this, I'll be supplying my credit card numbers. I'm certainly willing to put my money where my mouth is.

I'll take that to mean "Yes, they're NOT delivering on a repositionable waypoint system for Normandy." Okay. Thanks for that (once again) disappointing bit of news.

Well, from the looks of what's been written on this thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=95291 (which I somehow missed earlier today) that the repositionable waypoints are a "no show" for Normandy. I wish that we'd get an official declaration on this, as it's clear that I'm not the only one that's been pining for its return ever since the original Combat Mission series. Can anyone supply a "solid" answer to this question one way or the other? Thanks in advance.

Will Battle for Normandy finally have the long-promised, but never delivered, repositionable waypoints that I last asked about here (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1209166#post1209166), or is that a feature still in the works "to be delivered" at some future indeterminate date? Because, obviously, indeterminate dates suck, and certainly won't lead to a sale to this potential customer.

Well, I'm assuming that since none of the beta testers has stepped forward to say that moveable waypoints are in and working, and since no other company official has said the same, that said feature is out of this release. Is there even a hint that it's still being worked on, or...?