Wrath of Dagon

If this is going to take more than 3 months, I'd suggest a beta release in return for pre-orders.

So next summer

Surely the Russian developers will be happy to keep cranking out EF modules until the entire war is covered? Btw, CMBB was the best CM game by far IMO.

All I want is some kind of higher level persistent grid where I move my units before the tactical battle starts. Don't know if that's compatible with current plans or not.

Would it really be astronomical if you started out with a very simple version which could be build upon later?

That actually sounds really promising. Look forward to hearing more details on how it's going to work.

So if the AI doesn't work without scripting, does that mean Quick Battles against the computer won't be possible?

OK, I'll accept that. I don't think Total War failed miserably, but it's a matter of opinion. Achtung Panzer I think could've succeeded too, if they just came up with better rules for the operations map.

That only amplifies my point. The strategic layer makes even a bad tactical game worthwhile. It would make CM mindblowingly awesome. Anyway, my original point was people complaining shouldn't be an excuse, since they complain bitterly and still buy the game in droves.

I understand the reasoning that you don't think the resources you'd have to spend on a dynamic campaign are worth it to you or may be even practical at all. But the justification that everyone would still complain no matter what you did just doesn't make any sense. Here's proof: 1) Total War has a dynamic campaign 2) Everyone and their mother does nothing but bitch about the campaign, unless they take a break to complain about the TacAI instead 3) Total War sells lots of games 4) No one would buy a Total War game if it didn't have a dynamic campaign 5) Case closed Personally I would like something like CMC, even if greatly simplified. Hell, I'd even settle for something like Achtung Panzer operational map, except their implementation is completely moronic.

This thing about everyone wanting something different, why not just do what CMC was doing? I didn't see too many complaints about that. Obviously not everything at once, but just start with a bare minimum at first, and add when resources/interest permit. Yeah, I know, not gonna happen.

Had the Germans not mysteriously tarried at Dunkirk and destroyed the BEF instead, Churchill would've been finished and the rest of the British government would've made peace with Germany. One of those moments when history could've been changed forever.

See the vast majority are just like me, so obviously I speak for them [wink] I'm sure I'm completely ignorant, but 1 year doesn't seem like that much. And I'd be happy with any op map you guys came up with, I'm sure there'd be some bitching, but it's the internets. And like I said, I can't imagine anything more valuable with the same development time, but if you think it's too much risk for BF, so be it, after all I'm not risking anything.

That's exactly what I meant by doing a poll. You've already made a great tactical wargame though, now all that remains is the strategic layer. And obviously if that's something that just myself or a few people want there's no point in doing it, but I suspect that's something that a great many people want. IMO that would improve the game more than anything else I can conceive of. That's only my opinion of course, it's your game and I'm not questioning that. Also what ASL said.

I think for a hardcore game like CM, the community is actually fairly representative of the customers, especially if you let the poll run for a few months, so the less frequent posters can participate. Plus I'm not sure the campaign is most wanted by the hardcore, I think they probably prefer that every engine variation for PzIV was represented instead. In fact the IGN review of CMAK critisized it for not having a campaign and made the point the game would be more mainstream successful if it did, as only grogs are satisfied with playing disconnected tactical battles (I think Medieval Total War is a good example here, or just about any RTS for that matter). As far as COOP being more popular, I think you said once most people play CM off-line, so for them a campaign would be more useful. If you did a poll, at least you'd have some solid numbers to go by as to what people prioritize, and of course you don't have to go strictly by that, you can just consider it as another piece of information.

So I gathered from the discussion we had before, although that was before CMC was cancelled. I guess I just like to beat my head against a brick wall. Have you considered having a poll about what the community thinks should be the priorities for future development?

I still say the tactical combat is already good enough, and the best thing to do after Normandy would be an operational map, even a simple one. http://www.armchairgeneral.com/combat-mission-campaigns-exclusive-after-action-report.htm Like in the AAR report attached to that article. When's the Normandy forum opening btw?

Uninstall 9.4 and install 9.3, as discussed here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87121

The only thing that really bugs me is that M1's seem to ignore RPG's, recoiless rifles and such. Shouldn't any threat to Bradley/Stryker be considered a priority by M1's since they usually accompany?

Uninstalled Catalyst 9.5 and installed 9.3, seems fine now.

Mine also crashes frequently when I try to save.

I agree command delays are important to distinguish different training levels. It still feels weird not to have a delay at all, but I rationalize it by imagining that American troops are really well trained. The other important factor is that without command delays, there's no penalty for changing your orders once they're already being carried out.

Well, which tank would you take if you had to go up against one of the other ones?

His posts and articles in general are hostile to Israel, so I will not accept just his word as evidence. You can't fall from grace so long as you got all the guns, and willingness to use them. You're thinking too much in American political terms. Right, the people who celebrated whenever Israeli children were blown up by suicide bombers. And they'd get all the sympathy back as soon as the first civilian casualties occurred, just read your own forum. Anyway, the blockade is just a pretext. Humanitarian aid can still go through, and all Hamas has to do to lift it is accept Israel's right to exist and give up terrorism. It's not just Israel that embargoed Hamas, but all Western nations.

He was making some pretty serious accusations against Israelis, aside from his point about NCO's, which I don't feel qualified to debate further. My point was he's not necessarily an objective source for those accusations, at least as far as taking his word alone as evidence. There are degrees of success that are possible. The minimum would be to return to a ceasefire and get an international force on the Egypt/Gaza border to destroy the smuggling tunnels. As far as what I think will happen, I'm not in the business of predicting the future, wait and see. Certainly Fatah is better at governing, that should be self evident by now. My point was though that the reason West Bank is better off is because their government is not currently attacking Israel.