Wengart

You may be interested in Steve's post concerning bridges. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Normandy-abridged.html&Itemid=213

tiger123, each major change in theater, terrain, weather, time period, and possibly TO&E will result in the release of a new stand along game.

World at War http://worldatwar.eu/ has a fairly strong CM:SF community with a ladder. And if this is any indication, will be supporting all further CMx2 games.

I may have found a possible bug regarding Syrian Squads. Currently some Syrian squads will show an incorrect number of men in the squad panel.

theFightingSeabee, I would absolutely love to see this scenario.

Do you think it would be doing too much if the IBCT plt. had High motivation? Also does anyone have a link to some decent images/ building plan for a patrol base?

So last night I made a quick and dirty battle loosely based on the Wanat battle. - Blue had two platoons of Syrian Mech. Infantry, without BMPs, with motivation low and set to green experience. U.S. forces consisted of one plt. of light infantry, veteran experience and high motivation. -Red had 5 snipers, 2 MMGs, 10 RPG teams, and 6 large fighter groups experience level green--one fighter group was veteran while another was conscript--, high motivation. -RPGs acted like mortars, killed relatively few troops, mostly ANA, and mainly suppressed. Additionally they managed to cause some ANA to route. -U.S. infantry although small in number managed to pin inflict heavy casualties on the attacking force. -Red troops managed to make it into the first trench line, although this was accomplished by a human wave attack, and were quickly repelled. In conclusion, a scenario based on the battle of Wanat is not outside the realm of possibility, and more importantly RPGs will not shred the defenders. I would also like to do some more work on this scenario, but currently I have no idea what a patrol base looks like. Any help would be appreciated. Finally, if anyone would like to see the scenario I could send it to them, but, as a reminder, it was made in an hour and has no AI plan.

I would imagine BF.C would rather change the acquire and dismount order, if possible. Rather than start messing with the tried and true 1 minute 1 turn formula. Although it is something we have to deal with it would still be nice if it were improved upon.

I've been playing since the 1.11 patch. Anyway I have a feeling that we are playing different games, or at least my luck has been extraordinary. But there are problems with the 1:1 representation of infantry. This usually surfaces during movement, and more specifically movement in combat. However, if you the crest of a hill and have a squad move to that crest, and then tell them to face a direction they line up on it nearly perfectly. I am not saying that a squad under fire will magically find the "best spots". But what I am saying, is that with proper player input, a movement command followed by a facing command, your troops will use existing cover that exists because of differences in terrain height. I would show you a picture, but my internet is entirely too crappy to upload anything.

Normandy will have TCP/IP turn-based play. CM:SF I believe is out of luck, although we still have the NATO module to look forward to.

The point isn't whether your men move on a given turn. It is if they move to the location you want them to go to. If a squad moves 10 meters in the wrong direction then next turn you have to make up that movement. Essentially when a squad dismounts I would expect them to know where they would be going. Instead we get this: One minute to dismount and one minute to begin moving towards their destination on foot. It would then take a further minute to re-embark, and another minute to begin getting under way. So all together to dismount from a vehicle and do some recon on foot it would take at least 4 minutes. With 2 of these minutes spent doing nothing. Although with some well timed pauses you could do it in three, I think. Anyway, Steve thanks for taking a look at this issue.

No, no you misunderstood me. I mean like you can line your men up on a crest of a hill for cover, or a small dip in the ground. Not like complex squad formations. A better way to put might be that you can better utilize cover naturally present in the terrain. I've personally never seen it happen. But I understand what your saying, and im not saying there isn't lots of room for improvement. But, I'll personally go with the CMx2 style squad system, even with its quirks. When ever I go back to CM:AK I just find it hard to reconcile what I am seeing with anything meaningful. I just flat out don't care about what happens to my infantry.

I think Scipio has brought this up before. But currently any unit that drives itself around, be it in a UAZ or one of those British recon vehicles, has a serious disadvantage in turn-based mode. It takes 2 turns to mount or dismount a vehicle and then proceed to your destination. In some cases this means wasting up too two minutes of gameplay time to move a measly 10 meters.:mad: Additionally the current dismount command could leave a squad in a potentially vulnerable dismount position for a minute plus,which is certainly enough time for that squad to become pinned... or worse:(, with little or no input from the play. So would it be possible to make the dismount command be part of a string of commands. For example, dismount followed by a move command would cause a unit to exit their vehicle and move to their destination. Or ordering a unit to mount up followed by a move command would tell them to drive their vehicle to said destination?

The fact that infantry are now on the map in a 1:1 basis betters the simulation. If even slightly simply because the entire squad is now on the map, thereby increasing fidelity. Now I will say the CMx1 infantry representation was pretty good. However, you were unable to form certain fighting positions because of the abstractions inherent in the infantry system. Such as a fighting crest position--or whatever its called when you position your troops on the crest of the hill-- and several other ways you can now use the terrain. Even if that terrain isn't solid cover, like a tree or woods, but rather the smaller undulations in it. And of course you are right, you got much more bang for your buck with the CMx1 games. Now whether the amount of work BF.c put into CM:BB compared to what you payed for it is another matter. And of course it really comes down to how much you like CMx2's style, and a lot to do with whether you find modern assymetrical warfare fun. But, really your first two points come down to how BFC makes money. They saw that with an incremental module system they greatly increase their income. And I can't really fault them for it. However, it does have its bright spots. Multiple games/modules can now be developed concurrently, and when a game is released it isn't just done. In other words because of the module system that family of games will be able to have incremental engine updates that were not possible before. (just let me know if your not familiar with CMx2's naming system, and I can explain it in greater detail) And, unfortunately CM:SF will probably never see a new and improved QB system, unless NATO sells particularly well. Normandy's QB system however, should be on par with CMx1's. I also wanted to say that the discussion thus far has been civil, and I see no problem with Egamarl's overall stance. Its his personal belief that CM:SF is currently a "weak product" just as it is my personal belief that CM:SF is pretty damned good. Now a CM:Pacific front game I would purchase, but I think the main reason for BF.c not wanting to go there is the nature of the fighting. Very little tank warfare, and from what I heard it was just an interminable slog against dug in enemy troops,excluding some fighting in Burma, again not that I wouldn't buy it. Although my personal favorite settings to visit are Vietnam and a hypothetical Cold War gone hot. Now to go away from CM for a moment, and recommend any of Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games if you enjoyed Fallout 3. And now to return to this threads original topic. If you enjoy the demos then you'll enjoy the main game. And I whole heartedly endorse both CM:BB and CM:AK

CM:SF will not allow you to record entire games. However, like dieseltaylor said you can get freeware programs to do it for you. However, I do believe it is on the to do list, just really far down it. I would recommend asking tyrspawn in the CM:SF walkthrough thread about what he used.

I'm also pretty certain you can't show the Chinese losing. So that may be a problem, especially when your trying to sell a war game.

Will CM:A get engine patches along with CMSF? Or is everything totally in their own hands?

I wouldn't mind seeing it, if it isn't too much trouble. On another note, I tried the defense in depth. With a company sized force of Syrian Militia vs. combatants. The results were good, I was able to disengage and severely damage them at first contact. However, I lost nearly 4 squads to broken morale while pulling back. And, in the end I was overwhelmed by lack of ammo, and will to fight on the part of my militia. So in the case of the usual Syrian force defense in depth my require too much veterancy to pull off effectively. Although, a static defense in depth is better than a single line. But, personally, I prefer to go with a more guerrilla fighting style. 5 second burst of fire followed getting the hell out of dodge. It not only preserves your force, but it slows down the blue player and you can even inflict some casualties.

Noxnoctum, I found them in the open battle grounds of the WaW site. Egamarl, as a CMSF player im gonna have to disagree with you a bit here. Although, I will admit the QB system is workable but still rather eh. Luckily CM:N will have a totally new QB system! Anyway... CMSF covers a fictional war against Syria meaning its time frame will be necessarily short. The 1st and 2nd Gulf War's are good examples. This is also the reason for the lack of content, the war is over in a period of months not years. Graphically, improvements were needed to sell the game - this of course only applies to non hardcore wargamers. While 1:1 modeling, in my opinion, has improved the simulation. The UI has nearly all of the commands present in BB/AK. The only ones missing are shoot&scoot (which is easily worked around), move to contact was merged with the hunt command (this is one were I do miss the CMx1 command), move to hull down not a glaring omission but still missed by some, and human wave. Also, I have a feeling that some people misunderstand the CMX2 development cycle. CMSF is nearing the end of its run with the NATO module. The next release will be CM:Normandy, followed by CM:Battle of the Bulge, then things get hazy. But, it will be something like CMSF2 and then CM: Eastern Front. With each game having incremental improvements over the last (Normandy will have bridges/new QB system). So it would look something like this. -CMSF -CM:Afghanistan* -CM:Normandy -CM:Bulge -CM:Eastern Front -CM:SF2 *CM:A is a third party game which, with any luck, will be released in the next 6 months Also development can be ongoing for multiple titles simultaneously so waiting times between games should be decreasing.

I see cook offs very rarely, if ever. Although my general policy with the Syrians is if its on a body it can be picked up. So I end up taking everything that is not nailed down out of my BMP's.

On this particular mission, I captured the town along the edge of the map. Then used that area as a staging ground and gathered all 3 rifle platoons there. I then prepared for a pre-planned barrage followed up by an armored assault. - I used mortar smoke (off map) to cover the my advancing forces. - one heavy artillery call in (anti-personnel) was fired on the enemy positions, that were located on my side of the dry lake bed (the positions were also along my route of advance). - With a slight delay (so my units would arrive as the barrage was ending) I had the other H. artillery battery fire on the salt mine thing. What actually happened: My units drove across enemy position on our side of the lake bed (enemy troops were suppressed by anti-personnel artillery). Then made it to the mine, the infantry dismounted and attacked enemy positions under cover of smoke. Total losses: 1 Warrior (crew survived), 4 infantrymen (friendly smoke artillery), 3 infantrymen (enemy fire), and one unlucky fellow who was hit by an AT round from a recoilless rifle.

In the upper left corner of your orders box there are 3 stop sign like things. Those are your halt and pause buttons. The squad needs to be equipped with demo charges, you would then use the blast command to knock down a wall and move through it. I believe if your men are close they can also use hand grenades to knock it down, although i've never done it.

Supposing we got the old move to contact order back. It could then be used as Scipio suggested. Additionally, as a command, it seems better suited to act as a player made contact drill than hunt.

Noxnutom, just wondering when was the last time you tried CMSF. The game has improved immensely, and it would be worth the time to patch it up and give it another try. Speaking of PBEMs, CMBB still has a fairly large player base I would assume. I don't actually own the game. With several gaming clubs still supporting it, for instance http://worldatwar.eu/index.php?〈=3&refcode=0&locatin=intro. Which has 7 players currently looking for CM:BB opponents this week.

Joebloggs, as Sergei has already said, the shipping and handling charge covers all expenses that arise from a physical copy. Such as the production of the physical product, storage, and shipment. The 25$ you paid only covers the cost of the content in the game. If you were correct in your thinking downloaders would be paying significantly less for the game, 15$. Or the base cost for the physical product would 35$ instead of 25$.