Skwabie

What?... Salute to the campaign makers out there then, for I was thinking when I buy a module some of the funds go to the scenario/camp designers for sure. The editor, having used it myself is by no means efficient. What Erwin says about months to make a campaign seems about right to me and I generally finish a campaign within a week. It's not only labor intensive but also labor inefficient so to speak, it's not like the campaign is dynamic you get years and years of replay value out of it, or that one can easily make changes to the existing campaign and create a spinoff for himself, in which case I'd be thinking my hard work will do many people quite a lotta good at least. As things are currently I'd be lacking the incentive to go on without some form of financial motivation. Coming from long and dedicated years of flight simming where everything is free dev, the cycle is indeed vicious in that devs make mediocre stuff, users complain, and the "why don't YOU make it yourself" gets thrown around a lot it ends up indeed a depressing experience and I was simply tired of it, despite the glorious outlook that there's a bunch of noble ppl willing to work for free for the great cause. When it comes down to it, heck I'll be damn straight, is that money matters. Payware stands for better quality for natural and apparent reasons. I mean, here we have a great game engine and a bunch of well made pixel equipment and units, but it's kinda hard to find a good battlefield to fight them on. I never am for one just to get the game for some grog study, but to take them out and fight them. P.S. the future packs for BN/FI, wouldn't they contain new campaigns and scenarios that we buy? Or are those still just new equipment?

venturing a guess? 1 mods. especially ones that contain the strings.txt file. 2 corrupted install. Mine goes BN+CW bundle, 1.11 patch, 2.0 upgrade, 2.01 patch, MG, 2.12 patch in sequence. (not sure if 2.01 is still needed when MG sits on top)

fine. gang up on the new guy! hey at least i got this forum some actual posts in when everyone is busy biting the bone at the other one!

right.. was actually thinking of this one http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112660 I guess it's not called TO and E:rolleyes:

Gave it some thought myself as well. I guess the most obvious difference is terrain. CMBN is mostly small constrained map, Italy gets more open space. I used to prefer open map but have learnt to appreciate infantry stuff on small maps. There's the theater of ops. BN is obviously more well known but each has own preference. And quite an overriding factor being available materials. BN gets tons of equipment, scenarios and camps, FI is more limited. UI in FI is better, like splash screens and the control interface, but just IMO. Small TO&E differences but not a biggie. I went for BN first. Only because I didn't quite know what was Italy all about...... Nowadays I think BN is done to death and FI could use some new battles to fight. Still love the open terrain and the whole desert-ish color to it. just 2c from another newbie

I'd rather buy them from BFC since I wonder if playing self-made scenario is fun after already knowing the AI plans. Yes there can be several but still. Oh yeah... dynamic campaign is a total wet dream!...

I finished all of them! Scenarios are boring so fresh outta materials atm!:mad:

It probably is a budget issue, but seeing as most other vehicles in game are better presented visual wise, and KT being a quite well-known AFV among the military enthusiasts circle I'm not exactly sure why. I can only hope that it gets updated.

Hi Jorge MC what's the sound mod in use in the video? The 75mm gun and MG fire of the panther sounds real good there.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1469597&postcount=28 and IIRC that was not the first time. I did do my digging homework around here.

After a nervous break down.... I thought, at least now it looks good, authenticity aside?! (yep some hex editing was done on the 3d model to re-name 2 of the hatches...) And... at least.. like Vanir said the Sherman 76 can no longer penetrate the turret front anymore, as it should have been?!!... And... the hull and turret no longer has appalling low turn rates anymore...

I'm a bit on the extreme side. Bought Market Garden but didn't update... found the drag waypoint - target - drag waypoint back routine too good a workaround at times to circumvent action square issues to pass. (That and the nerfed tank spotting just got on my nerves but that's just me)

I've checked it multiple times, and pretty sure it is indeed the case. Furthermore I re-did the install dance and noticed German Heer PzG units didn't even have G43s, until the game was patched by Market Garden module. The most apparent being the BN Platoon HQ never gets a G43 while it does in FI. The best equipped panzer grenadiers go to the FI Luftwaffe ones it seems. Not a big issue, I just somehow like them G43s:o Re MP44: the one that you can't re-stock ammo from vehicles? I play mostly campaign so thanks but no thanks...

So I'm just checking this out. Purchased a pzr grenadier battalion 44 [armored] in scenario editor in Excellent equipment setting, deployed the first 2 platoons. I counted the G43 semi-autos the grenadiers are carrying. Then I did the same thing in CMBN. The FI grenadiers always carried more G43s. The date setting is only one month apart (May 44 in FI, June 44 in BN)... How come? More G43s went to Italy?

We need a Combat Mission Game Database Viewer. Enough of this countless testing. It is tiring, time consuming, and at the end of day still unconvincing to the average joe. Enough of the repeated request on gun vs armor penetration tables. Even there is one, it still is an indirect reflection of how the game mechanism works. Yes, a database VIEWER, NOT editor. So we can see what values are assigned to each unit. But without the ability to modify anything.

Interesting... So far almost all of my wins are AI surrenders. And 90% of those is when AI lost 50% men. There were exceptions like a decision scenario where you choose the course of the campaign by occupying A or B zones. Other than that the 50% rule seems to apply.

So you believe it will be steaming hot but I could care less. I've already seen thru the dust and know what it's all about!

@LukasWillen will extract german one next..

...when personal relationship comes into the foray it complicates things doesn't it and atm I've got little interest in debating a flight sim, that's not yet released, on a land combat game forum

I'm not an archeologist...

I am a hardcore flight simmer by night and have a keen eye on spotting software deficiencies. For sure an average user most likely doesn't notice anything at all!

It won't reach the hype it had in the 90s for sure, I reckon the scene in Russia is somewhat an after effect. And the capital market opening in those eastern bloc countries sure helped. Besides those russian made stuff are rather crude software wise after taking a close look at them. Relating to CM, when looking at flight sims anything that went too ambitious had died, at least commercially. As long as CM stays simple the chances of it surviving another crisis is pretty good I guess. But they gotta move the set to modern. WWII are for old timers these days, the youth can read stories 'bout it but hey if you haven't been there it won't be the same.

skynet is upon us! sorry folks carry on...

also hull down tanks are quite hard to hit even below 500 meters... The shots usually fly high and there'd be 3-4 reloads before one finds its mark which... probably already is too late. I've found that tanks behind cover like some trees, tanks hull down... forget it.. time to find another avenue of approach...

I've yet come to the NATOs... But vaguely remember reading one of the patch notes that missing ATs were added back. Have indeed finished both Army and Marines campaign tho, they went without trouble. Again mayhaps it was in one of the scenarios where you failed the prev one, which I didn't... all I know atm.