J Bennett

Yeah I noticed that too! Who's been hating on John. Oh never mind i just noticed the other explanatory posts

If there can be no Pacific CM then how about  CM Korea? I'm not a fan of the Fulda Gap idea because I dont like "what if" stuff.

If there can be no Pacific CM then how about  CM Korea? I'm not a fan of the Fulda Gap idea because I dont like "what if" stuff.

You're in good company though; we're many who would like to see it happen one day

well I took the leap from a 24" 1920x1080 to a 27" 2560x 1440 IPS gaming monitor and I have to say CM has never looked so good.  I did a full upgrade on graphics card and cpu etc as well, to be fair, but the UI is still VERY readable at this particular native resolution.  Years left in the current engine IMHO.  cheers!

+1
In addition to scalable UI, have also longed for a revamped ACQUIRE routine that allows units to swap weapons and ammo with adjacent units (with limitations of course); the ability of being able to order the AI to move a main weapons a few inches so it can attain LOS and shoot at what the 3rd loader can see and shoot at; one mouse click ability to set 180 degree arcs (as in CM1) etc etc.
It's the UI that really needs TLC so that players can waste less time on figuring out how to do certain things using the game interface (eg making multiple mouse clicks when one could do), and spend that time on the more fun decisions re tactics & strategy.
 

That is kind of a loaded question - define content. 
Number of units
level of detail and options in ToEs
number of scenarios/campaigns
required art work
all of the above?
 
Also what has to be factored in is, if it was done as a module to CMBN what would be the impact on loading and running?  I honestly don't know the answer, but from what I understand from comments Steve made on the forum some time ago there was a limit to the amount of material they would load in any one game family.  It is not from my impression a financial decision so much as a performance/support concern.
 
Eidt- oh thank you Wiggum for your obligatory negative point.  Not sure what about a general statement on possibilities warranted it, but I guess you just feel the need. 

any news about how close release is ? 

Smartass.  Gave me a good chuckle though.  Could you hear Charles in the background floating in his jar giggling while making fart bubbles?

Actualy Snarre, I just got off the phone with Steve and he assured me that the game is in the near-term mix, and that sounds very promising, I asked him if he could be a little more specific, and I was surprised when he told me, "It will be released when it is ready."So I hope that helps.

so what your saying, Bulge is much bigger and has more content than the normal module

I was wondering what is BF's thought process by making Bulge a new title and not a module?I really don't care if I get it in a module or a new game, just wondering what is the strategy ?

Weird though it sounds, i still miss the machine gun jams that we had in CM1!!  Please keep on the to do list.

One thing I always wanted to ask. ASL had smoke grenades.  CMX1 had no smoke grenades. The manuals for those games said this was due to no evidence of smoke grenades being used in combat other than as markers for friendly aircraft etc. Obviously this has changed in CMX2. Was this based on new evidence or simply added because Shock Force had smoke grenades and the beta testers lobbied for their inclusion in WWII games?

"ASL - World War 2 as seen in the movies"
 
Nuff said...

But with Upgrade 4.0 still using the outdated CMx2 engine i doubt we will see much improvement in key areas.
Instead on focusing on keeping the old car driving through the addition of a new oil filter, a spoiler and new tires it would be time to move on and invest into a new car.
If money or know-how is the problem...well there is kickstarter, i think we all would support you.

Another thing i dont like is that we now have it Official, the bulge game will only include "minor" changes.
No new trench/foxhole system. No significant gameplay enhancements, no fix for long standing technical issues.

Sorry, iam disappointed !
(But thanks for the heads-up Steve)

Yes, it would be nice to have a perfect game, but when it comes to software I don't think that's really achievable because there will always be something that could be added that someone out there wants to see.  Even if you were able to get every feature that every person wants into a piece of computer software there is always the issue of the changing computer technology itself.  Eventually even that perfect game will become so outdated that computers won't be able to run the software anymore.  So really, it is nice to have a dream of having a complete and finalized game, but when you are dealing with computer software I don't think that is a dream that can be realized.

This game, while good, is inferior to CMBB, despite the new graphics. CMBB covered 4 years of warfare, had TONS of different armies, and randomly generated quick battle maps. 10+ years after CMBB we have a three month time period, barely any armies, and set quick battle maps that become stale very, very fast. Red Thunder is a good game, sure, but it is nowhere near as good as CMBB was relative to the competition in 2002. 

akd,
 
If I had the requisite neural circuits online, rest assured I would play. Presently, it takes a great deal more specialized brain processes and level of concentration than I have. Also, am so run down it takes little to overload my ability to correctly take in and effectively use visual information. You have no idea how fortunate you are to simply be able to sit down and play. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

akd,

I have played the game, but nowhere nearly as much as I'd like to be able to. When I get CMH sorted out, I'll be PBEMing with SLIM, too. Nor does it follow that simply because I don't have much play experience it means I can't attack game issues from the standpoint of military analysis, known real world events, veterans' accounts and other means. I have clearly stated my views many times on what should be doable in CM: everything our forebears could. See, for example what I said on pushing ATGs and the case I made thereto, as well as the carefully documented arguments I've mounted in support of on-map Indirect fire from weapons such as the leIG 18 and the sIG-33. Also, I did much the same thing which helped make the case for reining in the previously unholy abilities of tanks to instantly spot and kill infantry close assaulting, something BFC subsequently did, to the considerable benefit of game realism. And since when do you get to decree I have no right to state my views? As long as I do so within the parameters of the Forum Rules, I can and shall. Best get used to it.

Regards,

John Kettler

akd and Sublime,

I just finished a QB, but it was for CMBS. Way after I was first involved in the leIG 18 and sIG 33 discussion, someone observed that, under certain conditions, the former was apparently firing indirectly. But I'm not talking about a fluke shot. I'm talking about the ability of these weapons to routinely fire at high enough trajectory that a typical map, never mind a CMRT monster, will permit on-map Indirect Fire. What is Rmin for the leIG 18? I raised this question before, and ArgusEye calculated, I believe, ~660 meters. That's short enough range to be able to fit even a very small CM map.

The le IG 18 has variable powder charges, allowing it to do exactly what a howitzer does: deliver fire on reverse slope positions and other targets regular artillery with its lower elevation limits, can't engage. But the leIG 18 can fire at elevations as high as 73 deg, something the howitzers can't quite do (66 deg) do, and the guns can't do at all (50 deg). The sIG 33 can also fire as high as 73 deg elevation and has multiple powder charges.

The two named items are important weapons for the Germans and deserve correct depiction of their capabilities. This true for these weapons in both towed and, in the case of the sIG 33, self-propelled configurations.

Regards,

John Kettler

Macisle,
 
Beg to differ. It's about this dread condition, which, despite the prevalent imagery, is gender neutral. Once you understand that, the thread title makes perfect sense!
 
All,
 
The suggestion has been made that the ability to produce IP (Improved Positions) be tied to Experience level. I believe that where you'd see that show up would be in the ability to effectively camouflage such positions, which would typically be built combat engineers, under their supervision with locally gathered or engineer supplied items, such as timbers, or from plans and material provided and enforced by officers and NCOs. Soldiers aren't generally issued lumberjack gear, pickaxes  or shovels, as opposed to ETs. Building a foxhole is one thing, but building proper overhead cover, which won't collapse on its occupants if looked at cross eyed, is something else again. And if frozen ground has to be dealt with in order to create proper positions, that takes specialized explosives. Even if we posit everything is built to spec and starts camouflaged to the same standard, the camouflage measures will be to one degree or another undone over time (things like empty ration cans simply thrown out of the fighting position and left lying on the ground, natural vegetation left to dry out and not replaced) by poorly trained and/or lazy troops, unless they have good NCOs, at least, to ride herd on them. There are standards for building various sorts of IPs, as seen in Chapter 2 from FM 21-75 Combat Skills of the Soldier.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/21-75/Ch2.htm

Here is how it was done in the CMBN period.  The planning process is in the front of the FM, but the fun for us begins on page 24. 
 
US Army Corps of Engineers FM 5-15 Field Fortifications, 14 February 1944
 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM5-15.44.pdf
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

kohlenklau,
 
You cracked me up! I do have a turtleneck, but have never had an appletini, though I hear they're tasty. In truth, I haven't a martineye, as Dad you used to pronounce it in his inimitable style, in ages. This is the man who referred to El Segundo, California as El Segrungy, and that was one of the tamer ones!  
 
I'm surprised no one found the field fortification stuff of any interest. How else are we ever going to CM: Combat Engineer off the ground? Those IPs don't build themselves, you know! As the chart on typical time to do various fortification related things shows, longer CM games allow time to dig foxholes and similar during the game. In an operational context, much else becomes doable in the course of one day. Likewise, there are numbers for wiring in a position, clearing fields of fire, laying mines and such. I believe we need some real progress on the combat engineer side of things, for the engineers figured very heavily in the course of the Bulge Campaign. Also, we need the ability to do things like lay AT mine fields on the road using the ones seen in the side carriers of Armored Infantry halftracks. Tends to discourage charging up the road while otherwise hemmed in. Such mines, coupled with man portable infantry AT weapons and/or ATGs make useful impromptu roadblocks. It would be great to finally get the daisy chain mines back into the game, too. Sorely missed! Everyone used them, and Airborne should be able to deploy Hawkins mines from within any squad, since the scale of issue was one per paratrooper. Because these weapons are organic, I would argue defending Airborne should get some sort of free AT mine field, whether the player is formally allotted such fixed defenses or not. While Daisy Chain is one possible configuration, there are other nasty things which can be done to ruin an attackers day, such as placing a mine where an obstacle forces a detour. Using Compisition 2 plastic explosive, Airborne should also have the capability to do things like drop trees onto the road. Kaboom! Instant abatis!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Yes. And coincidentally it's also the newest addition to Ben and Jerry's tasty lineup.
 
 
 
 
I used to fluff his pillows.
 
 
Mord.

That could get expensive...it's like a cross between The Fortress of Solitude, Liberace's boudoir and the executive toilets on the Death Star. In other words...awesome.
 
 
 
Mord.