LJFHutch

Isn't that the original argument? Instant orders to all units is unrealistic > you are every unit and currently have to be > ?

I agree that foxholes are not "worth" the purchase, but I don't see how in any way that means they should be given for free. Fortifications seem much to expensive at the moment for the little protection they provide: usually if there is bocage that's about twice as effective as a concrete bunker anyway. I say make them cheaper or adjust how effective they are - if they're not currently realistic.

The issue of being able to instantly give/change orders in RT and the general lack of command delays seems to be brought up time and time again, quite a good explanation Alan, I should use that as my sig To me command delays are a poor fudge. Due to the fact you play all roles it is irrelevant: you are the squad leader. Furthermore, if you were to take command delays to their logical and realistic conclusion you would be sitting in a tent with a map talking on a radio (and surely anything less would be a half-done job and rather gamey), which would not in any way resemble Combat Mission - as a matter of fact I'm pretty sure that has been said a while ago, not sure who by.

Typically I play tiny or at most medium in RT, the only time I've had too much happening was when doing a small MP game as attacking US forces. It was a long map and managing 3 advances was a bit much. When defending or for meeting engagements however I would take the same amount of time in RT as in Wego because there is much less that needs adjusting.

I would personally advise you get a desktop if you want to play any games on it: more powerful and cheaper to boot. I suppose it depends what else you plan to use it for though, just CMBN or other games, 3D work, image-editing?

I must agree with Yankee and the others, the points are based on how effective a unit is in the game, not how much it costs to produce, that is more related to rarity. If it was based on cost to make/produce nobody would ever purchase a Tiger and the battlefield would likely be far less authentic.

I was genuinely impressed by the difference between the Americans and Syrians, it's one of the things that really pulled me in with SF, "finally a game that doesn't try to hold my hand!"

It does seem a little strange to me, it's like every hit does damage to something despite many areas of the tank having no systems on them. Wouldn't it make more sense that optic damage be much more rare yet be catastrophic when it occurs?

With both of you, started on CMSF, 22 now though - agree about the site

You sure? I just tested with some shermans (5 identical) and the crews were only able to mount their original vehicles. You just need to switch them around while they're not looking

The eastern front would be totally boring! Please, don't make an eastern front game! Especially one in which we could use the horrible T-34 85.

I like that there is plenty of interest for the eastern front Edit: I tried registering but it wouldn't go through for some reason.

I run at 1080p fine, I'm pretty sure it worked in the demo for me also.

The other day I had a 105mm send a few shots right next to some surrendering Germans and they didn't even get wounded after perhaps 5 HE rounds impacted right next to them (<8m away), not sure what's happening there, but I haven't seen any surrendering troops killed after (I think it was anyhow) the demo, I remember a grenade landed in the middle of some Americans who had just surrendered and they sure didn't make it out.

But the player is (and has to be) every unit on the field, the AI is not smart enough to know when to reverse a sherman away from a tiger, to me that would be far more frustrating than any positive benefit. That tank commander shouldn't have to wait 5 seconds to scream "reverse!", and since the player is the tank commander I don't see why they should either. You would need to differentiate between decisions made by the unit itself and those given to it by higher levels of command, but even then you are still playing every unit so it is still unnecessary abstraction.

The problem is what the player is in control of, in CM you are the leader of every unit down the fire-teams. In a way that's not perfectly realistic, but you are the entire force. Command delays would be like having a delay on your fingers moving. It makes sense if the game is simulating being a WW2 commander, but in that case it would be better for it to be a first person shooter, and to be done properly (done at all) it would require every unit down to the fire-teams (or at least squads) to be controlled by a real player. That would be an incredible game for sure, but it wouldn't be anything at all like CM. To me command delays seem to be a messy "fix" and create as many problems as they solve.

Yeah it would be nice to have some more feeling in the AI, I'd like to see it panic more and just fire off at anything it could see to try and survive. They seem to do that in SF, units really close to one another will open up and expend ammo really fast to try and survive, not sure about covered arcs though. Edit: I just tested this out and can confirm that units are incredibly strict about following target arcs. I had a tiger sitting 20m behind an M10 and it refused to fire a few degrees to the left of it's arc even though the M10 was slowly rotating it's turret, it fired and immobilized the tiger which still refused to do anything, the second shot destroyed it. It does seem a little unrealistic that they would follow their orders so strictly, I'm sure a real crew would disregard their orders to save their own lives in a situation like that.

Putting the split teams nearby to each other is a good idea also.

I've had similar issues, one recent one: A marder refused to fire on the sherman less than 50m away. I kept moving him back and forth and he just kept on turning slowly to the right, I've got no idea what he was trying to achieve but it got everyone killed. This went on for about a minute, perhaps more. He had a clear LOS the entire time but continually rotated on the spot to the right (no enemy contacts there). I moved him closer and closer and stopped probably 5 times without luck, eventually he stopped and turned and was taken out.

I really don't see what depth has been removed, if anything much more depth has been added: compared to CMx1 BN is a much greater fidelity simulation with more options and less gamey aids (regardless of how you feel about those aids). Trying to appeal to more gamers? I can see that with RT [somewhat], but again, CMx2 is in my eyes a much more hardcore bunch than the previous games. That would be due to morale, morale was in CMx1 as well wasn't it?

The negative comments are a bit distasteful in my opinion. So what if spfiota wants to leave, snide remarks directed at him certainly don't make the community a welcoming place and do nothing but reinforce whatever negative beliefs he had about the game/community. Ok he wants to leave, I say let it be and move on, I'm loving CMBN but I'm not going to overreact to his overreaction.

What I'd really like to see is better management of the forces. Too often I've come across panthers sitting behind high bocage doing nothing, if they had been moved 20m along to the low bocage they could have destroyed my advancing forces. It's not just a QB issue either, although in QB's the plans have to be much more general.

I had the sides swap again on a game recently too, 1.01. Apart from that I haven't noticed any real bugs though so I wouldn't call it buggy by any stretch.

And then some

Yes but that's not a real one so it doesn't count Or at least that's my understanding ... Michael Emrys's sig moves in mysterious ways.