Ithikial_AU

It would seems strange to add the functionality of fire into CMBN and CMFI via the 3.0 upgrade but then not have any units that could use it? And yes I know there's more features than just fire in the 3.0 upgrade. A joint upgrade/pack for 3.0 wouldn't be an issue in my book. May make life easier on the installation side for us users as well.

I agree with ?Steve? / ?Battlefront? that the level of aircraft control is to 'good' for a 1940's simulation. (I'm assuming aircraft control in Black Sea isn't going to be an issue ). But at the same time I wouldn't want to remove complete control of aircraft from the player. Can't comment on East Front, as my knowledge is pretty much negligible on the topic, buy for the Western theater games there was some limited control by ground forces on aircraft targets. Off the top of my head the Irish Guards initial breakthrough at the start of their drive to Arnhem employed good (if a bit lucky) use of aircraft to break up German forces. Having aircraft being completely random wouldn't allow this to occur in certain scenarios like Paper Tiger's campaign missions. Perhaps a good in between option, for the Western theater games at least, would be: For aircraft available from the start of the mission. - Allow the player to select an aircraft 'area target' during deployment (along with longer delaying options) - Still a risk of aircraft going 'off target.' - Control of the aircraft is removed once battle commences. ie. whatever plan that was set up in the deployment phase you are stuck with. - Aircraft which are not assigned an area target will simply roam the vicinity looking for targets of interest. Aircraft coming on as Reserves - No control as they are assumed simply in the area of operations looking for targets in a general support role. This would allow scenario designers to continue to model preplanned aircraft sorties set up well before an engagement commences. (Usually a preplanned assault). By removing control after deployment, players must stick to their initial plan and timings if they want the best result and exploit the full effect of their support assets. So may actually put more pressure on the player than there is now. This still gives a level of control initially, while addressing the on the fly changes possible to aircraft missions which seems to the issue.

Don't consider it gamey. Yes the attacker may have one less flank to worry about defensive fire coming from but they also have 50% less room to maneuver once contact is made. Blasting a deployment zone with arty on the first turn. Very gamey. (Unless a specific scenario is designed that way).

More for the western front games but it would be good to have different colour icons to separate out the Commonwealth and American forces. Same for German and Italian/any future minor Axis nations that may get added in. Just makes life a lot easier when you have forces from different nationalities on the one map. Thinking one of the CMFI scenarios where there were significant Italian and later German forces via reinforcements, being able to distinct which is which from a distance without clicking would be great.

Agree the repository could be more user friendly both for mods and custom made scenarios. I'm also hopeful that the introduction of triggers encourages more people to take the plunge with creating just H2H maps but also fully fledged scenarios with AI plans but I wouldn't put money on it. The move to CMx2 increased scenario editor time immensely from what my hazy memory remembers from CMx1 days. Anyone who's attempted an urban map before you'll understand. Is the extra effort worth it, absolutely, but agree it would be great to get better coverage of user generated content either on this site or some popular community 3rd party site, that's the best way to encourage people to take the plunge IMO.

I fight most of my battles against the AI because when I have time free I want to play. The nature of the work I do plus timezone differences make MP a possibility, but there could be a few days where my opponents don't get a file from me. That's not fair on them. Because scenario makers can make some great AI plans once they understand the system and can really stump you. Look at the Road to Nijmegen thread, players are getting plastered (me included) in certain scenarios. The new Trigger system in 3.0 will enhance this by giving those designers even more control on how they want the computer to react to how the human players proceeds to tackle their mission. Give it a few months I think you'll have your challenge and lose a few rounds to the computer.

Haven't got to this campaign yet but looking forward to it. At the moment, I'd say automatic fire at close range is about right, but seeing half squads go down at long range is just heart breaking. Also got to really scratch your head when you see a line of guys fall over from an MP40 burst from over 100 meters away. Impact is compounded on campaigns because you don't know if you'll get replenishment before the next battles. Begs the questions if you should really keep fighting or just restart the current battle. Sort of defeats the intended spirit of a campaign to begin with. Just my personal thoughts. I'm waiting to see what effect the ROF changes in v3.0 have in store for us.

For the editor... An Undo Button

Chalk up another user who is happy to hear the 64bit news, even if it is down the road a bit. Outside of referring to the Steam hardware surveys which I'm guessing wouldn't be a good snapshot of Battlefront Customer computers... have you guys ever considered surveying all of us about current PC specs just so you have an idea of when to initiate the move to 64bit?

No customs fees / taxes etc for items under $1000 in Australia. One saving grace.

Tell me about it... but for the hours of gameplay I get with a CM title I'm still happy to pay around $82 USD in total for a digital copy and a disc backup/printed manuals. Or I can give up on CM, go down the road and pick up a copy of Call of Duty for $100 AUD from a bricks and mortar store and be done in five hours.

Sorry for digging up this old thread but just finished Bloody Alast. That was a grind, surprised I killed so many! I did use the artillery quite heavily and just plastered areas with everything. Tip: Didn't try to rush the exit objective and focused on clearing out the three objectives. Reviewing the map think I got most of the HQ units in arty strikes.

We've been talking about textures a lot with this new tagging system - Can the same principle also be assigned to the sound files? In particular the ambient background sound files? This would allow designers to alter the ambient background noise to match the situation they're trying to depict. Quiet night on the front doing a patrol, sort breaks that immersion with the booming guns going off in the background. Edit: Oops just re-read the overview page, looks like graphics only. Happy to corrected though.

Fuser, you may have some work to do. Welcome back, again!

Area denial is main reason I used fire in the CMx1 days, followed close behind by trying to dig opposing infantry out of buildings and fortifications. The latter was a touch harder as it usually meant exposing your flamethrower teams or armoured vehicles to short range weaponry. Can't see that changing in CMx2 now following the latest update. There's always the risk of players being 'gamey,' that's always existed. For instance, there's nothing stopping people from blasting the opposing player's deployment zones with off map support if they really want to. You can always set up gentleman's agreements before a MP game if you have concerns. Area denial with flame weapons doesn't appear gamey for me at all, especially if it's unpredictable and could move in unintended directions or burn itself out over time.

Not likely and if some kind of army coup were led it wouldn't have Rommel in charge. He did have quite detractors in the upper German brass and there were plenty of officers above him in rank. If there was a military coup someone higher would have been in charge to sue for peace. Whether it was accepted or not, doubtful. Maybe if there was a gentleman's agreement on the Western Front but as others have said it would sort of go against Roosevelt's unconditional surrender wish. Out of Roosevelt and Churchill, the US President was the bigger player and would likely get the final say by this stage. Eastern front, with his forces having the clear advantage by now, I doubt very much Stalin would accept anything until Berlin was taken. Too much bad blood had built up to that point and Stalin was already thinking of Post War Europe and wanted as much territory as he could get his hands on.

Just referring to a previous statement mid last year about East Front... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1456940&postcount=508 So the decision has been made to have multiple Game Families of East Front games? This is going to get difficult to organise all these CM programs on my hard drive in a few years time. :confused: Will it ever be possible for multiple maps to be transferred between different game families? Just thinking ahead that this may make life a little bit easier for East Front Scenario designers where the front went back and forth over certain sites/cities etc.

Thought about it but the timeline stuff would have been pretty useless... 1944/45 -> 2008? Once the Black Sea game is released may look at a modern era version, but at the moment squarely thinking WW2.

Cheers guys. Will update when Ost Front is released. I was going to add in another coloumn giving some options regarding the terrain being fought over. (Rural / Village / Town etc) but couldn't come up with a decent breakdown. Thoughts?

Yeah that was me and that was a quick and nasty version that sort of morphed out of some other work I did over at the FGM. Some other people indicated they wanted to take a look so I shared it around. This one took a little longer to design and build, but the payoff is that it's easier and quicker for the user use and can tell them a lot more about their game and CM gaming history across all titles, game forms and opponents. As for tracking a drop off in social life, I think the official data analysis response is that would be too many variables to try and capture, record and work out the relationships for. Short answer - No. And the file can be found here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113087

Para - Only typing and selecting from some drop down menus. No maths required. No more than a minute once you get the hang of it. Most selections are drop down menu boxes where you simply select what's appropriate for that battle. A few cells like like the casualty section you simply type the numbers from the AAR screen at the end of each battle. Close the work book and reopen when you've finished entering the results for the workbook to auto-calculate and populate everything. (Read me is included in the dload).

Just uploaded to the Repository - awaiting approval. This tool is designed as a tracker of all CMx2 World War 2 game results an individual player completes. Record your results into an easily sortable system to allow for analysis of your Combat Mission career. Check which opponents you fair well against, which forces you command better or just find out how many pixeltruppen you've led to their untimely deaths. An automated MS Excel workbook designed to be easy to use with minimal input from the end user. Currently supports CMBN, CMFI and all modules. Can be updated easily when future CM titles are released. Read Me included with the download. Some key features - CMBN and CMFI support (inc all modules) - Easy updating (by the author) to incorporate future Battlefront releases CMx2 WW2 era releases. All the end user (You!) have to do is cut and paste between documents. - Supports both single player and multiplayer games and results in an all in one package – compare how you fair against the AI vs real life opponents. - ‘The Calendar of Carnage’ – Track pixeltruppen casualties (both caused and suffered) on a timeline of World War 2. - Will be able to display data going all the way back to 1939 if Battlefront ever goes that far back with their releases. - Automated pretty graphs. - Improve your game. Compare results and spot areas you need to improve in. - Can be easily adapted for some operational level CM campaigns to track battle results. Hope you enjoy. Any queries let us know below.

Little out of scope. What I've just finished and currently writing up the Read Me for is more designed as a record of overall battle results rather than tracking individual units you may decide to take for multiple custom scenarios/quick battles. You enter the results and it gives you stats about how you fair under different circumstances. ie. How you perform against different opponents, what forces each of you decided to take etc. Perhaps you have lots of multiplayer victories but only when you take a Waffen SS Panzer force. In reality but can't get close to a win when you play as Luftwaffe Field Division or when the weather is snowing. This will show you this (and the community if you decide to share) in spades. For campaigns like Odin is talking about, you could use it to track battles between fixed forces. Just depends how he decides to structure his OOB and how the strategic rules work. Already using an earlier version of this with the Few Good Men Operation Overlord Campaign to track how many casualties were are inflicting on each other - finding out who is the most bloody player or who can't keep their vehicles in working order etc.

Are you talking about losses for each individual unit/squad? That could be a little draining on the sanity and from the outside without knowing the campaign rules you are going to use, may not accurately reflect that forces can reorganise between engagements. If you only mean recording overall changes for a force that goes into an engagement, then I've got the tool for you. And it's on the verge of being released. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/data-nerds-looking-for-a-couple-of-testers.18800/ As for exit zones, wasn't aware you could use them for that purpose. My understanding was they are only meant to be used for scenarios where forces are meant to get off the table to gain VP's.

Looking like a beautiful map. Great work.