Ranger33

Wow, I hope I'm still gaming it up at seventy (24 right now). Call of Duty: WW3: Post-Modern Warfare 2 will probably be out right about then Of course, I won't want to play it, having lived through the real thing and all....

You will only get the crash if you load from a save before the mission starts (i.e. in the setup phase). So you can get around it by hitting the red button and then saving, but it's still annoying that you can't readjust your setup without going back to the prior mission first. It also makes scenarios with wire totally unplayable for PBEM.

It's been discussed before, this won't be changed. I like it but I guess I can see how it might bother others. I barely notice it most of the time though. I still remember how in the first mission in the CMSF campaign, I parked my MGS Styrkers and Abrams up on that ridge and watched them start blasting away while rocking back a bit, I thought it looked awesome. So I guess I favor stuff looking cool over absolute realism.

You can clearly hear something else firing at 0:08-0:09 and then the muzzle is hit. I'm thinking a regular shot from a tank/ATG that just happened to hit right on the nose.

@ricroma As BFC has stated multiple times, the touch version is being developed by a third party, entirely separate from CMx2 stuff. Just FYI.

Come on, that's $35 per year (at this pace) for massive amounts of content for a one of a kind game. Not just some new models, but dozens of hours worth of scenarios and campaigns, and the tools for the community to extend that indefinitely. Just look at CMSF, there are over 20 user made campaigns out there, untold numbers of scenarios, and even today 2-3 fresh campaigns in the pipe. Once we get the full module family for CMBN, there will be more content created than you could ever play through. I will agree that they seem to have the slowest patch cycle known to man, but nothings perfect.

^^ That's a good question for more than just the British paras, what about SS, Luft, and so on? I'm guessing the choices would be limited to what was available for that time frame for each side.

I'm guessing Armored cover arc will be in the Bulge game, since it has been asked for about 10,000 times. An improved UI and editor has been mentioned, but the details are unknown. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.

V flips the view!? This. changes. everything.

Tab locks on to the selected unit and puts the camera behind them. CTRL + Click puts the camera directly above where you clicked on the map. The saved views thing would be great, but really I would just settle for a 180 degree flip hotkey. Turning the camera all the way around when you are zoomed in is a real pain/mild inconvenience. Actually, I would pay exactly $3 for a DLC that makes the camera control exactly like the one in Shogun 2 That puppy handles like a dream.

This one threw me for a loop at first with CMSF. It's a bit of an acquired skill to draw that invisible line and reference it to another line coming across the screen perpendicularly

Yeah, it's too bad that we won't see any new modern stuff for a long time at the least, I've grown to really love CMSF. There's just so much variety between the different forces and scenarios that it makes CMBN look a tad (just a tad) bland, even with CW. Hopefully the Market Garden module will have some good urban combat scenarios and maybe some tweaks to make urban fighting more fun (fingers crossed for firing zooks/shreks from buildings and better rubble).

That would be cool to have AI units in the field, and your force is just a small part of a big battle, especially in CMSF. Would allow for a bit more "story" type stuff. You could make a mission where you only controlled the FO units, and had to call in support while the AI attacked or defended. Or one where the AI has a town encircled and you go in with a couple platoons to check things out. I guess some could see that as a step back from controlling everything at once, but IMO in it would be a nice change of pace to have stuff like that. Fun stuff to think about anyway.

More than one Tiger/KT is too much for all the but the largest engagements IMO, but that is up to you and your opponent. Artillery on setup zones is generally a no-no for most QBs. Generally picking your forces as something semi-realistic is best. Example: A core force of infantry, with a few tanks and support elements added on. Not an all tank force on a map with a town or something like that. I have yet to play anyone who disagreed with any of those or did anything cheesy.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. The bug DOES exist in every single install of the game, correct? However, like most other bugs, it only occurs under a certain set of circumstances. My point is just that you try to frame the issue differently, by initially saying the bug is "rare", but then when pressed further, qualifying that by saying that it only happens to some people because it is "specific to a particular play style." Which all might be perfectly true, but is still a very roundabout way of stating "Bug X will always occur if you do Y, regardless of hardware, software, etc." As opposed to other "rare" bugs where the bug is rare because doesn't always happen or only happens to people who have a particular hardware setup. Well, I've kicked the hornet's nest enough for today, time to go play the game. (Which I greatly enjoy and praise across the internets)

Which is a roundabout way of saying "Yes, it is present for everyone." We all know exactly what causes the bug and how to get around it. The question was whether it was particular to certain hardware or a corrupt install or some such. I think this is where you guys run into the most trouble with the community, by trying to be cryptic about everything so you can shed the best light on an issue.

I maintain that IMO this one particular issue deserves a hotfix. It breaks portions of the game, including both of the featured campaigns and there is no way around it for PBEM. It also seems to be present for everyone. I would imagine that most players DO save in setup before starting a map, in case they want to go back and adjust something without having to start all over. Just look at the tech help forum, there are half a dozen threads about this on the first page alone.

Yeah, I'm gonna guess that is the case. Some maps are probably big enough for it to be realistic, but most are not. You can use infantry guns for direct and indirect fire though I think. I haven't ever tried it but I remember seeing it as an option.

The problem with this analogy is that the sock is physical item that has to be replaced with another sock. CMSF is a digital file that is infinitely reproducible. One solution would be to offer it as a torrent after your 365 days has passed. I'm sure plenty of us would be happy to keep it seeded.

@Baneman, obviously it depends on the game. I have Sword of the Stars II, which was a total train wreck on release, and they must have patched it 30-40 times in the last few months. I'm just saying the capability is there. @phil, have you encountered the "crash on clicking red button" bug that came with 1.1? Happens on any map that has barbed wire when you load a save of the setup phase. This means some maps are unplayable for PBEM and you can waste hours in the Engel campaign if you don't remember to make a save after starting every scenario, as many of the maps are effected. This would classify as a game breaking bug to me and something that deserves a small patch now and not "probably before the next module", which is the only timeframe I've seen stated. Edit: So I looked and it appears that bug is indeed fixed already, but because of their patch system we might not see it for months. Bleh.

If it was on Steam they could patch weekly or even daily (if needed) like other developers! *flame suit on*

I'm on board with alpha funding, I have Desura and will plop down $10 here and there for something that looks cool and I can try out today, but I can't bring myself to invest in something that might take years to arrive, if at all. It seems others have no problem with it though, so I will happily let them get the ball rolling. It's a good year for fan favorites rising from the ashes overall, with X-COM (full on reboot from Firaxis and Xenonauts which is closer to the original), and Mechwarrior/MechCommander finally being brought into the modern age. Along with others that I can't recall at the moment.

This is indeed what I meant. My ideal editor (in terms of AI) is the one from the ArmA series, which dates back almost a decade. Any idiot (ie. me) can use it to link simple events to movement orders and create a fairly complex scenario in a matter of minutes. Of course, ArmA is much more open to modding, so people can add in their own AI scripts to create much more complex behaviors. I'm not looking for a total rewrite of the AI, I just think there must be some way to expand on the existing system. Introduce some more variables, make the AI less static and predictable.

I'm pretty sure you can also click on the line leading to each point. Edit: Tested, and yes, clicking on the lines works. You have to click exactly on the circle/triangle/line, or it will just deselect the unit. Which now that I think about it seems silly, and rather poor design.

This all highlights why the scenario editor needs triggers. I know the suggestion has been brought up repeatedly (and just as often argued against ) but that's because it would be such a massive improvement. Right now scenario designer's have to design the AI around a timer, with every movement a shot in the dark relative to the player's actions. Some simple triggers using the already existing objective point system (taking casualties, destroying enemies, touching objectives, spotting units, etc) linked to the existing strategic AI options, would add a ton of flexibility. Just imagine: an AI defense that would fall back when outflanked or after taking a certain number of casualties, an attacking AI that would retreat or take a different route after losing a given number of tanks, sneak attacks where enemy reinforcements are only triggered after your units are actually spotted, and so on. Of course, this would make creating a scenario more complicated, BUT it would likely result in map makers crafting one or two well done semi-dynamic plans, instead of 5 static plans. I know we won't see this in a module, but it would be great for the Bulge game and onwards.