Ranger33

Really? I know sometimes they will shoot at "suspected" enemy positions, where I can't see anything. Didn't know that was directly related to C2. Learn something everyday.

I'm fine with the tank spotting the infantry, it's the infantry not being able to see the 10 ft tall rumbling steel beast sitting in the middle of a road 50m away from them that I had a problem with.

I agree with most of what you said, however I would just like to point out that I have seen this on multiple occasions. At least 3-4 examples just off the top of my head. A couple of times the tank was even able to spot tank hunter teams in cover, in smoke, on the tank's flank, and blast them before they ever even spotted the tank. It's rather frustrating.

Ah yes, armored cars, that's what I meant. Don't know why my mind went to half-tracks, that wouldn't really make any sense.

Weren't there real half-tracks fielded that had a steering wheel in the back, so the rear gunner (or whatever his job was) could quickly drive them out of trouble if needed? Or did I just dream that up?

I thought AT guns couldn't be remanned? I've seen units fire on abandoned vehicles when there wasn't anything else to do, which I suppose is reasonable behavior. However, shooting rifles at an unmanned AT guns does not sound very productive.

Only a few games use the cloud saving to my knowledge. If you are like me and do use multiple PCs, it is awesome. You can even uninstall a game and then months later re-install it, *boom* saves and custom settings are right there good to go.

Is this kind of attitude really called for? He is having some issues, maybe part of it is him doing something wrong, maybe not. Either way this is inappropriate coming from someone partly associated with BFC and exactly the kind of thing people from "other" forums complain about.

As others said, Steam is great. When it first came out it had a lot of bugs and issues, but now it's very smooth and relatively glitch free. There is nothing "spyware" about it. A couple times a year they will do a system survey which scans your system so they can gather stats on what kinds of PCs everyone has, but you can opt out. Most people opposed to it have simply never used it and are stuck in their old ways. "Get off my lawn" and all that. If you really are opposed to it, Gamersgate and gog.com are nice alternatives, they simply give you a download link to a .exe with no DRM at all. That is all you get, however, no automatic updates or in-game social aspects. If you choose to install it be sure to join the CMBN group and feel free to add people to your friends list.

You might like this article, it's along these lines but better written. I find that while Cracked.com is a bit silly and sometimes their research is off, they have some of the best military related "lists of things". It's also hilarious more often than not. Edit: On second glance, looks like the writer of your list plagiarized the crap out of this list

I know BF doesn't like Steam but I think at this point maybe they should compromise and put CMSF+modules on there simply to generate interest in the series. They can't be selling many copies of it lately since anyone who was going to get it already has. They aren't going to be doing anymore updates, so what's there to lose? It's a ton of free marketing if nothing else. Here is an exact example of what I'm talking about. This guy created old school RPG's (90s graphics, but quality writing/gameplay) by himself for over a decade and until recently charged premium prices for them on his own website and never put them on sale (sound familiar?). A niche indie dev whose biggest problem was that no one knew who he was but his product had narrow appeal so there was no point in mass advertising. Long story short, he used to oppose Steam, but now he sells some of his titles for cheaper prices on there (with original prices on his website still). He has seen great success with this tactic, with his newest game on Steam selling far more copies than he ever imagined and despite making less $ per copy he is making far more money (his own words from another article). Some of his fans made the arguments you would expect to hear from some on this forum (sold out, betraying the core group, blah blah) but the bottom line is he is still making the games he wants to make, while having far more success. Just something to think about.

Completely separate game, and probably not even the next one. At the current rate of releases I'm guessing 2 years out at the absolute minimum. Probably more like 3-4.

All multiplayer games are one-off matches. The only way you could reflect casualties carrying over would be to do it manually. I think there are some campaigns in development(someone correct if wrong) designed to be played multiplayer in a roundabout way, but this is all done manually and on the honor system. No such feature in the game itself.

Fair enough I suppose, though I think you underestimate the number of other complex and "deep thought required" sorts of games out there that are quite popular. Look at how many people play EVE Online for instance. That game is essentially paying a monthly fee to be patient, but has tens of thousands of people online all the time.

Is this some kind of involuntary reflex to any review that criticizes the game in any way? One might argue that the review isn't written very well and is rather short, but if a website that devotes a significant amount of it's content to hex-based wargames, historical articles, and even reviews historical literature, is too "mainstream" for you, then I just don't know what reality you are living in.

Agreed that it isn't a very well written review, but I think most of his points are good. Only positive I would disagree with is the AI. I don't think he played enough or he would have witnessed at least one suicidal march of an entire company in a killzone. I disagree that Normandy is played out though. D-Day is, but the rest of the conflict, especially concerning the non-US forces, is usually skimped over. The complaints are all valid IMO. The default terrain is a frankly hideous, almost cartoon shade of solid green. Mods help but even then it turns into smudges when you zoom out. Loading times are 2-3 times longer than CMSF, don't know what the deal is there. Camera is still way too slow. Playing Empire or Shogun Total War for a couple hours and then switching to CMBN will make you think time itself is about to grind to a halt.

After reading this update on the game over at RPS, I couldn't help myself and took the plunge. The extremely reasonable price and lack of DRM didn't hurt either. Haven't played yet but it looks like many of the complaints have been addressed and some fundamental changes have been made as well. I especially like the looks of that operational map and this feature right here. A glorious LOS tool if there ever was one. They even have a Summer 1942 DLC coming out on Jan. 15th, Will report back on whether it lives up to the hype.

Hopefully we will at least get a date soon along with some more info, but as we all know, when it comes to release announcements, BFC is an enigma wrapped in a mystery only heard in hushed whispers in darkness.

You play the whole scenario like that? That's what I do right at the beginning, if it's a large map I move platoons as a whole into general areas. Once the shooting actually starts though, I can't see that being a viable play style. Half of your units would either be too far back to see anything, or out in the open getting slaughtered. What I'm talking about is, you give the platoon leader an order to move his squads into an area. They move there and take up positions on their own, according to the terrain. I haven't played APOS, but I have the first Achtung Panzer and you can give a squad a "take defensive positions" command and they will automatically find the best cover at their location.

@ShiftZ I think you are a bit off the mark with pausing in RT breaking immersion or realism. Let's say you were a company commander in real life. You would give orders to your platoon commanders, and then they would filter the orders down through their subordinates. The company as a whole is under your command, but you don't give orders to each individual squad, much less telling 3-4 man teams exactly where to move. In CM, you do have to give exact orders to every single unit on the field, so the pause/wego creates some wiggle room to allow you to assume direct leadership of everyone in the battle. If the CM strategic AI was a bit more autonomous, as in you could give a platoon leader and order and then he would move his squads, that would be much closer to reality and be FAR more manageable in full real time gameplay. As it is, the pause is needed in any large battle, because any units you aren't directly commanding will simply sit in their current location and never consider doing anything at all on their own.

Erwin, I don't think it's really fair to say that if someone doesn't take an hour each turn deciding on orders that they aren't playing in a "thoughtful" manner or don't play with a serious strategy in mind. I never play CMBN like I would regular RTS games, in terms of unit preservation and movements. At the same time, I don't go overboard with checking LOS of every single unit and such. I think you move into "gamey" territory when you spend five minutes deciding what a single team of infantry should be doing for the next 60 seconds. It isn't realistic at all after a certain point, unless you play from the point of view that you are simultaneously every single soldier on the battlefield, and not simply the battalion or company commander. (when I say "you" above I'm just speaking in general) Anyway, after many PBEM games I find that I too enjoy playing things at the larger end of the spectrum, since overall strategic decisions become more important and luck becomes less of a factor. However, I feel like a could play anything up to a battalion sized engagement in tcp/ip wego (not RT) and only need 15 minutes or so for orders each turn. This assumes of course at least 30+ minutes for the initial setup. Having a hard limit on how much time you have for orders would be more immersive and realistic IMO, since as a commander in the field you would not have the luxury to sit back and ponder every move. Anyone who wants to play like that already has the option of PBEM. Everyone here is just wanting another option that allows us to play a match in one sitting, but not using the frantic mess that is RT at anything above a few platoons.

Games similar in pace and complexity to CM that are doing it right: The Paradox grand strategy games (Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Victoria). Technically they run in "adjustable speed" real time, but I believe "glacial" is the only term to describe the normal speed setting. Anyway, all of these games have a simple in game lobby with a general chat and a list of open games waiting for players. All you have to do is click on one and away we go. I just checked and there are a handful of people on for every single one of them right at this moment (over a dozen for HoI 3 actually). I don't know how many matches are actually played in a day, but the fact is that the option is there, and years after release people are still using it. If CM had something like this I think you could get a match any time you felt like it. It would be a massive step up for the CM series. ...and yes, I would prefer it over at least one of the things on the "but if you have that you can't have this" list.

Haha, that's been my exact experience with RT, it takes longer to find someone, figure out how to connect to each other, wait for each other to pick units and place them, etc, than to actually play. Co-op would be so much fun, for all the reasons you stated above. I think it could work for PBEM just as well. It might take a long time to get through a big scenario with the file having to go through multiple hands, but it would make for great discussion and with dropbox it wouldn't be hard to manage. A 4v4 Eastern front battle with each player handling a company of infantry for each side would be epic. Even if you only managed 2-3 turns a week it would be worth it.

Anyone who doesn't know why people want 4v4 online has obviously never played Men of War. It offers exactly that and it is a total blast. Only problem is the lack of CM style realism. One rifleman with a few AT-grenades can wipe out a platoon of tanks in 30 seconds flat, then patch up those bullet holes in his chest with a few bandages

You aren't alone in having trouble with this mission. I don't really think there is a good way to do it unless you cheat by looking at the Allied positions and then reloading the scenario to sneak around them. You can simply withdraw and ceasefire and it won't really effect the overall campaign that much in this particular case. Others probably have better advice though, I could never figure this one out. In general, recon is much easier and more effective (i.e. not in the dark, at extremely close ranges, trying to spot through full hedges) and well worth the time. Splitting your squads up and having a couple guys take a peak before moving everyone through an area is one of the most important tactics in the game. Edit: Like Erwin said, using very short cover arcs will keep your guys from giving away their position.