A Canadian Cat

I want my site to just point to a permanent home for the scenarios. There are a handful of scenarios that don't have a home yet. If you could share them on drop box for now and I can figure out a permanent home later. I'll PM you my email address.

Now that would be cool!

That sounds like a question for support. Perhaps someone will know but I personally have never ordered delivery of disks from them so I have no idea.

And on a more basic level info sharing has nothing to do with the god like player's view. Information sharing means that unit B can get a ? icon from the view of unit A and hence it will be quicker for unit B to fully spot the enemy it they move to a location where they have LOS to the enemy. The player's god like view only needs unit A to spot the enemy to allow all thier units to react. The sharing with unit B has nothing what so ever to do with it.

Sounds very interesting. I imagine that the experts are not being bamboozled by the oversold headline:-) Moving a complex program from one operating system to another is not a free activity. Having said that the project and concept is likely a good way to modernize important systems.

Who else would do something like that? I mean seriously, it's just like when suddenly well equipped soldiers appeared in the streets of Crimea. I was astonished that anyone would say "we don't know where they are from". It was bizzare. And it is again.

??? that makes no sense. If there was no info sharing the player could still react to any contact icons. Despite @Bulletpoint extrapolating that you meant no ? icons should be displayed that still makes no sense. Every encounter would become a surprise with no warning and mass movements that makes lots of noise would be undetectable. Yuck. Exactly. Not to mention that if you pay attention to C2 and share those contact icons the troops who recieve that info do better spotting that enemy. Part of the fun of playing is seeing that happen in game.

@RepsolCBR, everyone thinks thier proposal is simple and hardly any work Better to let them figure out how much work it really is and what other side effects it might have. @Aragorn2002 LOL Steve actually likes that kind of discussion. I think that your suggestion will be recieved about as well as your wife telling you to stop watching <insert favorite sport here> and do more house work. Except he probably cares less about our opinion than his wife's

Agreed, delivering a level of criticism that can lead to the dropping of a feature is be hard to give too. Even near perfect phrasing can cause a poor reaction. Either way major win for quality construction of software. Understood. The good news is there is a lot of CM content to work through and keep ourselves busy. LOL, yeah I was trying to point out that the other post didn't make sense. Total fail on my part. Which I agree is pretty neat. I have not tried it myself yet. There needs to be more hours in a day...

There was not enough air to ground coordination in WW2 for that. Plenty of Intel *was* gathered that way but not in real time to battalion and company commanders.

Indeed some topics come up a lot. On the one hand I'm not sure why but then I realize that some people don't have the same priorities as BFC. That is natural I guess. I agree - none of those criticisms are even one reason the game does not appeal to millions of gamers. With ya 100% there Yeah, sorry. Those kinds of questions are only answerable by Steve. As a part time tester I am specifically forbidden from talking about what is going on. As I should be. We are allowed to repeat stuff that has already been announced. I did some searching and could not find any comment from Steve about lend-lease. I was sure he made one but I cannot find it. I did find this: So some inside people are gathering evidence... OK that is funny. It turns out they did have a plan - well actually the Cylons didn't really they just knew a supernatural entity did. Ergo I'm like a Cylon - cool. Can I be number one - he was just so devious it would be fun to play evil for while. Just don't tell Steve that it makes him a supernatural being, it might go to his head Right. I have been doing software development a long time, granted not games, I am more and more convinced that this is exactly how it should be done. To the outside world present a roadmap showing what is coming in what order but no dates. You can talk about how specific requests might fit into the road map. Clearly inside you need to break down the features and work into tasks and put them in order too. As well you need to set some expectations on yourself or on your team of artists and developers. But those expectations should be very short term focused so that the estimates and expectations are actually based on actual knowledge not just guess work. You never give a hard date for a final product. That way you never have to weigh meeting an arbitrary deadline against quality. I can tell you that once customers with millions start asking for X and Y by such and such a date peoples decisions start getting really poor really fast. Anyway back to BFC. I can tell you that as a tester I can see a little more than you but generally that is restricted to just what is being worked on next. Since I have early access I can tell what state it is in. But that's all. The only advantage we normally have is that we know they are actually working on the latest item on the road map. So, we really don't know much more than you guys. Other than we are sure they are executing on the plan. There I go sounding like a cylon again - can I try being number two - he is pretty bad as well. Could the roadmap be updated more frequently - probably. Even a "yeah still working on this list" might be nice. I'm not sure how valuable that really is but if it reassures people then cool. Could BFC share more of their internal processes - sure if they wanted. I am sure there would be an appetite for that. Is it really worth them stopping actual development work - I'm not so sure about that. He may actually. He does not read everything on here but sometimes he sees and answers questions on here though. Sending him a message directly is totally valid.

Correct nobody's charging $60 for an upgrade but some people clearly think that. Or they incorrectly structured their sentence - which is probably the most likely scenario. Which is worse not property connecting the dots for one's argument or using incorrect sentence structure when speaking of prices? I'll let the grammar police and the logic police argue it out.

Errr right - I made a few leaps there didn't I. Sorry What I meant was in response to: Given that clearly BFC is a successful company selling their games at their current price using their own publishing mechanism satisfying some peoples desire to use some other publishing mechanism and reduce the price of their games does not make sense.

Welcome to the forum, cool to see a lurker joining. I do realize that some CM1x players have been left behind. And that saddens me. Two of my friends didn't really make the move. Both tried, one is trying again. Fingers crossed. I don't think that an increased costs really the problem though. Even at $60 per game the replayability is so high that it is per hour pretty cheap. Niether of my friends stopped playing due to $ they stopped because it is harder and more work. The end of Borg spotting causes all kinds of issues. Some because the increased realism makes tactics harder to properly execute and some because you have to accept that insta spotting (TM) is not a real thing and that units really do have trouble spotting the enemy at times. That is why moving to a popular distribution system and reducing the price is not something Steve is working on.

No idea what you base that fear on. The number of people I see on multiple forums and who possess all the games and modules seems as healthy as ever.

The rate of fire is per gun. A heavy barrage from four guns is quite a lot more dramatic than one gun.

Hummmm I thought this was going to be about what era or war people wanted covered by CM? What is the difference between these two? "More game families covering more theatres of war. More expansions for existing games, covering more eras" Because one seems to suggest possibly more fronts on WW2? One seems to suggest bolting on stuff from one war on to a game from another. Not sure how either would be good. And what on earth does this mean? "Finer-grained simulation of combat" How can we get finer grained than each individual soldier being modeled? How is that the most popular choice? I was hoping for what war, real or fictitious would you like CM to simulate next. That would be interesting.

The manual says on page 39 that the damage uses the same indicators as the defence levels described on page 38. So that means: Red X - destroyed Orange 0 - Poor Yellow 0 - Average Light Green 0 - Good Dark Green 0 - Excellent I think there are more shades of green than two and there might even be more than one shade of orange or yellow. And the names given to the colours as described on page 38 are not quite applicable to damage levels. Bottom line is it a pretty common idiom to go from green to yellow to orange to red to indicate something getting progressively worse. I am not sure what else we really would need as an indicator.

Yep, re-enactors. Ilford HP5 was introduced in 1976 but HP5 Plus not until 1989. source: http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html Looks like the first HP film was introduced in 1935 - so good choice of modern film to shoot a re-enactment with

Yeah that would be side ways in the ditch. I vote fake.

Ah, right that makes sense. Tree based orchards are good but I can see that small bushes would not quite be right. You want something that looks between the single trees and the current short dense vineyards.

Agreed Cool - more people asking means more visibility. Oh very clever. I would be inclined to go with the write it up in the briefing but this has potential uses too.

If you already know this just ignore me. That sentence makes me think that you might not be aware that there is a tree placement option for orchards - or other planted forests. In the editor you have the choice of placing one tree, two trees, three trees, four trees or inline trees. In the editor it is the icon with the tree symbol and the lines. Placing tress with that will arrange them in rows like orchards are planted. Also I am not sure the bocage is making your orchard look better. Having some forest floor tiles mixed in might be better than bocage hedges.

I have written this before but I'll say it again since this has come up again - twice in the same thread: That is completely unworkable from a game play stand point. First of all that would mean you would have to watch an isolated team (or perhaps a large group of soldiers actually if their platoon leader because a casualty) fight nothing that you can see and die to invisible enemy fire. Not fun. Second the whole way this game works is to represent all levels of leadership from NCOs all the way up to the battalion commanders. The TAC AI is pretty good but it is pretty good at following your orders not in making up its own orders. So if you have a squad isolated form their platoon Lt. that squad's Sargent needs to be allowed to make decisions for his squad. That Sargent is *you* because that is how the game works. If you can no longer give Sgt level commands to a squad just because the Lt is over the hill or in the hospital the game does not work any more.

No one has said that is not in the plan. What is not clear is what is next and what is after that. I am sure they will get there...