A Canadian Cat

I have no idea. One issue is, can the current engine be recompiled and use Open GL? I don't know the answer - I know only a sliver about the Mac. The new engine will not, I suspect, be moving away from Open GL so that question would be a limiting issue. Rant on In general I hope not. I very much do not like the way Apple operates. Their favourite MO is to cook up some cool new solution to a problem that already has solutions and make a ton of changes and then declare it the best thing ever. If that was all they did I wouldn't really care but they also have a bad habit of also saying - you know that solution to the problem you used to use and count on? Well that's going away and you have to do a bunch of work that will serve no purpose other than serve Apple's desire to create new solutions to already solved problems. This does not benefit customers - it only benefits Apple. Grrrr. You might say why does some PC user care about that. Good question. It effects me in two ways. First as a consumer I don't get new features or bug fixes for my PC version because the developer is off chasing apple's tail instead of adding value for us. A recent example is the RAW editor I use Capture One. They spent months working on moving the the M1 architecture meanwhile there were performance fixes and actual valuable features that were in the queue that could have been released to us much earlier. #sadcustomer Second as a developer I experience my products that worked perfectly fine last week suddenly don't any more. Windows OS doesn't do that. Bloody hell I have a product I wrote in Win 3.11 that sill works today - it's not necessary any more but the code still runs. Meanwhile Apple drops this or that or pulls libraries or changes the API whenever they feel like it. That wastes a ton of my time and I am not able to add new features - see above. #saddeveloper Rant off

Hee hee, yep. Nostalgia is nice and all but in the past compiling was expensive and centralized so we also used to so hand alter assembly code during debugging so we could "test" fixes we planned to make in the source code to save round trips of compile and test since it took so long to get a new build on to the test machine. Yeah, it was cool and all but I never want to go back to those days. Oh and "no one is ever going to need more that 360K for a program"

LOL nice. Use your ignore list here so you don't have to read this snowflake's temper tantrums.

Oh yeah that would be graet. I have more than once been caught swearing at the screen after making a mistake. Yes! I'm not sure what you mean here exactly. There is a combine squad command that is for regrouping after casualties but it sounds like you mean recombination of teams after splitting. Is that right. I would agree that it would be nice to have a command "unspit" (terrible name but to differentiate it from the current combine command) that would let you directly regroup a split squad that were within 16m of each other. I agree that the current system is okish if you can wait for minutes but is annoying when your guys have **** to do. Thanks for the clarification about moving the camera to way points. Yes, that would be helpful. I can see that being helpful sometimes. I find the current system is good enough for the vast majority of situations though. I'm not sure the added command load would be worth it. Nice idea. Shift clicking while plotting way points with multi select. Cool. Thumbs up! Great suggestions!

Oh cool. Heads to the secret lair to find more details

Great point. We should start a database of who asked for what and how bitterly the complained about it. Then we could pull up old quotes one day. Oh who am I kidding that would be a massive waste of anyone's time

This one makes me laugh. First a little history. The CM1 series started with Beyond Overlord followed by Barbarossa to Berlin and finally Afrika Korps. Each follow on game added features to both the engine and the UI. But the older games were not updated with the new features. Which meant that Afrika Korps played better and had a better UI than the other two. People were sad that the new work was not available in the still very playable Beyond Overlord. In the CM2 series BFC decided to not do that again and so when Fortress Italy came out Beyond Normandy got an update to add in the engine and UI improvements too. So, what are you asking for? Did you really want Beyond Normandy to languish behind as new titles came and made improvements? I don't. You shouldn't either. Everyone feels that some graphics improvements would be welcome. I do have on bone to pick with the above - the sky? The sky in CM seems pretty damn good to me. I don't think I have ever heard someone complain about the sky. Indeed. This is another area that would be great to add. So, as a point of interest if they added some of these things would you want that feature to only be in the new release and leave all the others behind? That's how adding new features and differentiating a new game from the older ones would work. Rhetorical question. TFB Honestly I don't want to be mean or angry but this is such a bull **** complaint. BFC will price it where they think they can make good money. Bitching about it is so boring. Sure it would be cool but as you said a lot of those assets really would be out of view. Not all of them, so yeah cool. Planes actually do sometimes crash on map. There is no wreckage model though just an explosion. So cool would be nice. LOL see two points above. If you don't like the price no one is pulling money out of your pocket. Vote with your dollars. In your opinion. Enough people disagree and think the games are worth the money. That's kind of the end of the discussion. The argument I expect to hear: but if you lower the price you will sell so much more. Facts not in evidence (BFC know their audience and what price differences do and how many copies they think they will sell. There is no way that you know better than them).

The z folder should work fine - it follows the same rules as mods.

LOL yep which is why my answer would be none of the above. Sorry. Every minute spent on that sci-fi stuff would be a minute they could not devote to WW2 or Modern titles or engine work. I want more content way more than any sci-fi stuff.

Oh he is very much involved. He's a great resource. Keep in mind though BFC is not tracking the current conflict but their hypothetical time line.

My two bits of best advice: Target arcs are your enemy. Using them inappropriately leads to your units getting killed without doing anything. Their purpose is to prevent firing so only use them for scouts and observers that you don't want spotted. Otherwise just don't do it. Use the terrain. Read this: https://battledrill.blogspot.com/2015/11/mett-t-analysis.html or any of @Bil Hardenberger's AARs. Even if you don't write things down or go as deep as Bil doing any part of METT will make you a better player and you will quickly realize you should be doing it all every damn time.

Just to clarify a little - for Windows you can use the original PBEM and the new PBEM++ and it does not matter where you bought the game as long as both players are using the same version (and you both have accounts for PBEM++). For Mac you don't get access to PBEM++ but the original PBEM works the same as before.

My understanding is that you can update the .cam file for a campaign in progress and it will not effect the scenario you are playing now but the next scenario will come from the updated campaign. I do not know if there are any particular risks involved with doing this for the changes in question. Perhaps someone who's done it can chime in.

Oops double post

Yep, it they don't disappear in a few minutes then it's a clue that they have friends near by that are telling them they are coming to help. If you have men who have surendered you can rescue them be pushing the enemy further away.

Not just Cold War. All CM2 games are quite challenging. I even have two friends who were big CM1 fan who just cannot get going in CM2. Now they are both taking another crack at it with Cold War. We will see how it goes. I am again getting messages that say things about how this or that is broken in the game. I keep trying to explain what they are seeing and acknowledge the limitations. Wish me luck :-0

Page 32 says that the more realistic artillery calls start at Warrior. So @MikeyD made a little boo boo. Carry on as usual @Simcoe

Just to make sure you want this site: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/

This is the way.

The buddy aid animations would have to change

You are correct. It doesn't appear that the server was wiped as we'd been told. mhardist* is from Slitherine. I don't know who Shards4 is. The other ones were from YouTubers that got advanced copies. LOL I was not paying attention to the forums so I found out the game was released when one of my test challenges was picked up. I have no idea who I'm playing.

Yeah, that whole ad does have a cold feel to it.

Indeed.

This one has always been in favourite CF video:

@domfluff's explanation of how it works and why is correct. I would like to add that universally shortening the spotting check cycle will not in and of itself make units spot better. If we could hypothetically check spotting every second all that would do is reduce the edge case silliness that we all dislike because there would now be chances to spot stuff that follows along with the changing battle field better. However, the basic design of the game - to simulate soldiers either noticing or not noticing the enemy would remain unchanged. Again as @domfluff mentioned there is flexibility in the spotting cycle now when enemy units are close together and that has significantly helped reduce some of the edge cases. I think a lot of the time people are under the mistaken impression that "your favourite tank" not noticing "your worst enemy" is a result of a flaw in the game but it is not! The game is designed to simulate units in combat and our inherent imperfections as humans. So, even if the evaluation of who sees what can be nearly real time the game is literally designed to simulate your soldiers *not* noticing things.