A Canadian Cat

Obviously that is complete nonsense and those people are clearly figments of our imagination. Steve and his decades of savvy business experience have proven decisively that everyone who will ever be interested in Combat Mission is already buying it from this site.
 
Good to see Tim Stone butting in on this. His articles also played a pretty major role in convincing Matrix to join Steam.

Many, who like to watch these kind of movies, war movies, often are interested in war history etc. Maybe that´s why some of us dont like these kind of movies, especially when the main character is ww2 tank. We know somewhat what kind of capabilities it has and also know a little how well SS was experienced and equipped. I enjoy action movies a lot, but when it comes to war movies, I expect some kind of realism when the subject is "what has happened" -genre. Just my opinion, nothing more. If there would have been bear-mounted siberian elite partisans in the fury, the movie would have been quite good.
 

I visited there back in October...
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/normandy-tour-day-3-british-6th-airborne.21082/
 
The excellent book I referenced before going was David Howarth's "The 6th of June" later editions was re-titled "Dawn of D-Day"
There is an excellent chapter on Ottways attack on the Merville Battery.
 
You can either view it or down load a free pdf here:
https://archive.org/details/ddaythesixthofju006129mbp
 
The British Airdrop starts on page 29.
Enjoy! 

I would ditch the camera movement controls whenever the mouse pointer is near the edge of the screen.

Yes, and his name is m0317624. Jeez, Steam. Hire someone who can pick better forum names. ;-)
 
 
Well, even if he's not a Steam employee, it's interesting to watch him try to "educate" Steve.

Guys, go watch some of ChrisND's videos and you will see that the Russians can fight the US, instead of relying on a single relatively unbalanced scenario at this point to base off all your judgement on the game. Remember this AAR is good for spectacle, it makes people come back and read and want the product through what is shown (You get to see the abrams, the bradleys, Russian tanks, all that good stuff). This isn't representative of every single scenario you are going to play.
 
Now that that's out of the way...crush em pnzr...
 
...What can I say, I am a patriot!
 

Maybe in Valhalla. In this world, I don't think you will ever find a piece of software that will work perfectly in every possible situation. This includes the "software" of doctrine and training that period armies used in the real war. Yes, you do not possess perfect control over your p-troops to get them to do what you want them to do every time. But guess what, neither did the real-life leaders and commanders. In fact, we have considerably more control than our real-life equivalents who just had to trust that the behavior of their units would at least approximate their operational and tactical vision.
 
Is any of this starting to sink in yet? The world wonders...
 
Michael

There is a problem with CM multiplayer.
 
It needs matchmaking or a lobby system. A basic lobby system where games can be seen and chat exchanged between players to set up battles would pay dividends for playability.

Test, okay here is what I found Frankster. When posting hit the top left icon on the tool bar to see actual formatted text. Your post has a URL tag around it, Jargotn's does not. I quoted you then edited your post to remove the excess, now it shows the vid.

I think everyone agrees it's curious to Hide in the middle of a large open stretch of pavement.  This brings to mind the venerable joke:
 
Patient:  "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
 
Doctor:  "Then don't do that!"
 
Are you confused that the game lets you issue the command in these circumstances or what happens when you issue the command?  Part of Hide is reduced spotting chances OF the unit and part is reduced spotting chances BY the unit.  Simply, the unit is spending more time with their face(s) in the ground and less time heads up and looking around.

But another related aspect is reduced vulnerability to incoming fire.  You might want to place a unit on Hide without worrying about any spotting aspects whatsoever, i.e., if there is 81mm mortar fire landing in any proximity, guys hugging the ground will relatively safer than guys in a typical heads up posture.

It all depends on what the enemy can see, if he can see the first floor, second and third than yes you would want to slow all the way up, if he can only see the third than you only need to do it for the 2nd-3rd. It all depends on the situation, if your that worried about it crawl the whole way!
 
As for not being able to see while crawling...you can just not as well, not sure why you think you can't see ANYTHING.

I think there's a small morale penalty when Tired - I can't be sure because when my guys are Tired they're either not fighting, or in so deep that "subtle" penalties are out the window
 
Slow is pretty good for concealment - especially if the enemy haven't already seen you eg. crawling the last AS into some cover gaining LoS on enemy positions. I've also used it successfully to get guys into a top story, but once there they may be more visible ( peering out of windows )  than a guy at the edge of a forest, say.

Not really true. Some people have come onto the forum and been instant stars. Their posts are recognizably well-informed and valued as such. Lots of people come on who are not yet well-informed but exhibit an open minded attitude of eagerness to learn. They too are valued as they are the future of the forum. Of the people who meet with disdain, usually the cause is their snarky know-it-all attitude that makes them instantly unpopular. Then there are those who know not and know not that they know not. Those are usually taken by the hand by someone making an attempt to lead them toward the light. How matters progress from there pretty much depends on the personalities involved.
 
I would say not to be afraid to venture an opinion, but do some research and make damn sure of your facts. And don't get sore if you get shot down by somebody who knows more than you. Believe me, it has happened to me too and my 20,000+ posts are no proof against it.
 

 
Michael

I kinda disagree ( wait, does that make your post a self-fulfilling prophecy ?     ). I'd say the community as whole tends not to suffer fools easily, but there are plenty of posters in your category who make either well-informed posts or posts which lead to all of us becoming better-informed ( ie. good questions ).

Ah, yet another convenient excuse to dismiss the argument. I don't need to post my achievements here, as my arguments tend to revolve around more than simply saying "I've got years of experience, so I automatically know better than you". I've posted numerous examples of companies overcoming their Steam reluctance and profiting from it, they get dismissed and ignored. I've generally discussed possible low-risk avenues to test out the Steam waters, I get insulted for them. Nobody is demanding you to prove yourself, but if you mingle in a discussion you'll get called out if your argument is nothing more than "I'm automatically right simply because I say so, now everyone else shut up".
 
 
The relevant part is that he was forced to eat those words when it proved exactly how much bull**** they really were, just like you'll probably have to do in a few years time.
 
 
I'd like to see some examples of that "intellectually balanced discussion'" you claim to want here, because you certainly are not providing it. The first page alone contains how many posts simply trying to shut down discussion based on the line "It's been asked before, the answer will eternally be no, so stop talking about it"? I have in his entire thread done nothing but present argument upon argument, doing my very best to ignore the people insulting me for it. And you are right, that does appear to be behaviour you are discouraging on these forums. If it's an echo chamber you want, just come out and say it openly.
 
Here's another tip for the clever businessman you think you are: it does not reflect well upon a company for its public face to get personally involved in a public discussion like this, no matter who else is involved or what is being said. It reflects even worse on them when the public face actively picks sides with his favourites and revels in them insulting newcomers. No matter how this thread ends, it's pretty obvious to anyone with even the slightest PR experience that it has cost your company money and maybe even customers.

I'd consider EE an RTS (rather than a wargame) because it involves building the units you're going to use, during the game, managing the "resources" needed to do so. I didn't buy it, after watching a couple of online vids of the gameplay. I'd probably enjoy it up to a point, but it's not what I'm looking for in a game. It's a "wargamey" RTS, but certainly, in my lexicon, not a "hardcore wargame". Pretty much all my friends and the people I bump into when with them are gamers (playing tabletop RPGs, LARP and computer games, online and off, multiplayer and MM). A few of them class themselves as wargamers, playing figures games alongwith the other media. Some of them play Flames of War. One of them has been persuaded to buy CM, and he just doesn't have the time to get to know the game, even to take up my offer of a sit-down tutorial; his experience isn't going to sell it to any of his friends, either, and he co-runs half a dozen FoW tournaments a year. He has time to play Battle Academy, which I'd class as a wargame, for sure, though. Steam wouldn't increase the exposure-rate amongst my gamer friends; they're not looking for the material in the first place.

I checked into it last year. It looks like fun. But I had a couple problems;
 
I couldn't find a demo. And demos for me are very important when it comes to seeing how well my comp will handle something. That's my first priority...next would be actual game play.
 
The second being that it's RTS...the thing I dislike most about these games is built right into the name; Real Time. These guys make these incredibly beautiful games, like Rome II and Wargame, in full glorious 3D, but when you play them (as you see in the video) it's from the nosebleeds, and you are all over the screen clicking this little unit and that little unit, and something goes boom, so you jump over here, and something goes boom over there, so you jump over there, and you are all over the place. Meanwhile, you have these gorgeous, jaw dropping graphics going to waste because you are so busy clicking everywhere you don't have time to enjoy them. I never understood the point of the 3D when you spend the entire game well above the battle. Now, if there is a save feature where you can re-watch afterward that goes a long way in helping with that, at least you can go back and see 80% of what you missed while you were just trying to beat the scenario.
 
But that is exactly why I like CM. I can play in WEGO and get the benefit of the VCR instant replays on each turn which do play out in real time. I don't have to miss any of what the game was supposedly designed to show me. The 3D graphics are there to enhance the game play and immersion, if they weren't then all these games would look like Steel Panthers. LOL. It's not that I am old, or crotchety (like a lot of RTSers will tell you), it's that I want to enjoy all the game has to offer, not just the clicking faster than my enemy part.  It's really hard to find that happy medium with these full on Real Time games. For every one cool thing you get to see, you are missing twenty on the other side of the map. I want to see all of it.
 
But I'll probably give this one a try eventually.
 
 
Mord.
 
P.S. does it have a replay feature, and single player missions? A battle editor? It was almost a year ago when I checked it out.

Someone posted these pics several years ago in regards to the blast command and the results. The blast along method 99.9% of the time yields a tank sized gap.
 

 

It is all about the right tool for the job at hand.  Somtimes it is the Stryker sometimes its the Bradley sometimes the M1. Sometimes you are stuck making do with what you've got.

Actually he didn't say he automatically knew better than you ( although that suspicion IS beginning to form ), he really said that he has years of experience and he's seen the numbers ( real actual facts ) and they don't add up for BFC.
 
I still don't see how "but if you'd just try it" trumps that.
 
Plus, you keep harping on about being insulted - ok Mord got a little carried away after about 6 pages, but otherwise people have been remarkably restrained.
 
And were they not correct ?
The reasons have been given (again) and the answer is still no.
And in fact it has never been said that the answer will eternally be no, just that the business reasons have to change for the better and that's down to Steam, not BFC.

See this is what really sucks, instead of Steve coming here and throwing a bone for the new year we instead have to listen as he defends his company's business strategy to a handful of people who have zero, zilch, nada experience running a tactical war gaming company on the semi annual steam thread. F**k, what a god damn waste of time

I would so much rather hear some possible thoughts on CMSF2 and what some of the considerations are.

Sorry, rant over

My apologies to the OP, it isn't your fault. Please don't take this to mean you.

There is variation in the game. TCs sometimes drop down right away and other times they stay up longer than you might have. Loosing two TCs from fire 450m away in short order is a bit of bad luck for you. Next time you might see both of them duck down and survive.

I would admire their bravery and simultaniously curse their stupidity and then have the crews extract revenge.

I should probably stop reading this thread but it is interesting to watch the interaction and spot the logical fallacies
 
Steve even joined in and explained his reasoning - again.  Wow. 
 
So, here is the thing.  Back in post 133 Steve laid out his reasoning.  The bottom line is that the so called arguments put forward by a few people pushing steam are riddled with fallacies: Aside from the usual biggies Straw Man and Ad-hominem which abound there is also Burden of Proof and then there is the problem of Steam has a bigger pie therefore it will yield more customers which I cannot quite pin down it is some combination of Composition or Division.
 
So to summarize and not call out specific examples there has been plenty of Straw Man arguments, even Steve has a tendency to do slip into this one (I know I do too) mainly because sometimes it is a fine line between committing a Straw Man error and scoring a beautiful Reductio ad absurdum argument.  But the Straw Man and Ad-hominem stuff aside the biggest problem is the burden of proof is ass backwards in they eyes of a few Steam advocates.  I realize you don't see it but *you* have the burden of proof.  Steve has conducted his analysis and has stated several times that he keeps up to date and is open to changing his mind if conditions change.  He is the one that owns the business.  He is the one that is actually producing product to sell.  He is the one that makes his living based on the decisions he makes.  Therefore the burden of proof is not his. It is yours.  Period. 
 
This brings us to half of the real issue (the only half that has been discussed at all): the makeup of the pie.  It is not logically correct to say that exposure to a particular larger community of more people will result in more sales.  It is a fallacy to say so.  You must demonstrate that the larger community actually has the appropriate characteristics to support your argument.  Hint just saying it is bigger does not prove anything.  Several people have given their anecdotal descriptions of the appeal of CM which while not rising to the level of statically significant actually points to problems with the bigger community means more interest in CM.
 
So, if you want to continue this as a worthwhile discussion you should accept the burden of proof and address this issue of “community make up”.  Again remember bigger does not necessarily mean better.  While at the same time avoiding Straw man and Ad-hominem mistakes.
 
The trouble is that only takes you half way there.  The other half is the business side.  If a size of CM interest can been estimated with some kind of confidence then you need to look at how the business side stacks up.  That means more than just quoting some % hold back on Steam’s part.  You have to know how prices are established (no I don't mean say you know some number you have to have the contracts and fully understand them) who controls pricing?  When can they change the price?  What penalties there are for slow sales, high volume, low volume or whatever else is in there.

Funny, mord is a very active positive force in this community. He and I have had disagreements at times on stuff but in all this time we have agreed to disagree on those subjects and developed a friendship based on mutual respect and a mutual love of this game. However the steamie-krishnas (yeah I like that Mord, it fits) or at least significant members of that view seem to only participate on this subject essentially harassing Steve to do what you want him to do.

Wanna see a troll?, look in the mirror.

As to this proof that steam has worked because matrix and slitherine are there, that is not exactly accurate. Yes they are there, however the jury is still out as to whether that will end up being a positive thing. Real evidence is based on tangible proof. I doubt even Matrix would be ready to say yet for sure what the long term effect will be for them. Personally I wish them success. Regardless of Steam, this community needs more developers.

Despite the predictions of those who believe BF is doomed for not jumping on the steam mall bandwagon, there is obvious evidence accessible by all of us with very little effort that they are establishing themselves quite well and growing. This in what was an economic downturn. I don't have to just trust Steve's word, I have tangible evidence that BF is doing well. Not only that I have, thanks to BF's commitment to maintaining the game families, a comfortable view of where they are headed. No I don't think they are getting rich, but I think they probably have hit a point where they feel they have a healthy self sustaining enterprise 100% under their control. I envy them. I am betting I probably make more than even Steve or Charles, but they have a satisfaction that I can not compete with.

Kudos to you guys at BF. Thanks for doing what you do and know that you have a solid loyal customer base to allow you to plan another 10 years down the road. At that point I should be hitting retirement and I expect a new engine, a Fulda gap game, a Vietnam game and a France 1940 game or I will start whining at you.

Seriously thanks for the best damn game out there bar none.
Now if you could just add that little kid doing the paper delivery route to the AI triggers, I bet you could grab a whole new audience.

Well, here's a fact ( on a very minor scale ).
 
I have about 12-15 friends who are gamers. Roughly 8-10 of those are wargamers. I'd regard 2 of them as hardcore wargamers ( like me ).
 
I've introduced CM2 to all of them.
Only 1 of the hardcore wargamers took to it. He loves it, the others were all "meh" or "too hard". And that was with me explaining and guiding, doing my best to flatten the learning curve.
Face it - hardcore wargames are a niche within a niche.
 
PS : the one who liked it - he lives where the internet is ****ty. He would not like it on Steam