Magpie_Oz

- sigh - Here we go AGAIN ! "Ok, everyone grab their M3's and up the M3 to get out of the M3. Buck, you man the M3 and Billy-Bob, you stay here in case we need the M3. OK follow me M3n ! "

I disagree because at the moment BFC gets $60 out of me every 10 years, under a subscription model they would get money of of me every year AND I am pretty much bound to them for my investment. I am also not necessarily saying we need to have total backwards compatibility what I am asking is that is it possible from not only a coding perspective but also a business perspective to have the product undergo a series of evolutions rather than total replacement every 10 years. My thought is that if the upgrading and addition of new features is done bit by bit over many years you more or less have the total game all of the time but its functionality is growing and expanding as new features are added. So if you add the aeroplane bit then each of your modules gets an upgrade as well. I for one would be more than happy to pay for an on going system that grows over time, especially if it means some of the less popular armies and theatres can be modelled.

Crikey!, unlucky for you blokes, in Oz we can import anything that is valued under $1000 and there is no GST (aka VAT) or Excise. Surely they cannot police online downloads ?

I have also found that if I am not careful one team goes haring off into the building, out of range of the support element and gets cleaned up in short order. I have had better success having the whole squad race in using the "Fast" command.

No and I am going to complain that we cannot complain about the complaints. !

Sure, but I am suggesting that the "rules" of the game are more or less fixed. Revisions of the game engine would only be to model things not previously included but the modules are structured in such a way that changes to the game engine do not affect them. In essence the base game is the processing part and the modules are more or less just databases ? So if you decide to add fire to the game you can do so by revising the game engine but the modules will still work the same.

True but mobility is one of the sacrifices made for firepower. The main point I am making is that the HT gets the infantry to where they need to be, then they fight on foot. An HMG deployed on the ground I believe will be much more survivable than on in an HT. If you look at the photo in the link to the M16, you can see that it will have difficulty engaging a target at ground level through the forward arc and also prior to firing the sides of the HT have to be lowered, later models removed this requirement by mounting the pedestle higher making the crew more vulnerable. In many circumstances the M16 is a formidable bit of fire support I mean 4 x 50 Cals is a world of hurt ! But is is highly vulnerable, a few airburst mortar rounds would see it out pretty quick. Having said that the M16 is something of an exception to the rule as i was thinking more of the heavier AA mounts on HT's like the unarmoured 20, 37 and quad mounts on German vehicles. Yes I think the problem was that it took so long for 13 people to get out through one door, later models of the M3 had dual rear doors which helped a bit. The Hanomag had a clam shell rear door but still apparently the preferred method was to go over the side so that the vehicle emptied in a few seconds. To be honest tho' I have no evidence of the M3 being dismounted in this way but it seems standard procedure for the SPW251

Sure CAD files are fairly standard but then again the files for a wargame are pretty straight forward too I think. I am guessing the file is just this unit moved from here to there and did this, got shot at received X damage etc just a simple log file of sorts I guess. Thing is old Acad files don't have half the stuff that is in new Acad files, it is just that the new Acad program knows what to ignore. You are right with the versioning tho'. The way it works now is you pay the purchase price, for my set up it is $9000 and then you pay a subscription of $600 per year and that gets you the upgrades to new versions and there is a new version every year. So you pay about 7% of the purchase price every year. So for Battlefront that would mean we would pay $60 at the start and maybe $5 - 6 each year for the upgrades. Aren't we that already ?

As a Retired Australian Soldier AND a member of the nearly 50's club I can attest that I am far far meaner and crankier now than at any time in my services years. I agree whole heartedly with the assessment, were do I sign and how quick can they get me outta here? (quick before the wife gets home !)

Yes the MG's on HT's can be useful for suppressive fire but they are still just a pintle mounted MG. To get the full effectiveness of a SFMG (Sustained Fire MG) and fire at long range you need to have to mounted on a tripod, fitted with an "indirect" type sight and have a few barrel changes about in the case of air cooled MG's. The German Hanomag had an HMG carrier version but for the MG to operate in a true HMG role it had to be dismounted. Same too with the US M9A1 Halftrack which mounted a .50 Cal, 1 .30 Cal MMG and 2 browning HMG's. The problem with using a halftrack as a MG's nest is that it is far easier to KO a HT as opposed to an entrenched infantry. The Stummel was really developed to avoid the need to tow the 75mm IG, easier to have it mounted assault gun style and it was able to provide an effective support weapon, nothing like a Stug or Tank of course. Many AA mounts on Half tracks had problems firing at ground level targets, some didn't of course, also in many instances the HT had to be halted and prepared before the AA mount could fire.

OK must have been a scenario that included a captured Valentine in the German OOB that I am thinking of.

Again Chapter H of ASL had all this. I wonder if they will ever release it separately ? But this link http://niehorster.orbat.com/000_admin/000oob.htm is a ripper it shows everything from the King down. Keep clicking on the mil symbols and it takes you right down to battalion level

It's not so much that I am talking more about how it went last time. Buy CM:BO then buy CM:BB then buy CM:AK and you have just about everything covered, if you give up in despair for the PTO. Then you get CM:SF et'al so You build up a good modern set, annoying that it is not compatible with the earlier stuff. Then all that goes in the bin and we start back at the same place that CM:BO did just with less stuff. And I am expecting that I will by Normandy and Modules, Bulge and Modules, whatever is next and modules ........ then throw them all away and get CM3. It has always irked me a bit that I can have a single program for work (AutoCAD) that lasts for in excess of 20 years and a file from 1990 I can open today with the 2010 version but the games industry is very much "disposable". Is it impossible to have a base game engine that does all the working bits and have add ons that take us to different theatres?

Pretty sure I saw a German crew capture a Valentine in CMAK

CM:SF (NATO) not CM:A and it is a great campaign, oddly I actually prefer the campaigns to the scenarios for some reason. I did got the smoke option on one mission where there is a single bridge which is IED'ed and it worked well but much much later as my follow on forces were crossing BOOM ! I thought I had cleared all the enemy out but obviously someone was hiding in one of the houses.

The Operational Art of War III is my pick, it is a pretty good all rounder and can model just about any conflict in the modern era. Heaps of Normandy scenarios for it

True but on any of the WW2 Halftracks getting close was a bad thing, getting out was a real problem as it seems it was rare to use the rear doors, rather just jump over the side however that made you very obvious and also you were landing in the open. It was the rash actions of Joachim Peiper that brought out this notion of driving through the enemy in a HT. " Peiper developed a tactic of attacking enemy-held villages by night from all sides by advancing in his armored half-tracks at full speed, while firing at every building. This tactic often set the building's straw roofs on fire and contributed to panic among enemy troops. " But this was more about a surprise attack than the armour of the Sdkfz251 In short, Halftracks are Battle Buses, hop off at the nearest stop.

That is odd, mine fire more than I want them to. They are grouped with the Platoon MMG ad so I put them out for Fire Support and next thing you know there are Charley G rounds flying.

lol iPhone lol

AOFL rating for HALO is MA15+ (Medium Level Animated Violence) , Crysis 2 MA15+ (Strong Violence and Coarse Language) but I am sure there are 100000000's who play who are under that age.

Hard to say as the game and manual are a bit light on details. It says "HE ROCKET" for the ammo which could mean a number of things. The HE round for the CG is actually a recoilless round and not a rocket, however the HEAT round does have "rocket assistance" sooooooo HE ROCKET might mean the HEAT round? The HE round also has a range of 1000m and can be fired on a high trajectory and air burst, which I do not think the game piece can do.

Does that mean we are finally at the holy grail of buying a base game once, upgrading it over time and having a series of modules that allow us to maintain a library of game components? Like the old ASL days where you had a cupboard full of cardboard that covered the entire war ? (Sold it 2 years ago -sniff-) Or will I have to buy it all yet again in 10 years time ?

Thanks for the tips. I am working my way through Paper Tiger's House of Pain, aka Khabour Trail Campaign and I have tried so many different things but all I end up with a a large, smoking, canuck lined crater.

WW2 Halftrack were designed to provide the infantry with a degree of mobility and protection to get to the battlefield and keep up with tanks on the move. They were not designed to ride into battle a'la' a modern IFV, indeed APC's as recent as the M-113 would only provide fairly basic cover. They "should" stop an SMG, assault rifle and shell fragments, "might" stop a WW2 rifle round depending on range, "probably wouldn't" stop a .30Cal MMG, MG42 or Vickers gun (lots of shots and longer barrels), "certainly wouldn't" stop anything heavier than that, a .50 Cal would easily penetrate. The other thing to keep in mind is that tripod mounted MG's firing from range land a number of rounds in a beaten zone that can come from quite a high trajectory, no top on a WW2 Half track could lead to some major dramas in the back!

It is not really about that tho' is it? It is about choice and it seemed to me that the OP was asking if there is "foul language" in the game and I assume, based on the response, would make what ever choice he deemed necessary. In Oz we have a censor that rates all games and tells us what is in the game to give it its rating. Based on that we can make an informed choice, so it makes it easy, however in other places I guess you have to ask a question on a forum. Whether you agree with the OP or not is irrelevant, he chooses not to expose his kids to foul language in what ever context it is presented and I see no justification in criticising that. I have never understood why swearing gets you an "M" rating, killing gets you an "MA+15" but scenes depicting sex gets you an "R+18". Our kids can swear and kill but not make love ?