ClarkWGriswold

That is frickin' genius!

Agreed! Devs: Get back to work! Though, the beta testers might have some free time....

My kingdom for a promo video! *NOTE: I do not actually have a kingdom. If I did, I probably wouldn't trade it for a promo video, but I might be convinced to give up a tiny portion for said video.

Well, you don't really need a physical copy. You can always download and back up your digital copy, the same way that you backup photos, music, and other data you don't want to lose. No physical media required. And as convenient as digital distribution is, some of us still like physical media. The further we move towards completely digital distribution the more companies want to keep control over their content and force us to re-buy things that we already own. I'm not talking about BFC, but content creators in general. I can never re-sell the digital content I've bought through Xbox Live, iTunes, Steam, etc. With a disk and an activation key, I *can* sell/transfer my game in the future, should I choose to do so.

Daddy likes!

I also wonder about the App Store. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing BFC would do, and the overhead seems steep at first glance, but I'd think that if anything is going to broaden the market of this game it's the App Store. From what I have read, most companies who've put their apps out on the App Store have seen a huge increase in sales. Well more than enough to offset the cost.

The 57mm AT gun is good on the defense but AT guns, in general, are not great for attacks or meeting engagements. Unless you can place them in a good position during the setup phase, towing them around is both a hassle and a good way to get them shot up before they've even fired a round.

I'm not suggesting taking Tigers out of the game, or that they should almost never appear, or even that they shouldn't appear constantly. My gripe is that they appear in virtually every single QB (in CMBB. I dunno about CMBN) AND that they generally comprise the majority of forces. Tigers and Panthers are expensive, but any CMx1 player will buy them anyway, because they're still better than their cost reflects even WITH rarity enabled. And enabling rarity doesn't make them rare, it just makes them more expensive (but still worth the cost). The new system seems to work differently, but I'm not sure what effect it will have on force composition because I've not seen any information on how many rarity points each side will get in a QB (the same as purchase points, it seems), how many rarity points certain vehicles will cost, or how many purchase points certain vehicles will cost.

This is where you end up in a CM arms race. If you want to win, you buy Tigers and Panthers (because there's nothing really to discourage it). If you want a fun, balanced game you don't. But since most people play to win you end up with game after game of uber-tanks. Were they RARE? No. But they were not so widespread as to compromise almost the entirety of the German forces in every single battle. Yes. This is true. In CMx1, having rarity on doesn't make things any more rare at all. It makes things more expensive, but you can still buy nothing but the most "rare" vehicle if you want. I'm curious how this works in CMBN. Agreed. But you'd still be able to buy nothing but Brummbars if you wanted. I think it's really a question of rarity *and* unit cost. So I guess my question is, what are the unit costs and unit rarities like in CMBN? Are uber-units going to be expensive enough to dissuade putting all your eggs in that basket? Are rarity values going to be such that you can't just assemble a force composed completely of "rare" vehicles?

No, it's 4 to begin with PLUS an additional one each year to the maximum of 4. So, to run out of licenses you would have to reinstall five or more times in the first year OR four times in the first year and more than once per year every year thereafter OR two times each year for three years straight. I really, truly cannot believe this is a problem for anyone. It boggles my mind that someone would have to reinstall their computer multiple times per year every single year. If my computer required that much hassle, I'd become Amish. Of course, those sorts of Windows hassles are why I switched to Mac in 2007 (and haven't had to reinstall my OS ever).

I'm not saying that having eight Tigers on a battlefield would be unusual. I'm saying that having eight Tigers on EVERY battlefield shouldn't be commonplace. I realize that the Allies went up against Tiger battalions, but they didn't go up against a battalion of Tigers in EVERY SINGLE ENGAGEMENT, as happens in CMBO/CMBB quick battles. The same holds true the other way around. I would not expect to see the Americans using nothing but Jumbo Shermans or the Brits using nothing but Fireflies, since those vehicles were relatively rare in the real world. Seeing them in scenarios, or seeing the odd one in quick battles is one thing. But having forces comprised mostly of these uber-vehicles is par for the course in quick battles. Yes, I do think so, because they were! Panther production in 1944 was just over 4,000 (total wartime production was ~6,500). PzIV production in 1944 was over 6,600 (total wartime production was ~13,000). Over 10,000 StugIIIs and StuH 42s were built throughout the war. Even assuming that Panthers took fewer losses than lighter armored vehicles, you'd still expect Panthers to be outnumbered on the battlefield by other, more common vehicles. I was under the impression that rarity was supposed to make rare things, well... rare. It didn't work that way in CMBO/CMBB and I'm hoping the new system works better. I don't want to have to make a "gentlemen's agreement" before every single quick battle to do something that is supposedly built into the game in the first place.

To be fair, the camera control is the main way in which you interact with the game. And a game that is meant to be played in real time needs to have good, intuitive controls or the player won't be able to see what's going on or control their units. I think the camera controls in CMSF are a ton better than CMx1, but they still aren't really smooth. I find it difficult to select a unit, then give them orders to another area unless it's immediately visible. Moving around with the keys (my preferred method in virtually every other game) just does NOT work well in CMSF. You basically have to use the mouse. But you ALSO have to use the mouse to select units, issue orders, etc. The mouse ends up being heavily relied upon while the keys do relatively little. I don't think the camera controls are a game breaker, but they definitely could use some improvement (even if that improvement was just smoother, easier use of the keys for moving around).

I've read the posts about the new rarity system and how each vehicle is given a certain number of points which is then deducted from the "rarity pool". My question is not so much about the basics of how the system works as it is about the relative rarity values of the vehicles. I play CMBB right now and quick battles generally end up with the German force comprised largely of Tigers and Panthers. In the real world, these vehicles were fairly rare, and seeing 8+ Tigers on a single battlefield probably almost never happened. But, the German player - even with rarity on - is generally better off buying a dozen Tigers/Panthers over buying twice as many PzIVs and Stugs because the big cats have better guns and are much more likely to survive a hit or two. It comes down to having one tank that survives the whole game versus two or three that are taken out easily early in the game. Will the new rarity system "discourage" this sort of thing and prevent such a force? Are we more likely to see more historically accurate force selections with Stugs and PzIIIs/PzIVs doing the brunt of the work, and a Tiger or Panther thrown in occasionally for good measure?

Nobody is ever happy with DRM solutions. If it was reversed and CMSF had the new system and CMBN was getting the old system, everyone would be in here bitching about how they have to deactivate their machines and that if they forget to deactivate then they can't unlock when they reinstall. I'd be willing to bet good money that people forgetting to deactivate, reinstalling, and being unable to deactivate is the reason they're changing licensing systems. Just face it, guys. Battlefront think they need DRM to protect their work (I'm not convinced that's true, but they'd probably know better than me). They've tried different solutions through the years and found them to be lacking in one way or another. I'm sure that they feel this new system will be enough for 99% of users (seriously, who the hell reinstalls Windows every 3 months?) while lowering the hassle and cost of support. You can bitch here in the forums, but unless there are some severe negative repercussions post-release, I doubt we'll see any change. Switching from what they've been using for the past 5 years probably wasn't a snap decision, and it's unlikely to be reversed this late in the game. Personally, while I detest DRM and think it just makes the lives of legitimate users more difficult, I'm thankful that BFC haven't chosen something worse. Many games allow you to install on ONE machine and that's it. No playing on your desktop at home and on your laptop when you leave town, and no network games against your buddies when they come over. Silent Hunter 5 required an active internet connection so that it could phone home *even when playing offline in single player*. If your net connection dropped, the game exited. Of course, the game was a complete flop and sold about a dozen copies because people refused to put up with the DRM scheme. If something like that happens to CMBN, then BFC will either have to make changes or go under. Given the current preorders, the general lack of competitors, and the relatively non-intrusive nature of the new DRM system, I doubt BFC has much to worry about.

I took a look at the French reference site and the black and white pictures from the late 40's are awesome. After looking at a few you can really see what Steve was talking about in the "forest thread". The trees are numerous, but they are all very neatly arranged in planned areas and neat little rows. Outside of these areas they line the road, but there don't seem to be vast swathes of forest or wild areas. Everywhere is farm land, planted trees, walls, and bocage. Very cool to be able to see this.

Every time I see this thread bump to the top, I excitedly jump in only to find it's yet another "is it time yet?" question, rather than a "It's time, guys!" reply. Quit bumping the thread! You guys are just boosting my expectations, only to have them come crashing down around me again!

Another AAR complete and it's only April 7th. What are we gonna do for the rest of the month!? Without an AAR to entertain us, it's quite possible that a few of us could be institutionalized! But at least my Ctl+R keys will get a break.

That's actually something that I wanted to ask about, having never bought CMSF. Is it going to be an actual tutorial, or is it going to be like the "tutorial" mission in the CMSF demo where you're thrown in with a few vehicles and some infantry and told "okay, go get the bad guys"? I'm really, really hoping that CMBN has an *actual* tutorial that explains the basics of unit movement and control. It's SO different from CMx1 that it's not super intuitive for veterans of that game. It's also so complex that it's not intuitive or inviting for newbies, even those who have played other wargames. I think a *good* tutorial is really, truly necessary if we want to bring new people to this game/hobby. I remember buying CMBO ages ago, playing it a couple times, then throwing it on the shelf out of frustration. It wasn't until I found forums with tutorials and tactic tips that I finally figured out how to play the game and started enjoying myself. I have a few friends that I think would really enjoy the game, but it won't happen if they have to read a 200 page manual or read through dozens of forum threads to figure out how to move a tank or assault a trench.

But this only works for a game in which there is at least one human player on each side, correct? I believe he's asking about a "single player" game, where two people can play on the same side against an AI enemy. I've played many three player games in CMBO/CMBB, but they all required a human on both sides (so three players would be the minimum for team play). Edit: willmontgomery's post made me think of something else. When playing one player games in CMx1 I often found myself wishing I could go back and view the replay from Turn X. It would be nice if there were some way to save and play back the movies from each of those turns. The way it works now, once you view the replay and click GO, it's lost forever. No showing your buddies the heroic actions of a lone Panzerfaust trooper or the amazing close call that just barely spared the life of your last tank.

Does "Men Missing" mean POWs? If so, where did the two American men missing come from?

Panzer Command: Ostfront

I really love the new shots too. The few pics of a German SP gun in waist high grass is just awesome. Ditto for the American soldiers running behind a hedgerow. It's a shame that the power/telephone poles don't have any wires strung between them, though. They look sorta empty and incomplete just standing there.

Not exactly speculation. From the CM:BN pre-order page:

There was a lengthy discussion earlier in the thread about the hows and whys of the Shermans being able to withstand so many hits. So, it's not simply a response to a few minutes of combat as much as it's a response to half a thread full of explanation and discussion.

I just tried CMSF on my MacBook Pro (2008-ish) via BootCamp. Looks like I'm going to be saving my pennies for a new iMac. I hear rumors that new models may be coming out late this month or perhaps May. That should coincide nicely with the Mac release of CMBN.