DaddyO

According to Chris on one of his recent Saturday TwitchTV broadcasts it will be CMBN/CMFI 3.0 upgrade first, then the CMRT patch.

LOVE that response! Well DONE!

I'm not whining. If the shoe doesn't fit, I don't put it on.

Yeah, thanks. I misread the Battlefront website, thinking there was a $65 module bundle that didn't include the 2.0 upgrade. But at this point if you want to buy CW and MG in one fell swoop, it will include the 2.0 upgrade and cost $75. No big deal.

** Post Deleted By Op **

Given that I own the CMBN base game only and purchased the 2.0 upgrade, I too wish that there was a two-module bundle (CW and MG) that didn't include the upgrade I already paid for. But upgrade price of $10 was more than fair for the expanded feature set I received. I mean, it makes no sense to me to make a big deal about $5 or $10. "The principal of the thing" starts to mean a whole lot less (to me, anyway) when we're talking about lunch money. However, this does raise a question. Once the 3.0 upgrade is extended to CMBN and CMFI, if I buy Red Thunder, which already includes the 3.0 engine, and then buy CW and MG, will my CMBN games and modules all automatically be 3.0, thereby obviating the need for me to purchase a separate CMBN 3.0 upgrade?

Right, I figured that response was coming eventually...after I posted I realized I had jumped the gun. Sometimes a cheerful poke in the eye is earned. I guess I should say that I hope a 3.0 bundle similar to the to the current 2.0 upgrade plus two modules bundle will be made available, since I've already paid separately for the 2.0 upgrade with no modules.

All I have is CMBN base game upgraded to 2.0. I would love to see a bundle that saves me some money by bundling the 3.0 upgrade with both modules, Commonwealth and Market Garden. No such bundle exists that I can find.

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at this. Well done, sir.

Not sure where you live, John, but here you USED to be able to get them at Costco, something like four 6-packs for $5. Not any more, though. Miss those nooks and crannies. Thanks for the commercial link, it just goes to show their ad campaign worked on me when I was a kid.

Combat Mission, the Thomas's English Muffin of wargames.

Um, wow. I thought I was striking a more gentle, conciliating tone than some others chose. By the way, the quote you attributed to me was never posted by me, that was someone else. Finally, I myself suffer from a debilitating physical disability that makes it impossible for me to play Combat Mission with any degree of regularity. I lost 1/3 of my heart twelve years ago. I'm basically a semi running on a lawnmower engine. Most days and weeks I don't have the energy or focus to play. Therefore I do sympathize that you have lost a limb and it makes life difficult. This comment is not flippant, it is sincere. I don't do flippant. I don't do troll. Never have. People have an inherent dignity, and ought to be treated as such even when sometimes they act in ways inconsistent with that dignity-- barring crime or war. In war, if necessary, you have to kill even a dignified enemy. Here's hoping you figure things out, return to the forum and become a happy, regular contributor to the community.

Not so, my friend. Sometimes it is best when you are new to a forum community (forum software counts your OP as your 2nd) to familiarize yourself a little with some of the players before your throw around such comments. I can understand wanting more scenarios...nothing wrong with that, but aggressive posts made in ignorance often get the kind of aggressive response yours elicited. Moderate your tone a bit, and you might be surprised how much help you can get and how much you can learn.

's okay, C3PO, I mean C3k (just a friendly kibbitz), I only play solo. I know, I know, real men only play HTH or PBEM, but I make no pretense of being a real man anyway! Thanks for the info, guys.

I recently acquired a widescreen monitor. It appears the only setting available in options that makes sense is "Desktop." When I start a game it fills the whole screen. Does this mean I'm getting video that is stretched width-wise, or am I seeing more terrain than I otherwise would? I can't tell (yes, I'm blind), but it looks to me like nothing is stretched.

Scurrilous is as scurrilous does.

It is really good to have more video AAR producers. Well-produced video AAR's have been the single best CMBN instructor for me. Ithikial, I particularly like how you take the time to show and discuss your plotting of orders. Watching your AAR's is not just about a good show, though it is that. It is like looking over the shoulder of someone playing out a scenario. I have learned more from your videos than any others. It helps a lot that you come across like a chap I'd enjoy spending an evening with chatting about various things. I also appreciate that other have different approaches to video AAR's. Like you, SLIM, I've just moved to a new computer, and I'll have to start watching your videos. The more the merrier, guys!

Understood, that's the ideal. That's often the reality. I guess what I'm seeing is that (unless someone chips in to the contrary) there is no easy, standard solution to this conundrum. You just have to make compromises and judgments, weighing your options and taking chances if necessary. Hmmm... Sounds like warfare. Thanks everybody for contributing.

And isn't that precisely the question we're asking? Of COURSE you need SOME kind of HQ up the WP's chain of command to receive fire requests for mortars. (Caps for emphasizing what is already understood, not shouting.) That's a given. The question I think on my mind, at least, is one of WP MG squads' combat effectiveness (following orders, resistance to panic, etc.) or lack thereof when the WP HQ is not in C2 with the them. I assume their effectiveness is better when in C2 with the WP HQ. Thus if you parcel out the MG squads, according to this assumption, you are sacrificing leadership benefits from the unit HQ. And yet it seem from my battles that parceling them out is usually required.

Thanks, Wombie.

I ran into this Weapons Platoon question squarely in my most recently played scenario, the CMBN version of the old CMBO scenario, A Chance Encounter. There was no location where you could set up the MG's in the rear and have LOS to the locations of battle. You simply HAD to either commit the entire W.Platoon to one axis of advance, or apportion them out. I chose to move them up the middle with their HQ and maintain my options depending on how my left and right axes developed. They ended up on the left in what proved to be a backwater for the battle. It helped that I received another WP as reinforcements for the right, where they proved useful. My next scenario will be another old CMBO offering, Valley Of Trouble.

Exactly. You stated the questions more clearly than I did. I hope we get a number of comments so we can get a handle on any differing approaches to the matter.

Thanks for the comments, Scout PL and Wombie.

I've always wondered how best to utilize Weapons Platoons, especially the HQ. I'm curious about common practices among experienced users. I think I have a pretty good handle on the ideal way to use mortars and MG's. Ideally mortars can be kept towards the rear of the map with the Weapons Platoon HQ (or Company HQ) near enough to receive indirect fire mission requests via radio and pass them on by voice command. With regard to MG's, I usually look at the map and my plan of attack and apportion them among the rifle platoons as seems best. Sometimes mortars might also be advanced with rifle platoons to provide direct fire support. So in cases where the Weapons Platoon squads are parceled out to other platoons, what is the best use of the Weapons Platoon HQ? He can't be everywhere in communication with his squads, except perhaps by radio connection with rifle platoon HQ's. How do you best handle these situations?

Looks VERY interesting.