thejetset

Also, I find that over time you end up playing almost exclusively with a relatively small group of people. Therefore, there is no need to advertise very often to look for new opponents. .... plus, let's face it, a PBEM battle can last a couple of weeks ... it's not like a RTS that has a new iteration every 5 to 10 minutes.

I pretty much only play PBEM. But DAR's and AAR's are a lot of work!!

That would certainly make for some ... errmp ... interesting and colorful threads on this discussion forum.

I'm playing a campaign with some friends. One of the issues we are trying to foresee would be an assault on an artillery unit. We would model the artillery with a similar caliber Field Gun and give it a close cover arc so it cannot fire. The problem is the "limbering time". The default limbering time for a Field Gun might be about 7 minutes. However, we are discussing weather to add extra time to this given the fact that we are really trying to model artillery pieces instead of direct-fire guns. Extra variables that I can forsee with packing up an artillery battery would be: More prepared positions, communications gear, ammo stockpiles, possible camouflage accessories etc ... The question is: Should we add additional limbering time to represent artillery? If so, how much? .... We would prefer to have a "General" number that would be indifferent of the caliber of the field-piece. -----EDIT----- The map will have "Exit Zones" .... the objective of the defending player would be to try to delay long enough to successfully pack-up and exit their artillery pieces.

Reminds me of that Cacafuego action. Tough nut to crack that was.

And I think it might have been book #3 ... where Aubrey is laid up on land with half-pay and Maturin manages to get him a ship ... but he has to leave NOW. .... Not a half page later and he's rumbling down the stairs with his war-chest ready to head out to sea again ... wife in shock .. kids whimpering ... Jack Aubrey beaming!

Yes! ... These are just a great series. I think I got to book #11 and have been meaning to complete the series since a couple of years ago ... But have since gotten caught up in different reads.

But I know what you mean about fanatical governments pushing people to fanatical ends .... with results like the hellish Eastern Front. It is no offence to Russian's, German's or Japanese people. It's just a lesson in history that we hope never has to be repeated. (Except in Combat Mission video games of course!!)

ummm .... ok ..... okokok .... ahhh .... you don't work in the US Post Office by any chance do you? .... I mean ... not that it's a big deal or anything! ..... or that myself or anyone else should really be worried or anything .... right?? ... but 2003?? ... really?

Steve (or someone from Battlefront) responded to a comment I put on their Facebook page stating that the CM:BN 2.01 patch is: "The Release Candidate is being tested already." That has to be good news on that front ... next week maybe???

Since it is based in the "Near Future" ... maybe 5-6 years in the future ... that should give them a little creative room. I'm not talking "Space Lobsters" or anything ..... ..... but, maybe the next generation of Raven drone would be possible for gathering intel as to what is on the other side of the map. Or, Quad-RC helicopters with cameras ... or even an armed Quad-copter would be somewhat realistic. ..... Also, 5-6 years down the pipeline, armed ground-based drones could be realistic and be in more wide-spread service. Something that you run into a building or strong-point to either gather intel or spear-head an assault with ... that would not be in the realm of science-fiction either.

I have to admit that my forum monitoring activities have gone up A LOT since Steve threw out those bones! I can't say what I'm more excited for, Eastern Front or CMSFx2 ... or maybe just "Fire! Fire! Fire!" ... to quote Beavis and Butthead. Has any mention been made about drones in CMSFx2? Not just strike drones ... but information drones.

Also, for reasons similar to the HT, I have a hunch that team BF is happy that the Grant tanks weren't deployed in the Italian campaign!

I too will be into the new SF2.0 when it comes out! .... When the original SF came out I "went away" ... for about 5 years! ... and really regretted it after playing some of the SF1.0 demos. I haven't purchased the SF series because CMBN and CMFI keeps me well occupied ... but I won't fall off the wagon this time around!

I like your way of thinking Umlaut! .... I too would much rather have a EF release over the Bulge! edit .... btw, fire me an email when you are ready for another PBEM game!

Hi Wooden, I hope you are correct! SF2 and EF are the two base modules that myself (and I'm sure the majority of us) are looking forward to the most! It was just a post that I saw from Steve a few days ago (can't seem to find it now to quote it) ... in it he mentioned that SF2 could very well be a '13 release. And since the "Road Ahead" showed that the Bulge would be released before EF, I used that information to make my prediction. HOWEVER, one thing for sure is to expect the unexpected! Also, I have a feeling that team BF will work really, really, really hard to nail down all of the details for both the SF2 and EF releases .... that's why I think it will be pretty hard to release both of those titles in '13. ... but man, I hope I'm wrong!!

OK ... here goes: 1st Qtr 13 - CM:BN 2.0 Market Garden module 2nd Qtr 13 - CM:FI 2.0 (Brits in Sicily) Module 3rd Qtr 13 - CM:MW (Modern Warfare) v3.0 engine!! base game. 4th Qtr 13 - CM:BB (Bulge) v3.0 engine base game. However, I think they might only get to the 3rd point ... I bet they are trying to schedule the Bulge release for a Dec 16th release ... but that might be too ambitious. I think Eastern Front will be the main event in '14. (together with expansions for Bulge and Modern Warfare)

Thanks Pete. I guess that pretty much sums it up.

Hi George, I should have mentioned that in my original post. Yes, the objective zones are set to visible. I think it might have something to do with Quick Battles. Can you have Exit Zones in QB's??

I hope team BF keeps focusing on making great games and not getting involved in weird dramas.

Nice one! ... I want to make the Onion's sexiest man list too someday!!

Merry Christmas everyone. Why, I thought this war was supposed to be over by Christmas?

Also, I don't think there is a way to select the number of points in CMBN/CW & FI. Instead, you select the map size & force size. Then, points will automatically be assigned to each side. Personally, I don't like this as well as being able to set the points during the QB setup.

... In a recent PBEM battle: "Man ... that StuGIII has not moved in a LOOONNGG time. I bet my 81mm mortar rounds knocked a track off it! Let's move the Stuarts forward to pump some 37mm rounds into its side and finish it off." .... errhemm .... yep, let's just say that the M5 crews were not agreeing with my wishful thinking.

Hi guys, I'm trying to modify a couple of the existing Quick Battle maps to include Exit Zones. I can do this in the Scenario Editor with no problems. I'm in the MISSION section and then set them in the respective Axis and Allies Territory Objectives. However, the Exit Zones do not appear in the actual battle. (I've set them to be visible to both sides as objectives) Is there something I'm doing wrong? Is there some property I need to assign to the Exit Zones to get them to appear? .... Can you have Exit Zones in a Quick Battle? Thanks