Georgie

I'm making a huge scenario that will include extreme range engagements. The ranges will be up to 2500 or more yards. The battle will be four hours long. The loadout for the 88mm AT guns is only 13 ap rounds so these will get used up very fast and probably will last only 30 min or so of engagement. I could use Tigers with a 46 round AP and 46 round HE but the US and Brit tanks would not be able to dent the Tiger at 2500 yds and this will throw the balance off too much. Is there any way to increase the gun ammo load out?

It matters to me if the graphics of the vehicles and buildings and people do not match in quality the graphics of their enviornment ie trees, ground, bushes, etc. If the graphics of , say, a tank is like a scale model and its inviornment is poor then it looks like a scale model in a "sand box" and it is hard to get absorbed into the game. CM2 is pretty good in this respect. The buildings and building damage could use some work and so could the water. Small ponds or lakes look good but to me a stream of any length doesn't look natural. The trees are good but some sapling trees would round out the appearance of a stream bed and show some low growth and new growth in the forest where some logging had been done, you know, make it look more "lived in" and provide more cover for the infantry. The forests right now look more like a park or a tree farm than a natural forest and it would be fun to have both. All and all CMBN has very good graphics and I spend way too many hours making maps.

An easy way to get info on the Eastern Front or the Western Front weaponry would be to buy a copy of Barbarossa to Berlin or CMBO or CMAK. Maybe BF won't have the same weaponry in its new Eastern Front game but it will probably be very close. Not only can you find out the weapons used but also the month and year that they became available. You will have to go into the editor to do this but the editors are very user friendly. You also will be able to find out the armor thickness of various AFVs and the penetration capability of their guns. There will probably be some differences in the new games but you can certainly get an idea of which tanks to steer clear of with your tank. You can do the same thing with infantry squads. Select the squad in the editor and then select "Map" and click on the squad that is on the map and then hit "enter" and the weapons of the squad will be displayed. These editors are like interactive weapons encyclopedias.

Well put Sgt Joch. I agree 100 percent. Maybe some day BF will come to the same conclusion and realize that there are basic game play differences between CMX1 and 2 and that CMX 2 is not, in some peoples opinion, just a new and better CMX1 but an excellent new game in its own right and that a new game modeled after CMX1 might just be a good investment.

Several posters have expressed concern that BF resources would be diverted from CM2 to work on a re-do for CM1. I'm sure that BF will manage their resources to do what they want to get done. As we know CM1 is more to the strategic side than CM2 and with its demise it will leave a void that CM2 does not in my opinion fill. CM2 is in my opinion an excellent game. I play it, I make maps for it, etc etc. and will buy all future iterations of it. With the new engine we could play WW2 regiment size battles on a 6k sq map if a game similar to CM1 was made, something that no other game does in 3d. With BFs new business model this could happen...growth growth. Have faith and dream.

Your correct Redwolf and your post got me to dreaming and I came up with the preceding post. Been awhile since this subject has been broached but things have changed with BF and it seems to me that they just might have the capability to pull it off. If, of course, they ever decide that they want to.

CMBN, when it came out the graphics were " out dated". But that doesn't stop it from being an excellent game and fun to play. Same goes for the CMX1 games. In my opinion they are not so much out dated as they are "different" from the CMX 2 games. Strategic computer war games are not "out dated" simply because they aren't 1 to 1. I like them all and if an updated CMX1 game ever appears then I will certainly buy it. That is after all what a large proportion of CMX1 players were expecting and ready to buy when Shock Force came out. With all the success BF is having with its new business model they may hire a couple more programmers and artists and come up with a new version of the CMX1 games complete with the little 3 man squads, updated graphics, updated weapon effectiveness, updated armour protection...modules ,you know the whole banana. Maybe thats what Steve meant when he said that there would be a "surprise" coming our way. May as well dream big if your gonna dream at all. Costs the same.

Hello LukeFF. I don'k know that it would require little effort that's why I said "probably very little effort." Hopefully BF feels that it would be worth the effort. Long shot, of course. I said probably because they "probably" wouldn't have to write new code, just change some of the values in the existing code. I "probably" opened myself up with that one.

Sorry Vet but I won't bite. Continue trolling. I mean lurking er patrolling.

With stead fast Veterans such as yourself around trolling the forum, er I mean patrolling the forum, and explaining other peoples posts there is not much chance of BFC dropping everything now.

Hello, Paging Battlefront, please answer the question of this thread. It would be most appreciated by and beneficial to your devoted fans. Signed, nobody

Thanks Vanir, very informative reading.

I already have CMAK but didn't play it very much and didn't notice the difference in penetration values between CMAK and CMBO. I'll fire it up and check it out. First thing I'll try is to see if the W version Sherman can take even one frontal hit by a Pz IV without blowing up. Did you notice if the effectiveness of the shreck and the faust were toned down in CMAK?

CM1 isn't 13years old for those who are still playing it and certainly hasn't been replaced by CMBN. Two different games. CM1 more akin to a board game and CM2 more akin to a modern shooter. Neither the same but both have different things to offer. Hate to think that Battlefront would scrap something that still had some profit to offer for probably very little effort. I don't think that they thought of this aspect and the profit that a little change would offer. We don't want to judge antiquity by the same criteria that other games do. If we did then Battlelfront would have been kaput many years ago and we would have never seen the excellent CMBN.

Hello Vanir, I don't know if the weapons effect in CMBN is more correct but I believe that if it were implemented in the CM1 games that it would give the CM1 games a little bit of a boost in interest for some fans. It would for me because I used to become frustrated and would have loved for my extra heavy W version Sherman to have at least shrugged off one hit from a Pz iv 75.

Take the CMBN parameters for some of the weapons effects, ie, German PZ lV 75mm vs the Sherman, the effectiveness of the faust and shreck and patch CM1 and I will buy new copies of CM1, or pay for the upgrade. These changes would change the outcome of many battles that I fought over the years using CM1 and revitalize the game.

Does this make it easier or harder to correct? I'm sadly lacking in knowledge in this area of expertise. This same question to Womble's reply.

Hmmm, what can we learn from this about getting Steve's attention?

There are several issues with the AI that in my humble opinion need to be addressed. 1. Spotting ability of tanks. Way too good. 2. Tanks being able to shoot straight up or down. 3. Foxholes and trenches. Too easy to spot. These I don't think are game changing but will in some battles change the outcome. We are after perfection, Aren't we?

I agree. I played a lot of the early years using CMBB. Very interesting combat using the 1941,42 and 43 tanks and no shrecks or fausts which compared to CMBN were way too effective.

Thanks JuJu for the mod and Vanir for pointing it out, these should help.

Yes, I agree, the functionality is very important. It's hard for me to realize that the enemy approaching my fox holes doesn't really see that big mound of dirt and spots it as if they were real foxholes and my troopers had carefully scattered the dirt so that there would be no mounds to be spotted. Where did you get that mod for the foxholes?

Wouldn't it be great if Battlefront includes real foxholes and trenches in version three and that they would actually look like foxholes and trenches. I would buy the new version for this reason even if it didn't have fire.

I've got a Garand from CMP and it is in very good condition. I am by no means a marksman but have had some experience, just a little, about the same as you would expect a green trooper to have, and I was able to put 5 out of 8 rounds into an 8" paper plate target off hand at 100 yds . Says a lot to me about the effectiveness of the rifle. Of course I wasn't suppressed , scared , or tired.

Wow, "teach the infantry gun crews to adjust the number of propellent charges being used based on conditions." Now thats shootin from the hip. OK, I'm convinced, no hurry, no problemo, I'll wait for that. Damn, I shudda thought of that.