The Steppenwulf

It was a popular aircraft on the vintage ww2 airshow circuit:

I don't think anyone has done this but wow yes it would be invaluable info, not only for scenario designers, but also for players at the start of games. One thing related to this is the extent of rain, the effect on ground conditions and the impact on chances of bogging.

Having checked out the demo, it's Combat Mission in 2D. A cold war gone hot combat theatre is interesting over combat mission, but nothing else about the game can compare favourably.

But from Bf's perspective, it's an advert, regardless of your good intentions simply to raise awareness to fellow gamers.

+1 You'll note I keep banging the drum.

DCS modular system is at best not particularly user-friendly, at worst it's a pig with all kind of issues. Consider the problem with optimistion across all on these modules. Best example being the problem playing the Normandy map that requires much lower texture/AA/shadow/lod settings as opposed to Caucasus - too much p***ing around adjusting these every time you switch modules! Obviously the reason why DCS went down this route is because of the business model where the core game can benefit from expanded content produced by 3rd party Devs. It comes with it's inherent disadvantages. Still I'm not saying it's a bad idea for CM, just that DCS is not some great example of a game where this works great, it doesn't! Besides that, the idea of a modern US force fighting Waffen SS forces is novel but I strongly suspect players would try it once (for the novelty) and that would be that. Most CM players possess a keen sense of realism and focus on detail, they are likely to find such anachronistic novelties anathema, more suited to an arcade shooter! The one thing I do agree with is that more love needs to be given to depiction of close quarter battle and the control the player exerts over these situations. Improved animations alone would take up the CQB immersion a couple of notches. Anyway I recall some acknowledgement of this for the battle for Berlin module, since it's almost exclusively focusing on urban battle. I certainly hope that we get an engine upgrade with that release that enhances game play in this area!

By any measure the expansion of option in the Campaign script can hardly be described as an operational layer. The latter type of simulation must encompass considerations such as supply, logistics, R&R, the management of many different types of units not just combat units and how all these components effectively interact with each other. Combat Ops (albeit with its flaws) is perhaps the best example of a such a simulation of ww2 operational warfare. it's easy to appreciate how remote CM is from something accurately reflecting combat at the operational level, and why Bf steer well clear of developing it for CM; i mean why consider doing it unless you can ensure you can do it well! Anything less thorough than Combat Ops would only prove to be a massive disappointment! The current CM campaign mode is nothing more than providing a broader context and tracking of player progress over a series of battles. It is not an operational layer and it's clear it never will develop into this. To my mind there are only two realistic possibilities for the future: 1) Campaigns could very easily be activated for 2 player H2H email play. I'm confident this will happen at some point and Steve did acknowledge once upon a time that it would be at least be considered at some point in the future. I think the more people indicate they would like this feature, the more likely it will happen because if Bf don't think there is the demand for it, then they won't invest time to do it. 2) The tracking data from battle results could be dumped as an .xml file which players could then use to set up or load into another game that plays out operational tasks and actions. I think this was the hope with the community led development of a game - as stickied on the forums - but has clearly now fallen on stony ground. Because no one could make use of such a feature straight out of the traps, I cannot see this feature coming to pass... like ever. The proposition to add more than a binary direction to the single player campaigns is not going to significantly add anything to CM in this regard. The proposal merely adds multiple possible narratives to a set narrative - rather like one of those RPG story books where the reader navigates a path through the narrative by a series of choices. Whilst novel at first, it would soon lose appeal because it wouldn't add anything significantly different or immersive to the current gaming experience. and that's assuming that campaign designers wanted to make use of such a feature in any case, which is questionable. H2H campaigns however is a game changer. By exercising a little imagination the community (even Bf scenario designers) will be able to build campaigns that combine single player battles against the AI with H2H battles. Suddenly, the one-sided steam roller attack against the AI has context alongside the knife-edge tactical fight with a human opponent. This would get away from the balance that's required in scenario battles to keep 2 players interested and introduce an immersive quality that you are fighting in something much bigger and more meaningful. It means every kind of scenario arising from operational level decisions could all have critical game play value; the players engaging with the narratives by connecting more tangibly with their own successes or shortcomings. I suspect the possibilities would be prised open such that H2H scenario designers would be incentivised to go a step further and become H2H campaign designers. Net result more campaigns created than scenarios for the community. A big big win - this is surely the way forward to add value to CM gameplay and it requires little investment effort on the part of Bf. Please make it happen Bf!!

What about the caveat? This map was so large and memory intensive that the maximum map size was scaled back. (It is worth noting I was not able to open this map when complete in the 3d preview, as it caused a CTD.

What is this? Re: your map - is it something you designed from scratch? Is it fictional or 'factional'? Wherebouts - geographically - is the setting?

You are referring to the development of a operational game that uses a ground-up, purpose built game engine and is an independent development from BF. I'm referring to native Campaign files .CAM and .ema files. H2H campaign is no different from standard campaign games against the AI, including all the code and the encryption method - all except that the campaign script is not active in the .ema format.

Yeh.. there's a group that knows the capacity to play H2H campaigns would meet this need, enhance the scale of immersion but still not detract at all from CM's core gameplay. I'm not sure what's stopping you?

Indeed, important clarification! This is not the main folder for the game, you'll find the default location is in your Program files - the root folder being wherever your .exe is located. In that you'll see a data folder and then you'll nee to create a mod folder call it z_my mods. Put all mods in this folder!

Thanks Steve for your frank and honest communication about the TacAi problems and the patch. It's really appreciated.

Thank for the update Steve, it's really appreciated.

+1 Absolutely!

You really ought to reflect on some of the statements you make. I provided perfectly reasonable circumstantial evidence as to what might have increased the delay with the patch, yet you dismiss that in favour of your own "circumstantial evidence". But what is your circumstantial evidence- I mean you thought that the NZ business was merely some association with dating back over 12 months and I conclusively proved you wrong by providing a direct quote from Steve about the association in January. Moreover, it was ongoing at that point. But you know ... just keep digging! Yeh but you are throwing around ad hominem attacks, calling people stupid and suggesting they need to grow up. You really do need a dose of your medicine! To be fair to Ian, he is being genuine I think here. Ian does write things that read or are received negatively, (we are all guilty of that some more than others) but when he clarifies or reconsiders his responses, he's being genuine. It's fine to address the issue but then it's only right to cut these fellas some slack too when we move on.

Hold on I'm not subscribing to any conspiracy theories and how dare anyone start throwing accusations about being snowflakes. If anything in fact I am defending BF because should other projects have potentially more revenue generation, you cannot blame the company for giving CM lower priority if only temporary. Now regarding the NZ project, I quote directly form Steve's post in January 2018:- Now if this hasn't impacted on the progress of SF2 and the v 4 patch in some way over the past 12-17 months then....

That might be bit harsh, I mean there are so many games I played in the past that had serious bugs, even game breakers, and yet the devs never fixed the issues. They just moved onto the next project (e.g. Flashpoint 2 Dragon Rising). That is def not BF's policy thank god!

I watched this the other week too - I thought it was excellent!. I think there's an audio version of Von Luck's book that I might have to give a listen to now, whilst driving to work and back over the next month ( it's like 10 hours long ).

+1 only to add that corrections with the patch are intrinsically critical to the success of SF2. If that game isn't functioning right on release, it will be a disaster, esp considering the expectation and the anticipated sales generated by this particular title. In addition to this, I understand BF have been working in collaboration with NZ armed forces and the team set up and operation has changed - I think that explains why development has been extra slow and lower priority over the past year. I feel the frustration though, I have 3 games myself that are on ice due to the quite intolerable AI issues (albeit extreme examples).

The purpose of the scenario mode is to test AI triggers and movement behaviour and is not intended for "live" play. So no you are quite wrong there; the point of the scenario test mode is not to test effects of suppression! However, the point is certainly mute, if it's not applicable in any case.

Are you playing it in scenario test mode? If so....

If GIMP does not handle transparency for BMP images then that is your solution. Try using Pixelformer or Photoshop - you'll soon forget you ever owned GIMP!

I've posted this elsewhere but Pixelformer has always been my editor of choice for adding transparency to bitmaps, not just for icons but all size images. In fact it's so versatile, I will use it in place of Corelli Paintshop to do a broad number of tasks. I can't recommend it enough...it's a small file package and most importantly it's free! Go see and try it for yourself:- http://www.qualibyte.com/

Try it and let us know if anything bad happened!