The Steppenwulf

Never had any issues before but now can no longer take a screenshot in CM. Works in any other non OpenGL graphics engine game. Corel Paintshop is my preferred screenshot app, but cannot take any shots even using inbuilt windows 10 apps or snip&sketch. I suspect it is OpenGL support with my GPU software (AMD Radeon R7). Would be good if anyone could confirm. Also it cannot be a coincidence that since I've realised this I've also been getting a slight freeze at times in game. As if the GPU is lagging to process the graphic. As I say, no issues in other games (steam products) and graphics settings are set to moderate > medium high. Any ideas?

I'm sure you are both right - I did some limited testing of armour and artillery myself after I posted this and I experienced no problems. However I do recall having experienced some issue with smoke at some point, but I can't quite put my finger on specifics. It may have been tank smoke screen launcher in fact - number of discharges - and might have been in BS or SF2. And it's entirely feasible it's just a one off bug rather than across the board. Obviously I'll revisit, if/when I stumble on it again.

There are other problems with smoke use in BN (probably other CM families too). If you call in HE artillery rounds, once fully expended, any smoke rounds the artillery piece possessed are then lost. I think the same happens with tank smoke rounds too. Inadequate really... and I'm sceptical that BF have a great deal of will to fix these sorts of things, it's all about selling more content, instead of fixing and improving on gameplay and features.

That's interesting and challenges my understanding. I've done some testing which led to me to the opposite conclusion, but certainly in light of your test there, it does look like you are right. Thanks for posting!

I have no evidence in my experience of extensively experimenting with FOs that this is indeed the case. They are eye candy, nothing more.

Just to be clear, Cold war will not have any new features it states on the main BF page that it's game engine 4. From the article posted: Our intention is to add a number of other new features that enhance gameplay,” Grammont said in an email. “What these features are in detail I can not say because even I don’t know. The inference I draw from this, is that any feature upgrade has not actually really been considered. I believe if it had, Steve would already know more. Consider also, it would be a bad marketing move for 2021 module releases to snuff out the 'future features' candle. Hopefully there will be something forthcoming regardless of what the current plans actually are. In that, my hope is simply that we get H2H campaigns (I've been begging it since Black Sea), it's a well overdue feature and compared with many other requests - which will require lots of dev time to implement - it's not very onerous to give us this option..

Why does the UK need to 'remedy enforcing VAT on domestic products'? That is not the case! But anyway... from the linked article: A government spokesperson said: "The new VAT model ensures goods from EU and non-EU countries are treated in the same way and that UK businesses are not disadvantaged by competition from VAT-free imports. The net effect of the new VAT model is that the UK consumer will be discouraged from making purchases outside the UK. Do you agree? The word protectionism is not so narrowly defined as merely imposition of a tariff or charge levied at imported goods, it can take many different forms including simple policy decisions - anything in fact that serves to restrict imports. Do you agree (because it's not apparent this is your understanding from your statement at all.) Regardless, on this basis the new VAT model serves that end and is clearly intended as such. Therefore to describe the action as a 'protectionist' move is not misplaced or a misunderstanding given the context and present circumstances (as pointed out by another member).

Yep I think that's a interesting 'what if' question too, but as I say the Govt don't care about the actual cost (directly to the British taxpayer in increased HMRC overheads, or at the feet of the consumer with inflated costs on software/digital products) when there is a matter of political expediency at the heart of this particular venture.

^ I don't think any of what you've written there is really correct. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with international trade agreements. The UK Govt is merely trying to close an hitherto advantage enjoyed by non UK/EU traders who've been dodging paying VAT to HMRC. Whether it proves cost effective is one question. The other is - as I have pointed out - there is almost certainly a deeper political motive. How will the UK voter evaluate new 'global Britain' come the next UK election? Demonstrating that it has been a success for UK trade (esp trade balance) is everything to the Govt that's implemented the Brexit project.

Whilst the raw intention of this policy is to ensure the UK collects all due VAT, which clearly wasn't happening before (and is correct). It seems to me that there is a political motive on the part of the UK Govt by enacting this at the point of Brexit. The whole idea being essentially protectionist by taking away an advantage some imported goods were enjoying. That is consistent with the whole political nature of the Brexit venture - ultimately to prove that the UK is somehow better off as a result (and that is almost certainly not going to prove to be the case). So this is really the big story here - the fear the Brexit leading Govt have - that the Brexit project is not perceived (by the time of the next election) to have been to the country's advantage. Given the fact that there are so many well-reported trade disadvantages from leaving the EU, covering this up by introducing measures that they hope will make it look like a success story is an obsession.

I'd suggest in general it allows producer/publishers to generate some return on the product prior to actual release. Given blockbuster games esp there is enormous overhead with no return on the product until release. That could be 2/3 years of staff salaries with absolutely nothing to show for it. For same cash-flow reasons, it could also offer some flexibility (from publisher to developer) with the release window by extending some staff contracts so they can squash bugs/complete features/add polish etc.. Thirdly perhaps the larger publishers can get a picture from pre release orders what the projected sales of the product might be, given that they will have lots of data to compare sales with. Perhaps there are correlations between pre purchase figures and units shifted 6 months post release. Most games on pre purchase carry a discount for the customer, DCS modules for example are always discounted during pre purchase window. With regard to BF, I believe the pre purchase SF2 bundle was discounted. I wouldn't have pre ordered otherwise.

Speculatively, it would not surprise me if a detailed data output tool feature was implemented for the MoD version (given the requirement for post evaluation & analysis in mil training exercises). Does not mean the community will get it though - rather sounds like the very thing Steve refers to in his OP:

I consider a bunker in a building to be a workaround too.

Oh I didn't know that - good to hear!

Agreed. I think proper reinforced buildings (and some applicable house models to depict it) have been requested by some members of the community for a good few many years since now. It's especially relevant given the Berlin module, but the Soviets implemented strongholds when they were on the defensive in the war also. Putting foxholes half-in buildings as a work around (or as game compensation), really doesn't cut it in terms of immersion for me.

I wasn't thinking anything as far ahead as this. More like some improved animations on house storming such as infantry backs to walls and stand up grenade throws etc.. I'm not a Company of Heroes player in particular, but house fighting is much more immersive for these reasons in that game. More advanced version of this might move to include a specific house assault action function for carrying out a building assault - the infantry then carrying out a scripted procedure with set of animations. Specific assault function would get away from the present standard movements (slow, hunt, quick) all of which can make a difference to success. For me presently that feels very unsatisfying. Lastly, a specific house assault action icon (e.g. flashing arrow on the house being assaulted) would add a bit more game immersion in the command phase rather than the usual movement path lines.

Thanks for the update on what lies ahead this year for BF and CM. I'm still hoping that we might yet be gifted with the capability for head to head campaigns for PBEM. Not a feature for the casual scenario player but many long term CM players have regular gaming opponents and playing a series of linked battles with carried over casualties would spice up CM no end. Second on my wish list has always been persistent battlefields, would enhance those H2H campaign games even more. In my view modelling of street and house to house fighting is the least immersive in CM; given the new modules have more MOUT content now than ever, would be nice to see some further improvements in this area. I'd like to see large flavour objects offering cover and concealment - there's so much that could be done with these to scenario maps, potentially adding greater fidelity to street fighting tactics. I would suppose that cover degradation is a sticking point though so I get that it's not a 'low lying fruit' for easy implementation.

Of course... this and the game potentially descending into farce with opponents not agreeing on what mod versions/stats to use. I think also, Bf prefer to restrict modding capability because of the potential for cheating. It's a pandoras box that's just best not opened, think of the reputational damage and impact on the marketing value of the game - I think that's a wise decision on their part, I wouldn't risk my product (and livelihood) for that! Yup, It's clear that Bf apply the most reliable information that they've seen to model performance and attributes. That doesn't mean it's 100% accurate all of the time but it does mean it's going to have to be a source (with compelling evidence) that trumps what Bf have accessed that will persuade a review. See it as an epistemological approach - where's your evidence?

The game is set in 2008 and things have changed quite a lot since then due to two subsequent defence reviews. So what applies now to British formation and doctrine does not apply to 2008. Since there wasn't as much information on the web in 2008 as now, this makes it harder to pin accurate info down and discern it from the situation either after or before the reviews, and in other cases, whether the reviews had a change in regard to some things (not everything has changed). In short it's a bit of minefield! Because of reasons above, I reckon UK Army personnel serving 2006- 2008 will have a better idea than anyone trying to research it from the internet, but obviously their knowledge will likely be limited to their regiment and specialism.

No worries! It's as well you mentioned vassal in your earlier posts. That's the bit that made me sit up and take a real interest.

I did a snapshot examination of what vassal could do and how it might integrate CM battles. My conclusion is that vassal is well suited to the development of an operational game. How an operational campaign works though is a fundamental question. I've thought about this once before when I first ever considered how it would be done. I don't think there's any way to avoid this fundamental question and I reckon if you start a project like this it's worth working this bit out first, or else you can get tied up in game design knots. So here's my synopsis... a) Is it a campaign game that monitors specific movement and regulates all actions within the battle space. This would be a game like John Tiller or GG type game where abstractions are minimised b) A campaign game that is abstracted in terms of how one battle leads to another. An operational board game like the COIN series of board games would be a good example. and something I looked at. This is no doubt subjective, but in my view after much consideration, CM battles are best suited to b). The reasons are too involved probably to outline in this thread but it's fundamentally about the campaign would/can "interface" with CM battles. I'd be happy to discuss this, in all its detail, in a online chat perhaps. Some scoping of different operational war board game left me to believe that mechanisms within the board game BCT Command Kandahar and Battle for Fallujah fall within b) and are well-suited to "interfacing" with CM battles. This does not mean adopting this board game to use as an operational game (far from it) but simply using it as an idea to consider how it can be done, using a similar approach and similar abstracted mechanisms/rules. Having established these two starting points, I started noting down lots of detailed ideas for abstracted mechanisms. So up to the present I've got 3 4 pages of notes. These are based around abstractions of operational factors that can be translated into variables affecting CM's actual battle starting assets/factors. That sounds obscure perhaps but again if I were to describe precisely what I mean here, I'd be writing an extremely long post. These things are much better to relate and debate in a voice chat. I also used FM military documentation for scoping and ideas, FM-05 Army Planning & Orders Production is particularly informative for developing this type of operational wargame. Now I won't necessarily have the detailed abstractions down exactly right, they are just ideas at this stage and they need distilling, reviewing and further refining, but I think the approach is probably sound. Of course I'm open to the whole idea being critiqued. Obviously if there are other ideas at the same stage of development then there's no point in exploring this idea further (esp because my angle in looking at this also has focused specifically around modern warfare and not ww2), but at least I've put my cards on the table in this post and if anyone is interested (even anyone who come across this post) can at least hear the detail and debate it with me in a skype call if interested in a campaign game project.

Anyone on this thread looking for an opponent and would like to play Normandy please hmu. I prefer to play Wehrmacht and medium to large scenario battles, all modules owned. I prefer an opponent who has CM helper for mutual convenience. Hope this doesn't come across as too demanding, I will prove otherwise as a fair and generous spirited opponent. My turn rate is minimum 1 move a day (frequently 2), but I'm relaxed about the pace of returns, as long as there is commitment to finish the game and not leave it hanging as some do. hmu

21st Century aircraft are the perfect weapons for waging limited warfare from distance and have plenty of future development still in them - in both respects they trump fighting vehicles. UK has an aircraft capability deficit. UK is also in need of half a dozen fast, high tech patrol vessels to patrol and protect its waters post Brexit. It's about balance of priorities and utility and the real politick of future conflict.

I agree that this is the issue with QB's. I'm one of those players who wants something between the scenario and the QB battle experience, but why I avoid QBs. I suspect I am not alone in this. As pointed out by another contributor, scenarios can be replayed for the intellectual challenge. This is exactly where I am. The way I see it is that this experience can be achieved by varying forces and how these forces are used - but replay of the the actual map and terrain is fine. This can only be served adequately by playing H2H (for Ian's reasons indicated), but currently H2H scenario gaming does not facilitate variable forces as a built in feature. A solution would be to add a tool to the editor allowing the creator to set up pre determined forces of different composition. Clearly with historical scenarios the creator wouldn't bother taking a advantage of such a tool but it would allow those designers of a different persuasion looking to create less rigid battle scenarios with a tool to breathe replayability into their creations. With a mere 3 different force compositions for each H2H player to choose from. The possibilities for "rethinking" the battle would be vastly increased. With such a feature I envisage some scenarios could become H2H 'competitive theatres' fought over again and again - much like many popular games do on servers e.g. Hell let loose for example. I contend that while these games get a whole lot wrong as 'war games', they do get the "contest experience" spot on, which why people keep playing the same maps over again. It's something that CM seems to have never latched onto... Next step; add this feature to H2H campaigns and you've got "replayability" heaven.

I'm happy to be involved to some extent or other. My work commitments peak and trough so how much time I have will vary. Perhaps the best place to start is producing a list of basic questions about game design that are needed to brainstorm? For example, do you use hexes, or some other system for dividing up the map? Implications of this governing rules for movement? Implementing rules for line of sight (I note that ADC2 already has los built in)? Indeed do you need los if a bespoke recon rules system is developed (which appeals more to me but requires some imaginative thinking)? Methods for measuring and tracking unit status? What info is being tracked? Other questions: Is there already some 'oven ready' (campaign) rules to bring to this? If they are applied how will they impose upon, or dictate the basic game design? Also how do we pull all the work together as a group? How best to organise tasks to make effective progress? I'm sure there's a whole lot more...