niall78

GTOS is OK. Not a patch on CM. Infantry combat is woeful - which sucks for a WW2 title. Although it does have decent enough graphics. I bought it for $2.50 during the recent summer sale. I'd say the company who made it are making out like bandits on Steam. Matrix games now seems to focus on Ipad games and constant releases of 'new' games featuring the old Close Combat and Panzer General engines. Paradox releases the same strategic level game again and again with a re-skin for different time periods. They also seem to release a lot of stuff for those games using micro-transactions - I count nearly 40 different small add-ons for HoI3 alone.

I'm not sure what you find so objectionable about 'playing it safe' - it seems to have worked out quite well so far. I've read a lot of your posts recently. To be fair to you a lot of your criticisms about minor issues with the games are valid enough - if a little overblown. CM is still the only really high fidelity tactical combat simulator on the market - one that brings tabletop gaming of old onto the computer screen. That tells me the market is small - too small to risk spending huge amounts of money at new engines and AAA graphics in the hope thousands of new fans of realistic combat simulators will suddenly appear out of nowhere. Slow and steady has been winning the race since CMBO was released. Why risk it all now on a mad gamble?

When should BFC start to develop a CMx3 engine? Whenever they feel it is the right time for them to develop a new engine. Personally I can live with the 'old' engine for years. Same way I was able to live with the CMx1 engine for years. Nothing else available comes within a asses roar of CMx2 at the moment or even CMx1 for that matter.

We have CMSF. I see zero reason to copy SF with the new added bells and whistles added. I can play CMSF without those bells and whistles and still have a very positive gaming experience. An CMAS (CM Arab Spring) that simulates the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Libya and the region in general would be interesting. But of course probably a non-runner as it wouldn't have a major army such as the US to boost sales. I'd much rather that BF limited budget focused on other interesting conflicts - both modern or historical - than focusing on a pretend conflict that has been superseded by more recent events. Hell even do an Iraqi insurgency or Afghanistan game rather than rehashing a what-if conflict that is way past it's sell by date.

Some people might want to shoot me for this but I've found telling new players to be a bit of a save whore while they are learning the game to be effective. It can be highly beneficial replay certain actions again and again to refine tactics and discover how those tactics are implemented though the user interface. It also reduces frustration for newer players. If you make a bum move and lose half your armour you just reload and try to think of a tactic that would gain you a better result. You can compress hours of scenario experience down to a few games and make the learning experience as fun as possible. You then move on to the school of hard knocks.

Yes I suppose the victims could have been considered 'disloyal' in some way - mainly just due to their religion or place of residence (they lived in a nationalist area). So it could be viewed as slightly different than attacks against victims where zero excuses could be manufactured. I don't hold with such conspiracy theories as 9/11 or 1999 Russian bombings. A person could argue they were a means to an end - the civilian deaths were justified by the planners to get the results they wanted. The 9/11 theory itself is actually bonkers when you start drilling into it. I could maybe buy a crime of omission rather than commission. An intricate plan where government forces orchestrate the whole episode is frankly laughable. One thing I am sure of is there is no morality when it comes to the actions of state forces - especially for bigger countries. That's why this thread is laughable in its attempt to portray any such actor as 'good guys'. There are no good guys only many shades of deep grey.

Here's a few links : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14_Intelligence_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Research_Unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Special_Constabulary#1969_deployment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Paramilitary_infiltration_of_the_UDR The Military Reaction Force has been called a legalised death squad by some of its own members. Its successor the 14th Intelligence Company was involved in numerous civilian killings including the worst atrocity of the civil war in Northern Ireland - the Dublin and Monaghan bombings - an attack on a sovereign country against which they weren't at war - in which 33 civilians were killed. The British military were up to their eyes in helping kill their own citizens over a period of decades. Anyway - like I said - there are other websites for these type of debates.

The British supplied, trained and provided intelligence to Loyalist gangs that murdered numerous British subjects over a forty year period. Going so far as to equip the gangs with captured weaponry to further escalate sectarian tensions. That's one example over a long time period that I am aware of. I'm not sure what any of this thread has to do with Combat Mission, Battlefront or as background to the released games. I don't come here to be propagandised to by any side of the debate. In fact reading this thread is like listening to a group of nearly bald men arguing over who has the best hairstyle. Not good Battlefront - please uphold your own rules and end this type of debate on your games forum. There are thousands of places on the web such discussions can be had if people want to have them.

It was a very enjoyable engagement. It's not too often you get that seat of the pants feeling during a battle where attack turns into desperate defence where you have to hold a counter-attack in one area and quickly transfer your forces to prop up another sector. Two of the objectives on the map turned into meat-grinders where attack and counter attack turned the objective into a shell cratered moonscape littered with dead and wounded and burning tanks. The light fading was also another deft touch. It added to the tension of the battle - "if I can just get to nightfall with the objectives secure it'll be a win". The failing light also added to the effectiveness of the German infantry AT weapons which took a heavy toll on me as I pushed my armour forward to try to support my very heavily engaged infantry. Hats off mate - super battle.

Just played this last few days as British versus the AI. Excellent battle with quite a few surprises - plenty of flipping between attacking and desperate defence. I was only able to grab a minor victory. I lost too much armour - funnily enough to Panzerfausts, Panzerschrecks and AT grenades rather than enemy armour or AT guns.

Thanks for the informative reply Slysniper. That explains my Stug issue. Hopefully it will get a fix pretty soon as at the moment it makes Stugs pretty much useless for AI or player use. That means automatic selection for quick battles is also dodgy unless a player goes for all infantry as having Stugs auto purchased is very likely a battle ruined. Good to know it is a bug and is being addressed all the same. The top gunner in APCs is a less obvious problem from my point of view. Yes they do die a lot - but that is probably my fault for getting too close to incoming small arms fire. .

Just finished a quick battle where my infantry centric force was hit by a dozen or so StuG IV's. Thought I was doomed for sure but within a few turns of contact eight of the StuG's were down to two crew members having lost their top gunner - then lost the replacement. Something is fairly strange about TacAI behaviour when dealing with gunner positions in tanks or APCs - the death rate is fantastic in such positions. Either the TacAI shouldn't be trying to man such positions under fire or the protection modelling for such positions is off. It's been a problem with APCs for ages but seeing an assault gun company attack breakdown in minutes against what should be an easy opponent is highly strange. Especially when the casualties sustained were completely avoidable.

Wow snake_eye that looks fantastic mate. Looking forward to playing on it.

I'm in the same boat. I'll pay for any upgrades available. That isn't blind faith - it comes from getting years of fun out of quality products. I've never been let down by BF (I've blanked the first year of CMSF out of my mind ). I'd love to not only Kickstart AI improvements but Kickstart whole new series within CM such as France and Barbarossa.

Wow great work HKVB - these look positively beautiful. Looking forward to giving them a full work-out.

Don't forget about LHX Attack Chopper for those of us old enough to remember it! Happy days indeed.

Like a human would react? You are asking for something no AI can do in any game at the moment. And probably wont be able to do for decades.

It seems odd that players involved in wargamming don't understand that simple fact. There are numerous articles on the internet specific to our hobby explaining how proper AI is a trick and how we are probably still decades away from any true AI where a computer actually thinks its way though a problem or situation like a human. All any game has now is pre-programmed routines. Players wishing BF would have a proper functioning 'real' AI want something that others have poured untold millions into and are still no closer to success. I can understand the call for much better graphics - I'd love that myself in an ideal world and it is possible if there are no monetary or time constraints. But to call for a thinking AI is absurd to anyone who has spent five minutes reading about AI in games - it's history, where it's at now and where it is going in the future. 'Good' AI now in certain games is a mirage - a trick played by programmers who have found a semi-plausible way to use set-routines to mimic 'real' AI.

CM is a niche game and it'll always have a limited audience. That's not saying our audience couldn't get bigger with a bit more exposure but to try to suggest as some have on this thread that CM could take a lot of the Total War or Company of heroes players if CM just gets better graphics is off the scale ridiculous as far as I am concerned.

I've often bemoaned Battlefront for their lack of viability its products receive on mainstream websites and even niche sites - let alone visibility in print media. This is an area that needs improvement to draw in more wargamers. That's a different thing though from claiming thousands of Total War or Company of Heroes fans will jump to CM if only CM graphics got better. Which frankly is a ridiculous argument.

The Wargame series of RTS is good fun. Are you seriously comparing this decent RTS to a tactical combat simulator like CM:BS though? No matter how seriously you play the game it is still a highly simplified RTS game. ARMA is a great high fidelity FPS depicting modern combat made even better if you hook-up with a serious group of players. It is but a minor blip in the market compared to the rest of the FPS genre where realism takes a back seat every time to 'fun'. I'm still not sure what a high fidelity FPS game has to do with tactical combat simulators like the CM series though - their have always been high fidelity FPS games - a minor subset of the FPS genre. Were people years ago comparing the Rainbow Six games to CMBB and bemoaning that the graphics of CM couldn't compare to the Rainbow Six standard?

The genre is is certainly not irrelevant. You are comparing mindless RTS games with rock, paper, scissor type tactics and FPS games to complicated tactical simulators. If you are seriously suggesting there could be a massive cross-over between these genres 'if only the graphics improved' with tactical simulators I would suggest you are badly mistaken. The makers of RTS and FPS games are in fact going in the opposite direction from high fidelity simulators and are continuing to dumb down their products in recent years. The exact reverse of what should be happening if their core consumers are crying out for high fidelity tactical simulators with AAA graphics.

No you are mixing up genres like RTS and FPS with tactical combat simulators. They are playing these games because they like RTS and FPS style games not because they have fancier graphics than tactical combat simulators. Not sure if you are seriously trying to argue that Total War is mad popular with wargaming fans because it has great graphics despite being a very sub-par RTS and as close to realistic tactical game-play as Space Invaders is.

Going on European media the situation has been critical for weeks at Debaltseve. With supply routes cut-off or interdicted to major forces caught within the pocket. It looks like only remnants have escaped the pocket leaving all the badly wounded and most heavy equipment behind. All the while relief forces have battered themselves senseless trying to break into the pocket to save the defenders. It all points to a major defeat for Ukrainian forces. Again this is how it is being reported by MSM European sources who have now moved to the political implications of this strategic defeat for the Ukrainian government and their armed forces.

Command Ops: Highway to the Reich is a great hex and counter style game (dispite not having hexes). I'd recommend all the Command Ops series as really interesting tactical wargaming where old style hex and counter gets a very interesting modern make-over.