Sim1943

Title says it all - will there be a Christmas 'bone' this year? Obviously we know the status on the release of CM:BS, but maybe another 'Road Ahead' bone? Thanks for all the hard work BFC Chad

Thanks for the replies everyone. I *have* played in the editor, quite a bit. But, heres the problems with creating my own scenarios: 1. Foremost, I know the OOB. Not knowing the exact OOB is, for me, half the fun of scenarios. Even if I use random reinforcements to the point where certain forces will appear in one go of the scenario and not in another, I still know the entire potential OOB and this affects my choices ingame. 2. Second, I know all potential setup and reinforcement areas. There goes the other half of scenario enjoyment. Even if it is all random and varied, I still know that potentially such and such unit could setup or arrive in a certain area. 3. Finally, the entire point of this thread, I don't have the consistent time to play big scenarios, let alone make scenarios. While I appreciate the encouragement to create my own scenarios, anyone who has spent five minutes in the editor knows that creating a *good* scenario is a serious investment of time. Sure, I could throw some trees in, a platoon of Shermans and a platoon of Panthers and watch lead fly, but to me, that's not why I own CM. I own CM for the best tactical simulation available, not for a beer and pretzel game. I am a firm believer of the best experience playing any scenario is your first time playing it. You don't know the OOB, you don't know the enemy setup areas. I have been re-playing the CM:SF scenarios while waiting for CM:BS to get back in the modern mindframe. And even after, what, 6 or 7 years, I *still* remembered where things were going to be, that a platoon of T-72's was going to materialize and so on. It took a huge amount of enjoyment out of the, otherwise, great scenarios. There was still enjoyment in playing the game itself because CM is a great game, but it was a much, much less enjoyable experience. As for the suggestion to play QB's, theres the huge limitation of solo QB play to fight against (bad AI purchases forcing me to purchase the AI's forces, see above for how much I enjoy knowing the enemy OOB). The end result is I find myself all excited for the new CM games, but not really having a lot of content that I personally have the time to enjoy. I have yet to play any of the CMx2 campaigns because each time I try, after one or two missions I just don't have the time available to play. The 'large' and 'huge' scenarios never get played because I open them up, see a reinforced battalion of troops, a 2km square map and realize that playing this scenario is going to be a 6 hour investment. Again, there are room for both - big scenarios and small ones. However, as I mentioned in my original post, I have noticed a shift in each release to bigger, and bigger scenarios. As I pointed out with CM:RT, this shift has come to the point where *small scenarios are not even being provided in any significant number anymore*. Where there was once a nice balance between scenario sizes, there are now almost exclusively very big scenarios that take hours on end to play. This is a real shame because its limiting many players enjoyment of the CM series. ASL Veteran, I realize the challenges in making a good, platoon/company sized scenario because I have tried, and failed, to do so. However, the best CMx2 experiences I have had so far have been exactly those scenarios that have been created in that size range. I can keep track of my OOB, I can take in the map without feeling overwhelmed, and more important in CMx2 with the change to 1:1, I feel each loss. So again, I humbly ask those who are developing the official scenarios for each CM release, to please keep in mind that there are those who never play the big scenarios due to lack of time. Please include more smaller sized scenarios. Thanks Chad

Topic pretty much says it all. Since the original release of CM:BN I have noticed that there are fewer and fewer 'small' scenarios in the CM releases. By 'small' I don't mean literally the label that BFC uses in CM for scenario sizes - I mean a scenario that is both small enough in OOB and map size, and short enough in length, that I can sit down and, start to finish, be done in about 30 minutes. It seems there has been a gradual shift in average scenario size to get bigger, and bigger and bigger with each release of the CMx2 games. CM:RT is a prefect example: out of about 20 scenarios, only 3 of them were "small" or "tiny" (one was listed as small, but was a Bn sized engagement ) ChrisND saying in one of his streams that the Morning Coffee was one of the 'small' scenarios in CM:BS only added to this impression: it was a big map, though to be fair, I didn't see the OOB. I know there are tons of folks here who *love* Bn sized engagements that cover a 5km square map and last 2 hours of gametime, let alone how long it takes to actually play it. But, I would like to raise the voice of those of us who don't have that much time to invest into our games. Yes, I am well aware of the scenario editor and QB's, but until we get (if ever) the return of the CMx1 'Combined Arms' selection for QB's, I cant find much enjoyment in playing the AI because of its purchases. I have never played a CMx2 campaign for this very reason. Though I hope to have time to play Paper Tigers campaigns some day! So all in all, BFC and those who are officially designing scenarios, please include a nice helping of scenarios that are on the smaller size, both in OOB, map size and actual game time. Thanks Chad

Along those same lines, it would be great to have a grenade fire command where you could do exactly that. I can never get my soldiers to throw grenades, but the AI seems to have no problems doing so . . .

Its funny, but I was thinking the same thing. Wish threads about the *game* would this much attention from Steve

Noticed that there was no MOUT breakdowns for the US, similar to what we had in CMSF (ie. normally, 9 man squad broken down into a 5 man 'A' team and a 4 man 'B' team, but with a MOUT formation, 3 three man teams in the same squad). Has the US MOUT (UO) doctrine changed since then? Or is there a way to break a vanilla 9 man rifle squad into three 3 man teams? Or will it be like it is now, where if you, say, break off a scout team, you will be left with one huge 'A' team of 7 guys? Or can we break off, say, two 2 man scout teams and be left with a 5 man team? For the WWII titles, I think it works fine how its currently modeled. But for modern titles, I would love to see more flexibility in how we break up our squads. For instance, in his stream, Chris mentioned that Humvee teams have two components now: the driver/gunner team, and a additional 2 or 3 man team that can dismount to recon and so forth. That kind of flexibility is what I am talking about - this is a great addition and will give similar teams much, much more flexibility. Maybe for the modern titles of the better trained armies, having a 'MOUT/UO' breakdown option in a scenario would be the best solution. So you would have the current breakdown options we have right now (SPLIT, ASSAULT, ANTI-TANK and SCOUT) but then mix in another option: MOUT/UO. This would break a 9 man squad into three 3 man teams, a 6 man squad into 3 two man teams, a 7 man squad into one 3 man team, two 2 man teams and so on. Thoughts? Thanks Chad

AKD Sounds great - thanks for the effort. I recently took CMSF and Marines out for a spin to get back into the modern mind frame and used your sound mod. Cant emphasize enough what a *huge* difference the rifle/explosion sounds make. I missed the point that you were brought into the BFC dev/beta team. Are you a part of the sound development for CMBS? Or just general beta testing? I have always thought - no offense BFC - the stock CMx2 sounds needed some improvement. Would love to see BFC use you for the sounds. Regardless, look forward to your new mod, whenever its comes out. Keep up the great work! Thanks Chad

Finally got it to work right. Just so anyone doing a search knows, install: 1. Base game & Commonwealth bundle 2. Patch 1.11 3. Upgrade 2.00 4. Market Garden 5. Patch 2.12 6. Upgrade 3.00 7. Patch 3.11 & Vehicle Pack Where I went wrong was Market Garden said it could install back to v1.11, so I didn't install the 2.0 upgrade. You *do* need to install it though, despite it saying you don't.

Howdy all Whats the best install process to go from nothing to 3.11 w/ VP? I have the Base game w/ Commonwealth, Market Garden, 2.0, 3.0 and the vehicle pack. Should I just install the base game /w commonwealth, then 1.11, then market garden, then 2.12, then 3.0, then 3.11 w/ VP? I just tried, but something went wrong because everyone is blacked out. Activation seemed to work ok though (all the symbols at the bottom of the page). Want to uninstall and try again. Not having this issue with CMFI 3.0, CMSF or CMRT. Thanks in advance Chad

Sounds great AKD. Looking forward to whatever you have in the works! Thanks for the hard work.

Does anyone know if AKD is working on a sound mod for CMRT? Have used his excellent sounds for all CMx2 and really enjoyed them. Thanks in advance Chad

Just incase anyone does a search for this and wonders what the answer was, Steve answered that it is *not* in the plans currently. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1490316&postcount=323

Thanks for the replies and answers Steve! That works. Being able to manage ammo is huge in most of my games, so this will add great flexibility. Thanks for the clear cut answer. Just to put a bug in your ear, would be nice to have it - so add it to the list of the other 10,000 'would be nice' things. Thanks again for the replies. Chad

Steve Great news all around. Excited to get back to the Ost Front! Two quick questions: 1. Will some form of ammo dump be available for infantry only formations? The way you described it, sounds like its linked to vehicles (trucks, halftracks, ect.), so an infantry only formation wouldn't have that flexibility. Could there be somekind of 'ammo dump' that can be provided/purchased for infantry only formations? 2. Will QB 'Combined Arms' be coming back? This thread goes into details on it: BFC: Any plans to bring back "QB Combined Arms"? If no current plans, any plan for future iterations to bring it back? Thanks for the bone and look forward to more! Chad

Thanks. Always love to see what has changed.

With MG out, curious what the patch/module change log is? Does anyone have it? Steve had mentioned a number of items (zooks in buildings, SMG range, tank uber-spot toning down, ect.), but would like to see the entire log if its available. Thanks Chad

Buts that's assuming you can have vehicles - what about infantry only battles? Or battles where hiding a truck is a little difficult? I would love to see a 'Forward OP' or 'Command Center' fortification. It could have ammo and perhaps even a radio in it. You wouldn't even need to add any new animations or art - just change the stats of a trench or foxhole.

Steve Thanks for the quick bones. I asked this last year, and last week, in this thread BFC: Any plans to bring back "QB Combined Arms"? , but are there any plans to bring back some form of the Combined Arms QB Setting from CMx1? Thanks in advance Chad

Had a few minutes after work and so I fired up a quick QB against the AI in CMFI w/ GL. I set meeting engagement as US *Armor Only* against Italian *Armor Only*, medium points (2560). I purchased two platoons of shermans and two platoons of stuarts. I envisioned a swarm of cheap Italian tanks against my relatively smaller forces. What did I face instead? TWENTY Forward Observers with no artillery! 20?!? They had a few vehicles to round out the points. I have heard BFC say a number of times that the purchasing routines struggles on the smaller setting (ie. Tiny QB's). This was medium, and the AI spent 60% of his points on forward observers, with no artillery, on a armor only QB. BFC, can any plans to get us some form of 'Meeting Engagement' back? Thanks in advance Chad

A little off the original subject that I started, but to the point of why I *do* like CMx2 QB's, to help with C2, in a vanilla US Rifle Co. I will delete the weapons platoon and reassign 2nd and 3rd Plt with one of the M1919 MG's and all three Plt with a 60mm mortar - the point are about the same. That way C2 is at the platoon level for these support weapons, which helps with spotting/morale/ect. Tactically, 2nd and 3rd Plt become my assault Platoons each with their MG and mortar, and 1st is held in reserve with its 60mm mortar. This highlights the great flexibility of the CMx2 QB system. That is how *I* want my unit TOE to be, because that is how *I* prefer to use them on the battlefield. Obviously you can do the same thing in a scenario, but that wouldn't work for PBEM.

I would assume that a number of players like 'Mix' for what they are trying to accomplish. That's why its in there, and that's why it doesn't need to change. 'Meeting Engagement' is not for everyone, but for those who prefer it, it is missed badly.

I love the new system - the detail, the maps, the flexibility and options. It just needs a little more in my opinion. While there are I am sure a number of options, the one that stands out to me the most is a 'Combined Arms' setting of some sort. It would help with AI play and PBEM play, especially competitive PBEM play.

I have found that I can only really enjoy a scenario once. Because if I come back and play it again, I know the enemies OOB, I know approximate placement, I know more or less how it is going to play out. Obviously that greatly influences my decisions the second time around. And that's against the AI, let alone another human player. Having already played or already seen the setup would change my strategy significantly in a PBEM. With that in mind, QB's are perfect - especially when playing against an opponent. As ASL Veteran pointed out, and as was said above, fog of war is huge. Not knowing what is potentially over the hill adds considerably to gameplay. Whether against the AI or PBEM, if I know the other sides OOB it significantly detracts from my enjoyment. Throw on top choosing your own troops and mix it into a semi-competitive atmosphere and QB is a great combination. No, its not for everyone. And that's fine. Right now you can choose from campaigns, scenarios and QB's. My issue is that as it stands right now, I can not enjoy QB's because I have to purchase for the AI when playing alone, or exhaust my opponent with house rules that can not be enforced. BFC, any plans to bring back any form of 'Combined Arms'? Thanks in advance and good discussion. Chad

Heres a link to the thread I started on this last year around the time CMx2 v2.0 was coming out: CM v2.0 - 'Combined Arms' for QB's?

I no longer have CMx1 games so I cant look at what they were back then, but the idea to have varying levels of points is a great one! While this could go any number of ways, I personally think that the categories that everything could fall under would be (and IIRC these were the categories from CMx1, though things are much more detailed in CMx2 so some changes are necessary): Infantry - Infantry squads, HQ's, engineers, specialist teams Support Weapons - crew served weapons or guns (tripod MG's, on-map mortars, AT/AA/INF guns) Vehicles - 'Light' vehicles (jeeps, trucks, AC's) Armor - 'Heavy' vehicles and tanks (SP guns, all tanks) Artillery - All off-map assets, including aircraft Fortifications - All fortifications With that being said, I don't think that they need to all add up to 100%. In other words, you could say *up to*: 70% Infantry, 10% Support Weapons, 15% Vehicles, 15% Armor, and 10% Artillery. That way, if you maxed out in everything but infantry, you would still *have* to spend 50% of your points on infantry (10+15+15+10=50% on non infantry items). Fortifications would depend on scenario type - max for 'Assault' and min for 'Meeting Engagement'. Honestly, with how it stands right now I don't want to get into PBEM. My only current options with PBEM are scenario or QB. In a scenario, being able to see the OOB takes away half of the fun - fun still, but it takes away knowing that at 10 minutes into the game they get two Panthers and where they arrive. For a QB I would have to get my opponent to agree to an exhausting list of House Rules to attempt to recreate 'Meeting Engagement' and 'Short 75' - and even then I have to trust that they are being honest. Sure if they are not I can drop them as a PBEM opponent, but by that point you've already invested a whole bunch of hours into the game just to find out that your opponent cheated. Much better to have the system enforce the rules. By no means am I saying the game is broken, or QB is broken. The current QB system is great, it just has its limitations - especially when playing against the AI. Some form of 'Meeting Engagement' setting would help with both AI and PBEM play, especially competitive play. Thanks in advance Chad