Pelican Pal

Up until CM:RT and now the 3.0 versions of BN and FI this has been true across the board. And as far as I know there aren't many scenarios in BN of FI that utilize triggers.

This happened a few times to me in CM:BN 1.11 or whatever the last patch for V2 came out. It only happened in rifle squads, but one soldier would double back a distance before returning to his squad. I've not played much CM:BN since then and I've not seen it in RT so I suspected it was something about the density of mvement blocking terrain on the maps.

This has been my point all along. I do not expect BFC to drop everything to fix it. The game is not broken without this changed. However, it is a legitimate issue that should be resolved at some point. There shouldn't be added steps to setup a game because you gave BFC more money. And having secondary installs for modules is a silly fix. I don't know where else that is the recommended thing to do, but for some reason it is here. I never made this a doomsday argument, but people assumed it was. My personal experiences don;t matter because it is an overall design issue rather than strictly a personal one. I do have several games of RT going currently. Although I've been playing less than I used to. For a while I played quite a bit at the Blitz and this issue did arise a few times there.

If you are playing some of the earlier CM:SF scenarios chances are the scenario design is just kinda poor. Later modules and user-made scenarios are much better made.

Yes, I do in fact have PBEMs going on. That is neither here nor there though. I also don't see how I am making this a big issue. I've only said this is a useability problem that should be addressed. For the price we pay we shouldn't have to mess around with making sure multiplayer games are able to be setup when there are different modules involved.

I would definitely like some more Soviet Equipment. Right now playing the Russians is a very vanilla experience. While the Germans have a whole bunch of interesting equipment.

Which is silly when you have a already small population of players. I don't have to play with anyone in specific, but I want to be able to play with a wider population of players and feel like I don't need to have the latest and greatest of everything to play. Sburke, you are ignoring them. I might be playing multiple PBEMs, or maybe just one. I might be part of a club, or I might just find my opponents on the forums. It doesn't matter what I do. The way BFC has designed the modular system should also include a method to easily play with a player regardless of what modules and battlepacks either player owns.

There are two problems that I am talking about. Although you seem to ignore one of them. 1). To play CM PBEM the "easy way" with multiple opponents with different modules the recommendation is to keep multiple installs up with those different versions available. So in this case the total number of modules is important because it demands more harddrive space. 2). Organizing a game so that it will be playable by people with different content. In this case only the modules in the game being played matter. SFhand, I'm not really sure if I should take your suggestion seriously... I should buy my opponents the modules I own?

Yes there are six. Unless Combat Mission: Shock Force doesn't exist in your universe. I suspect it does. When I mention the number of modules I am talking about the amount of harddrive space required to support multiple installs so we can play with people the "easy" way. CW and MG or any othe Eastern Front expansions which will include Germans and Russians until the end of time.

No there aren't 15, but there are 6 and will be more. Another two for CM:FI, two for CM:RT, not to mention battlepacks. Then CM:BS and the Bulge game with it's modules. Maybe another module for CM:BN? The series is getting bigger. So while I don't need an encyclopedia I do need a calendar which states the major operational dates throughout the war and when TO&E for formations was changed? Is someone getting grumpy?

So far it is my favorite of the WW2 games. Although Black Sea will probably give it a run for its money.

I'm fine with paying for patches. I think a lot of the business model surrounding the payment for patches is stupid. Like if I buy a CM:BN right now I will not have the most up to date version. Which is stupid and confusing. I also don't care to follow BFCs personal dictionary of what words mean. Now lets all be accurate. I have 453 games on Steam. Actually I've been lying to y'all. I have 454! I meant the engine version. So 1.11 I think? Like if someone is at 1.11 I would have no way of playing with them. Now this is kinda neither here nor there. The real issue is with modules. There is the actual maximum amount of space that CM could take up to play easily with all other players. Which would be something like 300 GBs of data. Now most people will never actual reach that because most people do not play all the CM games concurrently and most don't own all of the CM games and modules. A slightly more reasonable answer would be 60 GBs. So CM:BN + 1 module and CM:FI. If you wanted to easily play with all other players the minimum space would be 60GB (probably slightly more). That is for a 3.0 and 2.0 version of each game (which isn't unreasonable as from what i've seen 3.0 has made a smaller splash than 2.0) and a CM:BN with and without the module. So the reasonable answer is to buy $35 modules for other people and purchase a terabyte hard drive for just CM. Okay... What? I think you missed something. Okay, simple solution for PBEMs. When starting a match there is an initial pass where you only assign passwords and that is it. During that pass the two games could "talk" to each other and determine what the minimum is. Then during unit selection only units available to both players would be selectable. Although a system where I could use module units against a base game opponent would be even better. It is their fault for designing a module system that divides up a small community and relies on an antiquated system of multiple installs to maintain compatibility. If I pay $100+ for a CM and all the modules I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to play with someone who hasn't.

Yea, whatever you want to call them. There are ones we pay for and ones we do not. Lets not get into a semantic argument. Which is an absurd system. If I want to be capable with playing any other owner of a CM game I would need (using CM:BN as an example) nine different installs of the bloody game. This would be over 100 GB of data. With nine different executables and game folders to send turns to. Not to mention the need for multiplze Z folders. At this point is it even possible to get a 1.0 game? What if I find someone with just CM:BN and CW. Do I now have to do an entire reinstall of the game if I have all the modules? Start throwing in CM:FI, CM:SF, and CM:RT and we are reaching the possibility of 100s of GBs of data. Lets take an example that doesn't use all possible combination. We will say that you own CM:BN and 1 module, CM:FI and 1 module, and CM:RT. All of these games are fully updated. To play with all possible other players you would need nine different installs of the games. Totaling over 100 GBs of data. Reducing it to just the base games you are hitting 50 some GBs. That is assuming you don't keep a 1.0 version around. Although you totally should because it won't be possible to go back and get those version anymore. So the smart way is to use increasingly large amounts of my hard drive for same game. When does that become dumb? When I get to 30 GB? 60GB? 120GB? When it comes down to it this should be something that BFC should have coded the game to handle. If I pay $120+ I should not have to dick around with multiple game installs to play with multiple people.

The patches you pay for. I never said it was blackmail, but I would expect BFC to find some solution to the current PBEM problem. While I can play someone with more modules than I it is quite possible for a player to choose a unit that the other player doesn't own. Which results in the other player being unable to play the match. The only way around this is to keep a fully detailed list of units and what module they show up in. Which isn't something a player should have to do.

Yes, technically someone can keep two copies of a game on their drive. On the other hand it isn't really a solution to the constant fragmentation of a already small playerbase. This is a very real issue for CM that presents itself in the patches and modules. As for tank riders, a number of beta testers (with the tag) were justifying it on the grounds of doctrine. While betas are volunteer they, to an extent, represent BFC.

There are swaths of wargamers who don't know about CM. I am not the least bit worried about anyone else finding it. CM also doesn't look the best so getting any potential video that looks interesting would be hard. And finally. Even if it did occur what would be the result? People who were never going to buy CM decide to continue not buying CM?

I think you are correct, but I can't be entirely sure. The BFC post about updating the installer might have some info. I suspect taht 1.0 was phased out.

In which case you have to leave men in positions that may be tactically unimportant in order to get all the VPs. The more discrete VPs you have the less flexibility you give the player and the more men you attrite away for administrative tasks.

Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy is currently $35 for the v2 version of the game. It is another $10 for the V3 version. If you buy either CM:Fortress Italy or CM: Battle for Normandy I wouldn't recommend buying the 3.0 patch if you are at all worried about money. Edit: I will also take this opportunity to point out that the store is in desperate need of a revamp. It is an unreadable mess.

You can only mod in sounds if a weapon as a unique sound file (the file itself doesn't have to be unique, but it needs its own location in memory) so right now you can't even fully mod in unique weapon sounds for all weapons. Most of the tracers are for useability. The quality of all flame graphics are poor.

They could simply list version number and game engine number. Alternatively, keep with 1.0 but when you upgrade to an engine then the patch number jumps to the engine number. So CM:RT is 1.0 CM:FI is 1.0 at V2, but becomes 3.0 at V3, and CM:BN is 1.0, jumps to 2.0 with V2, and jumps to 3.0 at V3.

the problem is that ground mesh changes must be visible to all players. So any house with a basement would have a very clear hole in the map. This is why we have above ground trenches and foxholes. My wishlist item is fortified buildings or the ability to make a building fortified, much like you can purchase and place trenches.

Steam doesn;t have an indie page. Steam does have something called Greenlight. Steam users vote on waht games they want on Steam and the top 50 from the Greenlight list are then allowed to be sold on Steam. Importantly, this is only if you do not currently have a game offered on Steam. Individual publishers/devs decide when and how discounts are made on a regular basis. I'm not sure how the Steam Holiday sales work, but I'm assuming the same way. Since sales are so astronomically high during those periods. Steam has a front page. When a game is released it is guaranteed 1 million views on the front page. If your game sells well your game stays on the front page longer and in a more desirable slot. Your game can also go on the front page if there is a sale happening. The simple fact is that people aren't buying your game for $10 because they don't find it any good. At $2 you might try it out and whatever you are out $2, or less. But at a price point of $10 + well they will want your game to be interesting to them. Gunpoint did stellar at a $15 price point because it was good and it grabbed peoples attention.

From what I've seen small fires can be started by almost any sort of combat action from heavy tank fire to small arms. I think it currently is probably too liberal because it has no in-game effect.

This is the basis for a lot of the pro German armor and equipment opinions that you see. At a strategic level you want your tanks to be reliable and you want there to be some when you need them. So the Sherman is a pretty solid tank. At a tactical level there isn't really a reason to not want a Tiger. If you could get that thing into battle it would wreck ****. As a guy at the pointy end of the spear you definitely want to be in a Tiger and you definitely don't want to be in a Sherman.