Pelican Pal

Just because they call it an "engine upgrade" doesn't mean it's more than a patch. Bug fixes and quality of life improvements behind a paywall are on the same level as those silly loot boxes they have in "triple A" games. Also nice from warts and all to apparently completely leave behind the point of "plugging new games", instead looping back to the start, ensuring that the conversation will go nowhere. But I guess at least you displayed what you mistake for wit, so congrats.
Anyway, to actually return to the way more interesting discussion of this thread:
Well, let's look at the monthly reports of different divisions. This time around the late 1944 era, since we are in the Ardennes game forum.
Lastly, for the Red Thunder game;
In conclusion, I think it would be cool to have this kind of obsolete or foreign equipment ingame, maybe when setting equipment levels to low. Some of these weapons actually already exist ingame and the Beretta MP is already used by Germans in Fortress Italy.

You have an issue like the Engine 4 upgrade (paid) essentially breaking infantry interaction with fortifications for months on end. Not that fortifications are that fleshed out in CM, but the community response was very measured. "Haters" as a group seem largely fictitious outside of like 1-2 actual people. Especially so if you ignore the time period directly around the original CM:SF release. Which I can sympathize with to an extant because man... that release.

What CM is, is a game system that is pretty close to being fantastic but is often just pretty good. Which is in many ways is more frustrating than if it were just crap.

- There is a powerful scenario editor that lets you do a lot

However, it is just weak enough to prevent designers from easily doing really interesting things.

-  CM has pretty solid 1:1 design

Except that commitment to 1:1 can often result in unrealistic situations. Like personnel in a half-track sitting bolt upright when hunkering down slightly would save them from being hit, or weird LOS issues.

- CM has some fun campaigns

Yet, with rare exceptions, they don't feel particularly connected.

- CM has pretty good content

If you are interested in a very specific setting/time period you are likely going to have to wait years to see it.
 
CM does a lot right, which makes what it does poorly all the more annoying.
 

You have an issue like the Engine 4 upgrade (paid) essentially breaking infantry interaction with fortifications for months on end. Not that fortifications are that fleshed out in CM, but the community response was very measured. "Haters" as a group seem largely fictitious outside of like 1-2 actual people. Especially so if you ignore the time period directly around the original CM:SF release. Which I can sympathize with to an extant because man... that release.

What CM is, is a game system that is pretty close to being fantastic but is often just pretty good. Which is in many ways is more frustrating than if it were just crap.

- There is a powerful scenario editor that lets you do a lot

However, it is just weak enough to prevent designers from easily doing really interesting things.

-  CM has pretty solid 1:1 design

Except that commitment to 1:1 can often result in unrealistic situations. Like personnel in a half-track sitting bolt upright when hunkering down slightly would save them from being hit, or weird LOS issues.

- CM has some fun campaigns

Yet, with rare exceptions, they don't feel particularly connected.

- CM has pretty good content

If you are interested in a very specific setting/time period you are likely going to have to wait years to see it.
 
CM does a lot right, which makes what it does poorly all the more annoying.
 

You have an issue like the Engine 4 upgrade (paid) essentially breaking infantry interaction with fortifications for months on end. Not that fortifications are that fleshed out in CM, but the community response was very measured. "Haters" as a group seem largely fictitious outside of like 1-2 actual people. Especially so if you ignore the time period directly around the original CM:SF release. Which I can sympathize with to an extant because man... that release.

What CM is, is a game system that is pretty close to being fantastic but is often just pretty good. Which is in many ways is more frustrating than if it were just crap.

- There is a powerful scenario editor that lets you do a lot

However, it is just weak enough to prevent designers from easily doing really interesting things.

-  CM has pretty solid 1:1 design

Except that commitment to 1:1 can often result in unrealistic situations. Like personnel in a half-track sitting bolt upright when hunkering down slightly would save them from being hit, or weird LOS issues.

- CM has some fun campaigns

Yet, with rare exceptions, they don't feel particularly connected.

- CM has pretty good content

If you are interested in a very specific setting/time period you are likely going to have to wait years to see it.
 
CM does a lot right, which makes what it does poorly all the more annoying.
 

I know BFC is working on at least one, if not two contract jobs, but that doesn't change my position of there being some sort of project workflow that relies more heavily on their limited programming expertise. (or possibly limited expertise with some sort of OOB generator). My guess is a lot of CM2 stuff is in-house so that opens the gates a bit to where the workflow problem is. It also makes scaling up more difficult because you 1. need to find someone who can be taught your custom **** 2. Sees that as taking them to a worthwhile place career wise.

Because doing OOB research, or animating, or even creating 3d models shouldn't be the big hold up. Ostensibly CM1 had rather complete OOBs and within the ~6 games currently released they should have a good cross section of 3d models. Think about North Africa - that should be an easy slam dunk for a few major formations in an initial release. Terrain/Buildings from CM:SF/Italy - equipment from CM:BN,FI,RT with some additions, because it is a modular system so you don't need to do the whole thing at once.  

The BFC team is undoubtedly skilled, but we've witnessed constant delays from almost the announcement of CM:SF to today. BFC shot for the moon (1:1 modern combat sim)1 and landed in a weird place that they didn't expect. I mean who would purposefully try to be actively supporting ~6 different standalone games?


1 1:1 is a big ask not to mention the C2 system -- but you are adding in all kinds of simming of modern tech. FLIR, NV, ERA, ATGM (SCLOS & MCLOS), Insurgents, various radionets,  actually having to deal with air, etc.. Which you wouldn't if CM:BN was released in '08 instead of CM:SF.
 

My suspicion is that BFC has a programmer heavy workload which is permanently slowing development down, and we'll never see any major increase in development speed during the lifetime of CM2. Especially given that each series is standalone rather than a DCS model where they all have one parent.
 ~6 installers, ~6 engine upgrades ~6 series of tests, ~6 patches.
CM:FI
CM:BN
CM:RT
CM:FB
CM:SF2
CM:BS

I also wouldn't be surprised if there still isn't a certain amount of code debt from the "interesting" launch of of CM:SF.

And even if BF could hire more programmers I don't think they would have an easy time of it. Working on a niche wargame probably isn't the most lucrative career choice for someone who isn't an owner/operator.

I think a lot of it comes back to the animation system not being paid enough attention to when dealing with how it effects combat losses.

Load up a halftrack and you have the entire complement of men sitting bolt upright in the back allowing much of their upperchest and head to appear above the protective sides of the hull. The result being that relatively light fire will start to accrue casualties on the men ostensibly using it as protection. With trenches we have much the same issue in that the men when crouching expose a large portion of their body to fire. Additionally the trenches themselves are quite wide and relatively shallow making it easier for artillery to "clear" the line as it were. 

If trenchers were slightly taller and not so wide their protection would likely increase. Infantry survivability would also increase if their animations weren't so "parade ground" suited. 


---

What I did find useful for trenches was to build a ditch and then place a trench line within the ditch. Effectively giving the men better protection from both direct and indirect fire. As they are now forced to stand to fire and their basic crouching position is generally safer.

 

I'm assuming the headcount functionality was coded for a formation wide scale and has some play in it. In this case though it seems rather bizarre that 50% can actually net you 100%. I wonder if that is true for large squads? Would 50% of 10 men ever get you 60%? Its even weirder given that the options for different reductions are available and ostensibly seem rather granular, and you would think that granular choices would be expected --- but then they just aren't.

I ran into this issues a few years back when doing Squad Battles series in Red Thunder. I took CMX2's 1:1 idea to its logical endpoint and created several scenarios where each man was his own unit. Using the current command structure system but scaled for Company as the largest unit.  I had a few testers but this coincided with me becoming too busy to do much scenario making and having to drop the concept. In total I made 2 or 3 scenarios. The teams issue was a bit of a pain for me, but I switched to primarily using truck drivers and such since they guaranteed single man units unfortunately they lacked grenades. Since I was also doing reinforced platoon to company scale I could also stomach far more two man teams where it made sense (lmg, anti-tank, etc...). It played surprisingly well. 

Its too bad we don't have single man units within the editor OOB for each faction. That would open up a lot of interesting scenarios without all the fiddling around. 
 

 

We'll see. 

I did some porting a while back and found that unique, non-modular buildings, would cause the editor to crash.

A modular building (2x2, for example) appears to be standard in the code and have a texture per game. While the unique buildings (Orthodox Church, for example) is unique to the game and will crash if brought to a different game. It has been a while, but I also believe that any terrain tile that isn't present in the game will also cause a crash. So a snow tile will crash a game that doesn't have one.

I can't find it on the site anymore. I know it's old, but I lost my old copy and I really needed to replace it. Am I out of luck?

CM's dichotomy is that while WeGo removes your ability to unrealistically micro units when you are wearing the hat of Platoon commander or above the player is quite often wearing the hat of a Sergeant, Corporal, or even Private. In those cases wego is unsuited to the situation.

At the top of the minute a fireteam spots five tanks and a platoon of infantry crossing a ridge. 9 times out of 10 that fireteam isn't going to sign their own death warrants in reality, but in CM those four men have no conceptual understanding that they are massively outgunned. That Corporal will have to wait an entire minute before telling his fireteam to do anything reasonable like crawl away or hold fire. Instead they'll fire a few rifle rounds before being pulverized. 
An RPG team fires a rocket and then, against all logic, proceed to not move and get plastered by return fire. 

Etc...

Neither WeGo or Real-Time is always realistic or unrealistic. They just happen to have moments where they are the most realistic choice and some where they are not.

Yea, reading anecdotes from American combatants I often saw variants of "we waited for the Germans to advance out of 'insert cover/concealment here' before opening fire". 

It seemed that many American units managed to keep their heads long enough to wait for the German infantry to enter good fields of fire before engaging. While German Infantry, on the other hand, often did not have a clear idea of where the American line is.

CM's dichotomy is that while WeGo removes your ability to unrealistically micro units when you are wearing the hat of Platoon commander or above the player is quite often wearing the hat of a Sergeant, Corporal, or even Private. In those cases wego is unsuited to the situation.

At the top of the minute a fireteam spots five tanks and a platoon of infantry crossing a ridge. 9 times out of 10 that fireteam isn't going to sign their own death warrants in reality, but in CM those four men have no conceptual understanding that they are massively outgunned. That Corporal will have to wait an entire minute before telling his fireteam to do anything reasonable like crawl away or hold fire. Instead they'll fire a few rifle rounds before being pulverized. 
An RPG team fires a rocket and then, against all logic, proceed to not move and get plastered by return fire. 

Etc...

Neither WeGo or Real-Time is always realistic or unrealistic. They just happen to have moments where they are the most realistic choice and some where they are not.

CM's dichotomy is that while WeGo removes your ability to unrealistically micro units when you are wearing the hat of Platoon commander or above the player is quite often wearing the hat of a Sergeant, Corporal, or even Private. In those cases wego is unsuited to the situation.

At the top of the minute a fireteam spots five tanks and a platoon of infantry crossing a ridge. 9 times out of 10 that fireteam isn't going to sign their own death warrants in reality, but in CM those four men have no conceptual understanding that they are massively outgunned. That Corporal will have to wait an entire minute before telling his fireteam to do anything reasonable like crawl away or hold fire. Instead they'll fire a few rifle rounds before being pulverized. 
An RPG team fires a rocket and then, against all logic, proceed to not move and get plastered by return fire. 

Etc...

Neither WeGo or Real-Time is always realistic or unrealistic. They just happen to have moments where they are the most realistic choice and some where they are not.

CM's dichotomy is that while WeGo removes your ability to unrealistically micro units when you are wearing the hat of Platoon commander or above the player is quite often wearing the hat of a Sergeant, Corporal, or even Private. In those cases wego is unsuited to the situation.

At the top of the minute a fireteam spots five tanks and a platoon of infantry crossing a ridge. 9 times out of 10 that fireteam isn't going to sign their own death warrants in reality, but in CM those four men have no conceptual understanding that they are massively outgunned. That Corporal will have to wait an entire minute before telling his fireteam to do anything reasonable like crawl away or hold fire. Instead they'll fire a few rifle rounds before being pulverized. 
An RPG team fires a rocket and then, against all logic, proceed to not move and get plastered by return fire. 

Etc...

Neither WeGo or Real-Time is always realistic or unrealistic. They just happen to have moments where they are the most realistic choice and some where they are not.

Speaking of VG "human wave" attacks, I have read that this is really a reported perception, not a tactic.

That is, first-hand accounts sometimes report a "human wave" attack, but the argument is that what has in fact happened is that successive assault waves have become tangled up and clumped together due to poor planning and/or poor execution during an attack.
We all know that a frontal attack involves, well, getting up and moving forward. But I haven't found a historian yet who cites anyone ordering human wave attacks - not even the Russians, whom I always had assumed had launched these sort of attacks, thanks to media representations of it.

For instance, during the Normandy landings and in the Pacific you see some instances of individuals or small units charging unsuppressed machinegun positions, eliminating them, but being killed in the process. This is the sort of thing that happened to larger units.

For instance, in Beevor's book Ardennes 44 he describes an American machinegun crew holding off an SS unit all day, noting that the Germans continually mounted charges straight ahead. This was not a "human wave", but a failure to locate and suppress the enemy base of fire before advancing - they were trying to get away with movement without the fire.

Similarly, at Cassino, we can imagine what would have happened if the Commonwealth didn't have artillery support, and if the first wave was pinned down crossing open ground. Subsequent assault waves would pile up, and unit leaders would perhaps get men moving forward under fire to avoid remaining in the kill zone.

So, a "human wave" attack is really nonsensical as a concept, something that commanders do not order - rather it is advancing under fire, with the perception that a "human wave" attack has occurred when the defenders are overrun or are able to defeat a large attack that wasn't properly supported.

The tension between Real-Time and Turn-based will likely continue to exist as long as Tac-AI is primarily reactive. 

- Turn-Based probably gives you the best experience when you are wearing the hat of a mid/high level position. A Company or Battalion commander. You have an orders delay without being able to micro the individual men. However, turn-based is easily the worst for wearing the hat of an individual unit. People have mentioned shoot & scoot, and that is an obvious example of where turn-based fails. Especially in a modern setting where an RPG team will quickly be killed if they don't move.

- Real-time while giving you a better unit level hat gives you a more unrealistic and worse mid/high level hat. There is often too much to do and it also gives you the ability to game the system a bit more when interacting with multiple units.

- My personal favorite is real-time w. multiple pre-determined pauses/command timings.

Its essentially a house rule where depending on the units scale and breadth of the order I have a timer before I can give it.

Individual/local scope is whenever. This covers any sort of order that a Squad Leader or lower could reasonably give. Platoon scope. These I limit to every 20 seconds. These are orders that a Platoon Leader could reasonably give. Company Scope is at 40 seconds and Battalion is at 60 seconds.

It takes some rules setting for myself and can only be done solo but it provides interesting gameplay outside the norm.

The general thrust that most CM scenarios are not scenarios where recce units excel I would agree with fully, but in addition to that the 1:1 nature of CM + the rather static animations makes gun turrets more dangerous than they probably should be. The gunners in most vehicles stand essentially upright with a decent portion of their bodies exposed to enemy fire and switch between unbuttoned and buttoned in a rather binary fashion.

 You can see it in this video where both the men firing from the half-track, the man sitting in the track, and the .50 gunner are relatively high up.  More so than would be absolutely necessary. The Bren gunner is firing from a fully standing position when huddling below the armor deck and resting the Bren on the vehicle would likely be more stable. Around the 1:10 mark the gunner engages infantry within 20-30 meters of him who are using an identifiable object as concealment. The gunner maintains an upright position on the gun while engaging and remains upright between bursts. He is not receiving return fire, but if he was it seems possible that he could drop down behind the gun and spray the object with fire dynamically popping up and down to check his fires.

Compare that to this video from a gunner who is taking fire. (2:28 mark or so)
 

After receiving near misses the gunner is only exposing himself to fire a burst at the enemy and is otherwise below the armor. This sort of dynamic up/down action isn't seen in CM and even the base stance in CM is relatively high. In CM the gunner also has to be up on the gun to fire it. In most combat videos you see the gunner will also be on the gun when firing, but occasionally you will see a gunner firing from a position that keeps him largely below the armor.


This is a limitation of programmer/animator time, and I wouldn't expect to see gunners dynamically moving while firing on targets. However, I think its important to understand this  limitation so that the player can make decisions not only around tactics but also with better knowledge of the tool they are using.

Why are you all being such weird asses about his question?

IanL and MOS:96B2P were kind enough to answer his questions about content, MOS very thoroughly. However, we are now on page two largely on the basis of people being ****ty that he thinks $60 is a lot of money. Yes he thinks $60 is a bit pricey. Okay great maybe it his for him, maybe it isn't. We don't know. What we don't need to be doing is dogpiling on the dude.

And you have to admit that if you didn't follow BFC posts very regularly you would likely be confused as to what is going on. You might wonder what changes have been made since CM:SF. You might wonder if CM:BS, a 4 year old game, is expecting any updates. You may not know about the CM:SF2 update. You might want to come to the forums and ask the nice helpful users some questions so those with more knowledge could concisely inform you. If you look at the CM:BS news page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=334&Itemid=576 you might be forgiven in thinking that there are no expansions planned.

But of course we have to jump down his throat that he dare question spending $60.

Imagine replying like this....

Yea $60 is kind of expensive, but I've gotten really good value for the money. There is a lot of content included with CM:BS and a bunch of user made content for you to access. (maybe link to the scenario depot here?). You can see some of the added features since CM:SF on this page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583 and there is always the demo available here http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=340&Itemid=584

Right now we're expecting an CM:BS expansion somewhere around (insert date here).

Imagine that, helpful, informative, non-argumentative. But why would we want to do that? When we can reply like this: 

It is possible for people to hold views that are in opposition from each other without being petty. I mean this guy has posted nine times. Five in the T-72 Balkans on Fire forum between 2010 and 2012 and four times in this thread. I'm sure he has left with a positively sterling opinion on Battlefront and the forum users. And of course we were perfectly right to drag him down as quickly as we can because this 9 post lurker is obviously a troll who wants to destroy Battlefront.

Maybe next time someone says something you don't agree with you can not immediately go on the attack. If you are really triggered by the possibility that someone thinks $60 is expensive you can just turn off your computer and not reply.
 

Why are you all being such weird asses about his question?

IanL and MOS:96B2P were kind enough to answer his questions about content, MOS very thoroughly. However, we are now on page two largely on the basis of people being ****ty that he thinks $60 is a lot of money. Yes he thinks $60 is a bit pricey. Okay great maybe it his for him, maybe it isn't. We don't know. What we don't need to be doing is dogpiling on the dude.

And you have to admit that if you didn't follow BFC posts very regularly you would likely be confused as to what is going on. You might wonder what changes have been made since CM:SF. You might wonder if CM:BS, a 4 year old game, is expecting any updates. You may not know about the CM:SF2 update. You might want to come to the forums and ask the nice helpful users some questions so those with more knowledge could concisely inform you. If you look at the CM:BS news page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=334&Itemid=576 you might be forgiven in thinking that there are no expansions planned.

But of course we have to jump down his throat that he dare question spending $60.

Imagine replying like this....

Yea $60 is kind of expensive, but I've gotten really good value for the money. There is a lot of content included with CM:BS and a bunch of user made content for you to access. (maybe link to the scenario depot here?). You can see some of the added features since CM:SF on this page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583 and there is always the demo available here http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=340&Itemid=584

Right now we're expecting an CM:BS expansion somewhere around (insert date here).

Imagine that, helpful, informative, non-argumentative. But why would we want to do that? When we can reply like this: 

It is possible for people to hold views that are in opposition from each other without being petty. I mean this guy has posted nine times. Five in the T-72 Balkans on Fire forum between 2010 and 2012 and four times in this thread. I'm sure he has left with a positively sterling opinion on Battlefront and the forum users. And of course we were perfectly right to drag him down as quickly as we can because this 9 post lurker is obviously a troll who wants to destroy Battlefront.

Maybe next time someone says something you don't agree with you can not immediately go on the attack. If you are really triggered by the possibility that someone thinks $60 is expensive you can just turn off your computer and not reply.
 

Why are you all being such weird asses about his question?

IanL and MOS:96B2P were kind enough to answer his questions about content, MOS very thoroughly. However, we are now on page two largely on the basis of people being ****ty that he thinks $60 is a lot of money. Yes he thinks $60 is a bit pricey. Okay great maybe it his for him, maybe it isn't. We don't know. What we don't need to be doing is dogpiling on the dude.

And you have to admit that if you didn't follow BFC posts very regularly you would likely be confused as to what is going on. You might wonder what changes have been made since CM:SF. You might wonder if CM:BS, a 4 year old game, is expecting any updates. You may not know about the CM:SF2 update. You might want to come to the forums and ask the nice helpful users some questions so those with more knowledge could concisely inform you. If you look at the CM:BS news page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=334&Itemid=576 you might be forgiven in thinking that there are no expansions planned.

But of course we have to jump down his throat that he dare question spending $60.

Imagine replying like this....

Yea $60 is kind of expensive, but I've gotten really good value for the money. There is a lot of content included with CM:BS and a bunch of user made content for you to access. (maybe link to the scenario depot here?). You can see some of the added features since CM:SF on this page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583 and there is always the demo available here http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=340&Itemid=584

Right now we're expecting an CM:BS expansion somewhere around (insert date here).

Imagine that, helpful, informative, non-argumentative. But why would we want to do that? When we can reply like this: 

It is possible for people to hold views that are in opposition from each other without being petty. I mean this guy has posted nine times. Five in the T-72 Balkans on Fire forum between 2010 and 2012 and four times in this thread. I'm sure he has left with a positively sterling opinion on Battlefront and the forum users. And of course we were perfectly right to drag him down as quickly as we can because this 9 post lurker is obviously a troll who wants to destroy Battlefront.

Maybe next time someone says something you don't agree with you can not immediately go on the attack. If you are really triggered by the possibility that someone thinks $60 is expensive you can just turn off your computer and not reply.
 

Why are you all being such weird asses about his question?

IanL and MOS:96B2P were kind enough to answer his questions about content, MOS very thoroughly. However, we are now on page two largely on the basis of people being ****ty that he thinks $60 is a lot of money. Yes he thinks $60 is a bit pricey. Okay great maybe it his for him, maybe it isn't. We don't know. What we don't need to be doing is dogpiling on the dude.

And you have to admit that if you didn't follow BFC posts very regularly you would likely be confused as to what is going on. You might wonder what changes have been made since CM:SF. You might wonder if CM:BS, a 4 year old game, is expecting any updates. You may not know about the CM:SF2 update. You might want to come to the forums and ask the nice helpful users some questions so those with more knowledge could concisely inform you. If you look at the CM:BS news page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=334&Itemid=576 you might be forgiven in thinking that there are no expansions planned.

But of course we have to jump down his throat that he dare question spending $60.

Imagine replying like this....

Yea $60 is kind of expensive, but I've gotten really good value for the money. There is a lot of content included with CM:BS and a bunch of user made content for you to access. (maybe link to the scenario depot here?). You can see some of the added features since CM:SF on this page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583 and there is always the demo available here http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=340&Itemid=584

Right now we're expecting an CM:BS expansion somewhere around (insert date here).

Imagine that, helpful, informative, non-argumentative. But why would we want to do that? When we can reply like this: 

It is possible for people to hold views that are in opposition from each other without being petty. I mean this guy has posted nine times. Five in the T-72 Balkans on Fire forum between 2010 and 2012 and four times in this thread. I'm sure he has left with a positively sterling opinion on Battlefront and the forum users. And of course we were perfectly right to drag him down as quickly as we can because this 9 post lurker is obviously a troll who wants to destroy Battlefront.

Maybe next time someone says something you don't agree with you can not immediately go on the attack. If you are really triggered by the possibility that someone thinks $60 is expensive you can just turn off your computer and not reply.
 

Why are you all being such weird asses about his question?

IanL and MOS:96B2P were kind enough to answer his questions about content, MOS very thoroughly. However, we are now on page two largely on the basis of people being ****ty that he thinks $60 is a lot of money. Yes he thinks $60 is a bit pricey. Okay great maybe it his for him, maybe it isn't. We don't know. What we don't need to be doing is dogpiling on the dude.

And you have to admit that if you didn't follow BFC posts very regularly you would likely be confused as to what is going on. You might wonder what changes have been made since CM:SF. You might wonder if CM:BS, a 4 year old game, is expecting any updates. You may not know about the CM:SF2 update. You might want to come to the forums and ask the nice helpful users some questions so those with more knowledge could concisely inform you. If you look at the CM:BS news page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=334&Itemid=576 you might be forgiven in thinking that there are no expansions planned.

But of course we have to jump down his throat that he dare question spending $60.

Imagine replying like this....

Yea $60 is kind of expensive, but I've gotten really good value for the money. There is a lot of content included with CM:BS and a bunch of user made content for you to access. (maybe link to the scenario depot here?). You can see some of the added features since CM:SF on this page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583 and there is always the demo available here http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=340&Itemid=584

Right now we're expecting an CM:BS expansion somewhere around (insert date here).

Imagine that, helpful, informative, non-argumentative. But why would we want to do that? When we can reply like this: 

It is possible for people to hold views that are in opposition from each other without being petty. I mean this guy has posted nine times. Five in the T-72 Balkans on Fire forum between 2010 and 2012 and four times in this thread. I'm sure he has left with a positively sterling opinion on Battlefront and the forum users. And of course we were perfectly right to drag him down as quickly as we can because this 9 post lurker is obviously a troll who wants to destroy Battlefront.

Maybe next time someone says something you don't agree with you can not immediately go on the attack. If you are really triggered by the possibility that someone thinks $60 is expensive you can just turn off your computer and not reply.
 

The below list is some of the things that have been added since the game you are familiar with, CMSF, was released.  Also, CMSF2 is being worked on and will have many improvements.  So if your not sure about CMBS and the demo didn't help I guess waiting for CMSF2 might be an option.  Below are just some of the things CMBS has to offer in addition to what is already offered by CMSF. 
 
MULTIPLAYER
* WeGo TCP/IP with the ability to save but not the ability to replay combat action.
* Pausable RealTime TCP/IP option. A player can request a Pause and, if the other player agrees, the game is Paused until both players are ready to continue play.
QUICK BATTLES
* Redesigned Quick Battle Generator that includes the ability for players to purchase formations, units and support, for their own force and for the computer AI. By deleting subformations/units, setting experience, motivation, fitness, and leadership levels, and attaching Specialist Teams and individual vehicles, the player can custom-tailor their force for the mission.
* Automatically purchased force options are still available for the player and opponent, as well as a "Suggestion" button in the unit purchase screen that will quickly buy a force that the player can then modify.
* Players can now choose their own maps, and preview maps before playing.
USER INTERFACE
* Two new camera control modes have been introduced in addition to the traditional Combat Mission controls: First Person Shooter (FPS), and Real Time Strategy (RTS). These new camera controls allow a player the choice to control the in-game camera in a way that is more familiar to other game genres.
* Hotkey Unit Groups. Select units and assign them to number keys for quick navigation during gameplay.
* New Load New Game dialog screen. The list of scenarios can now be sorted by size, length, or alphabetically.
* Improved Saved Game dialog screen. The list of scenarios can now be sorted by newest file, oldest file, or alphabetically, or filter between single player and PBEM saves. Save games can be deleted in the game.
* Visual Hotkey binding. A new dialog in the Options menu allows you to specify and view key assignments.
* KIAs are shown in the Soldier/Crew Panels to track soldiers lost during the game.
* The Ammo Panel has been redesigned: Ammunition is now listed by name and in discrete quantities instead of with icons and depleting bars.
* Option to disable music separate from other game sounds.
UNITS
* FoW floating icons. FoW floating icons. Instead of getting a general area "?" icon and then immediately progressing to an accurate 3D representation, now there is an inbetween stage where you get a icon that represents the general category of enemy unit and no 3D representation. This tells the player "you know roughly what the unit is, but nothing more specific than that."
* Command lines are back! Command and Control (C3) links can now be shown on the battlefield, allowing you to quickly determine whether subordinate units are in contact with their headquarters. Use Alt-Z.
* Expanded floating icon categories. New unique floating icons have been added for Ammo Bearer, Recon, Engineer, MANPADS, LMG, Light Truck (Antitank), SPAA.
* Dismounted vehicles function as Ammo Dumps, allowing formations to have reserve ammo stored separately on map (automatically distributed for certain Skill Levels).
* Player-placeable static defenses and fortifications such as trenches, barbed wire, and mines.
* Active Protection Systems (APS) are now available for some vehicles.
* Some vehicles can salvo fire two ATGMs simultaneously at the same target.
* Vehicles with laser warning receivers will display hit text warning the player that they have been lased. The vehicle will then rotate towards the threat, deploy smoke launchers and back up to cover, unless it is immediately preoccupied with another task such as engaging an enemy vehicle or moving.
COMBAT AND SIMULATION
* Ground units are now able to fire at attacking aircraft using self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicles, emplaced anti-aircraft guns, or shoulder-launched MANPADS units. Aircraft that are fired upon may have their combat effectiveness diminished, be forced to abort the mission, or even be shot down.
* Soldiers with assault rifles are more likely to use aimed semi-automatic fire at distant targets instead of burst fire. Soldiers fire weapons faster at short ranges. MGs fire longer, more accurate bursts. More realistic/varied RoF of automatic weapons. Ammo bearers and heavy weapon assistant soldiers generally use their weapons only at shorter ranges.
* Soldiers can surrender to nearby enemy units and possibly be "rescued" by nearby friendly units. This replaces the "routing" behavior from CMSF.
* Wide range of weather types and environmental effects, including rain, fog, heavy winds (with ballistic effects), different types of ground conditions, animated water effects, and more...
* Vehicles and soldiers equipped with night vision and thermal vision have a significantly improved boost to spotting abilities in low visibility conditions such as night.
* Buttoned-up armored vehicles spot enemies to their flanks less effectively.
* Improved UI display for timing of preplanned artillery missions also indicates what delay would be after the battle begins.
* Small arms fire causes more suppression than before.
 MAPS AND ENVIRONMENT
* Game performance for large maps has been increased while load times for large maps have been improved.
* Maps can now be up to 8 kilometers long or wide (up from 4 kilometers). However, total map size is still restricted to 16 square kilometers. This means that you can make a 2 kilometer wide map that is 8 kilometers long!
* Conduct combat operations in lush rural landscapes, dense urban settings, or anywhere in between.
* Heavy Rocks, Heavy Forest, Marsh, and Deep Marsh block all vehicle movement, while Deep Marsh additionally blocks infantry movement.
* Water terrain types added: Water, Reeds, Deep Ford, and Shallow Ford. Infantry can cross Deep Ford and Shallow Ford, while non-amphibious vehicles can only cross Shallow Ford.
* Bridges are now available as a terrain type. Bridges come in multiple varieties, including wooden foot bridges, small rural stone bridges, large concrete traffic bridges, and even railroad bridges. Bridge lengths vary from 16 meters to 600 meters long.
* New and improved tree and bush models added, representing a variety of European species ranging in size from small shrubs to towering evergreens. Forest ground tiles can accompany them for proper forest terrain.
* Generic buildings can now be up to 14 stories high, and have sloped roofs available in addition to flat roofs.
 SOLDIERS
* Dynamic, context sensitive equipment loadouts for individual soldiers depending on what weapon and equipment are carried.
* Expanded Soldier details. A completely new way of assigning models and textures allows greater flexibility and variety of how Soldiers look in the game. It also allows for more flexible Modding possibilities.
* When available, pre-made soldier appearance options can be toggled in the editor or QB Purchase screen by using the Appearance button. For example, this allows the player to choose between Ukrainian troops equipped with either new digital camouflage uniforms or older TTSKO uniforms.
* Night vision equipment, such as goggles and weapon sights, will be automatically and visually equipped in scenarios with low-light conditions.
* Many new soldier animations, stances and positions, including kneeling and sitting positions for crew served weapons, pistol firing animations, hand grenade throwing, crew functions, first aid, and much more...
* Automatic ammo sharing between nearby soldier Units.
FIRE SUPPORT
* On-map mortars, both dismounted and vehicle-mounted, are now available. On-map assets such as mortars are able to fire in both direct and indirect modes, using their own spotters or separate forward observers.
* Spotters are now restricted to directing only one Artillery or Air Support Mission at a time. Assets can now be group fired by shift-left-clicking them, allowing more than one Asset to be assigned to the same Mission. EXCEPTION: Spotters directing one UAV Observation Mission can also simultaneously direct one Artillery or Air Support Mission.
* Player-placeable Target Reference Points (TRPs) allow simulating prepared support strikes and ambushes. Support missions aimed at TRPs do not require LOS from the spotter, or any spotting phase.
* Precision artillery missions are available for Point targets. These missions are only available for certain artillery assets and 120mm mortars.
* UAV Support Missions are now available. These missions use UAV support assets which can share spotting information with the player and ground units.
* Helicopter and UAV Support Assets no longer require Line of Sight (LOS) for the spotter to call in a mission. In other words, the mission can be called anywhere on the map.
COMMANDS
* Scout Team Command splits off 2 men to act as scouts.
* Target Armor Arc Command. Instructs units to engage only armored units within the specified arc. As with nearly every Command, outcome varies greatly depending on unit quality and battlefield conditions.
* Target Briefly Command. Tells a unit to fire all its guns on a designated spot for 15 seconds, then cease fire.  Issuing the command repeatedly increases the duration in increments of 15 seconds.
* Mark Mines Command for Engineer teams and squads.
* Waypoint dragging. A waypoint can be clicked on and moved by dragging it to a new location.
* Grouped Spacebar Command system. Instead of getting all of the commands in a big list when the Spacebar is used, instead you get four groups of commands: Movement, Combat, Special, and Administrative. Selecting one of these presents the Commands specific to that Commands Group.
* For vehicles with more than two weapons systems, such as an IFV armed with ATGMs, cannon, and MGs, the Target Light Command will fire only MGs on the target, while the Target Command will allow all weapon systems to be fired.
GRAPHICS AND PERFORMANCE
* Shaders.
* Faster graphics, including FPS improvements, especially for infantry-heavy maps and faster video cards.
* Possible speed improvements depending on video card hardware and drivers.
* Movie Mode.
* Bright Night Mode.
* Hit impacts to vehicles and bunkers now shown graphically ("hit decals").
* Improved rendering. Normal and Bump mapping allows for more texture detail while using less system resources and improving the pressure on framerates.
EDITOR
* Independent Vehicles and Specialist Teams can be purchased and attached to any formation, allowing players to tailor their formations.
* Exit objectives.
* Improved Scenario briefing format, including a new Designer Notes subsection.
* "Reduced headcount" option to simulate previously depleted formations.
* "Ditch Contours" feature. Map editor elevation changes can be "sharp" by holding the control key when clicking tile elevations.  This allows the creation of realistic ditch contours.
* Ability to create AI Triggers that execute actions based on other units or interaction with Objectives.
* Improved responsiveness of 2D editing, especially for large maps.
* Improved load time for 3D Preview, especially large maps.
* Customized "Mod Tags" for most graphics. This allows for multiple mods for the same item without the need to move items in/out of Data folder.
* Ability to specify specific mods be used for a specific Scenario. If CM fails to find the specified mod it will use the default graphics.
* Auto-Assemble linear terrain tool. Roads, walls, fences, and hedges can now be automagically drawn across the map instead of placing them one tile at a time. The old manual selection interface still exists to allow tweaking specific Action Spots.
* BMP map overlay. Instead of having to create game maps by freehand you can now trace over a real world map within the Editor. Four different levels of transparency make the process easier by adjusting for different needs as work progresses.
* More AI Groups. The number of AI Groups available has been increased from 8 to 16. This allows for greater fidelity of AI Plans and their assigned units.
* Copy and paste AI Plans. Create a solid AI Plan, copy it, and paste it into an unused AI Plan slot. Once done the copied Plan can be modified to make a unique variant without having to build the Plan up from scratch.
* Combat Victories (Kill Stats) for individual units showing how many and what types of units the soldier or vehicle has eliminated in the mission (totals tracked for campaigns).