agusto

And there's just as many of us that disagree with you. The advances might not be as quick as I'd like but to deny they are there is preposterous and to label them minor little fixes/features is opinion. But saying the game has been at a stand still since 2007 is complete and utter crap—poop laden hyperbole for the sake of poop laden hyperbole.
 
This is why, after dozens of your little snipes over the past six months or so, you end up with these types of replies. The pessimism and willful ignorance gets really old. Take your ideas and desires and try putting them in a more positive tone and drop the dramatics and you might get somewhere. In the end we all want the same thing but there are better ways to go about it—Greek tragedy seasoned with fallacy does not help further the discussion and never will.
 
Mord.

The "just don't buy it" argument is just bad. That's no valid point.

... And that's my whole point.
You talk about how CM is "continuing to develop" but I and many others don't see that.
CM is in a standstill since 2007.
They fixed bugs and added minor features but the big issues and shortcomings are still there...just look at the infantry movement !
Or the awful "floating in nirvana" map.
8 years and still, CMBS feels like the 2007 SF just with a 55$ texture mod.

Don't fall for it. You know if he had to pay the price for full from scratch development, the first thing he'd ask is why they can't use the old model and reduce the price.

Some people don't ever think about what they are saying, they just want to be negative and draw attention.

I am gonna break your phone into a thousand pieces, Sublime.
 
 
Mord.

Well I understand what Umlaut was saying. and like many others stated of usually designing things for yourself.  I created "Clash of Titans Redux2" because I wanted to pit the Tiger II, vs the JSII.  The map got out of hand and just got bigger... details got bigger.. and when I got done and now correctly tested, thought others may want to see many tanks explode... in a challenging way.  "Brandenburger Surprise" was my next Scenario, after marathoning the Dirty Dozen, Kelly's Hero's and Force 10 from Navarone... I thought about a couple previous books I had read about the German Special Forces... Brandenburger's.  Also in reading the forums I saw many wanting small unit actions.
 
I really do enjoy making Scenarios, even though for the most part they are Hypothetical.. still very fun and will continue to do them.  I have two in the works as of now.. one is being play tested for Head to Head only,
 
Feedback is important for me only on how I can do a scenario better, or if it was challenging and fun for the player or players.  If I get feed back that's great, if not, oh well, I will still make them because I like doing it.

The total time of the play was more or less 15 minutes, against human opponent. Elite setting.
 
More than anything shows up the power of M1 Abrams tanks used in numbers.

I was the opponent, not lie it was a rather horrible 15 minutes.
 
It looked like we both had the same plan of throwing everything at the grain silos, where as my vanguard was BMP3's his was M1's so yeah that fire fight didn't go my way.
 
The second wave was T-90s that I moved to engage the M1's, unfortunately I hadn't even spotted the other platoon of them till I had wandered into the cross fire, Needless to say that did not end well.
 
The 120mm mortars caught another platoon just as they where disembarking and gutted it so by that point it was all over.
 
Kieme is a LOT more aggressive than anyone else I play in PBEM games and unfortunately is rather good at it as well so my initially planning constantly over estimates where I will come into contact with his forces subsequently he captures my infantry in there transports and murderizes (A technical term) them.
 
Hopefully at somepoint I will get my recording software working again with CMBS and I can make a recording of the carnage first hand.

A series of screenshots to describe a battle:
 





More to come soon.

ù

A SPW full of tense looking panzergrenadiers.
 

 
SPW moving out of cover. The Soviet lines are about 1000m ahead. The plumes of smoke are from some KO'd Soviet trucks.
 

 
The same unit of panzergrenadiers now in action supported by several Panthers. This is them clearing out a small farm - which dominates a key crossing point over a water feature.
 

 
View from the left hand SPW in the above picture.
 
 

Hmmm maybe it' s too large for the forum, i left it at 1920x1080 because i though the text would be too difficult to read if i scaled it down. Here is a direct link to the image:
 
http://s22.postimg.org/88cw0sjvz/forces.jpg
 
Just open the link, you should see it in your browser then. And let me know if the link works for you now, it' s the first time i have used this particular image host.

I just opened the QB purchase screen and for the 5350 popints you get you cant buy much actually. I would purchase the following setup:
 

 
Note: all units are Regular, High, Fit, 0 Leadership, Mortars are On Map. Of the T-90s, 3 are Veterans.
The Tunguskas and the 2 additional T-90AMs are purchased as Single Vehicles, the Air Controller as specialist team. Also dont forget the Zala at the bottom! It' s worth it.
 
EDIT: Someone is certainly going to comment on my choice of a BTR-82A based formation instead of a BMP-2/3 one. I chose the BTR-82As because they are simply about 50-70% cheaper than their tracked cousins and the only real drawback they have compared to the BMP-2 is the lack of ATGMs. The map also looks like there is going to be a lot of close combat/MOUT happening, so Doug probably wont miss the ATGMs anyways. I think he is better off with 3 Infantry platoons in BTR-82As and 5 T-90AMs instead of 2 platoons in BMP-2s and 3 T-90AMs.

JonS, I am not a yutze.  I may have a doody hat, but that is a whole other subject.
 
For the topic in question, yes it absolutely makes sense that a secessionist flag that only became really popular (post civil war) during the US civil rights movement should be an object of derision and should never have been part of any governmental institution period.  That was never what anyone on this thread was objecting to.
 
Removing it off everything seems stupidly counter productive.
 
For example
Do we now turn in all existing history books because they might have it?
Do we ban it ever showing up even as we espouse free speech
Can an author that writes a book on the civil war not have a cover picture depicting confederate troops with that flag?
 
Why can it not appear in a game depicting the civil war, it's historical starting point and the origins of the whole subject?  The argument that BF had to expunge the Nazi flag originated for the same narrow minded knee jerk response doesn't lend weight.  It has had absolutely no impact apparently on the development of neo nazi movements.
 
Once you start down the road of banning icons because of political criteria it goes both ways.  Do we block the depiction of NLF flags in games on the Vietnam war?  They were the enemy.  If someone does a game fighting ISIS, do we ban depiction of that flag because it might recruit people to ISIS?
 
It isn't about "historical accuracy" per se.  It is really a question of what are you trying to accomplish and why.  Absolutely the whole issue of "southern pride" and the use of confederate regalia in US southern institutions is ridiculous.  Yes it is a guise for white supremacist BS.  But a war game that depicts a battle line of US and Confederate troops that censors the Confederate flag because of the BS that happened afterwards in the US is still silly.  The game is not about espousing the political viewpoints of that flag.  It is simply a war game simulation of battle in the 1860s.
 
Apple's response is over the top and silly.  It is an overreaction based on corporate merchandising that can't discern an issue as being worth a more introspective look versus just making sure they don't take any flack.  It does not reflect an appreciation for the significance of what is happening now nor an honest corporate decision.  Apple would have been just fine selling record albums with Confederate flags on them if no one had brought this up.

Yup
 

 

 
In their study of Confederate symbols in the contemporary Southern United States, the Southern political scientists James Michael Martinez, William Donald Richardson, and Ron McNinch-Su wrote:


 
 
Southern historian Gordon Rhea further wrote in 2011 that:

Almost perfect hull down, almost...
 

I am currently playing Bridgehead at Kahralyk as well, but as US and vs. the AI. I am 108 turns in and i dont think the Russians have much left...
 
I would like to go into detail on how the scenario played out, but i dont want to put any spoilers ITT. I liked it though, and i kinda knew you designed it . It looks and plays a lot like Forging Steel.

I then have three mechanized infantry platoons in the town itself, along with some AA assets. I have split all my squads and equipped everyone with as much anti-tank weaponry as I can. I intend to draw my opponent into the town and fight there. There's really no point in engaging M1's head-on, especially with RPG equipped infantry. I have primarily deployed my anti-tank missiles on the far bank to get flank shots and keep them out of sight. As we shall see, my decision to leave the treeline at the top of the last photo essentially undefended will prove somewhat interesting.
 

 
On the far side of the river, I have spotters, mortars, AA units and one Khrizantemas.
 

 

 
I hope to hit fast and hard with artillery and choppers right of the bat. I have called in all my attack helicopters and heavy artillery. 
 

 

 
The first turn sees artillery shells start landing, some helicopters buzzing about and a couple of spotting contacts.

In my opinion, some of the pathing problems, etc, are very good for the game and I don't think players should be able to determine exact paths for their units that they follow to a T. Anyone who has led troops in any capacity knows that this can't be done anywhere except on the grinder for close-order drill.

The caveat is that there are definitely pathing issues to be fixed, especially with bridges and reversing. But in my opinion, I'll deal with those over having complete detailed control.

CM simulates the "friction" factor better than any other war game out there.

Everyone has seen the movie Blackhawk Down, which shows how the convoy got lost after leaving the raid objective site due to roadblocks and a comm delay from the surveillance aircraft (these days it would have been a drone) and the convoy. Turns were missed, etc. That is friction.

It certainly can be frustrating to see in CM, but for me, things going wrong, sometimes even absurdly so, is part of the challenge of CM.

**** happens. Deal with it. Continue the fight. Win.

But it' s baseless speculation. As far i know we have only proof of a single Russian vehicle beeing incorrectly modeled, that' s all. At best this could be counted as incidential evidence for you claim, but that' s by far not enough to prove that there is an intentional pattern in the accuracy of the way Battlefront modeled & researched the vehicles in CMBS. AFAIK it hasnt been examined yet how accurately the US vehicles are modeled, it hasnt been examined yet how accurately the other Russian vehciles are modeled, we dont have an explanation from Battlefront (who are really the only ones who can give a first hand account of the events that led to the T-90A beeing incorrectly modeled), so basically, we no nothing about why the T-90A in CMBS looks the way does.
 
It' s entirely possble that the 3D modeler just made a mistake, for exmaple. I did some 3D modeling myself and i know it can easily happen that some polygons end up beeing improperly aligned, and really all it takes are some ambigous blueprints and you end up with a weird looking model. But that' s specualtion too, the truth is, we dont really know why the T-90A in CMBS ended up looking like it does.

From my experience, Shadows and Ravens are shot down easily with even a single Tunguska, which most Russian players do buy.

I wonder what the hit boxes for the vehicles look like.