Endymion

I didn't make an analogy here. I said the comment comparing 911 now and 911 50 years ago was a really bad one since they have nothing in common except the name. I'm not really a part of the discussion about the game engine, just pointing out a logical mistake that someone made

Actually that's not a fair comment because the current 911 has very little in common with a 911 from 50 years ago

There is one issue with GT games that makes them not a true alternative for me - I mean the lack of multiplayer. If that changes then who knows, but at least for now CM is the only real option for the multiplayer types like me.

I'm not a programming wizard but I don't think that's true. I mean, there are Mac versions of games which use DirectX on PC so this is very doable I think. And if that's true, it doesn't mean losing that part of the playerbase. And yes, the engine upgrade would be a great thing, it could help performance on newest hardware, get rid of zigzag roads you mentioned, perhaps change the way the environment works and add some more variety not only on per tile basis and many other things, not to mention the graphics upgrade. But I guess we'll see quite a few more of the current engine games since switching to a new one is infinitely more work (and money) than creating more games in the current one. So we need to wait until Battlefront decide themselves that it is worth it to make the switch.

I guess it's that flamethrowers are a new thing so that they can still be updated in some future patch, much like machine guns were. Hopefully the matter of flamethrowers not affecting friendly units even if the flame lands in the middle of them can be fixed as well...

Oh yes please, your mods have definately changed the way the game looks - more gritty a bit less "straight from the factory" looks etc. Already using your German vehicles from CMBN but the Soviet vehicles could definately use your magical touch

Hello, not sure if this has been posted yet but it seems flamethrowers will not harm friendly units? I don't know if that's intentional or not but when I area fired on my units in a QB (sort of testing new toys ) and I noticed the flames do not harm any friendlies. The fire just washes over them in pretty waves but nothing else happens. This might be abused a bit when assaulting/defending buildings for example as you can just fire on the building with the flamethrower team without fear of hurting any friendly units inside (unless the building collapses ). Anyway, is there any chance for some small fix for this?

I find this discussion interesting as some of the views presented, go totally against my whole experience playing PBEM's, talking to other players etc. I specifically mean playing using intuition only and not using tools at your disposal like using "target" to check LOS. The problem is that there are often situations when theoretically you should have LOS on something but you don't. Or it seems you are covered and there should be none between you and danger but there is and your troops die in horrible and unexpected ways. In both these cases the LOS tool proves invaluable. Of course nobody uses it all the time, especially for normal movement, but I can hardly believe some people don't use it at all, at least in WEGO (as it's not really possible in Real time)... Take these situations for example: - if you move an AFV into what you think is a nice hull down position or want to move just slightly from behind cover then don't you check what exactly can the AFV see from there, make sure you are hull down and if the line is blue or grey from the destination waypoint to other areas? - if you move your infantry to the edge of the forest for example don't you check with LOS tool if you're moving just far enough so that the trees don't block your sight but you still benefit from concealment? Or when you move infantry into a building, don't you check what they can see from there, what arc of fire is possible? - you want to move a valuable unit (a tank for example) through dangerous ground and want to minimize the unit's exposition to enemy fire, do you not check at particular waypoints if there's los from the waypoints to known or suspected enemy positions? - don't you ever check with LOS tool what the enemy unit can see by setting a waypoint of one of your units to where the enemy is and using "target" at that waypoint and checking this way? Don't get me wrong, playing intuitively is often nice and all but it just does not work in too many situations or does not provide sufficient information and can lead to disastrous decisions, especially with expensive or fragilie assets. And in H2H you often don't get a second chance to correct your AFV position by one square next turn because, ooops, you moved it too far. It's not my intention to attack anyone but I find it really hard to believe that anyone playing this game even semi-seriously would not use the LOS tool in at least some of the above situations. I really don't believe that only die-hard micromanagers bother with it at all...

There was no partition of Czechoslovakia along with the Germans, stop spreading misinformation. The Polish goverment took back only what was taken by the Czechs in 1920 when Poland was weakened and engaged in a war against the Soviets. The timing was not perfect but there was absolutely no agreement with the Germans and there was no "partition of Czechoslovakia". It was basically a mirrored move of what the Czechs did in 1920. So please be careful of what you are saying as Poland was at no point an ally or colaborator of Nazi Germany.

Actually, multiple tactical nuke strikes were part of Warsaw Pact plans in the event of war, ensuring quick advancement and taking of objectives that would otherwise take weeks/months to achieve in WWII conditions. Nukes were much more than a deterrent. There was a misconception in the West, starting in the 60s that the Soviets understand a total destruction concept and share the policy of nukes as only a deterrent while this was not the case. Nukes were considered by the Soviets as a sort of more powerful artillery, helping to achieve goals on a tactical level and help Warsaw Pact troops advance. In 70s and 80s, when it was clear that the Soviets were losing the technological arms race, plans for nuke usage on tactical level was further reinforced and many more tactical nukes were being delivered to Soviet troops in East Germany. The first few days of war were planned as a tactical nuke strike bonanza - for example just the Hamburg area was meant to be hit by around 40 tactical charges. You may think it unwise or not logical but that was the case

Awesome, thank you!

I realize that and I never use it myself in game. But as screenshots go, especially the ones made by Bil, I prefer the ones where he uses movie mode, they just look prettier to me. As for the game colour palette, you can see how it looks like in the other AAR, by Elvis. It's a bit too colourful and bright for my tastes (same as stock CMBN or CMFI) and I will probably use some texture and colour palette modification as soon as it comes out. For now, I like what Bil does with the screenshots a lot. But like I said, it's all a matter of taste.

I guess it's personal preference because I like Bil's screenshots in movie mode more than stock colours...

I think that all this argument comes from differing views about what CM actually is or should be. For some it seems to be (or they want CM to be) a supreme commander simulation where you pass orders down the command chain to your men. In such a view command delays seem a good and realistic idea. But for me it appears that CM is not that game. Its concept bases on the idea that you are not only the supreme commander (battalion, company, whatever forces you have at your disposal) but rather you are EVERY commander, at every level, from the main HQ down the chain to every squad and team leader. You make decisions at every level, for every lowly commander, not only the main HQ. That's why any command delay does not make any sense in CM. As I see it, it's mostly a micro scale tactical game in its roots and even if you take it up to battalion level or even higher, it still is that game. It still has all the micromanagement that it was designed for despite the larger scale. And that's why it can't function as a purely supreme commander simulation. You can't simply drop all the micromanagement and give more power to the AI to carry out your orders. If that was the case then sure, some delay would be appropriate. But it's not and delays simply don't make any sense if you look closely at the game concept. CM is an abstraction, it gives you godlike powers, sure. But it's designed that way and does a great job doing exactly that, and adding delay simply doesn't fit it. Because it's just not that kind of game.

I think bisu just made a mistake. (I live in Poland same as him) The prices are about the same as the ones you mentioned.

Erm, more like 350-360 USD

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding came from now, I misread Togi's post. Yeah, you're right of course, that's what I meant but perhaps used wrong words for it in the original post, sorry for the mistake stating just "CM3"

Well, according to the first post it's 3.0 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112852 Also, there will be 3.0 upgrades available with all the features the new game brings.

It is very possible to play 3-4 battalions of infantry + tank company or two per side, you just need to use the editor to create such games, and of course have a big enough map of which there are quite a few if you take into account the new MG master maps. If you can load the map then the game will handle this amount of troops as well. I've no idea what the engine limit is but 20k points per side is very playable. CM3 engine should bring even bigger maps to the table, of up to 30km2 so you can create really epic battles with this engine, you just need to be creative about it

If you're looking for PBEM opponents I can recommend you Few Good Men forum: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/ It's very easy to find an opponent there, both for CMBN and CMFI, scenarios, QBs etc.

Seconded. These maps look very interesting to play some QB's. Would love to get my hands on them

If I understand correctly is that you suggest that no area fire is possible unless something was spotted in the vicinity of the target square you wish to shoot at, even if that contact is old? If yes then that means you're eliminating recon by fire as in sometimes you shoot action squares where NO contact was ever spotted. The whole point is that you shoot probable enemy positions even if you had absolutely no contact near them. You're eliminating this option completely... For example, imagine a treeline and you spotted enemy unit on one side of it. With some probablility the enemy has units along the whole treeline and you'd like to shoot the hell out of it, just in case. With your system it's tough luck, unless the targeted areas are close to the previously spotted enemy... (On your picture, imagine you wanted to shoot squares all along that treeline just in case and with your system you can only shoot at selected action squares near the old contact...What if you wanted to shoot the building behind the one with the contact etc.?) Sorry, I think I know what you're trying to achieve here but you're eliminating too many tactical possibilities and real life tactics in your system. CM is and will be a game, some abstractions are necessary, also some "god-like" abilities of the player are needed for the game to make sense and can actually make it closer to reality and real unit behaviour.

Well, I very much doubt the story. These were not suicidal halfwits charging the tanks with saber in hand, there were no "banzai" charges Think of it this way, what sane man would try to hit a tank with a piece of steel? Anyway, the later propaganda story was meant to say "Hey, look how stupid and underarmed the polish army is, they attack tanks with sabers and lances!" and to show the technological advantage of the Germans. The myth probably came from battle of Krojanty (mentioned earlier by Waclaw) where an Uhlan regiment charged around 800 German infantry, scattering them, but were later attacked from the flank by previously hidden German armored transports. After suffering some casualties they withrew, but the story was later passed on to German and Italian war correspondents as "Polish cavalry charging tanks" and it stuck. In 1941, in the German propaganda movie "Kampfgeschwader Lützow", a charge was staged using Slovak soldiers to play the role of polish cavalrymen charging German tanks. And though it was a pure propaganda movie, its fragments were often used in the West as "real footage" from September 1939 And so the story stuck and every now and then you hear the myth of polish cavalry charging German tanks I'm trying to fight it wherever I see it but it's like fighting windmills sometimes. By the way, as for polish cavalry units being used against German armoured units, there are many examples, but always on foot, armed with very good AT weapons for that time. As an example you can see the battle of Mokra where polish uhlans held against an attack by the German 4th Armoured Div. for 1 day, destroying 100 enemy tanks in the process. There was also one mounted charge during the battle, but against enemy infantry. But like I said, this was cavalry fighting mostly on foot, armed with weaponry like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_37_mm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wz._35_anti-tank_rifle There are several other cases of successful engagements against armored units and also mounted charges against infantry, but I won't be quoting everything here for obvious reasons. Again, sorry for derailing the thread, just trying to sprad some knowledge

Lol, sabers as in cavalry weapons not the ones you're thinking about young padawan In fact there were cases of very successful cavalry charges against German infantry in the September campaign. Please do not confuse with German propaganda about cavalry charges against tanks...now this one was a lie made up by the nazis for propaganda purposes. Uhlans (polish cavalry) always fought on foot when facing German tanks and were equipped with modern AT weapons (AT rifles and 37mm AT guns). In fact, in 1939 that time they were pretty much mounted infantry rather than traditional cavalry. Sorry for the digression, carry on

By the way, is there any news on fire and flamethrower development? I vaguely remeber these were mentioned somewhere as planned for 3.0 but I'm guessing they won't be in, for now at least? Edit: And happy holidays everyone