PeterH

I didn't really mean to be arrogant by the way, I'am not suggesting I know more about sales or the Combat Mission series than Battlefront does, I just wanted them to know that there is a feeling out here and there are folks who find the current price the only barrier to purchasing.

+1 more news would be nice.

Now your just being mean! I blame the missions you are choosing. My commanding is perfect!

Combat Mission: Awwww Shiiiit Combat Mission: European Struggle Combat Mission: Flashpoint Combat Mission: Russia says no Combat Mission: East & West

Hello, do not worry this is not a request for free stuff. Things I realise already: Battlefront isn't a huge company and they do need to make a living, and this is a very niche corner of the gaming market. My impression is that is why Battlefront charges a very large premium price for its games. A small community combined with a game that cannot be found anywhere else leads to big prices. Fair enough. However I think your stats show a fairly solid (if slow) increase in sales, and with a growing community you need to start making some economical changes. I know a fair few folk who would very much benefit from and enjoy the combat mission games but who could not consider spending such a large amount on a game. My proposal is simple, over the next few years Battlefront may want to consider slowly introducing a reduction in prices as I'am pretty sure that without the cost barrier the sales will grow exponentially giving the same funding (if not more) with a larger community. You do wargames better than anyone else, you have a very unique and strong position to capitalise on this. Thoughts?

Here, and other community websites, fire me a PM if you want a match, I'am new too!

I don't think there will be any satisfying alternative to those two just knuckling down and taking the time to bash out their own system. This will not happen until the demand is there.

Hiding your men increases the survivability of an artillery bombardment? Realistic and awesome. Totally unexpected! This game continues to impress and shame me.

Well I guess that for the most part that sort of chap doesn't have the patience or intelligence to enjoy a wargame. Dis is crap I want lazors.

Hey, yeah you got me. New guy. Thanks for the feedback, sorry to go and beat the same tune I know it can be annoying when fresh meat sign up and start spraffing stuff they think is totally original yet has been in discussion for a long time. Anyway, there is plenty more where that came from!

Now that Battlefront has moved on from core game mechanics and has started to really polish up the whole experience, I would suggest your multiplayer could use some loving. I shall outline some features which I genuinely feel would improve the game and yet still remain realistic. 1. Server browser/list. This adds the ability for folk to host and have public players join their server without having to track down someone using a forum or giving out personal details. It also means the MP community can grow and MP is more streamlined. 2. Multiple player teams. I'm not just talking simple joint task force 2 or 3 versus 2/3. I would love to see a team comprising players based on the units in the mission. For instance if the engagement is roughly a company on each side, five players would make up the teams. One player in command of the company commander and his immediate supporting assets. One player would then be in command of any other supporting/reinforcing assets for that given mission. The final three would each command a platoon. While the CO would not have complete control over his surbordinate units, he should be able to issue commands to the players on his team which should show up on their battlefield. Please note that if the player's communications are disrupted then the CO would not be able to communicate and issue orders to the rest of his team. This is a basic outline, it would obviously need tweaked and refined but I feel it could add some rather awesome emergent gameplay. 3. More multiplayer oriented scenarios shipped with games release. 4. Multiplayer Campaign: A group of players can choose to enter a series of games in which they play missions from a larger campaign. The units that are depicted should reflect the disposition on the campaign map, and remember any losses incurred in previous games. The campaign should be emergent, with the teams of players issuing broader orders to friendly assets in order to outmanouvre and engage the enemy. I'm not sure if players should be given command of a specific group of units on the campaign map which they also fight with in the games, or that the team as a whole dictates the army's movements and then they all contribute to the battles. This mode should also be available for all numbers of players (scalable). 5. Reputation system: Players should be able to vote (once per match) their opponent up if they feel that they enjoyed the experience with no problems, and flag unwanted behaviour. Repeated flags should result in a badge or trait which indicates said player frequents this particular behaviour (for instance being a sore loser and quitting before the end of a match, or deliberately crashing to desktop and insulting language). Thats all folks! If you have anything to add just tap those fingers.

Invite sent.

Hey! I'am very new to the Wargame scene, but I would like to start making some videos of multiplayer matches. To do this I really need to improve both hmy knowledge and skill level. I feel I have reached the point where the next best step is to start facing folk on the battlefield, so I would very much appreciate it if someone with quite a bit of knowledge could help me through my first couple of PBEM matches. I have CM:FI + GL only, and have never played any wargame over hotseat before. Thanks, Peter

Its a pity but I'm not sure about how much the majority of my friends would enjoy this. Don't get me wrong, I like playing with them but it can sometimes feel like playing with folk suffering from ADHD. I'm just going to make a post and ask everyone to be gentle.

If one was to find an opponent, where should he look? I much prefer playing with and or against people than an AI.

I think I'am going to like it here. All the comments are contributing in some way, there is a distinct absense of insulting behaviour or radical opinion and you all seem very nice! Could this be the result of a game aimed at folk who like an intellectual challenge rather than pretty stuff to look at and or disembowel? I don't mean to be mean in any way, its just so far this is a very far cry from what I'm used to in a gaming forum. If you have any suggestions or criticisms please let me know, I love making videos and writing the blog so any improvements would be very welcome.

Hello all! I had no idea you folks would ever see my video. It makes me rather nervous as I'am very new to the wargame scene and really I'am a complete novice. That footage was one of three succesfull attempts using those tactics (the timing is very difficult to manage) in probably about ten overall attempts (ask my girlfriend, she had to deal with the frustrated umming and urghing). I was also playing in the basic training mode, I had no idea what this did but as I was making a video and knew I sucked at the game I felt it a wise choice. That being said, thanks for the positive comments I hope to continue making videos as I (hopefully) improve and learn. http://www.youtube.com/user/RetepTheEyeCandy

Good morning gentlemen! I received a message on my youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/RetepTheEyeCandy pointing me over here and asking which mission I was writing about in my blog over here www.casualscribbling.com. The mission is called "GL Men With Suspicious Hats" which I should have stated in my AAR. That being said, please do not judge the AI on my playthrough! I'am at best mediocre and have only just started on the wargame scene. While I'am thoroughly enjoying myself and learning more as I go, I'am not adept enough to state whether the AI was performing well or I was just being decidedly stupid in the placement of my jolly English units. The person who stated that the scenario features the Germans attacking with 1:3 odds is correct, the British have the town and the numbers, while the Germans have the armour and lots of MGs. I'am very pleased to see folk have read the AAR and would be interested to hear some suggestions for further content, feel free to PM me (it would be off-topic here).