E4Grunt

About a couple things. first referring to what he said about no idea about maneuvering. it was because i couldnt move because the map was so small. i dont buy the i dnt know where ur setup zone was its opposite you and had to be on such a small map especially when going from turn one your units are automatically engaging units on the back edge of the map in my setupzone that hadnt moved. my issue wasnt he screwed up picking the map tho i did explicitly tell him to one let me do setups ans two always do map size one bigger than battle size as a rule for elbow room. No my issue is Kettlers been arnd CM as long as me and played pbems just as long. yea maybe not cmx2 but its the same principles in many ways regardong fairness. once he saw units engaging units i had sitting still on turn one along the oppozite map edge from his he shoulda said something he knows better. second its not my faault he svrewed up force purchase i spent 3 hours on the phone with him talking JUST ABOUT THE QB PURCHASE SCREEN AND GIVING DIRECTIONS as to what u could do. you want coaching and dont pay attention its not my fault. im droppinh kettler as an opponent and tutor
second i didnt use L33t speak. and where its discussing my stryker advice when it says 50 cals i mean that but the MGS in overwatch isnt machineguns its mobile gun systems. dont count on them at all for even bmps. they should be long distance fire support for enemy infantry conccentrations.
the easter egg he referenced was a dar i was gonna do lesson from jump on russians how i play them etc. since thats not happening with him a few things to start. trees are ur only hope against javelins. remember i only play no aps with this advice. on defense i like T90As and a parsed down btr tac group. i get rid of almost all the btrs but leave some for a qrf platoon and also to loot for rpg7 rockets and disposable rockets and ammo. second the btr grp on defense is better it has better atgm support - many at14 and 13 teams.At 14#s are great but the 13 is essential it can be shoulder fired from the hip and has a 20 secomd bldg setup time.
on the attack its bmp2ms and t90Ams. I also buy trps. on defense one set of trenches for some of the atgm teams. air supports risky but su 25s are the cheapest and best option. facing american armor a heavy strike isnt what i choose. i go with light as to scour abrams subsystems. also a tunguska and two khriz.the khriz in defense goto ambush positions like ur armor and besides forests ur very best option is hiding behind buildings to either shoot tanks and ifvs at a 90 degree angle or rush a tank out to shoot a distracted abrams in the flank or rear. hitting abrams groups from multiple sides is crucial becayse ineviteably theyll expose a weak spot. expect on the defense the first several spottigs to go bad till the abrams run outta smoke then its killing time. a tunguska if it spots a single abrams ans the abrams doesnt have a brad or another tank to rush over and kill the tunguska will become so shocked from the constant 30mm itll lose its subsystems and not fire back.
also when hiding tanks behind bldgs make sure u have an infantry screen so enemy infantry doesnt enter the bldg adjacent. more later.

Much rather see Viet Nam, Viet Nam while unpopular to the general masses could be an unbelievable cm game.CMVN would present the BF team with enormous diversity.Talk about re-charging your batteries boys?Think of the possibilities?Jungle warfare,villages,urban and city battles,TET offensive,NVA,VC,boobytraps would have to be represented, tunnels must be in with vc underground movement,napalm,the Huey helicopters would have to be visualy represented on screen in the air(just like a CM tank).I would pay top dollar for that game.

Meh, not really impressed. Those colors are way over-saturated.

I was somewhat perturbed to read that asking questions that are answered in the manual will be considered bad form. I bought the anthology recently, and that has no hardcopy manuals and the CM:BB pdf appears somewhat incomplete...

Dont say that mate.
 
People dont like change around here.
 
"Ohhh I dont like change, it makes me nervous and I like to do things the way they've been done for years. Theres nothing wrong with how it is now"...

The problem is that CMx2 runs rather badly even on some, high-end PC's (drops below 25FPS on medium sized battle) if you not significantly reduce details (mostly models).
That should not happen.
Also, the loading times are too long. Loading big CMBS scenarios takes me and others 5min...
I hope this can be greatly improved !

@ Steve
Im not trying to Troll.
Would a troll have supported you by buying CMAK, CMSF, Marines Module, British Module, CMBN, v3.0 Upgrade and CMBS !
All i do is criticize some aspects.

I would say these would be good/possible features for the upcoming Bulge game.
Now the question is what does BFC think are "minor" improvements ?
As it has been stated by Steve the Bulge game will include such "minor" gameplay improvements.

This !
Combined with:
Allow Broken troops to rout off the map edge in all cases if they're still running away and they hit it; if they leave from within a setup or exit zone, they're not counted as casualties;if they leave off an unmarked edge, they're MIA. Improve the TacAI so it's more aware of what's around it and can react to that knowledge. Including more surrendering when cut off, surrounded and about to be wiped out. Especially allow it to abort/reschedule script movement orders when it's being forced to run a gauntlet. This would finally improve CMx2 infantry and overall combat behavior which has been neglected since ages.
Will such improvements be in the Bulge game Steve ?
 
Really, i could not care less about new scenario packs, a few new models or texture ( and  i think there are many players who think like that).
What i care for are REAL gameplay improvements that enhance the way combat works in Cmx2 !

Thats very rude and insulting !
What you do is basically pressure the admins to ban me...a move i think is very childish.
Iam not the only one who posted slightly "off" topic stuff. Look at the requests for specific vehicles...
If you hate me (for whatever reason) then put me on your ignore list and leave me alone.

 
Oh, i already tried that with a assault rifle in my hands and a anti-tank rocket on my back...
The point is, you cant compare real terrain with CM terrain and you cant compare real infantry movement with CM movement, especially all the "micro" movement like raising your head high enough to get LOS or similar.
Thats why i think they need to work on this issue.
 
The problem is that many CM maps are so small that your units will spot and "murder" the fleeing enemys anyway.
What you suggested is kind of a "workaround" but still i think we need more AI features regarding routing and surrendering for a more realistic gameplay.

So, i think despite the fact that many here are very rude towards me iam still behave civilized.
If Steve does not want this discussion here he maybe can just exclude it into a "new" thread if this is possible with the forum software.

Ah, ok.
But what womble wrote: "Ignore him, he is just a troll" is not rude ?
I guess some people here can post whatever they want (be it aggressive or rude or insulting), look at the abuse Kettler is taking from some persons here...while other will get banned after being so rude and agressive to say "Who said its only about the hide command ? Its more about Spotters' posture overall."

He doesn't.
 
 
Ignore him. He was quiet for a long time, then people started feeding him again. Unfed trolls depart. Fed ones hang around. Stop feeding him and his irrelevancies will diminish.

Well, you specificly mentioned the Hide Command, didn´t you?
 
 
So why shouldn´t LukeFF be allowed to reply to that part of your comment?
 
You may have some very valid points and complaints about how CM is working, Wiggum (that is often hard for me to judge). But in my opinion, your very aggressive tone and attitude often disqualifies you from the discussion. Try acting a little more civil - perhaps you'll then get more constructive responses to your complaints.

What kind of question is that ?
Sorry, why are you all so aggressive or abusive towards me and/or vote my posts down + put me on ignore list ?
What did i do you `?
Nothing !

Your dad wouldn't happen to be Officer Wiggum, would it?
 
Ralph, is that you?

You always say "be nice and we can have a discussion"...
But how "nice" can you be if you want to criticize something ?
After every suggestion for change the first thing you hear is either:
- no its fine you are irrational
or
- will never happen they are a small team

Them you say "hey but the BFC marketing suggests this is a ->new<- game so whats ->new<- about it except textures and scenarios"
Then it goes one downwards from there people are calling you aggresive aor wish you would die in russia (actually happened)...

Im done with it, you cant criticize anything about the state of the engine or BFC's business model without getting your thread locked.
And by the way i dont see all those threads criticizing CMx2 or BFC, they are non existent. Only "polite" bug reports and happiness.

I dont know how much longer you can ride the CMx2 train without significant change, i just hope you dont wait till its to late.
I was always a BFC and CM fan...

Yes.
 
I use this mod but why has everything get modded into a 55$ game ?
If it would be 10$ i would not care.

As someone pointed out even the scenarios get donated to BFC.
I know small team, no money, niche games. But i expect some quality from a 55$ game, especially when its no "proof of concept" or other rare stuff. CMx2 had 8 years to evolve into a quality product.
Just look what Kieme(ITA) did with the distance ground textures, with his mod it looks 100 times better. BFC needs to step it up a bit.
Or take the sounds, someone pointed out they use sounds from the CMx1 era.

Mhh, i actually would say GTOS is in many aspects superior to CMx2 although it has a bit of a different scale.
Infantry combat is not woeful, you just cant micro-manage your Inf like in CM. Make sure they move at the right time to the right position and everything is fine.
Graphics are not just "decent", they blow away CMx2 in every aspect, CM is not even the same league.
 
What should that mean ?
They have a great game with interesting scenarios, regulary add new features and fix bugs + its way cheaper then CM.

 
Wow, thats actually the best description ever for CMx2 and BFC...
Just replace "Paradox" with "BFC" and "strategic" with "tactical"...

What' s your age and occupational background that you think you are qualified to tell others what kind of suggestions they can make and not make on a internet forum ?
Do you know the word "Gedankenspiel" ?

But if its a serious question:
Iam 17 and my occupational background is that i live in my parents basement...

There are many possible ways to finance the creation of a new engine.

One would be to search for a Publisher like Paradox or Matrix Games.
Or use Kickstarter and look how much money you can collect.

I would go for this approach:
1. Work on a concept for a CMx3 engine
2. Release all the CMx2 games and modules on Steam (on a date like VE day or something), do a discount like 20% for the first few weeks...the popularity of CM will go through the roof !
4. Make sure all those new CM players know about the Kickstarter campaign for CMx3

If you reach the goal and can actually build a CMx3 engine, great ! Maybe they can collect enough money to hire additional developers, artists.
6. Do a Early Access to collect additional money while still in development

But i suspect BFC wants to play it as safe as possible and fears such a approach. They make enough money with CMx2 and know pretty well how much money they make with every "new" game and module.
Possible they can all carry on this way till they can retire and become full-time grandpas.

A couple of things to add fat to the fire. If such things as rendering assistance and taking a disabled AFV in tow while under fire did not occur,
why was an explicit order forbidding such actions
issued to the Panzer troops before the Kursk attack? This action would strongly imply that such things were pretty commonly done, absent orders to the contrary.

Also, months back while at Borders I saw a good book in English on Panzers at War (don't recall title). It had some fascinating combat art in it, including what I first thought was a StuG towing a sibling while obviously under fire. Guess what? The presumed StuG doing the towing was actually an ARV based on a deturreted Panzer III chassis. I believe that an Iron Cross was awarded in the action depicted.

From my limited reading, I have found multiple instances of functioning tanks taking their wounded fellows under tow or pushing them, and there are some exciting accounts of battles waged in the Western Desert while recovery crews worked under fire. Others describe skirmishes fought by recovery crew escorts from both sides while tanks were recovered at night after a daylong battle.

I believe even cursory reading of Panzer unit battle diaries will show all kinds of things going on under fire we can't even do when there's none. Since I don't read Russian, I can't offer much help there, but I can say that Milsom's RUSSIAN TANKS 1900-1970 has many pictures of Soviet ARVs, often a deturreted tank with the opening plated over and a cupola on that cover plate.

Russian Battlefield (www.battlefield.ru) has a nice shot of a pair of ATS artillery tractors recovering a T-34 from a ditch, but they're not under fire. There is probably a lot more there, but I haven't looked. Pinging Valera (one of the site principals) might prove most illuminating.

All in all, I think this area would benefit greatly from scrutiny via historians and grogs alike. It occurs to me that the Finns, being armor poor, probably went to extremes to rescue their damaged vehicles even in the midst of battle.

Regards,

John Kettler

Treeburst155,

After I belatedly remembered to take the .cmb file out of the folder, once unzipped, I got the scenario in which I'm the attacker to be read properly by the game. When I opened it to look at the terrain, though, I was greeted by a bizarre elevated plaidish affair which is higher than a building, is angled back at 45 degrees, and extends
across the full width of my end of the board. I can't tell whether or not it is preventing me from getting to anything I'm supposed to have, for it is effectively impenetrable, though behind a green line and extending to the edge of the map.

Do I need another copy of the .cmb file, or should I play on with the bizarre bleachers looming large behind me?

Regards,

John Kettler

I sent my bleacher filled setup out, received a setup via E-mail, and sent a certain inquiring individual a negative answer to his wondering whether I'd gotten a setup from him. Would say more, but I want to make certain I don't spill any unauthorized beans. The map I got was tactically
meaty and so took me quite a while to figure out how to deploy my troops.

As for my iMac, I've never seen anything so bizarre on it before (had seen the odd purple tile in corrupt files), but if you don't like my present rig, I'll gladly accept a brand new iMac so I can order and play CMBB.

Regards,

John Kettler

Sent out my setup and received the two I was owed, one of which is downright scary. May get my responses out sometime tonight--after my runaway heart is recaged.

Regards,

John Kettler

Oh, so we're only supposed to reply if we like a mod? 
 
That, and whether or not you like my attitude really has zero bearing on me. 

After what seemed like the most complex effort in my CM history, I finally got my setup done and sent to Tero. I still owe Fate a setup, though. This will probably occur later today. I believe that new depths of perversity have been achieved by the scenario designer in my fight against Tero. The nerve--giving me only one squadron of Typhoons!

Regards,

John Kettler