Thewood1

They can make a lot of progress by just using more modern and universal graphics libraries.

It has a we-go mode where you can adjust the time the game runs and then pauses for orders. Or, like CM, you can run it in RT.

I wouldn't mind if they just filled early war out with vehicle packs, scenario packs, or even map packs. Could also give us a steadier stream stuff for the east front for example.

Well it created empty folders for CMFB. Its never been installed on this PC. When I installed through Steam, it created them.

Just an example of another game's attempt at recon missions. Where recon is the major portion of the battle. Not just scoring a body count. https://www.steelbeasts.com/files/file/3187-recon-at-vollsjo/

Its very similar to the rear-firing MGs on Soviet tanks. As stated above, you used to be able to rotate the turret with back towards the enemy unit. I know in Soviet tanks, at one time, if the main gun was engaged and infantry were spotted to the rear, the rear turret machine gun would open up. I think the M10 MG is similar. I am pretty sure that if the main gun isn't engaged, the unit will just rotate its turret with main gun to the rear.

It is very easy to make that distinction between all of those functions. But as you say, its the designer that has to do it. And map size isn't really an issue. Again the scenario designer has to adjust what they put into the OOB and the mission parameters. A quick way to validate that...how many people have played a scenario where just spotting a unit gave you points. That objective parameter is screaming recon/counter-recon battle. I'm not sure I've ever seen that objective used. One of the things I did way back when I played a lot more CM was to inventory my troops for experience and fitness. I kept a good leader with few of them and used them as scouts.

Players and designers also need to make the distinction between recon, scouting, and just looking ahead. Recon is an entire battle itself in finding info for your larger org or preventing your enemy from doing the same. Specialized units, equipment, training, and vehicles are needed and used. Scouting is taking a small subset unit made up of experienced soldiers and telling them to bring back as much enemy intel for disposition and lay of the local land. Mostly done as a form of patrolling. Its part of the local battle plan. Just looking ahead is putting 1-3 guys few hundred meters ahead and see if they see whats around the corner or if someone shoots at them. I would bet some of the more disposable members of the larger unit end up with this task. Players and designers conflate all three of these types of information gathering exercises regularly.

I think the difference between BFC's customers and esim's is that BFC is used more as an informal educational tool, while Steel Beasts is used as a true training simulation at the individual and unit level in large exercises. Commercial use is secondary and thats probably the biggest issue with the game/sim.

On one hand, combat engineering has historically been a gap in the CM series. Its been somewhat mitigated with the Sherman Crab and some engineering troops. But its still missing a more rounded engineering capability, especially in modern titles. In fact, several combat engineering vehicles have been modelled over the years. But they really don't have the specific engineering capabilities modelled. On the other, I'm sure the majority of players don't find sitting around awaiting a path through a minefield do be cleared or bridging/clearing obstacles to be very exciting. Add in the difficulty of programming combat engineering capabilities into the modeling and you have a a real financial drag on any investment. Steel Beasts has a fairly comprehensive combat engineering model, but that is because their military customers supported the development of it.

In a WW2 timeframe, its a little more understandable to not get too hung up on formations. There was a lot less discipline and until later war a lot of what we consider as formations were still not firmly established. For the WW2 era, its more about making the player grind through the micromanagement needed to play effectively. But Cold War and Black Sea not having SOPs, formations, etc. is one the main reasons I really struggle with CM's engine in modern settings.

Steel Beasts actually does it very well. And their waypoint system allows changing formations automatically based on obstacles, terrain, spotting, and taking fire. You can set formation, speed, use cover, use roads, and spacing with all being adjusted based on waypoint settings. Its cool watching a wedge form, drift apart, then reform. Its not perfect, but is very effective. btw, if you think its about training ground formation driving, you are mistaken. Formations are trained for and executed for a reason. Your routes are planned around what formation you'll need in transit to give you coverage and how you'll be positioned. LOS/LOF is a key aspect of what formation you'll use. It is pretty quick to set up a column with AORs in a few minutes for a company of vehicles in SB. its probably 10-15 minutes at least in CM. And even then that pathing can get screwed up pretty easily. The point is its doable and just depends on priorities.

I think its been on the wish list since the CMBO days.

No. I'm talking about the documents folder, as was mentioned above.

So it appears that in Steam, the install creates the documents folders, but doesn't use them. Its the only thing I can see. Not a big deal. Just dropping things into the Steam game folder.

How about actually contributing something useful in one of posts.

I'm confused. If the Pershing was in CMBO, we have been able to use it for 22 years with the Pershing. CMSF1 has been out 15 years. CMBN has only been out 12 years.

Yeah. Thats where I normally look for it. Its completely empty.

I checked my documents folder and its blank for CMFB. Is that where a mod would normally go?

So once Downfall releases, we should should finally have the full CMBO CM1 content equivalent in CM2, correct? If so, it took two full games, three modules, a vehicle pack, and a battle pack. I think with the VP, we probably have a little more than CMBO. Am I missing anything?

BFC has said it would release this week in a post buried in a thread from last week. Slitherine owns Matrix. Big wargames release on Matrix. That's how they separate the brands. BFC's official relationship is with Slitherine. Matrix is already letting you register BFC-purchased Downfall serial numbers to get Steam registration so it should mean the release is very close, regardless of the date posted on Matrix. That's my understanding.

Noticed the manual for Downfall is up on the Matrix site. https://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/CombatMissionFinalBlitzkrieg-Downfall/CMFB Downfall Manual.pdf Couldn't see one posted yet.

CMO has a lot of scenarios built by players and few DLCs that have some commercial versions.

"The EXACT release date is up to Slitherine, but we're on track for an end of month release. And yes, you cheeky little buggers, I do mean this month" From Steve in the Combat Mission General forum.

Yes and No. It gives you more short-term financial leeway, but almost no long-term leeway. Being big and public makes you much more risk-averse. It also makes you much more PR cognizant and influenced. BFC has the benefit of not having a lot of other people's money funding their operation, other than customers. So they can mostly do what they want based on their own proclivities.