Sulomon

Just curious what battle type people like the most in quick battles. I play attack most of the time and mostly as the attacker. I use to play meeting engagements a bit often but they're more boring than attacking or defending. I rarely play assault since it gives the attacker such significant advantages. I haven't played a single probe match, still need to try it out.

I think Erwin is specifically referring to recon vehicles such as the BRM-1 and some of the WW2 German armored cars. Recon vehicles do seem to have limited use since other vehicles but mainly infantry can accomplish the task of recon.

Yeah, again I'm not much of a roleplayer.

I don't really roleplay at all. But I don't use cheap tactics like sound exploits to find unit locations. Despite this I do think roleplaying is better gameplay. A standard formation with real life tactics is probably going to do better than say a blob of of Brummbars and fanatic stragglers fast moving across the map.

This is extremely spicy. I understand you don't know things such as computer basics so I won't blame you for not having good reading comprehension but that couldn't be more wrong. I'm obviously referring to the people who don't like steam running on startup, lan play etc. I've made no hint that Steve keeps away from steam for trivial misunderstandings.

Yeah much of the anti-steam sentiment seems to come from misunderstandings or trivial issues.

My response to the stats isn't really biased. They're one set of numbers and the other sets to compare against would be helpful. Also is there a basis for that the majority of players don't support CM on steam?

Why are players who want steam more likely to vote? And I'm sure there is a proportionally similar number of people who support steam but also consider voting a waste of time. These numbers don't mean much without stats for Combat Mission. Or stats for these games on and off steam.

Do you realize only 4 people said no? And there's now 13 yes votes too. You can stop with "the silent majority supports me" and acknowledge you're in all likelihood wrong.

https://strawpoll.com/2dy52w8f As of now the results are 12 yes, 4 no, and 3 neutral. Erwin I think you might have been a tad off when saying most players on these forums don't think Steam would be beneficial. Most people it seems support it. And of the people who don't like steam it seems to be in part at least from trivial problems they have had with steam. Such as people complaining about Steam running on startup which isn't a steam problem but a not knowing computer basics problem.

I've done this in Civ 5 with friends. Just put steam to offline.

I know I'm just curious. Personally I think more CM players would say that CM on steam is beneficial than say it is not beneficial.

https://strawpoll.com/2dy52w8f I know this isn't a democracy but here's a strawpoll. The question is "Do you think Combat Mission would benefit from being on Steam?" with the options yes, no, and neutral.

This. Numerous niche games on steam do good and stay niche, Gary Grigsby isn't turning into HOIV.

Squarehead what's with the uncon obsession. You talk about them a lot.

Use the quote feature or link next time you want people to look at a certain post.

I’d love to have a game set in 1939-1940 Europe. A Fall of France CM I would love. I would also like Poland and if we go into 1941 Operation Barbarossa. North Africa doesn’t really interest me.

Mord ain't gandalf.

Yeah but the same logic applies to upvotes, they can also be abused.

Flashbacks to Fortress Italy upgrade taking longer than expected. Thanks for the update!

Cleaning would be easier if down voting was an option.

I'd play CM with zombies I'll admit. Would be neat if it was extra content like a zombie module for Black Sea, Final Blitzkrieg etc. But yeah this will never happen.

In before Steve post at 4 AM EST.

This is so 8 hours ago

CM: Halo before CM: Warhammer 40k tbh.