FlammenwerferX

Beats me. I didn't hear anything spectacular either.

I must have missed them. All I got was quite a lot of disappointing news.
No M1 native development (so this will presumably mean more features not being available for Macs going forward. PBEM +++, and now tournaments (I assume).
No real mention of new Combat Mission engine being developed.
CM Afghanistan not really going anywhere.
Early War and North Africa referred to as being popular with fans, but no real news of development on that front.
There was a commitment to Combat Mission for the long term, which was good.
Or have I missed a lot of it?

CMx3…Any comments?

This is simply untrue. The newer games just run better with more troops/buildings/trees. Berlin works way faster in CMCW than it does in CMRT.

Thanks for asking for the feedback.  FYI- I play CMSF2 and CMBS.
Environment/Map Better map editing tools:  aka more paintbrush options for all roads, elevations, fences, etc.  I understand the 1x1 meter detail needed IOT accurately represent the physical environment.  It's just extremely un-user friendly and way too time consuming.  I imagine, this prevents more content to be developed and shared, which lowers how many players you can add.  I've seen recommendation for procedural generated maps.  That may be a cool option. Or: add the possibility to directly import a whole map from an outside source; bing/google/esri/etc.  An AI/machine learning/GAN (generative adversarial network) software program would be needed IOT determine all the needed details, but it would take the scale of the locations to be way more infinitely expansive.  The ability to create and save our own battle orders/task organizations:  personally, I've been working to figure out better RUS task orgs vs USA as their base 2017 ones don't cut the mustard.   I'd be a quality of life improvement. More mod tools:  While it may be a concern to open up the ability for others to add units or terrain objects, it could greatly improve the interest and player base.  Reference- Cities Skylines.  (while that base game was a great improvement over simcity, the modding steam workshop has been what has kept the game going and growing.  I'm sure paradox has been happy with all the dozen of DLCs revenues they've gained b/c of that openness model) Contour line hot keys; While the game's been a great teacher on the importance of micro and macro terrain utilization, conducting terrain analysis takes way too long.  Adding the ability see general contour lines would assist in ID'ing IV (inter-visibility lines) quicker and wouldn't take away from the ruthless punishment we all love about this game. More defensive tools and options!; more in game options for defensive positions would add to the realism.  Simple fighting positions (holes w/ no cover) should cost way less or nothing as everyone has an E-tool and pioneer equipment for digging simple positions.  Having improved positions (T and different shaped/ overhead cover/ vic fighting positions) with prior costs makes sense in that BN/BDE/DIV engineers would need to build those or provide resources.  We should always have the option to build what we can organically. This also needs to be an option w/in the mission/scenario/battle; not just w/in the deployment phase MOPMS/FASCAM/VOLCANO/MICLICs/etc and other country equivalents HAVE to be added if you want to continue to call this a realistic game.  Specifically to CMBS- If only we could conduct a wet gap crossing with bridging assets.... I can imaging playing a mission recalling some of action during the Great Raid of 2014 of the 95th UKR brigade. Represent literally every civilian just as any normal pixletroopen.  Having this option and tool set in the scenario editor would also open up an entire other facet to play.  Imagine humanitarian crisis scenarios or having goals to also evac civilian wounded. TAC-AI/Gameplay Non-line of sight Call For Fire: It can be called anywhere at anytime: it would need to have less accuracy with the bracketing adjustments. Macro Tools; The micromanagement has been great to understand every detail of small unit tactics and every aspect of the fight.  However, when getting to company/BN/etc. level operations, that micromanagement isn't the best method.  Maybe for those higher leaders add more commands that can be given (ideally in a joint tactical task defined task/purpose) ie- attack/defend/isolate, consolidate & reorg, ambush, etc.  Leader soft factors could then play more of a role as the added leader tac-ai would be poor/better/best at figuring out the best way to execute the order. Reference the upcoming VBS4 plan tools.  This would add another layer of valuable game play options.  Steel Division 2's 'smart orders' are kind of a step in the direction as well. Better team commands; such as vehicle section or PLT berm drills For higher difficulties; possibly add more medivac requirements.  All the staff (1SG, XOs, staffs) are already represented; having to evac certain casualties to an exit marker in order to reach an aid station would add more realistic depth as well. MORE AMMO (class V)!!!!!! For god sakes, the lack of SMAW, Gustov, Javelin, TOW, etc resupply options are crazy!  A supply section would have way more class V than what is offered.  Anyway, again thanks for asking for the feedback!
 
 

That's because the games aren't currently capable of taking advantage of the full power of modern computers. They are well optimized, and will run reasonably well even on a potato. But there is no noticeable improvement in their performance on even the most powerful gaming PCs. Engine 5 will probably address this.

CMx3…Any comments?

I thought the first two episodes were pretty decent and was going to make a thread about it when I first watched it because the tank combat scenes were alright. But after it goes downhill and feels almost like a telenovela at times rather than a proper war themed series, if there is even such a thing. Probably still worth a watch but not as good as it could have been.

Yes exactly. You would think it would be an obvious follow up Q. when the dev mentions the current engine is 17 years on. 

Also, the interview seemed to miss the question:
Is CM3 under development? 

There's a vehicle there?

Don't beat around the bush, Dan, do you like this module or not? 😀

That rug really tied the room together...Did it not?

does the parade count?

@MikeyD
Thank you for your successful efforts to get the Valentine into the game! Just so we know, did it take a bottle of good Scotch or what? Maybe we can cut to the chase and still get the Matilda in the module...
Way back in the 80's I was a navy diver and we did a training operation over the wreck of the Liberty ship SS JOHN MORGAN off the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay. It sank after a collision with another ship. 50+ souls lost KIA. It had Canadian-built Valentines... My ship was unsuccessful in recovering one but apparently somebody did get one since then.

 

Any mention of cmx3?

Any mention of cmx3?

9. One Engine - CMx3
game performance improvments, graphics improvements, ray tracing, intermediate distance bitmaps
additional editor features, dynamic operational campaigns
additional gameplay features, coop, LoS tool, visible aircraft

Honestly this sounds like folks overestimate the popularity of these games. You need people willing to seed and many more popular games lack an established seeding base making the acquisition essentially a non-starter. Really the lack of cracks for the games speaks magnitudes about their lack of popularity.
 
There are plenty of examples of users doing a ton with the current set. The post-apoc. CM:SF1 mod, Heaven & Earth, several fantastic user-made campaigns (the airborne campaign from CM:BN being stand out), numerous well done scenarios and maps of real world locations. There is likely even more out there that isn't on any of the normal online repositories. I know I have 4-5 scenarios that have only ever been privately shared.

Compared to CMx1 the rate of production is lower but the increased time requirements and lack of feedback (seen in some longer threads about scenario design in the past) speak to that.

I used to love playing and modding the CM games (gen1 and 2) and still check in once and a while. I still have them installed even but I just can't bring myself to play them any more, for years now. My "criticism" is enshrined in the forums so need to rehash. Needless to say I still have a sadness about how I see the "death" or near death of the series. It's like a gaming relationship breakup, I probably shouldn't even be here, it's like checking in on an old girlfriend from years past, creepy! lol  
Now, "IF" we ever get a proper version 3 maybe we can rekindle the lost relations!   

As a follow-up to the TO&E discussion, tonight I started reading what looks to be an interesting book about German production and manning levels on the Eastern Front (Enduring the Whirlwind https://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Whirlwind-Russo-German-1941-1943-Wolverhampton-ebook/dp/B073WF9S9W/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3PHB33HR9452B&keywords=enduring+the+whirlwind&qid=1570496974&sprefix=enduring+the+wh%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-1)  The question the book seeks to answer is:  ""Did the German war effort in the East fail due to the numerical inferiority of German forces and an inability to replace losses?"
In his introduction, the author says that the Germans made some 3,000 changes to their TO&E during the course of the war, but were never able to carry all of these changes out in a uniform manner throughout the army, with the result that no two German divisions actually had the exact same TO&E, even if they were of the same type of division.  It sounds like coming with with 100% accurate standard TO&E for German units at any given moment would be challenging indeed, if not impossible...

Agreed.
I think that this is also correct to a certain extent, but I would think that a lot of the old topics would continue to be discussed as new players join the forum who had not participated in the many past discussions.  But that does not seem to be happening; seems like either new members are reviewing old forum content without further discussion (which frankly doesn't seem especially likely) or the topics simply aren't being discussed.

Not really. The forum is a shadow of its former self. It still has a decent activity I suppose but a lot of the best posters have left. It used to be much more vibrant and interesting. Where is the Peng challenge thread, Jason C and all the grogs? While I don't particularly regret the threads with people arguing about the numbers of cogs on the wheels of russian tankettes there are a lot less historical or even tactical threads. I used to visit this forum daily, now it is once a week at most.

I don't mind having them, but I don't think that getting the TO&E right for different types of units is as easy as you suggest; just on the German side, you have Wehrmacht, SS, Fallschirmjager, Mountain troops, Luftwaffe, Panzergrenadier, Fusilier, etc. etc. all of them changing over time, both in terms of OOBs and TO&Es), then add in the umpteen Allied armies in Italy (or wherever).  MikeyD implies that it was very difficult indeed for R2V, and I have no reason to doubt him.  Based on WWII research that I've done, one of the issues is that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and sifting out the correct (or least wrong) version can take time.  Another issue is that while it can be easy to find about 80% of the information you need, finding the remaining 20% can demand lots and lots of time...
And I'm not saying to delete formations altogether, just delete little-used things like anti-tank battalions in favor of anti-tank companies (which would be used more often), so you could still select their components. Anyway, it was just a suggestion which I seriously doubt will be adopted so I would not lose much sleep over it...

Well, I'm not really threatening...for it to constitute a threat, I would have to have some expectation that the recipient (BF) would change its behavior based on my statements.  But I have no such expectations, I've been around long enough to know that BF is gonna do what it's gonna do...  But honestly, I would think that they would at least be curious why a long time hard-care tactical wargamer and customer is losing interest in their products.  Given that many people don't seem to understand the points I'm trying to make, I've had to repeat them several times, although I'll try to stop soon!
Well, yes...
Not sure about that any more.  While I only look at the CMRT and general forums, both of those are quite dead.  While I'm sure there will be a spurt of activity after R2V comes out, not sure how long it will last.  And frankly, a lot of what I would consider to be interesting conversations get shut down very quickly because people who raise any concerns are immediately branded as whiners, haters, etc. and disappear...