DerKommissar

Well, that's the thing -- it's not with all the trimmings. It's also got a lot of content behind microtransactions (at launch). As a customer, "Games are expensive to make", is not really an excuse when their competitors offer a better deal. Go up in price, and you'll get even less sales (optimization problem). How much do they spend on marketing? How much do they spend on bonuses? That's additional overhead that does not add quality to their product. I'll admit, I like GTA V's model -- and my friends do too. Maybe why it is so damn successful. You buy the game for standard price, you get a singleplayer campaign, and full multiplayer with regular FREE updates. Sure, they sell Shark Cards, which are microtransactions -- but Shark Cards are just in-game currency. You do not need it to access any of the content, as you can buy anything in the game with PvE money. No pre-order bonuses, no dlcs, no paid mods, no paid currency -- you get the game, you have the game. If I can get quality content for cheaper -- I'm there, dude!

I think that if packaged properly with really nice graphics, graphical effects, sound effects, and marketing, CM: 1967 could triple the customer base. Sci-fi doesn't have the mass appeal it once did, and recent history period pieces are actually quite popular. "Based on real events" is always a selling line. Or just look at three of the biggest game franchises now: CoD, BF and AC. All of them try to do the historical fare, World Wars are surprisingly popular. Not even talking about the great success of World of Tanks or War Thunder. Marketing is expensive, so you need to make money to make money. I can picture BFC at E3 -- it'd be hilariously absurd. Actual developers in the midst of hype hacks. I think it'd be cool if big CM had a fully voice acted career mode, where you roleplay an officer throughout a campaign.

Dude, CK II is a minor offender. I'm not a fan of excessive DLC, but they got nothing on the big boys (Ubisoft, EA, Activation-Blizzard...) Bethesda is becoming a bad boy, too... (Creationist Club, no mod support, less quality content per dollar) Look at the new AC game? A game designed around microtransactions, with a 150 dollar Ultimate edition -- ON LAUNCH! Look at what EA did to the SW Battlefront franchise. Bioware is now making a cookie cutter open world multiplayer shooter -- like everyone else. They're legit selling F2P games, these days. It's gotten so bad that I think even the mobile market is blushing in comparison. I don't know a single Paradox game that even touches microtransactions. Their games are usually released with above-average content -- for below than standard price for games. I like how Graviteam handles DLC. There's a lot of it but it's generally substantial and you know what you're getting. CM games are even more substantial -- I have yet to complete the content of an entire game. There's also RNG missions and user content up the wazoo (which I haven't gotten around to yet). Then, I get Destiny 2 and seasons pass (buying hypothetical glorified free dlc early), I beat the campaign, reach max level and beat endgame in like a week. The game wasn't Big Rigs, was it? xD Yeah, that's sadly a story I've heard a few times. At least they shipped an improved version, I've bough one or two games that promised they'd change -- but never did. One of my favourite games, KoTOR 2, had to cut a lot of content for Christmas release. It took a decade for fans to reconstruct a significant chunk of cut content. I feel you, man. Plenty of customer companies that are internally conflicted about what they want from a design, or simply do not know what they want or why they want it. Most irrational customers are older folk that want things done a certain way, simply because that's what they're most familiar with. Which is something many of us are guilty about.

Funny story. Two mates and I went to see 2049 exactly one week after opening (friday evening) at a major cinema. I kid you not, the theatre was empty -- 8 people including us. I generally liked the film for its aesthetic -- the villians were silly and it was amusing to watch Gosling play a robot. He may not be able to sing, but he sure can keep his face still. I'd be interested in seeing the director's cut. Hopefully they'll replace that ridiculous "CELLS" sync sequence with a proper, noir, Void-Kampfwagen test. As I have a mech from 2142 as my mugshot, I suppose I cannot disagree too much. This being said, sci-fi "strategy" games often come up with lazy home-brew sci-fi. The success of this game would depend largely on the quality of this imaginary future. The world has to be built to be consistent, interesting and lived-in. I can't really see BFC writing much sci-fi -- at least, in the near future. I think making a sci-fi CM in an established IP would be better. A lot of smaller wargame devs are making 40k games (Sanctus Reach, Armageddon), these days. The IP has low overhead and was made specifically for wargames. Stuff like leadership, experience, armour values, strengths and tactics are already fleshed out in the lore. CM would need melee, though. Which would be a sick feature if they ever get around to it.

Did you get an email with the DL link + code? I usually DL CMs from the emails I get when I buy 'em. (Picked up FB on the new website too)

Not on board with the first idea. Fantasy units would take away a lot of the appeal of Combat Mission. Arma 3 did this to attract a larger customer base, and it made vanilla a joke. I am a fan of World in Conflict -- so a Red Dawn scenario could be pretty cool. Especially as an expansion for Ful-da-Sap. ;P

An experimental modification of a glorified prototype by day, WOT icon by night! Super Pershing to the rescue!

Gulda Fap

Yeah, sorry about that -- I was using stupid lingo. MSV stands for Моторизо́ванные стрелко́вые войска which translates to Motor Rifle Forces. It refers to the Motor Rifle Divisions that make up the bulk of the (ex) Warsaw Pact armies -- and are the antagonists of CMBS.

Gotta love that OG business model, in the age of preordering ultimate editions.

Yeah, I try not to use ASSAULT at long distances for that reason. I usually air on the side of caution when approaching, and stick with HUNT. 3 squads of a platoon HUNTing parallel to each-other, but spaced out. That way, if shots are fired, a squad or two will drop to the ground -- and cover the squad that has not been shot at and is still HUNTing. Let the enemy engage guys that aren't advancing, so a squad can sneak in. Yeah, C2 is a challenge with the Soviets. You may have things worked out in the fire superiority department, but keeping all your many ducks in a row takes special attention.

In CM, Difficulty doesn't really mean how difficult the game is. It's more of a realism setting. There's nothing inherently more difficult about Iron, Warrior or Elite. I never played training difficulty though, so maybe it's easier. Difficulty in the traditional sense depends more on the scenario. Most commercial games attempt to present a "balanced" game. This makes sense, but it trains you to expect fair treatment. CM, in that regard, is more like a roguelike. The playing field is rarely balanced and a lot of missions you will do will either be "too easy" or "too hard". I rarely split squads, and mayhaps I should do it more often. I split squads in 3 situations: 1. To "cap" objectives. Often times, I clear out an objective and immediately move to the next -- but I do not occupy it. As Objectives are important in this game and require some people on the point to register as "capped", I split and divert a team to play mama hen. 2. To ACQUIRE items. You need to grab something from an APC -- why send the entire squad to do so? 3. Anti-tank suicide missions. Your squad spots a tank nearby, and its only a matter of time before it spots you. I'll split the squad, draw straws and send the unlucky bastards to get the jump on the tank. It's a 50/50 deal, depending on the terrain -- best not put the entire squad in one basket. I try to keep my squads together because I feel they're a more effective fighting force than 2 teams. Better leadership, better communication and better concentration of firepower. This being said, I try to space out the platoon, putting squads in distinct locations. I also use ASSAULT quite often, a very sure way to advance under cover. I haven't played Soviets in 4.0 yet. I will say, I do remember their squads putting out A LOT of firepower. SMGs are a surprisingly powerful defensive weapon, apparently. The more the attacker advances, the worse it gets for them. Loved the Disc Player (DP), having seen it being used very well at medium/long ranges. I find that the Soviet answer to any tactical problem is MORE firepower. I remember assaulting a heavily entrenched town (final training mission). Whenever a German tried to take pot shots at my squads from buildings or trenches, an ISU would lob a 152mm shell and just reduce the entire area to rubble. I never split a Soviet squad because I treated a Soviet squad as a team. I rarely have to conserve manpower as I do while playing Germans in FB. This being said, their squads are pretty big and like to bunch up. They'd probably benefit from splitting -- more so when defending "SEND ARTILLERY HERE" positions, than storming Fortress Europe.

Yeah, word on the street is that CM3 is going to have a new engine (DirectX friendly). I'd be happy if they move to CM3 after like 50 more modules.

Aye. That makes sense.

Combat Mission: Star Trek Seriously, the Star Trek franchise has some sort of sick fetish for WW2 western europe (no other theatres though)... Not sure how I feel about a futuristic CM. I think 40k setting would work, considering it originated from wargaming (Just not 8th edition). Maybe Star Wars, because it's kind of set in WW2. I sure as hell do not want something like Arma 3.

I'd like to see the OG games remade -- or just compatible with newer OS and on GOG.

Are you sure the bullet is modeled as a 3d object, and not a 2d image? Tracers look like an OG 2.5d deal.

Self-preservation is a powerful instinct and is often ignored by games and movies. In most games, every soldier is Rambo. In real life, guns are loud, dangerous and very scary.

This looks incredible. Can't wait for update!

One thing I did like from Men of War is how easy it was to toggle rules of engagement. There's one button that lets you toggle between fire-at-will, return fire and hold fire. The button also shows the current rules of engagement and changes when it is clicked. 3 modes -- one button. Or they can be just added like modifiers to waypoints, working much like OPEN UP. You can see which one is pressed, and therefore, your current ROE for your units.

"Interesting and productive?" On the internet? Fat chance. Next you'll ask for world peace.

Disgruntled posts about Finnish dates? I'd tell them to move to Sweden.

Top notch advice in this thread. My two cents: I remember reading a translated excerpt from a late Cold War Soviet infantry manual: "Fire [superiority] is maneuver." The meaning of this is that fire superiority is potential for advance. You can see why an army geared towards breaking through the Fulda would prize oversized canons (for their time) on everything from MBTs, IFVs, SPGs, ETCs. If you lose that superiority, you become suppressed and cannot advance. How does one gain or lose fire superiority? In WW1, folks found out that attacking across wide fronts, like was done in Napoleonic Wars, lead to little gain against a modern defender. In comes the success of the "Schwehrpunkt", which means main point. In order to succeed against a modern defender, your attacks must be concentrated on small, but significant, locations. This way, an attacker, with potentially less fire support assets, can break through a defender that spaces out their, potentially over abundant, assets. The famous Desert Storm is the manifestation of this concept, where a modern attacker faced a WW1-minded defender. Tactics are all about location. Terrain makes or breaks battle plans. A canon on a hill is more effective than a hundred canons stuck in a ditch. A tank behind a hill is more effective than a a tank platoon on a forward slope. As such, the attacker must choose their Schwehrpunkts wisely and a defender must anticipate them. You can see why knowledge of the terrain is such a critical part of success from the ancient days to modern Ukraine. In order to get to favorable locations, one needs to maneuver. As such, Maneuver is fire superiority. Much like matter and energy, the name of the game is finding the most efficient transfer function. Maneuver the right assets into the right locations to gain fire superiority and use fire superiority to move to the next good location. I think the historical zenith of this concept must be Operation Citadel. I suggest you read up on it, it can teach you how to use and not use these concepts to the maximum effect more than I can. The Soviets made diamond shape fortifications, with some of their guns facing backwards. They knew the Germans were going to out-maneuver them and they were ready to slow them down even after they passed their front-line. This is why reconnaissance and careful planning is key. The choice of Schwehrpunkts should be made way in advance, and the entire attack based off of that. In order to do that, you must know where the enemy's assets lie and the terrain. Even in today's age of satellites and UAVs, nobody has total omniscience. The defenders do well do conceal their assets, as to not allow the attacker to find the right Schwehrpunkt. Well prepared artillery barrages and air attacks will establish your fire superiority, surprise ambushes by hidden guns will take it away. In CM, much of the high level recon and planning of Schwehrpunkts is done for you. Yet, you must do the same on the low level. Before you even start positioning your forces, take a good long while to observe the terrain. My advice to any CM player: "Think like the Hun"! If you were OPFOR where would you place your assets? The more you play, the better you will be at thinking for OPFOR. Unfortunately such forethought only comes with a lot of mistakes and a lot of blood. Every new terrain you find yourself in, and a new enemy you face will require you to relearn and adapt.