DerKommissar

All they need to do is make a trailer with this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxeWuwOXHbE
I picked up Flashpoint Campaigns on sale yesterday, still haven't tried it out.

Here is a second showcase video, this time showing a successful Syrian armored assault against defending Germans. This was taken from a modified version of the NATO scenario "Bier un Brezel." Some of the better Syrian equipment is on display here, such as the T-72AV equipped with the TURMS-T as well as the BMP-2. This should pain the Syrians in a more favorable light compared to the first showcase video. Hope everyone enjoys!
 

All they need to do is make a trailer with this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxeWuwOXHbE
I picked up Flashpoint Campaigns on sale yesterday, still haven't tried it out.

All they need to do is make a trailer with this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxeWuwOXHbE
I picked up Flashpoint Campaigns on sale yesterday, still haven't tried it out.

Games only become obsolete if people stop playing them. People still play OG CM -- it's got a distinctly different set of features. The idea behind modules is that they are easier to make than a full release. So, more content for less time?
All this being said some of the more involved maps on CMx2 have stuttering that makes the game nearly unplayable. Sad for a comp that can handle games like Arma 3 and Monster Hunter World on Very High. If they only managed to optimize it somehow... I have no issue with it graphically (non-CM players are usually impressed by the amount of details on the models).
Ostfront, though? That's a tough one. I am a fan, and find early Ostfront fascinating. BFC is an American company, every game aside from CM:RT and CM:A has the US Army at launch. Vast majority of their audience are Americans, so you can't blame them. This being said, BFC does a great job including other nations -- Canada got featured in 3 games (most games just treat it as sub-faction).
It's an industry thing. I think Battlefront 1 had American soldiers on launch, but not the French. Fancy that? Doing early war (prior to the entry of the USA) or any fronts that don't include the USA isn't gonna sell well. Now, if you're Graviteam or 777 Studios and majority of your audience are easterners -- then the inverse applies (most games are about early war and/or Ostfront).

Aye, but it won't be a drill, this time...
But, yeah, I think it may be annoying for some players. Spotting, accuracy and movement would all take a hit. No turning out of tanks, either. But it would definitely create a unique game with unique challenges. Maybe similar to electronic warfare in BS, where you can set intensity or turn it off all-together.

There were no excuses for any of their invasions, before or during the war. One wonders how the Italians could have ever followed a bloke who looked like a novelty condom. 

There could be maps, that would represent nuclear wastelands and a new category of units - post nuke stragglers

Considering the amount of historical research (TO&Es, battle plans, wargames) on the Fulda Gap scenario, I think it's a much more believable scenario than either BS or the two SF games.
It's ripe for all sorts of DLC. From all the various nations in the Warsaw Pact/NATO to additional theaters like Scandinavia and Balkans -- even if they stick to one time period.
Heart.

All this being said, I do think that BFC has plenty on their plate before making a completely new CM with a completely new setting. From what I gathered their most immediate focus is on new modules for existing games. Frankly, I'd love to see all the CM games get the CM:Normandy treatment.
New Fortress Italy Module in production...
New Red Thunder Module in production...
New Black Sea Module?
CMSF 2's like a new CM game -- new SF2 Module?
I doubt we'll get any more love for Final Blitzkrieg though -- it is aptly named "Final" after all.

OH, and the M60A2 "Starship", hopefully!

Considering I'm one of those suckers for CM:A and am sad that it's not getting upgraded to the current engine -- I'd be so glad to have a part of it in a new CM game.

Given the limited resources of Battlefront ( look how painfully slow is the proces of remaking SF ), I don't think Fulda is even on the horizon. But in some unspecified future - why not? It would sell like crazy. 

Are you sure you're not refering to the paratrooper 75mm recoilless rifle?

This one is listed in the TO&E in Gustav Line.

Sorry, but releasing your game with half the portraits and flags missing of countries that are already there and then charging money to have them back is BS. Especially since portraits are randomly generated by the code that is there too and you pay for a simple unlock. At one point they had like 12 DLCs to just allow you not to stare at a black silhouette of a face.
And let's not forget about the glorious preorder content getting cut for people who dared not to buy the game before it's released.

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

❤️ Gulda Fap

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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

❤️ Gulda Fap

❤️ Gulda Fap

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