DerKommissar

I felt like the tanks were ashamed to be in "White Tiger". They cried tears of lubricant.

Fulda Gap!
Fulda Gap!
Fulda Gap!

Fulda Gap!
Fulda Gap!
Fulda Gap!

The numbers represent a trend of interest in tactical wargames. Which happens to be minimal. A good counter-point would be that players playing the game doesn't equal to players buying the game. Steam is full of archivists. Also here's the stats for the Close Combat games:
Gateway to Caen: 17.6 (players per day, average of 30 days)
Panthers in the Fog: 8.9 (players per day, average of 30 days)
Men of War: Assault Squad 2: 1311.3
A little bit higher than the others in our tactical wargames genre -- still, considerably small compared to more "arcade-y" titles. Not a perfect stat analysis -- I do welcome better ones.
I like Steam, especially the sales. I am just saying that if I was BFC, I'd probably focus on my core audience or make a game geared towards Steam, and its systems. Something like MoW:AS 2 or Steel Division/Wargame is designed for Steam users, and is therefore, moderately successful on Steam. Also, I didn't see the strawpoll and didn't vote.

As someone who has worked in IT, let me tell you that there is no bottom limit on computer literacy. I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe.
On Steam:
I think BFC has good reason to keep off Steam. Besides the issue of licensing and Valve's cut, the main issue is the Steam user base. How many customers would Steam bring? I think significantly less than one thinks. Let's take a look at some stats from Steam Charts ( http://steamcharts.com )
Theatre of War 2: Kursk -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 2.3
Theatre of War -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 2.2
Graviteam Tactics: Mius Front -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 15.9
Tank Warfare: Tunisia 1943 -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 6.5
Steel Division: Normandy 44 -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 395.5
Wargame: Red Dragon -- 699.7
Arma 3: 16,329.6
Tactics games aren't really popular, even when compared to related genres. I seriously doubt the move to Steam would offer a significant increase in users. This being said, I'd love to see the older CM games on GOG! I think GOG is a much more friendly platform to old-ish tactics games.

As someone who has worked in IT, let me tell you that there is no bottom limit on computer literacy. I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe.
On Steam:
I think BFC has good reason to keep off Steam. Besides the issue of licensing and Valve's cut, the main issue is the Steam user base. How many customers would Steam bring? I think significantly less than one thinks. Let's take a look at some stats from Steam Charts ( http://steamcharts.com )
Theatre of War 2: Kursk -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 2.3
Theatre of War -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 2.2
Graviteam Tactics: Mius Front -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 15.9
Tank Warfare: Tunisia 1943 -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 6.5
Steel Division: Normandy 44 -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 395.5
Wargame: Red Dragon -- 699.7
Arma 3: 16,329.6
Tactics games aren't really popular, even when compared to related genres. I seriously doubt the move to Steam would offer a significant increase in users. This being said, I'd love to see the older CM games on GOG! I think GOG is a much more friendly platform to old-ish tactics games.

As someone who has worked in IT, let me tell you that there is no bottom limit on computer literacy. I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe.
On Steam:
I think BFC has good reason to keep off Steam. Besides the issue of licensing and Valve's cut, the main issue is the Steam user base. How many customers would Steam bring? I think significantly less than one thinks. Let's take a look at some stats from Steam Charts ( http://steamcharts.com )
Theatre of War 2: Kursk -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 2.3
Theatre of War -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 2.2
Graviteam Tactics: Mius Front -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 15.9
Tank Warfare: Tunisia 1943 -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 6.5
Steel Division: Normandy 44 -- Monthly Average Players per Day: 395.5
Wargame: Red Dragon -- 699.7
Arma 3: 16,329.6
Tactics games aren't really popular, even when compared to related genres. I seriously doubt the move to Steam would offer a significant increase in users. This being said, I'd love to see the older CM games on GOG! I think GOG is a much more friendly platform to old-ish tactics games.

Crossposting:
In light of the R2V revelations, I'm guessing Co-Belligerents, RSI and a second-look at the Italian OOB in Sicily would be it's own module? 
What were the most surprising TOE notes? I think I read somewhere that the Commonwealth used Sherman 76s in Italy, which I don't recall them doing in North-West Europe.
 
Looks amazing!!

I highly recommend CM:FI if you liked CM:BN. 
Word is that they're gonna get Free French in the next DLC.

For more than a year, I joined this community after the acquisition of the complete CMBN game.
and I confirm that one of my childhood dreams has been fulfilled
The thread on the patch is stiff.
Criticism can be constructive but can also be morally destructive for a team
Also I wanted to tell you that I thank you for your wonderful work
 

Vlad calls me Mordski. When I am not trolling facebook tipping elections, I like to slip onto the BFC website and cause confusion and mayhem to hide the fact Steve ran off with everone's 4.0 money and Charles is nothing more than a smudge of goo in a dried up Helman's jar. It's a living.
 
 
Mord.

This is the internet equivalent to hearing "Are we there yet?" from the backseat. Even though we have taken a lot of trips together that turned out fine, even if we had to take the scenic route (ie. longer) a few times.
The drivers are all currently driving like maniacs, and need to concentrate completely on the road right now if we want to get to (insert desirable destination here).
We can pull off at a rest station when Steve gets to one. It's his car (along with a guy named Charles that seems to be in a cooler in the trunk) - he knows best (really) when its time to stop for a look at the roadmap.
As far as I know, the wheels are still on my car, and on those ahead. No fires either, only the road flying by under the wheels, like always.
...And another 15 minutes gone, since I got lost in this cul-de-sac.

Always impressive what hobbyists get up to.  Same event I think.  But with vehicles that have moving crew (7.33), exhaust, firing MG's etc.
Maybe we can have future wars with these things instead.

Shh... or the lizard people at the center of the Earth will use nano-machines to make you disappear!
I'm no business expert. Yet, staying in business for circa 20 years does sound like it requires some ability.
As a customer, I prefer this business model to the mainstream video game industry. Can you imagine BFC making CM:FB online only? Pre-orders units? Making CM console exclusive? Micro-transactions? Recently, I read an article about PAID SAVE SLOTS.
All the while, they feed their customers absolute rubbish promises. Showing false videos and promising features that never materialize. I think many of us take BFC's honesty for granted. They can tell us what we want to hear and show us fake screenshots, like Ubisoft or others.
What about support? The industry is infamous from abandon-ware. Most of the current big budget shooters become obsolete as soon as the next one comes out, which happens almost yearly. An ironic example of that is SW: Battlefront. CM-BN has been around since 2011, it got a major patch half a year ago.

Hey Steve were you developing training tools for our NZ army?
This?
http://army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews-483-commercial-off-the-shelf-wargame.pdf
The new face of CMBS 2?

Cheers

FULDA GAP!!!

That's a good observation. It's also proof that the games are of a consistent quality. Many franchises suffer from having newer iterations, that may be technically superior -- and yet have inferior content. A flaw of my beloved Theatre of War series. Any CM you pick up is guaranteed to work well and have decent content -- really depends on your interest in the specific conflict.
Another interesting observation is that some people prefer WW2-era gameplay, and others prefer modern-era gameplay. I like to mix it up, do a campaign in one era and then switch over. It's a good contrast and makes you rethink a lot of your tactics.
I'd suggest getting the DLC for Normandy -- lots of content in there. It's certainly the best supported title. My personal favourites:
1. CMFI -- lots of content, and currently expanding. Unique middle-war setting and a varied Italian terrain.
2. CMBS -- probably the best modern combat tactics game on the market. 3 unique factions with impressive TO&Es. Great gameplay: each tech toy can be devastating if used right.
3. CMRT -- this one grew on me. This one only has 2 factions, but they are both very different and balanced. If you like big bombastic WW2 clashes, this is the one. Battles are generally big and require a lot of combined arms. Both sides have an insane amount of AFV types that are tailored to take on specific situations.
Honourable mentions:
a. CMBN -- I think this could be number 3, but you already own it. 
b. CMA -- this is a gem. If you like cold war, this is as close as you can get. Kind of like a polarity-swapped Vietnam. 
I have not played CM:FB, partly because of my disinterest in late WW2. Mostly because the other CMs have been keeping me well occupied. I do want to buy it soon...

Not to mention, autobiographical memoirs are the worst form of historical records you could use.
Not only are they completely subjective in viewpoint, but they are never free of bias or revisionism.
 
I've read that book about six times. It's endlessly fascinating.
It certainly makes one never use the word 'Blitzkrieg' in it's most popular context ever again.

Or the army hiring H. to spy on radical organizations.
Michael

I'm not so sure. I'd go for Hindenburg handing Mad Addy power, as the worst.

How many troops does the US have deployed in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
That's 35k total troops, 20k of them being land Army. Which is the biggest external deployment of the U.S. Army, more U.S. Army personnel than in all of Asia. I am guessing the U.S. would deploy even more troops, should something occur. 
I think the Bundswehr, from its conception, always relies on foreign troops, in case of fire. 
No more Wikipedia, let's get some real data. Here's Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2010-2017):
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf
Fancy that! In 2017, Germany spent 1.22 percent of its GDP on military. Estonia spent 2.14, Latvia spent 1.7 and Lithuania spent 1.77 percent. Canada spent 1.31. That's right. Canada. We only share our borders with the U.S.
If you're curious what the broomsticks are doing there. Well... check out Graph 4. Their equipment expenditures, relative to their total military expenditure, is 14.8%. Which is below the guideline of 20% and less than many smaller countries in Europe.
Bundswehr's a parade army. They're quite insignificant in comparison to the U.S. and U.K.'s commitment to regional security. I don't know why anyone is surprised.

NATO has guidelines regarding defence expenditures commitment, the guideline is 2 percent. How much of their money are they putting where their mouth is? US has a much higher GDP. For some reason, it spends 3.58 percent on military expenditures (and has their largest land deployment in Germany).  The Germans have the economy to support a larger army, yet they don't. Is it possible that it has to do with foreign commitment to the defense of their borders?
Let's forget about GDP, for a moment. Let us consider the total expenditures. Defence Expenditure, in millions of US dollars: France: 44,333, Germany: 42,875, UK: 54,863, US: 683,414, Canada: 20,315. It is important to note that Germany has the highest population in the EU (List of European Countries by Population , all of that data is from Government cites). Table 5 has Defence expenditure per capita (2010 US dollars): Germany: 569, France: 761, UK: 897, Canada: 665, US: 1,887. Table 5 also has total Military personnel (thousands): Germany: 179, France: 209, UK: 161, Canada: 73, United States: 1,308. 
What does this mean? Despite its potentially dangerous strategic location, Germany spends less to defend a larger population. It relies on its allies for protection more than similarly populated countries. I am sure that they have shiny equipment. Considering the previously mentioned statistic regarding equipment expenditures, I would question the readiness and logistics behind that equipment. A decent parade army that was never intended to defend their borders sufficiently (that is what the rest of NATO is for). 
For the record, I welcome questioning of the context of these statistics. I do not have any political goal in this debate. I am simply drawing conclusions from observations.

How many troops does the US have deployed in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
That's 35k total troops, 20k of them being land Army. Which is the biggest external deployment of the U.S. Army, more U.S. Army personnel than in all of Asia. I am guessing the U.S. would deploy even more troops, should something occur. 
I think the Bundswehr, from its conception, always relies on foreign troops, in case of fire. 
No more Wikipedia, let's get some real data. Here's Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2010-2017):
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf
Fancy that! In 2017, Germany spent 1.22 percent of its GDP on military. Estonia spent 2.14, Latvia spent 1.7 and Lithuania spent 1.77 percent. Canada spent 1.31. That's right. Canada. We only share our borders with the U.S.
If you're curious what the broomsticks are doing there. Well... check out Graph 4. Their equipment expenditures, relative to their total military expenditure, is 14.8%. Which is below the guideline of 20% and less than many smaller countries in Europe.
Bundswehr's a parade army. They're quite insignificant in comparison to the U.S. and U.K.'s commitment to regional security. I don't know why anyone is surprised.

How many troops does the US have deployed in Germany?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
That's 35k total troops, 20k of them being land Army. Which is the biggest external deployment of the U.S. Army, more U.S. Army personnel than in all of Asia. I am guessing the U.S. would deploy even more troops, should something occur. 
I think the Bundswehr, from its conception, always relies on foreign troops, in case of fire. 
No more Wikipedia, let's get some real data. Here's Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2010-2017):
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf
Fancy that! In 2017, Germany spent 1.22 percent of its GDP on military. Estonia spent 2.14, Latvia spent 1.7 and Lithuania spent 1.77 percent. Canada spent 1.31. That's right. Canada. We only share our borders with the U.S.
If you're curious what the broomsticks are doing there. Well... check out Graph 4. Their equipment expenditures, relative to their total military expenditure, is 14.8%. Which is below the guideline of 20% and less than many smaller countries in Europe.
Bundswehr's a parade army. They're quite insignificant in comparison to the U.S. and U.K.'s commitment to regional security. I don't know why anyone is surprised.