com-intern

I can't recall a single game released on Steam that doesn't have automatic patching. I literally don't think you can do it. However, I think what people are getting at is paid patches. My guess is those won't continue but it would be possible by labeling them as DLC on Steam.

I'm trying to recall a tutorial PDF that I remember using when I first played CM:SF - does anyone recall it or have access to it. I checked my CM:SF2 download but no dice.

Gotta get that airgap.

If load times are an issue an SSD would likely solve those problems.

These are coming on the release date Aug. 25th. @Pandur

Nice. The blue on black is definitely hard to read

iirc, you had to have purchased the CM:SF license transfer key for $1 whenever that happened. @shogun603 Go here: https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/ in the upper right corner there is a button to "create a ticket" click that. You will likely need to create an account

FYI for folks reading this I have been able to register my game on Slitherine but there currently isn't a Steam Key available. My guess is this is going to come on release (Aug. 25th).

I've been playing through the Command Ops 2 Battle of the Bulge scenarios and have been repeatedly surprised how often I've been engaged from 1.000+ meters. Doing a quick google maps check from positions near Marvie you can draw a clear LOS nearly 2.500m. Whats key, at least in Command Ops 2, is that these long engagements are not particularly lethal but at the same time you don't want to sit around taking the fire or advancing over open ground while 88s are throwing shells. As a result it does inform your attack plans or whether you leave a Coy on a hill and so on. As technology improves the ability for these marginal positions to affect the battle increases. In 1944 you can have a big gun chucking rounds 3km and not be too worried about it. In 2010 or 2020 a TOW missile covering the peak of the hill can totally change the layout of a fight.

Its also easy to forget that CM:SF did not launch in the most fantastic condition. Even after the patches there were some built in issues that were problematic and that were really only resolved with the release of CM:BN. If anyone remembers Scipio (who iirc did some solid UI modding). He and I had a QB wherein my poor British engineers were matched up against a platoon of T-72s to rather disastrous results. I think I managed to catch one in an ambush for an immobilization. Nearly 10 years later I can remember that match with startling clarity. ------------ CM:SF1 is the game in the series I put the most time into and its one of the reasons CM:SF2 was such a nice release. As CM:SF1 was almost immediately outclassed by CM:BN just in pure user friendliness. With the introduction of an actual QB system, removal of the ammo bar (which iirc applied to artillery?), and a likely other updates I've forgotten.

This of course is going to a discussion prone to fallible human memory and opinion. However, for my part I recall there being a dearth of interesting discussion on this forum a bit after the most of the CM:SF patching was done but before CM:BN was released. During that period Gamesquad was... vigorous but I felt that the big personalities there kept the discussion going. Those same large personalities eventually caused the Gamesquad forum to implode and since the CM:BN release discussion here has been improving year over year.

I lurked over on Gamesquad during those years and the discussions were broadly more interesting that what was going on here. They tended to break the game down more than what was seen on these official forums. Within the last couple years these forums have gotten better as a few folks have started to really dig into CMx2's systems and do interesting things with them.

I suspect its due to vehicles being targeted differently than infantry? The armor targeting thread, that has since fallen off the front page, had good information and it is likely linked.

Fundamentally your exposure == your chance of being hit. Its pretty clear that everyone in a HT has too much exposure regardless of any other issues. Reducing the exposure would directly result in reduced casualties.

I wonder if the withdrawal is trigger based or overwitten by a trigger? So that specific playstyles tend to get it while other playstyles do not.

It depends on what you are playing. Its uncommon in infantry focused games because frankly hitpoints can get you "good enough". If you are playing a dedicated tank game though they generally don't use hitpoints or use them in a non-standard way. Warthunder, for example, doesn't use hitpoints but a vehicle isn't dead until all the crew are killed. That still allows you to mission kill them. Arma itself uses a hybrid hitpoint system, but its more complex than it used to be. Again though infantry focused games across the board use hitpoints for vehicles in some fashion and I cannot think of an infantry first game that doesn't. Once you move into games that are air/armor focused you see hitpoint systems drop away quite quickly though. SABOW, Men Of War, IL-2(?), Graviteam Tactics all stay away from hitpoints. But obviously they are not infantry focused FPS. ------ As far as individual bullet trajectories. Those are now as common as dirt with nearly all the major shooters moving to them. Their complexity differs so you have Battlefield V with a over emphasized system and general lack of penetration while in Rising Storm 2 you can wall bang all day.

What always sticks out to me is that the animation for firing from half-tracks overly exposes the crew. Since exposure = death a better animation would improve the utility of the HTs. I played around a bit with the animation files (after getting inspiration from the animation mod) and was able to get folks in the HT to not stand when firing and they were much less likely to be killed. Unfortunately it broke other things. Any a future update a change to firing stance from vehicles would be nice.

Its interesting that they recommend only dismounting for AT guns. My experience in CM is that halftracks are absolutely death traps except under very specific circumstances.

Something I;ve noticed is that automatics always fire in a straight line and never track their target. Which I suspect makes them a bit worse than they ought to be.

Any thoughts on Steam Workshop integration? The heavily limited "modding" capabilities of CM make it an almost perfect candidate. Command Ops 2 and Armored Brigade are using the workshop to great effect and make it simple to download new scenarios.

Honestly people are panicking way too much over Steam reviews. To the point that I actually question whether people commenting actually use the platform. Here are some reviews for "serious wargames" many of which look significantly worse than CM. Some of these are literally chits on a map. Command Ops 2: Very Positive Graviteam Tactics: Very Positive Flashpoint Campaigns: Very Positive Armored Brigade: Very Positive War in the East: Very Positive War in the West: Very Positive Decisive Campaigns: Very Positive Command (CMO/CMNO): Very Positive Scourge of War: Very Positive Take Command: Positive

iirc the reason the contacts in CMx2 are better is because they are not sound contacts but poor visual contacts. "was that a man or a bush" as opposed to "I heard metal clinking" This is sorta linked into why we dont have vehicle misidentification

Also remember that the enemy within the core of the woods is effectively out of the fight. As soon as you push them deep enough into it that they cannot see out you can leave a small group of men to screen your force from it and move on.

Split the platoon into fireteams. Step #1: fireteams on line and within LOS of each other. One team advances a short distance forwards using hunt (about half of LOS maybe less) and then sits for maybe 20 seconds. | | -> | | step #2: Other fireteams then advance inline with the sacrifical element and waits 20 seconds or so before repeating. | -> | . | | -> | It will take a long time but it allows your mean to move forward bit by bit and gives them time to spot and engage any enemies. Once you locate the enemy you can then engage them on your terms. You can make this slightly faster by just having your troops do a similar style of movement but with having them firing into the woods as they advance using target light. The reason you use hunt is that you want the team to immediately hit the deck should they suspect anything is going wrong. Going prone in woods gives them a lot of concealment and the accompanying fireteams should be close enough to provide supporting fire quickly.

There are a lot of games but it does give you decent ability to find similar games. I found Command Ops 2 on Steam and before then I didn't know it existed. Since that time I've spent around $100 on it.