Manual is up!

[stikkypixie]

I would just like to add a thumbs up to this.

To be fair, the whole idea of modules was always adding content not features. The announcement page also never mention any new features except updates to the engine. That's why I've been waiting for the Eastern front game which should be more feature complete

[Macisle]

As a casual forum reader (except when modules are coming out. Then I refresh with the best of 'em!), I'm pretty sure I've read a number of postings by Steve saying that the earliest that something like armor-only cover arcs might happen would be the Bulge title--and that was only a maybe.

I believe I've read recently (was it Phil?) that the CW module/new patch should offer some modest performance gains. If so (I may be wrong here. Sorry if I am.), that is great news, as overall, better frame rates (I have a good rig) are still at the top of my wish list.

After that, (we have some time to kill, so why not list them yet again!) I would put:

2) extreme reduction of ability of buttoned-up AFVs to spot infantry.

3) ability of crews to abandon and re-crew their ATGs at will.

4) Armor-only cover arcs.

5) Target heavy command for infantry - meaning a close up special attack that makes them specifically include grenades in their attack. Should be a color coded target line to let the player know of range limits. I envision the infantry as throwing at least one grenade every few seconds until they run our or the command is cancelled.

[para]

To be fair, the whole idea of modules was always adding content not features. The announcement page also never mention any new features except updates to the engine. That's why I've been waiting for the Eastern front game which should be more feature complete

stikkypixie

My thumbs up was for Pak40's frustration regarding non BFC affiliated members who constantly stick their oar in.

I am not including you in that list

[Wodin]

stikkypixie

My thumbs up was for Pak40's frustration regarding non BFC affiliated members who constantly stick their oar in.

I am not including you in that list

I apologised to Pak, so I'm not sure why you've gone and stuck your oar in so to speak.

I'm not stupid, I know the game needs a couple of added features. However it has been stated many times now that features like these will only be added in base games, not modules.

Still even as is the game is fantastic and I haven't found a tactical wargame yet that beats or even matches it. If I do (and the more the merrier, tactical scale wargames are my love, yeah sad I know) then I will be the first to say so and how great it is.

[para]

I apologised to Pak, so I'm not sure why you've gone and stuck your oar in so to speak.QUOTE]

Annoying isn't it? when people constantly stick their oar in.

[Pak40]

Ok, sorry to turn this into a flame war. For the record, I had never bought a CMSF module, so I wasn't aware that there were no new command features added in modules. I'm still used the CMx1 where each new version had some improvements. And while I've had a sneaking suspicion that no command features will be added to the Commonwealth module, I've still held out hope.

so, let's move on.

[para]

Ok, sorry to turn this into a flame war. For the record, I had never bought a CMSF module, so I wasn't aware that there were no new command features added in modules. I'm still used the CMx1 where each new version had some improvements. And while I've had a sneaking suspicion that no command features will be added to the Commonwealth module, I've still held out hope.

so, let's move on.

Don't worry Pak40 you have not. Wodin kept sticking his oar in to my posts and now he is getting some, he does not like it.

I will move on now.

[Steiner14]

Such a long development time only for a few new models?

I don't see the missing amour cover-arc as new feature. This was already standard in CMx1 and that it is missing for many years now, is a shame. Even more, because BFC always claims that realism was their top priority.

If they can't code a very simple new order and add the button to the interface in more than a year, then the new engine can't be that much better than the old one programming wise.

And if i take the scope of the older CMx1 titles into account, i also don't see an increased output because of the gloryfied new engine. In fact now they have a second programmer and the output is roughly the same as with the CMx1 engine.

[George MC]

Such a long development time only for a few new models?

I don't see the missing amour cover-arc as new feature. This was already standard in CMx1 and that it is missing for many years now, is a shame. Even more, because BFC always claims that realism was their top priority.

If they can't code a very simple new order and add the button to the interface in more than a year, then the new engine can't be that much better than the old one programming wise.

And if i take the scope of the older CMx1 titles into account, i also don't see an increased output because of the gloryfied new engine. In fact now they have a second programmer and the output is roughly the same as with the CMx1 engine.

You've absolutely no idea what is going on behind the scenes buddy

[futon river crossing]

I think it's worth restating now and then that "Cover Armour" is right up there as a most wanted feature. Failing that, then more intelligent AI targeting wouldn't be a feature, but a game engine improvement, and therefor not outside the module upgrade policy. I would have thought an end to ATGs uselessly firing their last AP rounds at infantry would be a reasonable expectation for the new module, no?

[YankeeDog]

I would have thought an end to ATGs uselessly firing their last AP rounds at infantry would be a reasonable expectation for the new module, no?

This would fall in the category of a unit-AI adjustment. Based on the past history of the kind of game improvements/fixes that have been included in patches to CMBN & CMSF, this is the kind of thing that could very well be included in a patch, so we might not need to wait for a new game family for something like this.

As to whether any such adjustment has actually been made in the upcoming v1.10 of CMBN, I have no idea and we'll have to wait until the patch comes out and/or they post the changelog.

FWIW, I personally agree that the game would benefit from such a "tweak". I have frequently seen AT guns unnecessarily revealing themselves and/or wasting ammo on infantry units, often at ranges where the infantry is definitely not currently a threat to the gun. This often makes eliminating AT guns when playing against the computer almost trivially easy, as the computer player's AT guns will fire at the first infantry scout team they see. And trading two riflemen for an AT gun in CMBN is in the same league as trading a pawn for a knight.

[xian]

I wonder if BFC would consider (and if Amazon would allow) a Kindle version of the manuals?

[Sergei]

Don't the new Kindles support PDF files?

[kelpie]

I wonder if BFC would consider (and if Amazon would allow) a Kindle version of the manuals?

Just send the pdf version to your Kindle

[xian]

Do they? I'll have to test.

[Childress]

Just send the pdf version to your Kindle

That works. But you'll have to read it in landscape format. Unless you have x-ray vision.

[xian]

Indeed - plus I can't get the print version to show up.

[Ranger33]

That works. But you'll have to read it in landscape format. Unless you have x-ray vision.

There is a free program called Calibre that will convert PDFs into easily readable Kindle versions.

[tiger123]

So what in game mechanics terms is new? If none then is this just a TOE exercise with new vehicles.

If so-then why has this module taken 8 months to do?

[beatmasta]

Found quite interesting line in the manual:

"British.... managed to keep their tank units based around one specific type and variant... Players are restricted from mixing tanks of different types within a single formation in the game".

Does this mean that in the QB's I can't buy an infantry company and attach for example a Firefly, couple of Churchills and a Cromwell into that unit? If I want fireflys into the game they are only type of tank which I can buy into that particular battle?

If that's the case it sounds quite restrictive but if it is historically how it, then be it so.

Or does it just mean that when I buy a whole platoon (or bigger unit) of tanks all of them has to be same type?

[sburke]

So what in game mechanics terms is new? If none then is this just a TOE exercise with new vehicles.

If so-then why has this module taken 8 months to do?

Friendly word of advice - before making a comment along the lines of "why has this module taken 8 months to do?", it would be worth taking a few minutes to read the 2 threads on the subject. It just comes out all wrong.

We are currently in Final Candidate testing mode. This means testing stuff like installers and what not. This stuff has become more complex these days, plus the fact that we now are supporting the PC and Mac platforms also means more testing. The release includes a total of 8 (!) packages, the module, the bundle, the 1.10 patch for the base game, and a new updated demo... times two (for PC, and for Mac).

So, we're working on it as quick as we can.

In the meantime, I am preparing the Commonwealth Forces module manual for the web viewer right now, and will probably be able to release it tomorrow. If you behave, I may just throw in the 1.10 changelog for good measure... we'll see.

Martin

[Childress]

'In the meantime, I am preparing the Commonwealth Forces module manual for the web viewer right now, and will probably be able to release it tomorrow. If you behave, I may just throw in the 1.10 changelog for good measure... we'll see.'

Hey, that was two days ago.

Who didn't behave!?

[Warmachine113]

I didnt :S

[wokelly]

Found quite interesting line in the manual:

"British.... managed to keep their tank units based around one specific type and variant... Players are restricted from mixing tanks of different types within a single formation in the game".

Does this mean that in the QB's I can't buy an infantry company and attach for example a Firefly, couple of Churchills and a Cromwell into that unit? If I want fireflys into the game they are only type of tank which I can buy into that particular battle?

If that's the case it sounds quite restrictive but if it is historically how it, then be it so.

Or does it just mean that when I buy a whole platoon (or bigger unit) of tanks all of them has to be same type?

Well there is some mixing allowed. Cromwells and Fireflies in the same unit did occur due to the lack of an effective 17pdr armed Cromwell. In regards to Churchills, M10s were often used to boost their AT punch so mixing Churchills and M10s/Achilles would be historical.

[JonS]

Or does it just mean that when I buy a whole platoon (or bigger unit) of tanks all of them has to be same type?

I think what it means is that if you buy a troop (not platoon) or squadron (not company) or regiment (but sometimes batalion) of Shermans (or Cromwells, or Churchills) they will all be Is, or IIs, or IIIs, or IVs, or Vs. Some of them might be VC, or IC (that is: Firefly), but they'll all have come off the notional assembly line back in the e-States or e-England at about the same time.

But despite that, you should still be able to buy individual vehicles - like you already can in CMBN - and come up with any mix that suits your fancy.