Will 3.0 unbalance older scenarios?

[warrenpeace]

In following the threads and ChrisND's videos, it seems that one of the changes in 3.0 is that only one artillery strike can be directed by a single FO or HQ team. I was thinking that this limitation might really change the balance in some artillery heavy scenarios in CMBN and CMFI.

[slysniper]

SURE WILL CHANGE HOW THEY PLAY, BUT UNBALENCE IS NOT A GOOD TERM IN MY BOOK. Since who ever claimed any scenario balenced. Balenced for who and how can you tell unless your opponant happens to have the same skill level as you (which do you know that??? - what skill level, is it balenced for AI or HtoH - In other words there is only one type of balenced scenario, that is Blue on Blue in a meeting engagement with the exact same items and map layout. And that is about the only time balenced can be used.

As for your question, sure will change game play. I am in a battle right now where the F.O. is directing 3 arty attacks. That seems a little unrealistic. So I would not have any issue forcing more observers being used. It will for sure cut down some scenarios on how affective arty will play in the battle.

[Pak40]

I seriously doubt it will unbalance any. Most artillery can be called in by Company and Battalion COs although it may take a little longer. So it's not much of a game changer. And, IMO, too many battles now are balanced. We need some asymmetric battles just like in real life.

[evo6tme]

When will we get 3.00 as a standalone upgrade? Or will we have to buy red thunder?

[womble]

I seriously doubt it will unbalance any. Most artillery can be called in by Company and Battalion COs although it may take a little longer. So it's not much of a game changer. And, IMO, too many battles now are balanced. We need some asymmetric battles just like in real life.

If any HQ can call it, all HQs can, no? Personally, I find FOs are too often out of place for the lighter stuff, and most of the time, getting them into place would add more to the call time than just using whatever HQ has eyes-on. I think one place where it will make a difference is when you've got several heavy "FO-required" batteries that are realistically only usable in preplanned mode. Now you'll need a dedicated FO for each preplanned mission. Unless preplanned are an exception. Not that it's going to happen all that often...

[Fizou]

When will we get 3.00 as a standalone upgrade? Or will we have to buy red thunder?

Steve gave a estimate of about 2 months after CMRT release. So no need to buy RT if you dont want to.. upgrades for CMFI and CMBN will be released.

[womble]

One thing in v3 that might unbalance some scenarios is the ability of light flak to drive off CAS. Where a scenario designer has included CAS as the only effective hard counter to an autofire flak asset, or to another threat where there's AAA available which will now be able to defend it, the scenario's success turns into a crapshoot as to whether the AAA beats the TacAir. Yay.

[Lt Belenko]

When will we get 3.00 as a standalone upgrade? Or will we have to buy red thunder?

My guess is they will do CMBN 3.X upgrade like they did 1.X to 2.X upgrade. Offer the 3.X upgrade only for $10. Then later on (months) release another pack with new units that include FTs and 3.X will come with that.

No need to buy RT or Italy upgrades.

[womble]

My guess is they will do CMBN 3.X upgrade like they did 1.X to 2.X upgrade. Offer the 3.X upgrade only for $10. Then later on (months) release another pack with new units that include FTs and 3.X will come with that.

Any future content pack that requires 3.x probably won't have it included for free. MG didn't; you could get the engine upgrade as a bundle with MG for $5 more than MG (a saving of $5 on having bought the engine upgrade separately).

No need to buy RT or Italy upgrades.

You'll definitely need to buy Italy upgrades. That's only v2 of the engine. Presumably they'll refer to it as CMFI v2.x, with RT on v1 and BN on v3... Just to create as much confusion as possible when people are referring to the engine version.

[Michael Emrys]

You'll definitely need to buy Italy upgrades. That's only v2 of the engine. Presumably they'll refer to it as CMFI v2.x, with RT on v1 and BN on v3... Just to create as much confusion as possible when people are referring to the engine version.

Yeah. I understand the reasons that have been offered for the current system, but I seriously believe that BFC needs to rethink the issue. Under the circumstances, any numbering system is going to represent a compromise fraught with difficulties, but it seems to me that the current one is, all in all, the least satisfactory. In short, there should be one number and one number only for each iteration of the game engine and that selfsame number be applied to its appearance in each game family.

Michael

[Childress]

In short, there should be one number and one number only for each iteration of the game engine and that selfsame number be applied to its appearance in each game family.

You're right. The nomenclature that BF's implementing will bewilder newcomers.

[Audgisil]

I couldn't agree more changing the way they do version numbers. Right now it's bit of a mess, and that mess is only going to get worse as additional games are released.

At release, Red Thunder should be version 3.0. Then Italy and Normandy should both be upgraded to 3.x.

If the various games have slightly different version numbers at some point to reflect minor updates that are theatre specific or hotfixes, that's fine, but it would then be very clear at least what engine it's running on. It would be very helpful for newcomers as well. For example it might be Red Thunder 3.1, Fortress Italy 3.11 and Normandy 3.13 at some point, but it's far less confusing that what we have now.

[womble]

Another way the "one mission per observer" might change the balance of some games: if the restriction applies to air missions, they take so long to come in that on short-medium scenarios with a lot of air assets and not many qualified observers, you won't be able to get full use out of your TacAir, since missions won't be able to overlap. There's an argument that the FAC doesn't walk missions onto target, like the artillery FO does, so should be able to have more than one "pending" mission.

There's another argument that there probably shouldn't be more than one mission in the sky over a CM-sized field at once, though what the parameters of restriction could be there, I wouldn't like to hazzard.

A concrete example: the third mission in Road to Nijmegen has 4 air assets in total, with an aggregate call time of 52 minutes, in a 70 minute scenario. Only being able to have one pending mission would probably mean that the first two calls would have to be speculative deep area strikes on TRPs (or pre-planned) in order to have the time to get all 4 strikes in. And they'd all be "Heavy" because you probably wouldn't have time to call them back in to finish emptying their racks and cannon.

[Apocal]

In following the threads and ChrisND's videos, it seems that one of the changes in 3.0 is that only one artillery strike can be directed by a single FO or HQ team. I was thinking that this limitation might really change the balance in some artillery heavy scenarios in CMBN and CMFI.

Is this restriction specific to Soviets or Germans? Because I'm sure American and Brit observers could call on multiple batteries (modules) of artillery with zero problems.

[SlowMotion]

I wonder how this works in practise. If a FO has ordered Fire For Effect, can he then start spotting rounds for another artillery unit? Or does the first fire mission have to end before another can be started?

[LukeFF]

Is this restriction specific to Soviets or Germans? Because I'm sure American and Brit observers could call on multiple batteries (modules) of artillery with zero problems.

Chris mentioned it in one of his Twitch videos, but I cannot recall if he said it will be a feature for all nations and all current titles.

[Fizou]

Another way the "one mission per observer" might change the balance of some games: if the restriction applies to air missions, they take so long to come in that on short-medium scenarios with a lot of air assets and not many qualified observers, you won't be able to get full use out of your TacAir, since missions won't be able to overlap.

If Im not misstaken, CAS, will be handled in the same way as in CMRT once FI and BN is upgraded to 3.0. I.e. one does not call them in, they roam freely.

And +1 for changing the version name/number of each game to reflext the current engine version. CMRT to be released as 3.0 instead as 1.0.

[womble]

If Im not misstaken, CAS, will be handled in the same way as in CMRT once FI and BN is upgraded to 3.0. I.e. one does not call them in, they roam freely.

Ah yes. You're right. No such thing as FAC, any more. Doesn't bother me much cos I've not used TacAir out of choice, and after my experiences with what scenarios hand me, I shan't be changing that. Worthless bleedin' flyboys.

[Vet 0369]

Ah yes. You're right. No such thing as FAC, any more. Doesn't bother me much cos I've not used TacAir out of choice, and after my experiences with what scenarios hand me, I shan't be changing that. Worthless bleedin' flyboys.

Of course that will have to change if BF ever does a Pacific theater. The Marines definitely used FAC (they developed air-ground coordination since the Banana Wars). Navy and Marine FOs used it regularly. USMC air-ground is still a thing of beauty.

[Peregrine]

Does this mean all the CMRT updates (ie triggers in the scenario editor) will be retrofitted back into CMBN?

[womble]

Does this mean all the CMRT updates (ie triggers in the scenario editor) will be retrofitted back into CMBN?

There will be a "v3" upgrade to BN which will bring the engine into line with the "v1" of RT. Similarly, a "v2" upgrade to FI will be available. Expectation is that each will cost $10, and possibly that if there is a later addition to a given family that requires the upgrade, the new addition and upgrade will be available as a bundle with a $5 discount.

My recollection is that Steve said particularly about the air support issue, that the changes would be incorporated in v3 of BN. I hope that at some point there can be a return of the FAC function, because they certainly existed and were used in some theatres and time frames. I'm thinking along the lines of perhaps a special unit that would, if present, permit the use of the support menu for air missions, but without its presence, air would behave as it is going to in RT. Don't know whether the architecture will support having variant behaviour though. FAC has to be incorporated for Black Sea, given the importance of air power in the modern battlespace.