Now available for pre-order:
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=341&Itemid=604 (http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=341&Itemid=604)
?
I don't see any information about pre-order.
Have they given a final release date yet? Hard to see the incentive to pre-order when this module has been already delayed to the extent it has...
On the left hand side where it says Purchase. If you click on Buy Now or the image, it takes you to the ordering page.
No final release date given as yet. Normally it takes 6-8 weeks after it becomes available as a pre-order, although I suspect it might be quicker than that this time.
Sonofa...
Like I got nothing else to play.
Quote from: IronX on March 18, 2016, 10:39:15 AM
On the left hand side where it says Purchase. If you click on Buy Now or the image, it takes you to the ordering page.
No final release date given as yet. Normally it takes 6-8 weeks after it becomes available as a pre-order, although I suspect it might be quicker than that this time.
OK thanks.
$55 ... that has a certain sting to it after only being charged $32 for Mius Front....
I can't find a way to choose "download only" and not pay the $10.00 shipping. Does anyone know if that's not available for the pre-order discount?
You can't pre-order the download only option. It's usually available a day or two after the physical copy becomes available.
Thanks.
Yeah, if buying digital version only, really no reason to pre-order anyway since no special discounts or bonuses...no doubt I'll pick up at some point.
The pre-orders are now officially up (i.e. front page announcement).
It's the only game I get media for any more.
Pointless, really, but it's CM, so why not.
Demo will apparently be available in 1-2 weeks. But that's a BFC timeframe, which mean it's likely several weeks away in normal time.
I thought I saw Steve say the actual release was 4-6 weeks away. Did he mean for hard copy or for all releases? I thought they said it was all ready to go.
Does the physical copy have a printed manual?
I stopped buying physical copies after Normandy but that did have a paper manual. I'm pretty sure they still print them for new games.
Quote from: Redwolf on March 21, 2016, 10:28:54 PM
Does the physical copy have a printed manual?
From their front page announcement....looks like it does
Combat Mission: Final Blitzkrieg preorders are now being taken! As with previous CM releases, ordering ahead of time secures for you a limited edition printed manual specific to the Final Blitzkrieg content, in addition to a printed v3.01 Game Engine manual, DVD case, and DVD. All preorders automatically come with a download link that is activated when the game is ready for action. Check out the new web pages for details and images while awaiting the release of the Demo (coming soon!).
Demo is out...
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=344&Itemid=606
I know likely no major advancements, but love playing in the snow:) Sounds like full game will be out in the near term as well, will be a purchase for me.
Doesn't seem to be the buzz of previous releases.
Not that they ever tell us such things, but I expect this to sell well better than BS or RT. Just the proclivities of the Western buying public.
I, of course, am repeatedly thrashing the refresh button on my download link...
Totally in a WWII slump and especially for the CM engine...where I love the modern stuff (CM:SF and BS)
However...I will likely purchase as I have all their modules...because I'm a sad sack :(
Quote from: Cyrano on March 31, 2016, 10:07:17 PM
Not that they ever tell us such things, but I expect this to sell well better than BS or RT. Just the proclivities of the Western buying public.
I'm not so sure and would be surprised if this actually winds up being the case -- although I'd be pleased for BFC if it is.
I tend to agree with RyanE. The persistent delays with getting Final Blitzkrieg out, the surprising lack of transparency from BFC about what was causing all the delays and when the actual game was going to launch, added to the fact that, all things considered, Final Blitzkrieg is hardly a revolutionary advance on the existing CMx2 system -- all these things have kind of sapped the excitement for me. Just my own perspective, but I'm no where near as excited for this as I was for Black Sea -- and I generally am a much bigger WW2 fan than I am of modern-day combat...
I love CM and have been a fan since the original CMBO launched it's first game demo way back. But I'm less than excited about this module and, honestly not trying to start a Flame-war, a little disgusted by their nickel and dime policy of charging for every little upgrade for every game and or module and battle pack. But after I rage about it a bit, I'll probably give-in and buy the damned game. Cause there's really nothing else I like playing more.
For some perspective on my feelings towards the release...
On CMBS, I sat on the edge of my seat waiting for release. Even the CMBN vehicle pack was exciting for me.
CMFB feels like an obligation and too much like work. I'll get it, play around a little with it, and then go back to CMBS.
I definitely feel the same as the rest of you - but I can't help it - I will get it. In fact, if they had UK release (so cheaper postage) I'd have pre-ordered! :uglystupid2:
I guess I am different....really wasn't expecting anything earth shattering or was overly concerned about release timeline. to me, I always expected it to be just an extension to the series, versus a leap. I enjoy it for what it is, but of course looking forward to when they do decide to change up the series.
Quote from: RyanE on March 31, 2016, 01:47:28 PM
Demo is out...
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=344&Itemid=606
Well...the demo is fun. I haven't played any CM in years so it seemed quite wonderful. Crisp and nasty. Bang bang arrrrh.
Edited; see later discussion
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 01, 2016, 06:55:29 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on April 01, 2016, 01:04:03 PM
Quote from: RyanE on March 31, 2016, 01:47:28 PM
Demo is out...
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=344&Itemid=606
Well...the demo is fun. I haven't played any CM in years so it seemed quite wonderful. Crisp and nasty. Bang bang arrrrh.
I tried the Chenoux demo scen, let it run for three minutes, and turned it off. Managed a tactical victory as US. :-) I think the days of "classic" demo scenarios is over. I've preordered anyway, but kind of miss how exciting the CMBO, CMBB and CMAK demos seemed at the time.
Which side did you play?
My bad...re-read your post. You played as US.
You do understand that the US setup area is worth 500 points and the German setup area is worth 350, right? The rest of the points would be awarded for casualties given and taken. And in an 80 turn game, that probably isn't very many if you bail after 3. I'm not sure how you can judge a scenario as being "classic" or not by only playing 3.75% of it. With the points awarded for the setup area, the US should get that result without playing a single turn. Kinda harsh to judge/review something that you haven't actually played. IMHO.
I had a go at it. I am not sure I am enjoying it, enemies in buildings seem to be invincible. Orders keep being forgotten for no reason, formations are nonexistent. Eugh
Quote from: Elvis on April 01, 2016, 09:57:33 PM
My bad...re-read your post. You played as US.
You do understand that the US setup area is worth 500 points and the German setup area is worth 350, right? The rest of the points would be awarded for casualties given and taken. And in an 80 turn game, that probably isn't very many if you bail after 3. I'm not sure how you can judge a scenario as being "classic" or not by only playing 3.75% of it. With the points awarded for the setup area, the US should get that result without playing a single turn. Kinda harsh to judge/review something that you haven't actually played. IMHO.
I only fooled around with it briefly - actually, had an ASL game scheduled so only had time to peek at one scenario. I see now the game is recommended as German vs AI, and are the attacker, which would make more sense. Design philosophies differ, but I always thought an attacker should have to play the scenario in order to win it; I see that is the German in this case so you are correct.
I see the other scenario is by Pete Wenman; he generally does good work. I still haven't figured out why some scenarios have designer names in the briefings (the other games seem to do this also) and others don't. Seems odd not to give credit where it is due.
I'm hoping the water level "bug" had been fixed, but we can't preview in the editor so I'll wait for the full version - would be nice to have water elevation changes, if not for contiguous rivers then at least for separate pools of standing water which occur at different elevations.
I expect this one will be more popular than CM:FI.
Whatever one thinks of BF as a company, the Bulge is almost certain to be more popular than the EF or, and here I'm guessing, the Black Sea business. As I say, I certainly can't prove it, but it remains my hunch nonetheless.
@M. Dorosh: Most pleased you stopped to comment. First, I couldn't agree more about the giddy excitement that accompanied the CMx1 demo scenarios. Each has become in its own way a classic of the form matching in my own eyes scenarios like "The Guards Attack".
I also wanted to commend you on Panzergeist which I'm playing through with a regular PBEM opponent. Top-shelf scenario design and ASL adaptation. If you don't mind the query: Do you feel you exaggerated the terrain for effect? It feels that way for me and works very well. Gave me a stronger sense of the problem and helped me approach my answer better...or, of course, I could be imagining it.
Quote from: Cyrano on April 02, 2016, 10:19:05 PM
Whatever one thinks of BF as a company, the Bulge is almost certain to be more popular than the EF or, and here I'm guessing, the Black Sea business. As I say, I certainly can't prove it, but it remains my hunch nonetheless.
@M. Dorosh: Most pleased you stopped to comment. First, I couldn't agree more about the giddy excitement that accompanied the CMx1 demo scenarios. Each has become in its own way a classic of the form matching in my own eyes scenarios like "The Guards Attack".
I also wanted to commend you on Panzergeist which I'm playing through with a regular PBEM opponent. Top-shelf scenario design and ASL adaptation. If you don't mind the query: Do you feel you exaggerated the terrain for effect? It feels that way for me and works very well. Gave me a stronger sense of the problem and helped me approach my answer better...or, of course, I could be imagining it.
Always glad to see your name in the discussions as well. :-)
Re: Panzergeist - I've always found ASL conversions work best if one takes the scenario as a guideline only, then populates it with more accurate order of battle, and sets it on an actual map. In this case, both the scenario card and the original source material - the panzer regiment history by Jung - were somewhat vague so I took a quick battle map and redesigned it. I had referenced the actual place name of the area in Google Earth and tried to match it to this representative terrain as best I could. I honestly don't remember the process but I do remember playtesting the scenario and adjusting the size to hopefully better allow the units to make use of the terrain. I'm glad to hear someone is enjoying it!
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 01, 2016, 10:42:40 PM
Quote from: Elvis on April 01, 2016, 09:57:33 PM
My bad...re-read your post. You played as US.
You do understand that the US setup area is worth 500 points and the German setup area is worth 350, right? The rest of the points would be awarded for casualties given and taken. And in an 80 turn game, that probably isn't very many if you bail after 3. I'm not sure how you can judge a scenario as being "classic" or not by only playing 3.75% of it. With the points awarded for the setup area, the US should get that result without playing a single turn. Kinda harsh to judge/review something that you haven't actually played. IMHO.
I only fooled around with it briefly - actually, had an ASL game scheduled so only had time to peek at one scenario. I see now the game is recommended as German vs AI, and are the attacker, which would make more sense. Design philosophies differ, but I always thought an attacker should have to play the scenario in order to win it; I see that is the German in this case so you are correct.
I see the other scenario is by Pete Wenman; he generally does good work. I still haven't figured out why some scenarios have designer names in the briefings (the other games seem to do this also) and others don't. Seems odd not to give credit where it is due.
I'm hoping the water level "bug" had been fixed, but we can't preview in the editor so I'll wait for the full version - would be nice to have water elevation changes, if not for contiguous rivers then at least for separate pools of standing water which occur at different elevations.
I expect this one will be more popular than CM:FI.
it looks like the big rivers still are all at one level. There is a marshy creek terrain that simulates a small creek flowing downhill.
Quote from: MengJiao on April 05, 2016, 09:56:55 AM
it looks like the big rivers still are all at one level. There is a marshy creek terrain that simulates a small creek flowing downhill.
Thanks for this. Looking over the maps in the demo confirms this. The maps are nice, looking forward to seeing all four possible regions in the editor.
Now available!
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122412-cmfb-soft-launch-is-here-buydownload-now/ (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122412-cmfb-soft-launch-is-here-buydownload-now/)
Excellent...thanks for the heads up.
Quote from: IronX on April 06, 2016, 05:54:11 PM
Now available!
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122412-cmfb-soft-launch-is-here-buydownload-now/ (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122412-cmfb-soft-launch-is-here-buydownload-now/)
Did any of the preorders get their email yet? I don't seem to have gotten mine.
Well, I didn't quite get to the purchase page for this, but I did get the CM:BN Battle Pack and soon found out that I needed the Vehicle Pack to play it. FFS. :tickedoff:
In Battlefronts defence, when I went back and read the product page, it was there in a big orange box. So completely my fault... :uglystupid2:
But - what's done is done. All they've done is take the money I was going to spend on Final Blitzkrieg :'(
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2016, 09:37:38 PM
Quote from: IronX on April 06, 2016, 05:54:11 PM
Now available!
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122412-cmfb-soft-launch-is-here-buydownload-now/ (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122412-cmfb-soft-launch-is-here-buydownload-now/)
Did any of the preorders get their email yet? I don't seem to have gotten mine.
Did you ever get the email? If not, check your spam folder. If you still don't see it, look in your account on the BFC site and you should be able to download it from there.
If none of that helps, start a ticket on the Help Desk and include the order number.
Quote from: Elvis on April 07, 2016, 07:41:23 AM
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2016, 09:37:38 PM
Quote from: IronX on April 06, 2016, 05:54:11 PM
Now available!
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122412-cmfb-soft-launch-is-here-buydownload-now/ (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122412-cmfb-soft-launch-is-here-buydownload-now/)
Did any of the preorders get their email yet? I don't seem to have gotten mine.
Did you ever get the email? If not, check your spam folder. If you still don't see it, look in your account on the BFC site and you should be able to download it from there.
If none of that helps, start a ticket on the Help Desk and include the order number.
I did log in to the site, thanks. No spam folder message, but I seem to think the last game I preordered also had a late release of info. It seems to me BFC is calling it a "soft release" - probably to avoid the servers being jammed up all at once. Not the end of the world, but it *used to be* that preorders had priority on getting the game first. A little irritating to have to read about it on the internet, but no real harm done.
Downloaded last night and took a look through the scenarios. At first blush seems to be not a lot of actual Battle of the Bulge stuff, but the community will be able to remedy that, I'm sure.
The timeframe of the module (Oct 44 to Jan 45) is an interesting one; the Americans were obviously active in this period with the Huertgen Forest, Aachen and of course the Bulge. On the one hand the 21st Army Group was largely idle beginning in November, but there were also some fairly significant actions, albeit scattered - the Scheldt Estuary in October which will be very fertile ground, the fight at Kapelsche Veer in January, and Operation BLACKCOCK which saw Americans and British fighting side by side and at times even together. Lots of scenario ideas, but I wonder how much 'module fatigue' will set in by the time Commonwealth troops are offered up for FB? Particularly since it seems like all three German branches are included in the main game, meaning you won't have to buy Commonwealth just to get the SS...
Bought and have played a couple time. There are a few small scenarios that are very good. Glad I bought it, but still gotta say that it looks like a vehicle pack and battle back for CMBN would have sufficed. At a stretch, an upgrade could be thrown in to get the deep snow effect. Other than that, I feel like I am playing a scaled back version of CMBN with all its modules.
I still perplexed what took maybe two years to develop this one. I noticed they don't mention the website as the holdup any more.
This might be the best group of scenarios I have ever seen in a CM game. A great variety and most of them have great atmosphere. A lot of detailed work went into these. It's worth the $55 US just for those.
Having difficulty getting into the demo.
I agree that I wouldn't know what they worked on for so long. All the UI quirks, pathing quirks and missing features from CMx1 are still there.
Classic example of second system effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect)
Anyone know if Aris or Umlaut have plans to reskin the FB units? I find it hard to go back to vanilla's more 'flat' and character-less skins after using Aris's and co. in the other CM games...
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 08, 2016, 07:41:04 AM
Anyone know if Aris or Umlaut have plans to reskin the FB units? I find it hard to go back to vanilla's more 'flat' and character-less skins after using Aris's and co. in the other CM games...
Found this on the Battlefront forums :
All the buildings are new art, all the terrain is new art, all the vehicles are heavily reworked at the very least. Some are unrecognizable, like the early Panther G now without zimmerit and sporting a late summer 'ambush' camou scheme. Tiger I mid and Tiger II Henschel will be incompatible with CMBN mods because of model changes.So modding could take a little more time ...
Quote from: RyanE on April 07, 2016, 07:39:17 PM
This might be the best group of scenarios I have ever seen in a CM game. A great variety and most of them have great atmosphere. A lot of detailed work went into these. It's worth the $55 US just for those.
The maps alone are worth the cash. There are some fantastic maps in this game. I've been doing my usual....playing in the editor in "real" time. This makes for interesting accidents. For example, I failed to properly deploy 3 shermans and they ended up pretty far behind German lines in an expanded Ferme Dendermod Mod. Getting them back through the forest was an adventure. One bogged, but I sent some jeeps to rescue the crew.
What do you mean playing in the editor in "real time"?
Crafty Battlefront have found a way to remotely rewrite the code for CMBN on my PC in such a way that after many past failures I suddenly achieved a total victory against the AI, and now I feel like buying another game...
Actually this has been on my wishlist for a while. As a Brit, the Bulge was of little interest to me until relatively recently, when I watched Band of Brothers. Then there was Darkest Hour, which had battles in Foy, Stavelot, La Gleize and Stoumont amongst others. Later, it was Command Ops. So, out of curiosity, I wanted to put all this into a bigger picture, and I read a couple of books. Now I really want to see what the CM take on these battles is.
Quote from: RyanE on April 08, 2016, 03:45:56 PM
What do you mean playing in the editor in "real time"?
I just revise things in the editor and then play in real time.
Quote from: Pete Dero on April 08, 2016, 12:19:31 PM
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 08, 2016, 07:41:04 AM
Anyone know if Aris or Umlaut have plans to reskin the FB units? I find it hard to go back to vanilla's more 'flat' and character-less skins after using Aris's and co. in the other CM games...
Found this on the Battlefront forums :
All the buildings are new art, all the terrain is new art, all the vehicles are heavily reworked at the very least. Some are unrecognizable, like the early Panther G now without zimmerit and sporting a late summer 'ambush' camou scheme. Tiger I mid and Tiger II Henschel will be incompatible with CMBN mods because of model changes.
So modding could take a little more time ...
Thanks for the info.
Hearing that the scenarios are top notch, but has anyone tried the campaigns yet? I tend to be more of campaign player than stand-alone scenarios.
Finally will have time to purchase and play over the weekend...can anyone tell me how many of the scenarios are classified as tiny or small? Much prefer these levels so curios how many exist.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on April 08, 2016, 06:01:58 PM
Finally will have time to purchase and play over the weekend...can anyone tell me how many of the scenarios are classified as tiny or small? Much prefer these levels so curios how many exist.
Two of them are on maps about 250m x 250m - both are fictional.
Eight tiny/small scenarios.
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2016, 06:47:36 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on April 08, 2016, 06:01:58 PM
Finally will have time to purchase and play over the weekend...can anyone tell me how many of the scenarios are classified as tiny or small? Much prefer these levels so curios how many exist.
Two of them are on maps about 250m x 250m - both are fictional.
Thank you...was hoping for more smaller ones but I guess most people like the larger battles.
I prefer the little ones as well.
Also, regarding prices, I imagined this was going to be DLC for Normandy so I thought the price was going to be - well, considerably less than the price at the moment. I just bought the Vehicle Pack and Battle Pack for about £20. I was hoping this was more "battle" DLC and wouldn't be the price of "a full game".
Review posted....screenshots not that well done, believe the reviewer mentioned something was wrong with his screen capture software, but some of those pictures tough to look at.
http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/review-combat-mission-final-blitzkrieg/
It's funny -- I bought FB in a kinda half-hearted way, just wasn't that excited about it and thought I'd put off buying maybe indefinitely.
But I'm really enjoying it so far!
Played the "A Muddy Affair" scenario. The up-gunned Sherman 76s are a hoot. Didn't manage better than a Draw, but it was fun. Starting playing the Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign and working on the second battle. It's a lot of fun. Especially since I recently finished Beevor's "Ardennes 1944", it's neat to see some of the stuff I read about 'playing out' in the game.
Beevor btw gives a great sense of how completely doomed "Wacht am Rhein" was from the get-go -- and that pretty much all of Hitler's generals knew it, but pressed on anyway...
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 13, 2016, 07:12:08 PM
It's funny -- I bought FB in a kinda half-hearted way, just wasn't that excited about it and thought I'd put off buying maybe indefinitely.
But I'm really enjoying it so far!
Played the "A Muddy Affair" scenario. The up-gunned Sherman 76s are a hoot. Didn't manage better than a Draw, but it was fun. Starting playing the Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign and working on the second battle. It's a lot of fun. Especially since I recently finished Beevor's "Ardennes 1944", it's neat to see some of the stuff I read about 'playing out' in the game.
Beevor btw gives a great sense of how completely doomed "Wacht am Rhein" was from the get-go -- and that pretty much all of Hitler's generals knew it, but pressed on anyway...
I was halfway through that book...and then I forgot about it and left it at my husbands place....goddamnit....
Kampfgruppe Peiper is my jam yo. His story in the whole offensive is riveting, when I played the demo and realized I was fighting against him I spazzed out.
Im not getting the game though, 75 dollars australian and I just bought l33t Souls 3
I haven't played a ton yet, but enjoying what I have seen so far....just something about battling in the snow that keeps it interesting for me. Scenarios also seem interesting and glad there are about 8 small/tiny scenarios included, which are my favorite.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on April 13, 2016, 06:04:44 PM
Review posted....screenshots not that well done, believe the reviewer mentioned something was wrong with his screen capture software, but some of those pictures tough to look at.
http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/review-combat-mission-final-blitzkrieg/
I posted a brief preview video in the videos thread if anyone is still curious about what the game looks like. I think they got the autumn colours just right, and the winter stuff seems good too.
There doesn't seem to be much that's actually "new" other than the units/maps/scenarios. Not to diminish that, but would have liked to see, for example, hasty roadblocks and engineers who can clear them. I wonder if one couldn't do a workaround in the editor using Low Bocage to represent felled trees?
Quote from: MengJiao on April 08, 2016, 05:41:27 PM
Quote from: RyanE on April 08, 2016, 03:45:56 PM
What do you mean playing in the editor in "real time"?
I just revise things in the editor and then play in real time.
Doing a modified Hofen (the second attack) based on half of "A Day of Atttrition"...It's really hard to come close to the actual US defense there since it
inflicted 600 killed while losing 5 men killed. One stray mortar round or two and you can be 7 men down. Plus the AI seems a lot sneakier than the actual Germans were.
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 15, 2016, 08:26:11 AM
There doesn't seem to be much that's actually "new" other than the units/maps/scenarios. Not to diminish that, but would have liked to see, for example, hasty roadblocks and engineers who can clear them.
Very much agree, which is why I've been surprised how much I've been enjoying FB. I'm surprised I even bought it, to be honest, since it really does seem like 'more of the same,' and not cheap either.
But for whatever reason, I'm having a really good time with this and am glad I purchased.
If there were ONE THING I wish to God they'd change, it's the absurd lethality of unbuttoning. Unbuttoning, without fail, is like a fusillade magnet. Every AI enemy within shooting distance and beyond immediately trains their sights on the unbuttoned commander, who will often then sit blithely exposed while bullets ricochet off his tank's chassis. Ditto for the poor sod who decides to man a halftrack's machine gun -- that guy is essentially doomed. 9 out of 10 times he doesn't survive to the end of a scenario.
Drives me insane. Not saying unbuttoned commanders or gunners should be invulnerable. But it's just ridiculous how deadly the mere act of opening the hatch and taking a peek is in this game -- and I'm not talking about close quarters where you'd expect it to be dangerous, but in broad open fields where you're fairly confident there are no enemy contacts. (Indeed, one of the surest ways to lure enemies to expose their positions is to, you guessed it, unbutton your commander.)
End rant. FB is good.
Agree with the above rant. Especially the vehicle commanders not 'buttoning-up' on their on with the exception of very experienced commanders. Didn't they teach that in Tank School?
This is kind of a fun looking little review/AAR/DAR thang:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/15/the-flare-path-welcomes-combative-commenters/#more-360249
I don't think I am going to suggest any moves but I will follow the battle.
Quote from: Elvis on April 15, 2016, 11:24:11 AM
This is kind of a fun looking little review/AAR/DAR thang:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/15/the-flare-path-welcomes-combative-commenters/#more-360249
I don't think I am going to suggest any moves but I will follow the battle.
I saw that, but was too late to say, "Keep the Tiger back", and also "Don't unbutton" - as per the above "rants". The unbuttoning thing is quite interesting. When I played a lot of Darkest Hour, one of the most satisfying things to do as an infantryman was to off the unwise tanker who popped up to have a look around. Also, half-track MGers were pretty vulnerable.
As far as CM goes, I recently learnt the hard way about the dangers of unbuttoning. I had a US armoured car which was doing a great job of suppressing and killing some distant Germans with its 37mm. However, it ran out of HE ammo and refused to use its .50 cal on the same target. I quickly realised that it needed to unbutton to use said weapon and ordered it to do so. As you've guessed, the commander had barely got the hatch open when he was plugged by some hitherto unseen Kar 98-toting pixeltruppen.
Quote from: Father Ted on April 15, 2016, 02:20:21 PM
As far as CM goes, I recently learnt the hard way about the dangers of unbuttoning. I had a US armoured car which was doing a great job of suppressing and killing some distant Germans with its 37mm. However, it ran out of HE ammo and refused to use its .50 cal on the same target. I quickly realised that it needed to unbutton to use said weapon and ordered it to do so. As you've guessed, the commander had barely got the hatch open when he was plugged by some hitherto unseen Kar 98-toting pixeltruppen.
I'm convinced the 'vulnerability' of being unbuttoned or of manning an external MG is something in the game that's completely broken. You see thread after thread in the BF forums about 'Sighting is broken!" and the like -- and admittedly sighting can be pretty wonky and unrealistic at times. But man, I can live with all that just fine. The unbuttoning problem is like I say the single thing I wish they'd fix.
In a recent Red Thunder scenario -- I had a Tiger sitting (relatively hull-down, reverse slope) on a hill crest, several hundred meters behind the front-line fighting. He was sitting there for several turns in overwatch, just observing. Attracted no enemy fire. I did a little experiment. I had the commander unbutton, making sure to save before giving the order. Sure enough, a maxim hidden in a tree-line some *600 meters* away immediately opens up, and in three bursts kills the unbuttoned commander. Unfortunately that's not even remotely an exaggeration of what happened -- which is why it's so damned infuriating.
In any campaign I play with persistent units, easily half of my tank commanders are dead before the campaign ends. For my half-tracks with a 2-man driver-gunner crew, most of the gunners are dead too.
Elvis, do you agree this is a problem? Is there any hope of it getting addressed?
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 15, 2016, 02:43:31 PM
Elvis, do you agree this is a problem? Is there any hope of it getting addressed?
Yes and yes. ;)
Quote from: Elvis on April 15, 2016, 03:38:48 PM
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 15, 2016, 02:43:31 PM
Elvis, do you agree this is a problem? Is there any hope of it getting addressed?
Yes and yes. ;)
That's excellent to hear - thank you good sir O0
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 15, 2016, 05:12:00 PM
Quote from: Elvis on April 15, 2016, 03:38:48 PM
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 15, 2016, 02:43:31 PM
Elvis, do you agree this is a problem? Is there any hope of it getting addressed?
Yes and yes. ;)
That's excellent to hear - thank you good sir O0
I didn't mean to be short or glib. I hope it didn't come off that way....I was running out the door.
In one of the threads Chris said:
QuoteWe are looking into it, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
I can confirm that he meant it and we are....actively. Too early for any more detail than that and making public announcements about changes is above my pay grade. :)
No worries, I didn't take it as glib at all -- and truly I'd be hugely grateful if this got fixed.
Btw, check out what a new modder has done to enhance FB's winter landscape -- really amazing work
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122613-winter-bulge/?_fromLogin=1 (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122613-winter-bulge/?_fromLogin=1)
Will install this for sure when released.
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 15, 2016, 02:43:31 PM
I had the commander unbutton, making sure to save before giving the order. Sure enough, Quotea maxim hidden in a tree-line some *600 meters* away immediately opens up
, and in three bursts kills the unbuttoned commander.
Nuts....I meant to comment on this too......
Some may disagree but I don't think the bolded part is wrong. It doesn't seem out of line to me that the Maxim gunner fired immediately after the TC popped up. I think a case can be made that the Maxim had the tank spotted but didn't fire because there was no reason for a MG to fire at a buttoned Tiger, regardless of the distance, but, as soon as someone became exposed, immediately opened up on it. It's "success rate" is something that I might question.
Quote from: Elvis on April 15, 2016, 06:13:34 PM
Nuts....
Keeping with the Bulge spirit of things, I see ;)
I see what you're saying and had not thought of this before, though it seems like this may be the crux of the problem. In my view, the AI over-reacts to unbuttoned tank commanders or hanomag gunners, and perhaps does this precisely because they suddenly present a 'soft' target that their weaponry can tackle, as you say.
The thing that I think badly needs fixing is threefold -- (A) the precision with which the AI seems to be able to take out tank commanders with uncanny accuracy from *long* distances, (B) the way unbuttoned tank commanders seem to be highly prioritized as targets by the AI, even preferred to easier targets, and (C), the tank commanders lack of responsiveness to being under fire. It's an all-too common occurrence to see tank commanders under fire and taking *way* too long to respond but buttoning up. And say what you will, but an MG taking out a tank commander in his cupola from *beyond* half a kilometer in a couple of bursts strikes me as far-fetched to say the least.
My argument is not that tank commanders should be invulnerable. If you unbutton in unsafe close quarters, then yes, you're asking to get killed or maimed. But in CMx2 as things currently stand, it's essentially unsafe to unbutton *anywhere*, which is why I most often follow a policy of never unbuttoning. It's just not worth the risk, esp. since tanks seem to be able to spot pretty well even when buttoned up.
I agree.... Can a TC get plinked from 600m? Sure. But it shouldn't be easy or the norm. The MG almost instantly opening fire , absent other targets, feels OK to me. I'm probably going out on an unpopular limb but the AI having a MG locked, loaded and looking for something to shoot at....especially something in it's LOS already but without something worth shooting at, seems like a good game AI default. It's the effectiveness that I question.
Quote from: Elvis on April 15, 2016, 07:46:56 PM
I agree.... Can a TC get plinked from 600m? Sure. But it shouldn't be easy or the norm. The MG almost instantly opening fire , absent other targets, feels OK to me. I'm probably going out on an unpopular limb but the AI having a MG locked, loaded and looking for something to shoot at....especially something in it's LOS already but without something worth shooting at, seems like a good game AI default. It's the effectiveness that I question.
In the above example. You blast away with a vehicle cannon at some infantry. That same infantry shoots back and instantly kills you (although you are minimally exposed). Doesn't sound right to me.
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 15, 2016, 06:51:56 PM
Quote from: Elvis on April 15, 2016, 06:13:34 PM
Nuts....
Keeping with the Bulge spirit of things, I see ;)
I see what you're saying and had not thought of this before, though it seems like this may be the crux of the problem. In my view, the AI over-reacts to unbuttoned tank commanders or hanomag gunners, and perhaps does this precisely because they suddenly present a 'soft' target that their weaponry can tackle, as you say.
The thing that I think badly needs fixing is threefold -- (A) the precision with which the AI seems to be able to take out tank commanders with uncanny accuracy from *long* distances, (B) the way unbuttoned tank commanders seem to be highly prioritized as targets by the AI, even preferred to easier targets, and (C), the tank commanders lack of responsiveness to being under fire. It's an all-too common occurrence to see tank commanders under fire and taking *way* too long to respond but buttoning up. And say what you will, but an MG taking out a tank commander in his cupola from *beyond* half a kilometer in a couple of bursts strikes me as far-fetched to say the least.
My argument is not that tank commanders should be invulnerable. If you unbutton in unsafe close quarters, then yes, you're asking to get killed or maimed. But in CMx2 as things currently stand, it's essentially unsafe to unbutton *anywhere*, which is why I most often follow a policy of never unbuttoning. It's just not worth the risk, esp. since tanks seem to be able to spot pretty well even when buttoned up.
The question also is how worthless a buttoned up tank should be.
I don't think it should be nearly as bad at spotting and tracking things as CMx2 makes it. Namely, most crew members spend their time using their vision devices, the same way whether the thing is buttoned up or not. The gunners in particular seem to go insta-blind the moment the hatches close. Doesn't sound right to me. Probably has to do with BFC not wanting to model the narrow angle of vision (much less switchable magnification).
Then, what happens when you open up because you have to, and there is enemy? You expose yourself minimally. CMx2 seem to have a very binary model where any crewman exposing themselves partially is exposing large amounts of body. They wouldn't do that. Self-preservation.
The most important thing is that I used a copula in real life. Round vision is actually pretty good as long as it isn't too close to the tank. Moving things are actually very easy to spot - in good weather.
If there is rain then you are effed with the copula. No wipers. On the other hand, most gun sights are unaffected by rain because they are recessed. This would be complex to model and BFC seems to make no attempt at it.
As a result visibility on the closed tank is unrealistically pessimistic in the game and the crew is unrealistically vulnerable when exposed, which you have to unreasonably often. To top it all off there is a lack of both player control, and of tacai person self-preservation.
Quote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2016, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Elvis on April 15, 2016, 07:46:56 PM
I agree.... Can a TC get plinked from 600m? Sure. But it shouldn't be easy or the norm. The MG almost instantly opening fire , absent other targets, feels OK to me. I'm probably going out on an unpopular limb but the AI having a MG locked, loaded and looking for something to shoot at....especially something in it's LOS already but without something worth shooting at, seems like a good game AI default. It's the effectiveness that I question.
In the above example. You blast away with a vehicle cannon at some infantry.
That supposes they the tank sees you. If you have even moderate concealment, I would expect the get a lot of lead in the air before a tank targets me and starts laying down some hell-storm. Which is how the game plays.
Killing a TC as soon as it opens up?.............
I have run many a test of MG firing in the open at a company's worth of infantry running in the open. At 500m, an MG42 will kill/wound about 3 over 100 yards. A lot of cowering happens as well. But at least 15 men continue running towards the MG. Now someone is saying it is expected that a maxim can kill a TC showing with about 1/3 of his body exposed with a few bursts? Something doesn't sound right.
I saw that Chris said they were going to look at it. So why did Steve keep arguing for another 3-4 pages. His arguments were totally confusing. It comes across that he doesn't see the need to look at the issue.
After just a couple pages, some adult should have stopped the whole thing by just say it would be looked into. Instead, Steve drove the entire discussion down a hole.
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 15, 2016, 05:51:42 PM
Btw, check out what a new modder has done to enhance FB's winter landscape -- really amazing work
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122613-winter-bulge/?_fromLogin=1 (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122613-winter-bulge/?_fromLogin=1)
Will install this for sure when released.
This does look great...
The lack of response of AFV crews to in-coming fire is more difficult to understand when there really wasn't a problem in CM 1. I know, they're different games but in CM1 crews would react to enemy threats sometimes even before they were fired on and immediately 'button-up'. Since CMBN this has not been the case except in cases of "Crack" or "Elite" commanders who seem to be able to realize they're being shot at. There's also the threat from arty shrapnel to consider which AFV crews also seem to ignore. It's a minor point but has great effect on gameplay.
Agree with all the points being made here. Just as another point of comparison -- the way Graviteam Tactics handles buttoning/unbuttoning, which doesn't have any of the problems currently associated with CM.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a TC killed by being unbuttoned and exposed. When under fire, tanks immediately button up. There are no 40 second delays while TCs ponder whether it would be wise to shut the lid, the way they do in CM. Similarly, the Hanomag gunners in GravTactics are not routinely killed within seconds of manning their guns the way they are in CM. In fact, if anything GravTactics errs a little too much in the opposite direction, with HTs being a little too effective as assault weapons. I think CM has the better balance in terms of moddeling the fragility of HTs -- but the lethality of manning MGs in CM is just ridiculous. It's a death sentence. It's so bad in fact that I wish there were a button to *prevent* HT gunners from unbuttoning. They tend to unbutton automatically when under fire or when a target is presented, whether you give them the specific order or not - and it seems like 9 out of 10 times, they just wind up getting killed for exposing themselves.
I have had my first crash ever playing a Combat Mission game while doing the tutorial campaign....was a pretty hard crash too, where it took me out of my session and really screwed up the screen where I had to reboot. Hoping just a one time thing since so far enjoying what I am seeing.
Quote from: RyanE on April 15, 2016, 09:05:37 PM
. Now someone is saying it is expected that a maxim can kill a TC showing with about 1/3 of his body exposed with a few bursts? Something doesn't sound right.
I haven't seen anyone say that.
QuoteI saw that Chris said they were going to look at it. So why did Steve keep arguing for another 3-4 pages. His arguments were totally confusing. It comes across that he doesn't see the need to look at the issue.
After just a couple pages, some adult should have stopped the whole thing by just say it would be looked into. Instead, Steve drove the entire discussion down a hole.
Hhmm.... I don't think that is either fair or true. On the second page of the thread, just a few posts after Chris' post Steve said:
QuoteAs I said, you can not find me one TacAI behavior that doesn't have someone voicing a complaint, concern, or suggestion for change. Because of that we tend to ignore more-or-less one off, marginally important, or situational specific complaints because if we didn't we'd never get anything else done. Instead we look for ones, like this, that spark a significant conversation backed up by attempts to quantify what the problem is/isn't. Now that this issue has risen to that level... we're now looking into it.
This is how we've handled things since 1999 and it's a system that, while not perfect, works pretty well. Hindsight is always 20/20 and generally speaking anything we fix today probably was mentioned by someone before. Probably more than once.
Steve
I didn't go through the whole thread but the gist of the rest of what I read he was explaining the balancing act that has to be done so that you don't get unrealistic results (like a TC getting kilt from 600m on the first shot) and a crew self buttoning up when it shouldn't need to and not being able to use all of the weapon systems. Certainly nothing that I read, explicitly or implied, said that it wasn't an issue and nothing needs to be done about it.
Ok, so the obvious question I have after reading the last couple of pages is - how often were exposed tank crews made casualties in the real deal?
I expect the easiest info to find would be anecdotal but I'd not be surprised if someone like Belton Cooper addressed this. I'll have to see if Graves talks about it in his history of the South Alberta Regiment, which fought Sherman tanks from Normandy to Germany.
I'd guess the smartest thing to do would be to fight tanks historically, by combining with infantry, suppressing defensive fire, etc. but the comments above suggest that you can do all that and still have odd occurences such as long range fire.
It's easy to forget that the AI doesn't "think" - it just provides a bunch of scripts and probabilities. I'd be confident in BFC finding a fix (tank commander 600m from an MG pops up, you dial down the likelihood that the MG will target it). As pointed out above, the hard part is demonstrating what the exact nature of the problem is, finding consensus on that, and demonstrating what the new behaviour "should" be in a way everyone will be happy with.
He was talking about the balancing act, but at the same time being fairly dismissive of anyone who seemed to tink it was in an issue. How much discussion from Steve went on AFTER a pretty solid test was done. Instead of arguing for 5-6 pages of the thread, why wouldn't Steve just take the test and run it. Instead of picking apart someone's test, just be a real developer and run the test.
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 16, 2016, 08:54:47 AM
Ok, so the obvious question I have after reading the last couple of pages is - how often were exposed tank crews made casualties in the real deal?
I expect the easiest info to find would be anecdotal but I'd not be surprised if someone like Belton Cooper addressed this. I'll have to see if Graves talks about it in his history of the South Alberta Regiment, which fought Sherman tanks from Normandy to Germany.
I'd guess the smartest thing to do would be to fight tanks historically, by combining with infantry, suppressing defensive fire, etc. but the comments above suggest that you can do all that and still have odd occurences such as long range fire.
It's easy to forget that the AI doesn't "think" - it just provides a bunch of scripts and probabilities. I'd be confident in BFC finding a fix (tank commander 600m from an MG pops up, you dial down the likelihood that the MG will target it). As pointed out above, the hard part is demonstrating what the exact nature of the problem is, finding consensus on that, and demonstrating what the new behaviour "should" be in a way everyone will be happy with.
MD....you're opening sentence asks an excellent question. I wonder what real life statistics there are for numbers of TC's who were killed while exposed. A significant number, an insignificant number? Enquiring minds want to know.....!!
Quote from: Rayfer on April 16, 2016, 02:49:33 PM
MD....you're opening sentence asks an excellent question. I wonder what real life statistics there are for numbers of TC's who were killed while exposed. A significant number, an insignificant number? Enquiring minds want to know.....!!
There is apparently some operational research extant, at least from the Commonwealth side. I posted the question at my own forum, and received one reply so far.
The Laurier Centre has this in their archives:
http://www.archeion.ca/medical-research-council-team-for-survey-of-casualties-among-tank-personnel-casualties-among-tank-crews-in-11-armoured-division-in-operational-veritable-27-feb-4-mar-45
And this:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a265499.pdf
I don't know if it would be of much help since studies may deal only with armour penetrations rather than small arms/MG fire affecting exposed crew.
Very interesting MD...thanks for posting. I had no idea this sort of analysis was done, no less available, in such detail.
Here are some additional thoughts, no doubt disjointed:
http://thetacticalwargamer.blogspot.ca/2016/04/tank-commander-exposure-in-combat.html
Quote from: Rayfer on April 16, 2016, 02:49:33 PM
MD....you're opening sentence asks an excellent question. I wonder what real life statstics there are for numbers of TC's who were killed while exposed. A significant number, an insignificant number? Enquiring minds want to know.....!!
With thanks to MD for the very interesting blog discussion --
It surely would be nice to know some statistical data on these issues -- yet my own (by now deeply ingrained) impression, borne out by considerable trial and error, is that TCs are killed or seriously injured (and thus removed from subsequent missions in a campaign) at much too high a rate -- if CM's rate were historical, how on earth would TCs gain veterancy? In a company of tanks, should half of the TCs be eliminated after several missions? That strikes me as high, but I've absolutely had that kind of rate of attrition in CM campaigns.
I'm very conservative with having TCs unbutton -- I usually err on the side of 'staying buttoned up' even in situations where it really should be relatively safe to unbutton, i.e. several hundred meters behind frontline fighting. From the research MD cites, it seems like TCs were not so super-cautious about unbuttoning, for good reasons (the enhanced visibility and situational awareness that comes from being unbuttoned). The photo of the Sherman TC externally manning his .50 cal is a perfect illustration -- in CM, that guy would survive all of 60 seconds exposed like that. He'd have a gigantic virtual bulls-eye plastered on him, and the AI would doubtless make him pay.
Look, if a TC is unbuttoned, surveying the battlefield, and his tank suddenly takes a HEAT round from some unnoticed enemy tank 1KM away, and gets killed -- I have no problem with that -- that seems a perfectly legitimate outcome and I have no doubt a reasonable share of ww2 TCs met their end in similar fashion. What drives me crazy is the succeptibility of TCs to getting picked off by small arms fire from several hundred meters distant. This is by no means an uncommon occurrence in CM. It happens much too frequently.
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 17, 2016, 10:03:09 AM
Here are some additional thoughts, no doubt disjointed:
http://thetacticalwargamer.blogspot.ca/2016/04/tank-commander-exposure-in-combat.html
The initial quote from a German WW2 TC primer clearly states:
When the enemy was near and in combat situations the turret hatch was battened down, and the commander observed the battlefield through small episcopes set into the cupola surface. This is almost always the case in the Red Thunder games I've played. The article goes on to quote other sources that aren't as supportive of staying buttoned up.
Maybe it's just US and Commonwealth practice?
Quote from: jomni on April 17, 2016, 08:07:13 PM
Maybe it's just US and Commonwealth practice?
There do appear to be major differences between British, German and American practice. It may be related to the relative availability of vision cupolas in German tanks, for one. If the American 4th AD was putting MGs on their cupolas and blasting away, it is certainly also different from British practice where MGs were largely deleted from the turrets, but commanders were still expected to have heads out of hatches. The Sherman I, III and V didn't, IIRC, have vision blocks on their commander cupolas.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi203.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa188%2Fkimikobo%2FPANZERIVCUPOLAPAGE5.jpg&hash=d1625ea35c4dc7e25c17570e83a3f14f4120a51c)
PzKpfw IVH cupola
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theshermantank.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2FVC-Front.jpg&hash=4b97efd63cd9e99c7fe51ff8b00fb64cae6d5d34)
Sherman Vc with 17-pounder.
Quote from: RyanE on April 16, 2016, 12:04:35 PM
He was talking about the balancing act, but at the same time being fairly dismissive of anyone who seemed to tink it was in an issue. How much discussion from Steve went on AFTER a pretty solid test was done. Instead of arguing for 5-6 pages of the thread, why wouldn't Steve just take the test and run it. Instead of picking apart someone's test, just be a real developer and run the test.
I provided savegames for CM problems since about 2001 or so. I even did PBEM against myself to get a file that had the random numbers already rolled. Pain in the ass. None of the clowns over there ever so much as ran it. It is all theorizing over there. Not only about what reality was like, but also about what the game engine does, exactly. Many of the forum regulars just don't know and never ran specific isolated tests. It has always been reasonably common for Charles to simply wipe out a bug without comment that Steve previously defended as realistic, intended behavior for years.
Quote from: Elvis on April 15, 2016, 08:44:40 PM
Quote from: Redwolf on April 15, 2016, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Elvis on April 15, 2016, 07:46:56 PM
I agree.... Can a TC get plinked from 600m? Sure. But it shouldn't be easy or the norm. The MG almost instantly opening fire , absent other targets, feels OK to me. I'm probably going out on an unpopular limb but the AI having a MG locked, loaded and looking for something to shoot at....especially something in it's LOS already but without something worth shooting at, seems like a good game AI default. It's the effectiveness that I question.
In the above example. You blast away with a vehicle cannon at some infantry.
I'm not seeing the problem as much. Maybe real time makes a difference somehow?
I've had some unusual collisions with infantry lately. A US infantry platoon ran into 4 German 37mm semi-armored flak vehicles. The infantry knocked out one (the vehicle has an open top so maybe a rifle grenade got them), but the platoon was like 80% wiped out in about 3 minutes. In other news, some Shermans lost commanders (2 out of 6) in an encounter at close range along a road in a forest. So from what I've seen the game gives reasonable results for infantry fire on vehicles.
That supposes they the tank sees you. If you have even moderate concealment, I would expect the get a lot of lead in the air before a tank targets me and starts laying down some hell-storm. Which is how the game plays.
Killing a TC as soon as it opens up?.............
I sense that this thread will soon restore my belief in evolution as we progress through the five stages of Battlefront Combat Mission Grief and loss :)
Step one - Discussion of the new game can border on the irrational happiness meter - DENIAL of the impending flame war
Step Two - Natural occurring question organically grown from an observation in the game with spirited point and counter point - BARGANING and general showing off your grogginess
Step Three - The DEPRESSION of learning that your wife/cat/mailman and anyone within earshot is rolling their eyes at you as you stridently explain that game is wrong leading too
Step Four - Vilification of Battlefronts EDM/Customer Skills/lack of business acumen/personal hygiene and ANGER at everyone who has not agreed with everything I have typed in the manifesto around this topic (excess wearing out of CAPS key is common here).
Step Five - Finally transition to Its just a game and relax as we ACCEPT that paying the mortgage might be more of a priority than for example what is the thickness the Hetzer front glacial plate (but dont get me started on which MMG was better)
Hello. My name is Slash and I am currently between Step 3 and Step 4 of the 5 Step Combat Mission Program. It feels so much better to talk to others with the same problem I have. Just STOP STARING AT ME. :idiot2:
Due to illness over the weekend I couldn't get the CMFB review finished. However I'm all done and it now requires my man Clayton, a self confessed grammar nazi to tear his hair out as he reads through my review and fixing the many issues he finds. Once done it shall be published on the TW blog. I'll post here with a link to the review once it goes up.
Quote from: Rayfer on April 17, 2016, 07:05:28 AM
Very interesting MD...thanks for posting. I had no idea this sort of analysis was done, no less available, in such detail.
I think John D. Salt used to do some research into these reports. He used to post at Battlefront but I've seen him more recently at THE MINIATURES PAGE - some good discussions on history at TMP on occasion.
MD -- did you see Tim Stone refer to your discussion in RPS's latest Flare Path? Under "U is for unbuttoning"
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/22/the-flare-path-topical-titbits-2/ (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/22/the-flare-path-topical-titbits-2/)
O0
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 22, 2016, 08:56:28 AM
MD -- did you see Tim Stone refer to your discussion in RPS's latest Flare Path? Under "U is for unbuttoning"
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/22/the-flare-path-topical-titbits-2/ (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/22/the-flare-path-topical-titbits-2/)
O0
I didn't....thanks for the tip. O0
#1: Great to see this sort of analysis still being stirred up by CM. Makes me remember the "old days" of the early Naughties.
#2: I'm now more and more convinced of my prediction that CMFB will draw in a more regular audience than BS. Not only this kind of discussion (which is awesome), but the first tournament at the Blitz filled up very quickly. WWII is still the game of choice for most -- or at least it has a bigger audience. I think this is especially true since we've returned to an AO where it's U.S.-v-Germany, full on footy war!
Quote from: Con on April 18, 2016, 02:31:17 PM
I sense that this thread will soon restore my belief in evolution as we progress through the five stages of Battlefront Combat Mission Grief and loss :)
Step one - Discussion of the new game can border on the irrational happiness meter - DENIAL of the impending flame war
Step Two - Natural occurring question organically grown from an observation in the game with spirited point and counter point - BARGANING and general showing off your grogginess
Step Three - The DEPRESSION of learning that your wife/cat/mailman and anyone within earshot is rolling their eyes at you as you stridently explain that game is wrong leading too
Step Four - Vilification of Battlefronts EDM/Customer Skills/lack of business acumen/personal hygiene and ANGER at everyone who has not agreed with everything I have typed in the manifesto around this topic (excess wearing out of CAPS key is common here).
Step Five - Finally transition to Its just a game and relax as we ACCEPT that paying the mortgage might be more of a priority than for example what is the thickness the Hetzer front glacial plate (but dont get me started on which MMG was better)
Brilliant! ;D I just love the "been there, done that" theme.
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 22, 2016, 08:56:28 AM
MD -- did you see Tim Stone refer to your discussion in RPS's latest Flare Path? Under "U is for unbuttoning"
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/22/the-flare-path-topical-titbits-2/ (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/22/the-flare-path-topical-titbits-2/)
O0
My name came out under J. :P
TacticalWargames came out as T
Quote from: jomni on April 24, 2016, 07:32:13 PM
My name came out under J. :P
TacticalWargames came out as T
Yeah this was some great publicity. Great to see Sengoku Jidai, Final Blitzkrieg, and the new TacticalWargames blog getting some recognition.
Quote from: Cyrano on April 24, 2016, 04:18:05 PM
#2: I'm now more and more convinced of my prediction that CMFB will draw in a more regular audience than BS. Not only this kind of discussion (which is awesome), but the first tournament at the Blitz filled up very quickly. WWII is still the game of choice for most -- or at least it has a bigger audience. I think this is especially true since we've returned to an AO where it's U.S.-v-Germany, full on footy war!
Hope you're right Cyrano. I've been surprised at just how much I've been enjoying Final Blitzkrieg. Especially after the release of the excellent Mius Front, I was beginning to feel that maybe the Combat Mission formula was getting irredeemably stale. I do think there's still a lot BF could do to spice things up, but overall, Final Blitzkrieg is a very worthy addition to the CM franchise, IMHO.
I've found it really immersive, and am enjoying it immensely. O0
I am just curious how many for how many people this is the first CM2 purchase...anyone on this forum?
Not me. I already got all the WWII versions. I'll hold off on CMFB for awhile as I'm way behind on the games I got now.
And this is kind of what I'm worried about. Each release of the CM2 engine seems to, at best, only get purchased by the existing base and, at worst, shrinks a little over time. It's a losing formula for BFC unless they continuously raise prices or come up with new ways to mine their loyal base.
Well seeing as these are all really expansions (there is no major overhaul to the engine), this is what's going to happen.
I have CMBN.. I looked at Market Garden, then saw I had to buy the 3.0 Update in order to get it. I mean really?
No thanks.. too many good deals out there in the market.
It's an outstanding game, but they just price their way off my wishlists.
Quote from: RyanE on April 27, 2016, 07:04:10 AM
And this is kind of what I'm worried about. Each release of the CM2 engine seems to, at best, only get purchased by the existing base and, at worst, shrinks a little over time. It's a losing formula for BFC unless they continuously raise prices or come up with new ways to mine their loyal base.
Well, but the UI is so clunky nobody is gonna stick with it when first exposed to it.
And it looks terrible in default on a computer that can do better. There are a number of reasons including no graphics autoconfiguration (after measuring what you can), no clear UI to configure graphics (nobody who is new is gonna read hotkey lists getouttahere) and the first view at the actual battlefield is screwed up by the colored setup zone.
First impression of CMx2 is record breaking terrible.
Quote from: RyanE on April 27, 2016, 07:04:10 AM
And this is kind of what I'm worried about. Each release of the CM2 engine seems to, at best, only get purchased by the existing base and, at worst, shrinks a little over time. It's a losing formula for BFC unless they continuously raise prices or come up with new ways to mine their loyal base.
The demise of Battlefront because of their model has been speculated for as long as I can remember. Certainly in the almost 9 years since CMSF was released. But BFC has not changed the model, with one exception that I'll get into in a minute. So, a more considered opinion is that they're just fine with the revenue that is coming in. Now, Sir Slash has a point that I've made plenty of times during conversations about the release rates of titles. I still believe that if BFC pumped out titles at the pace that they projected and announced then the product would have diminishing returns. How many times will someone go to the well in a single year?
And you're wrong about new people coming into the fold. There is a constant stream of new CM players. I have no idea how big that stream is but it exists. I have even less idea how many people "opt out", like Sir Slash. But new players arrive every day. And I always think of myself as the tip of the iceberg.
Regarding the one big change in the model is the double edged sword of being able to Upgrade a CMx2 title to the latest build of the engine. If Sir Slash has CMBN 1.x and really digs the western front, would he be more inclined to get CMFB because it's western front using the 3.x version of engine? Maybe, maybe not. Have sales of Upgrades cut into the sales of newer products? Don't know. Do sales of Upgrades offset losses in sales of newer products? Don't know. The only thing that I/we really have to go on, to answer that, is that BFC seems to be happily continuing that strategy.
Did I hear my name? I don't begrudge Battlefront for making all the money they can off their flagship product. I believe they can because nobody else has been able to pull-off a game like Combat Mission-- some have come very close though. And maybe someday they'll have some legit competition and have to adjust their sales and customer approach. Having to pay for every upgrade, new battle module, and new version of the same engine seems like just sticking it to us every chance they can. A new game from scratch is up to what, $100 now?
The success of the game has hindered new buyers who, for whatever reason, won't pay that for any game. If I didn't go all the way back to the CM 1 demo days, I wouldn't even think about buying the game and then paying for every little new thing that BF comes-up with.
As for me, I will get CMFB at some point but why spend new money if I haven't even come close to finishing any of the old versions? Because we all know..... there's an upgrade or two coming. $$$
Quote from: Sir Slash on April 28, 2016, 02:38:00 PM
Did I hear my name? I don't begrudge Battlefront for making all the money they can off their flagship product. I believe they can because nobody else has been able to pull-off a game like Combat Mission-- some have come very close though. And maybe someday they'll have some legit competition and have to adjust their sales and customer approach. Having to pay for every upgrade, new battle module, and new version of the same engine seems like just sticking it to us every chance they can. A new game from scratch is up to what, $100 now?
The success of the game has hindered new buyers who, for whatever reason, won't pay that for any game. If I didn't go all the way back to the CM 1 demo days, I wouldn't even think about buying the game and then paying for every little new thing that BF comes-up with.
As for me, I will get CMFB at some point but why spend new money if I haven't even come close to finishing any of the old versions? Because we all know..... there's an upgrade or two coming. $$$
I don't get this logic ... why are they sticking it to us ? You have a free will and a rational mind to decide whether a product is worth it to you. If its not then don't buy it. If you pay the money then obviously its a good price point for battlefront. You seem to be criticising them for being in business and making money by applying the laws of economics that have been in operation for thousands of years ?
Not at all. I don't care how much charge for their game-- it's their right. But I can't think of another game that charges for each upgrade and or new material. If you look at the mod site, there's tons of mods that add plenty of extra stuff for FREE. Including a Winter Mod. BF Didn't do this with CM 1 and the games came complete. I love the CM series but I'm going to tone back my buying a lot until like Matrix, Battlefront learns the words..."Sale".
I think their prices should be higher.
Of course that would require that somebody takes a step back and looks at the clunky UI, first impressions and a starting number of those ridiculous realism issues. Right now there is too many people who define realism as whatever happens to be in CM right now.
I'd love to see Battlefront start doing some earlier WW2 stuff like the Blitzkrieg period. O0
I also think something like the "operational" level seen in Graviteam's games - giving continuity to firefights, would work extremely well for CM2 games, and would be something a lot of gamers would pay for as a dlc.
My own feeling about the Combat Mission franchise is that the core experience -- the core game -- remains excellent and deeply engrossing. Yet a lot of what supports the core experience has grown pretty ricketty over time. Beyond the actual combat and unit modeling, much of CM needs a dramatic overhaul and facelift.
I really think BFC needs to look carefully and critically at Graviteam's recent Mius Front. On many levels, Mius Front puts CMx2 to shame. Take something as simple as roads. In Mius Front, roads wend naturally, look real, and you can give your units a "follow road" command that is hugely convenient.
In CM, roads are a travesty. The maps can't support something as basic as roads drawn on a diagonal. Instead, you have these utterly ridiculous 'zig zag' patterns all over the map -- and no way to give your vehicles a 'follow road' command, which leads to all sorts of delightfully tedious micromanagement.
Graviteam Tactics' UI has long been a subject of frustration and derision -- "it makes no sense!" -- and while yes it certainly is idiosyncratic, it's actually quite effective once you get the hang of its quirks. CMx2's UI is indeed pretty sub-standard by comparison. "Flexible" and "Feature rich" are not words one could use to describe it.
Last point I'll make -- Mius Front's campaign layer is light years ahead of what CMx2 offers.
While I'm very sympathetic to the argument that "BFC is a very small team with limited resources" -- well, same goes for Graviteam. I actually don't begrudge BFC at all what they charge for their games (although the upgrading system is really a shambles) -- I think Graviteam undercharged for Mius Front at $35. These are specialist games and if we're willing to drop $60 on AAA titles like The Witcher, why not expect that kind of pricing for high quality niche games?
I still love CMx2 and own all the modules. These are games that will always be on my hard-drive. But I think it's past time for BFC to start thinking ambitiously about what the future holds for this series. The core game is great, but everything that surrounds it is badly in need of updating and improvement.
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 29, 2016, 08:50:51 AM
I really think BFC needs to look carefully and critically at Graviteam's recent Mius Front. On many levels, Mius Front puts CMx2 to shame. Take something as simple as roads. In Mius Front, roads wend naturally, look real, and you can give your units a "follow road" command that is hugely convenient.
Panzer Command had realistic roads as well. My big bugbear is the fact that running water can only exist at a single elevation (for that matter, ditto standing water) though they did introduce a new "stream" type in CMFB (which is nonetheless non-animated and you have to piece it together just like the highways in the editor.)
QuoteWhile I'm very sympathetic to the argument that "BFC is a very small team with limited resources" -- well, same goes for Graviteam. I actually don't begrudge BFC at all what they charge for their games (although the upgrading system is really a shambles) -- I think Graviteam undercharged for Mius Front at $35. These are specialist games and if we're willing to drop $60 on AAA titles like The Witcher, why not expect that kind of pricing for high quality niche games?
I still love CMx2 and own all the modules. These are games that will always be on my hard-drive. But I think it's past time for BFC to start thinking ambitiously about what the future holds for this series. The core game is great, but everything that surrounds it is badly in need of updating and improvement.
Agree with all this. CMFB was very much a let-down, though I think the very nice maps that shipped with it salvage it to at least a degree. Every other family before it shipped with at least one or two significant upgrades - with CMRT, it was flame weapons, with CMFI, it was winter weather effects. The addition of triggers is another example. CMFB was delayed several months, and I'm struggling to see what differences there are. It *seems* like snow has more of an effect on movement but I haven't tested this yet. Streams are mentioned. I keep waiting for field engineering to undergo its necessary revamp.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum quis sem ut odio suscipit sagittis. Nullam tristique dapibus ante eu vehicula. Sed blandit risus non arcu congue, ac tincidunt nisl efficitur. Etiam sit amet velit efficitur, condimentum quam et, rutrum dolor. Aenean faucibus eget arcu non mattis. Sed posuere, augue vitae sodales interdum, tellus lacus fermentum risus, ut lacinia nisl elit eu quam. Etiam volutpat iaculis libero non ullamcorper. Proin pretium, massa id interdum auctor, purus lacus faucibus est, id viverra lacus purus laoreet arcu. Aliquam ac vestibulum risus, vitae venenatis metus. Etiam quis tempus elit. Etiam massa nulla, ultrices in tempus eget, aliquam eu lacus. Vestibulum consectetur in tortor et imperdiet. Nam tristique ornare lectus, quis fringilla sem tempus ut. Proin rhoncus ex eget viverra lobortis. Donec ultricies semper bibendum. Maecenas et lobortis libero.
Nunc neque erat, hendrerit vel consectetur ac, fringilla non mauris. Cras eu dapibus sem. Pellentesque quis mi tincidunt, efficitur odio at, molestie orci. Ut pulvinar, ipsum sed pellentesque posuere, neque lacus vehicula diam, at vestibulum libero ante quis sapien. Nunc nec consequat nibh. Duis sodales commodo est sit amet malesuada. Phasellus accumsan facilisis libero et commodo. Pellentesque aliquet bibendum efficitur. Fusce tempor, ante quis mollis pulvinar, ex est vehicula magna, eu vehicula sapien risus ac diam. Vestibulum vel dictum turpis, ac congue eros. Phasellus dignissim quis justo nec bibendum. Donec mauris lorem, fringilla eget odio non, ullamcorper lacinia nunc. Donec venenatis egestas efficitur. In nec gravida nunc, vel molestie mauris. Morbi mattis ligula nec ligula aliquam finibus.
Looks like a patch is nearing completion...
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122890-v101-patch-almost-here-patch-notes-inside/
Quote from: sandman2575 on April 29, 2016, 08:50:51 AM
My own feeling about the Combat Mission franchise is that the core experience -- the core game -- remains excellent and deeply engrossing. Yet a lot of what supports the core experience has grown pretty ricketty over time. Beyond the actual combat and unit modeling, much of CM needs a dramatic overhaul and facelift.
I really think BFC needs to look carefully and critically at Graviteam's recent Mius Front. On many levels, Mius Front puts CMx2 to shame. Take something as simple as roads. In Mius Front, roads wend naturally, look real, and you can give your units a "follow road" command that is hugely convenient.
In CM, roads are a travesty. The maps can't support something as basic as roads drawn on a diagonal. Instead, you have these utterly ridiculous 'zig zag' patterns all over the map -- and no way to give your vehicles a 'follow road' command, which
leads to all sorts of delightfully tedious micromanagement.
Graviteam Tactics' UI has long been a subject of frustration and derision -- "it makes no sense!" -- and while yes it certainly is idiosyncratic, it's actually quite effective once you get the hang of its quirks. CMx2's UI is indeed pretty sub-standard by comparison. "Flexible" and "Feature rich" are not words one could use to describe it.
Last point I'll make -- Mius Front's campaign layer is light years ahead of what CMx2 offers.
While I'm very sympathetic to the argument that "BFC is a very small team with limited resources" -- well, same goes for Graviteam. I actually don't begrudge BFC at all what they charge for their games (although the upgrading system is really a shambles) -- I think Graviteam undercharged for Mius Front at $35. These are specialist games and if we're willing to drop $60 on AAA titles like The Witcher, why not expect that kind of pricing for high quality niche games?
I still love CMx2 and own all the modules. These are games that will always be on my hard-drive. But I think it's past time for BFC to start thinking ambitiously about what the future holds for this series. The core game is great, but everything that surrounds it is badly in need of updating and improvement.
Yes I agree roads could be done better on a diagonal and column movement is by far my biggest gripe about the game. I sometimes avoid playing scenario's if it's clear they involve a lot of road movement.
That said this comparison to the graviteam game, which is the only game that bears some comparison is flawed. You cannot build maps in the game. And therin lies the issue, you can build almost anything in the CM games. The maps that came with first Blitzkrieg were stunning. The new game from graviteam was the first to have proper hills in them. They're two different beasts and perhaps the graviteam game's would be more of a comparison if you were not stuck with the one map. That was obviously a technical design choice. It doesn't have multi storey buildings and most of the maps in the games are pretty bland flat open spaces. There's vastly more the cm map editor can accomplish and the game attempts a whole lot more detail in the actual things that happen on a map.
As for the ui it could be better but it's infinitely better than the other.
I also find it strange when you and others complain about the cost of first Blitzkrieg which offers a huge amount of content. Offers a new theatre and units plus the ability to create virtually limitless further encounters -yet you state that muis front was undercharged? It's essentially the same game as the original. Doesn't expand the scope of the game much outside the original timeframe and offers you one situation on one map. Granted I really like their campaign system and whish cm had something similar but I just don't understand that logic in comparing the games.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on May 21, 2016, 05:45:00 AM
Looks like a patch is nearing completion...
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122890-v101-patch-almost-here-patch-notes-inside/
There is one thing on that list that someone else had requested and makes no one else on this planet happy except for me. I got a chuckle when I saw it included on the list because, seriously, I can't of anyone else in the world that would want it, other than me. :)
Quote from: Zulu1966 on May 21, 2016, 08:40:45 AM
.... the graviteam game... You cannot build maps in the game. And therin lies the issue, you can build almost anything in the CM games.
Agreed. CM games may not be the prettiest, but I guess that is the price paid for having such a flexible map editor.
Quote from: Elvis on May 21, 2016, 10:13:39 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on May 21, 2016, 05:45:00 AM
Looks like a patch is nearing completion...
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122890-v101-patch-almost-here-patch-notes-inside/
There is one thing on that list that someone else had requested and makes no one else on this planet happy except for me. I got a chuckle when I saw it included on the list because, seriously, I can't of anyone else in the world that would want it, other than me. :)
Now I'm curious. What was it?
OK, I just skimmed this entire thread because I thought I remembered that Elvis or someone had made a post that detailed how to actually buy and maintain CMXX products but I couldn't find it.
I own CMBN2.0, CMFI vanilla and CMRT vanilla. I may also own the Commonwealth expansion for CMBN but I don't recall for certain. I decided to give my CM games another shot and discovered that I can't even run CMBN and CMFI. Both games gave a popup that said there were issues with my license# ::). CMRT appears to run fine. I'll resist the paranoid urge to assume that not being able to run the first two games is due to some plot by BFC to force me to pay $10 per patch increment for each ($30 total?).
So, does anyone know of a webpage or post somewhere that explains what to do? I skimmed the BFC website and couldn't find anything that looked pertinent. (Jesus, why do they have to make things so difficult?)
Quote from: Zulu1966 on May 21, 2016, 08:40:45 AM
I also find it strange when you and others complain about the cost of first Blitzkrieg which offers a huge amount of content. Offers a new theatre and units plus the ability to create virtually limitless further encounters -yet you state that muis front was undercharged? It's essentially the same game as the original. Doesn't expand the scope of the game much outside the original timeframe and offers you one situation on one map. Granted I really like their campaign system and whish cm had something similar but I just don't understand that logic in comparing the games.
I don't understand this. I said that CM is absolutely worth what BFC charges for it. I'm not complaining about the price and never have. And I think Graviteam could easily have charged more for Mius Front. A game of its quality is very clearly worth more than $35 in my view.
As much as I admire Graviteam and what they're on about, I am out until they figure out MP.
Very surprised they've placed such a low priority on it.
Quote from: Ubercat on May 21, 2016, 08:26:02 PM
I'll resist the paranoid urge to assume that not being able to run the first two games is due to some plot by BFC to force me to pay $10 per patch increment for each ($30 total?).
3.0 patch (CMBN) is only needed for the vehicle and battle packs so this can't be your problem. Reinstalling might help if you have all you keys available (and didn't use up you activations / 4 + 1 restored activation per year).
Installation guide CMBN (without all in one installer) : http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/help/article/127908
Installation for CMBN 3.0 (all in one installer) is easier but then you must spend the $10 : http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/help/article/134841
More info can be found here : http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/
If nothing else works you can submit a ticket here (or to ask for new activations) : http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/login/create_request#/ticket-form/19756
First patch is out: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122963-v101-patch-is-here/ (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122963-v101-patch-is-here/)
Quote from: Ubercat on May 21, 2016, 08:26:02 PM
OK, I just skimmed this entire thread because I thought I remembered that Elvis or someone had made a post that detailed how to actually buy and maintain CMXX products but I couldn't find it.
I own CMBN2.0, CMFI vanilla and CMRT vanilla. I may also own the Commonwealth expansion for CMBN but I don't recall for certain. I decided to give my CM games another shot and discovered that I can't even run CMBN and CMFI. Both games gave a popup that said there were issues with my license# ::). CMRT appears to run fine. I'll resist the paranoid urge to assume that not being able to run the first two games is due to some plot by BFC to force me to pay $10 per patch increment for each ($30 total?).
So, does anyone know of a webpage or post somewhere that explains what to do? I skimmed the BFC website and couldn't find anything that looked pertinent. (Jesus, why do they have to make things so difficult?)
Hiya Uber, drop me a note here:http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/
I can get you cleared up pretty quickly. When you open a ticket, just make sure to mention what Upgrades or modules that you have for each of those. You don't have to purchase anything to get back up to speed (although, I'd pay the $10 for the 3.0 Upgrade....but that's just me :) ).
Quote from: IronX on May 21, 2016, 11:10:38 AM
Quote from: Elvis on May 21, 2016, 10:13:39 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on May 21, 2016, 05:45:00 AM
Looks like a patch is nearing completion...
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122890-v101-patch-almost-here-patch-notes-inside/
There is one thing on that list that someone else had requested and makes no one else on this planet happy except for me. I got a chuckle when I saw it included on the list because, seriously, I can't of anyone else in the world that would want it, other than me. :)
Now I'm curious. What was it?
Heee hee....If I hadn't been typing from my phone with my big dopey thumbs, I'd have copy/pasted the fix. This one:
* Intro screen displays any BRZ files that were expected but not found
As I said, I can't imagine how anyone else would care about that but for me it will be a big help. At the risk of boring by explaining the inner workings/non-game play aspects of the games....... The BRZ files reside in Data folder of each game. Sometimes a players anti-virus software or unzip/extraction software block or corrupt these files. The most common result is that the units names are"off' (by a lot sometimes, like an MG42 being identified as being a Javelin) or the game crashing when loading a battle. To diagnose this, I ask the player to send me a screen shot of the contents of their Data folder. This will let me see if there are any BRZ files missing and that lets me know how to go about getting them up and running. Now, beginning with this patch, the splash screen will display if there are any BRZ files missing. For me, it quickly answers the question of what is wrong and what steps need to be taken. For the player, they don't have to have the back and forth email exchange with Data folder screen shots etc.... Also, if is VERY common that the player doesn't know how to even take a screen shot.....so I have to explain that too.
Aren't ya glad you asked? :)
That's funny. Curiosity satisfied.
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 21, 2016, 09:13:42 PM
Quote from: Zulu1966 on May 21, 2016, 08:40:45 AM
I also find it strange when you and others complain about the cost of first Blitzkrieg which offers a huge amount of content. Offers a new theatre and units plus the ability to create virtually limitless further encounters -yet you state that muis front was undercharged? It's essentially the same game as the original. Doesn't expand the scope of the game much outside the original timeframe and offers you one situation on one map. Granted I really like their campaign system and whish cm had something similar but I just don't understand that logic in comparing the games.
I don't understand this. I said that CM is absolutely worth what BFC charges for it. I'm not complaining about the price and never have. And I think Graviteam could easily have charged more for Mius Front. A game of its quality is very clearly worth more than $35 in my view.
Sandman ... apologies - I mis-read your meaning ....
Patch is out on their website
No problem, Zulu O0
By the way, I'm not trying to pit CM against Graviteam Tactics. I think they're both amazing games, and that any serious WW2 enthusiast should absolutely have both.
CMFB 1.01 is out...
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=350&Itemid=612
Pete and Elvis,
Thanks for your replies. I just opened a ticket.
And thank you Elvis for getting CMBN up and running for me!
I decided to go ahead and get CMFI straightened out too, but hit a bizarre new wall. I ran the .EXE and was prompted to enter my serial# just like with CMBN. I went to my Battlefront account page to C&P my serial and it wasn't shown under the CMFI order record. My purchase records of CMBN/Commonwealth bundle, CMBN 2.0 patch, and CMRT all display the appropriate serial#'s, but that field is suddenly blank for CMFI. :idiot2:
I'm not going to bother opening another ticket any time soon. CMBN and CMRT will provide plenty of gaming for the foreseeable future. I think I'll buy Market Garden and the CMBN3.0 patch soon.
If/when I get back to CMFI, I assume that buying the 3.0 patch will give me a serial# that will make it work. Elvis, please confirm that to let me rest easy.
Quote from: Ubercat on May 24, 2016, 09:32:00 PM
And thank you Elvis for getting CMBN up and running for me!
I decided to go ahead and get CMFI straightened out too, but hit a bizarre new wall. I ran the .EXE and was prompted to enter my serial# just like with CMBN. I went to my Battlefront account page to C&P my serial and it wasn't shown under the CMFI order record. My purchase records of CMBN/Commonwealth bundle, CMBN 2.0 patch, and CMRT all display the appropriate serial#'s, but that field is suddenly blank for CMFI. :idiot2:
I'm not going to bother opening another ticket any time soon. CMBN and CMRT will provide plenty of gaming for the foreseeable future. I think I'll buy Market Garden and the CMBN3.0 patch soon.
If/when I get back to CMFI, I assume that buying the 3.0 patch will give me a serial# that will make it work. Elvis, please confirm that to let me rest easy.
If your CMFI purchase was a "mail only" order, meaning that you purchased the physical disc only with no download option, then the key is in the packaging (usually the CD case) and we have no record of it (like going into a store and buying a game off the shelf). If your purchase included a download option and you don't see the key, send me a note with the order number but in my almost 3 years of doing this, I've never seen that.
If you don't see the purchase in your account at all, 99.9999999999999999% of the time that is because a different account was used to purchase the game (this happens WAY more than you would guess).
And you are correct, if you purchase the 3.0 Upgrade for CMFI, then you no longer need the base game key anyway. The 3.0 key will activate the Upgrade and the base game.