Robert Goldsmith

I'm not sure if many players are like me, but I greatly prefer to play against a human rather than the computer/programmer. I would readily have bought a version of CMC that acted as a game umpire, even if it could not be an effective opponent. I wonder how many of the programming problems were related to the AI being an effective opponent. Could that part be torn out so that the program still help two players fight a campaign?

Experiences in WWII showed that when soldiers commit atrocities, such as killing non-combatants and prisoners, their future effectiveness as combat troops is seriously eroded. On another thought, the situation with Japanese POWs is interesting. Propoganda told the Japanese soldiers that they would be tortured and killed if captured. On the rare occasions when they were captured, they were often treated better by U.S. soldiers than they were by their own officers. The realization that the progadanda was lies, and the culture of obeying authority, often made the Japanese prisoners particularly easy to manage.

Me too.

I'd like to sign up. Robert Goldsmith, aka Col. Falkenberg

I agree with the agreements. CMx1 simulates the decisions a real commander would make, and thus makes for excellent wargames. Real time is not real because players don't have the training, experience, or staffs to make it realistic. Real time is a click fest, not a military simulation.

To answer your question, I've been playing war games for 40 years (an indication of my age) and Combat Mission for about five years. CMBO was not heavily marketed, and I only found out about it by accident. I have very limited time for gaming, which I now mostly spend on CMBB and CMAK (OK, and Civ 4, but that's another story). I don't really want to spend my gaming time or gaming dollars on assymtrical warfare, and "real time" holds no interest for me. I'm not against hypothetical scenarios. I used to play a lot of NATO versus Warsaw Pact, which was not assymetrical when done right, but Syria doesn't grab me.

I wouldn't be surprised if CMSF sales have fallen on their face. The game doesn't appeal to hard core wargamers, who prefer turn based, or, better yet, WEGO, and who don't have a lot of interest in assymetrical warfare. Also, its not being marketed adequately to the much larger but crowded real time, twitch market. Marketing is the art of finding out what people want and letting them know you have it, and CMSF isn't it.

I'd definitely buy it, and an update of CMBO would be a bonus.

A lot of Americans don't want it, either.

I don't plan to buy CMSF. The topic has no interest for me. I'll definitely buy CMC. I really don't care about fancy graphics. They just take up designer time and computer capacity without adding to the information players need to play the game.

I'd like to see a series of higher level games available, addressing operations and campaigns. This may not be Combat Mission at all. A key ingredient is having the orders of both sides processed simultaneously. We have computers: let's use their capabilities, rather than having "turn based" games. I could not care less about fancy graphics. Just give me the info I need in an easy to understand format, and allow me to make the decisions a commander would make in the real situation.

You can keep the fancy graphics and other eye candy. That adds time and cost, but nothing else. Just give me the information and choices a real commander would have. That's what makes a good war game.

I'm trying to work up some hypothetical scenarios for the German invasion of Britain in 1940. I found some references written in the 1960's, but they were vague on the OB. Can anyone point me towards an OB of the planned German force and/or the forces defending southern England in late summer 1940?

I thought SC2 was supposed to have simultaneous movement. This is warmed over Panzer General. I'm disappointed, to say the least.

I thought of two more things: I'd like to see artillery spotters be able to spot while mounted on some vehicles. Also, an option for getting more off board ammo, perhaps at the expense of victory points.