-Pv-

From the narrative in the HyperWar text: FIFTH ARMY'S LEADER in the July offensive that culminated in destruction of German Seventh Army: Lt. Gen. Omar N. Bradley. German forces in the battle zone constituted the larger part of Seventh Army, commanded by SS Lt. Gen. Hauser. -Pv-

BFC has given unequaled determination in placing the most likely assets into the game for it's time period and location based on recent past (not future) equipment. The likelihood of Syria getting ANY piloted aircraft off the ground long enough to make even one (let alone more than one accidental-chance, hidden, secret) attack which has the potential to turn the tide of the battle in SF is so remote as to not warrant the coding time no matter how small that effort might be. The game assumes complete 100% air superiority which is entirely believable given the last 20 years of US operations in that part of the world. It is also standard US policy with no evidence it's not possible in Syria. Aircraft in the bushes also require infrastructure. That too will be gone within hours. Troops will go in after all air assets and their infrastructure are gone. If one secret air guy somehow shows up anywhere, all US ground operations would stop until again, all doubt is eliminated by another round of slate cleaning. If there is a helo hidden in a barn somewhere, it still requires weapons, technicians, fuel, and tactical support. All those things get taken out also. How can the hidden helo guy know where to attack? How would he get there and survive, how unlikely would it be that they managed to pre-stage one or two aircraft who can instantly show up on the battle field unchallenged when we (the enemy) is determining the location of the battles. It would require an intense leap of unbelief. In both gulf wars, nothing flew on behalf of the enemy by the time troops were within fighting contact. If they had, they would not have made it to the battle field and once there, would not have survived long enough to get off more than one shot. Not even in Vietnam were enemy ground attack aircraft any significant factor and not since. Maybe Iraq-Iran, maybe Iraq-Syria, not US/NATO. Not in the last 10 years. -Pv-

I knew the temperament of your walkthroughs would change when you discovered the new modules. -Pv-

http://www.6juin1944.com/album/thennow/index.php?id=1 Of the 102 pairs of pics in this series, many or most of the places are identified in the captions (town/street) but rarely is the date more detailed than the month and year. I'm amazed how often individuals are identified. -Pv-

"a highly mobile mechanized force destroying static strongpoints while rapidly advancing into enemy territory - is inherent to the game code and cannot be changed, then" I've seen no evidence this limitation exists. Even SF (not much is known about Normandy) can be played entirely without vehicles. "Individual scenarios, for instance, will be unaffected by this limitation and they should be plenty entertaining. " Agreed. Fewer-longer scenarios should work. What's inherent to the game code appears to be non-persistent map damage between scenarios (which can be "worked-around" yes bad words) by placing some static damaged elements in the new map. A clever designer can require elements to be destroyed before moving to the next map. I still think a well designed campaign can be created using longer play times (which is a very rare element in campaigns so far.) -Pv-

With 4 hour time limits, you can play over the same damaged map simulating four, one hour battles. Counter attacks can be simulated with large reinforcements at semi-regular intervals with the large spans of time between reduced to minutes as they would be if the maps were played back to back. I still think some of what people want can be had without throwing out the current game. Many scenarios currently available were created with the old time limits prior to 1.20. Isn't much of this discussion more related to the often complained about short time limits? Even broken into two major battles, I can see a four hour scenario over the same map as doable. Beyond that, I'd start to say to myself "not this map again?" (however realistic) at least without some major intervening time period. Obviously, an intervening time before returning to a map you would not expect the map to be rebuilt, thus the persistence would be expected, but under a new set of circumstances which might be even harder to code than two scenarios back to back. It's something I can live without as a dedicated feature if other features have to be tossed out to get it. -Pv-

What's more interesting in terms of what is most often referred to as re-playability? Fighting over the same location more than once, or moving on to a new set of challenges. For myself, although I can envision reasons why I might fight over the same ground more than once (Stalingrad was mentioned) I cannot envision what the new challenges might be which would make BF's investment in time re-designing the game worth it to all the purchasers by adding features to an already working base game. Aren't you just saying you want the time period to be longer (which has been and will be further addressed?) What's the difference between a two hour game on a map and two one hour games? How about a scenario that lasts a whole day (we can of course save.) How's that different than 12 two hour scenarios on the same map? I can see how changing objectives and AI plans might be interesting, I don't see THAT much value added compared to the effort. This feature at the probable cost of throwing out dozens or potentially hundreds of other wish-list features seems... asking too much. Event triggers if and when they get introduced will blow away any great experience persistent damage might introduce. -Pv-

Ok, another tack (although I have more arguments on the potentials of gamey-ness on repeat maps...) I've already heard complaints about the PBEM file sizes. I expect a dense town with significant damage would require a lot of data to describe each building, location, what portion and type of damage occurred. How about trees? I'm just talking about SF. Imagine Normandy with bridges, rivers, hedgerows, farm fences. Add to that craters, vehicles, flavor objects. -Pv-

Destroyed buildings with exposed crews would blow away the designer's enemy AI plans. This might cause players in previous maps to purposely blow away all important-looking buildings (if possible) without regard to their importance to current operations to make the next map easier. Designers might then resort to leaving off artillery and so it goes... on and on. -Pv-

What those who have not purchased the game don't get to appreciate from these screenies is the grass, bushes, leaves and trees are animated. -Pv-

"accumilative damage is very high on the immersion factor" Stick with campaign designers who do not re-use maps if that is a deal-breaker for you. "move to a completely new map immediately adjacent the previous battle map could also suffice" This is the technique used by the default campaigns I've seen so far. My understanding is persistent damage would be nearly impossible without a complete re-design of the game since each battle map is created by the campaign designer with no knowledge of what happened in the previous player map other than win-loss-draw. Forces are placed and AI goals set based on each clean-new map. Persistent damage would require the game engine dynamically redesign the scenario with unpredictable results. In other words, to get what you want, the Mission/Campaign editor would have to be completely redesigned to be almost entirely game controlled (you have this force, to start, you get these re-enforcements, and the game generates terrain, objectives, enemy until you lose or make it to the last map.) Campaign designers who revisit the same map count on players to suspend expectations on that aspect of play. -Pv-

C3K suggestion above seems reasonable at first glance. The spirit of these suggestions appears to try and reduce the baby sitting required of first contact, especially since many units near the front are likely to gain contact within a small interval of time. -Pv-

Nope. Since there are so few bothered, it's not likely BF will change the code for this feature. -Pv-

You should make this change with Notepad open and test holding some keys down and typing stuff. I want to point out there are advantages to having accelerated control which allows you to have fine positioning control for small corrections if you only use the keys for a few moments and when held longer, lets you zoom across the map with increasing speed for rapid movement. If this didn't happen, you would always move at the same speed, most likely not the speed you want. The difference between the mouse and keyboard is of course rate sensing. The mouse has the advantage that the system can sense how rapidly you have moved the mouse (distance vs time.) Keyboards do not have rate or pressure sensors built into them. They are for the most part on off switches. The only way the system can "sense" your anxiety is by how long you old down the key. This acceleration technique is built into most computer interfaces so I'm surprised you are not used to it by now. Hopefully adjusting your keyboard timing will provide a compromise you can live with. -Pv-

I get very smooth camera movement when I use the keys. Have you inspected your key repeat rate in the control panel-keyboard? I have my delay set to about 65% and my rate is at max. -Pv-