A BUNCH of answers to your questions!

[Battlefront.com]

Well,

In this thread http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019422&p= I was hammered by tons of questions. I felt that some quick answers were in order, but I didn't want them to be buried in another thread. It takes a LONG time to answer this number of questions (CRIPES! And many posts too due to UBB restrictions on how many quotes I could do in one post ), so I want my own darned thread to do it in Unfortunately, I can not guarantee that I'll be able to answer follow ups as I really need to be doing other things (hundreds of other things it feels like ).

For the sake of making this easier on me, I am just quoting the questions, not the people that asked them...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am very sorry to hear that "The Winter War" is not in. But since Finns would be in, I suppose there will be a lot of space for out Great Scenario Designers out there to fulfill our desire. Right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right! I also suspect that a creative designer could make a reasonable approximation of a Winter War battle since much of the 1941 TO&E for both sides wasn't DRAMATICALLY different than it was in 1939/40. Obviously the terrain is exactly the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since each unit info includes the detailed TO&E info (see my previous thread) so will there be a small OOB screen so we can check the total units available?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An Order of Battle screen that shows what you have is on the drawing board. It is a medium priority item, so it may not actually get put in. However... this will not be nearly as detailed as Steel Panthers and Close Combat OOB screens. See previous threads on this topic. There are many and our basic position on this matter has not changed. Too much easy information detracts from the "seat of the pants" feeling that CM simulates.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is also mentioned that there would be an optional rule based on AFV crew experience. Bob mentioned elsewhere that it is possbile that the crew reactions would be based on their experience/moral/physical condition. Could you eleborate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not much at this time Just think of this new feature just like infantry. You will see vehicles turn tail and run instead of just seeking better cover.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is also mentioned that there would be AFV C&C rules. How would it work?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically, radio and non-radio AFVs will be treated differently in terms of Command and Control. Poorly trained/experienced crews will not have the same degree of tactical flexibility as better ones. This also applies to infantry as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since the 1st GUI screenshots does not show the entire unit info bar (the lowest "line" removed"), who could the player know about the "physical fitness" of a infranty unit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This factor is displayed directly below the unit Experience. Ammo counts are next to it, then Morale state just under the terrain picture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How would be long-range tank engagements be improved?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only room for improvement from 1.12, that we feel is necessary, is optics. On the Western Front the quality of optics and aiming systems were about equal all things considered. This is not necessarily the case on the Eastern Front. We plan on coming up with a scientific method for augmenting the current aiming equations with an optics factor. We are NOT just going to make the Germans hit better than the Soviets in all conditions for all vehicles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about the "rumored" sewer system, how is it modelled?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A abstracted system where units will "teleport" from their current location (providing there is a sewer opening!) to another location. Time to do this will be dependent upon the distance, massively randomized to simulate getting lost. There will be a chance of the unit popping up in the WRONG area. There will be no actual combat in the "sewers", but a unit guarding an opening will get some sort of combat bonus if it isn't engaged. Well, that is at least the very unfinished design

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Finally, an OT, when will the pre-order be taken? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We will not take preorders until the game is in production. Large numbers of preorders (and there will be LARGE numbers ) is just something that we can't handle. We will soon have a new ordering system that will process charges at the time of the order, so I am not even sure we can technically hold preorders without charging them when they are placed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My question is will engineers be able to blow up bridges using their demo charges?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. This is really outside of the scope of CM. Bridges were blown up all the time, but they were very rarely destroyed during a CM style battle. And in any case, the amount of explosives and time needed to prep a bridge for destruction is far outside of CM's timeframe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There has been a lot of talk about bigger operations for CM2 (or campaigns). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not from us thought

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So will campaigns be part of CM2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. It has never been our intention to add such a feature to CM2. It is a huge amount of work and the historical foundation such a campaign is built on (for CM's level) is shaky at best. Operations will remain in place, though slightly improved.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How many new building, in all will there be in CM2. And what are the differences between these buildings. How big, how long, how many stories? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are still limited as to what we can do until the whole game engine is rewritten. We don't have specs for the new buildings yet, but they will still be limited to 2 stories. Shape and size will be the primary differences, as well as the textures associated with them. This will make the maps look more varied and offer more interesting LOS possibilities.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will tank be able to cross fords now, or is there a new terrain tile to let tanks and other vehicles cross a river or a stream?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There will be three fords; Infantry Only, Infantry and Tracked Vehicles Only, All Units.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, will vehicles be able to cross a frozen river, maybe not the heavy tank but light tanks, like ACs and light guns and infantry?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, vehicles will be able to cross frozen rivers. We are hoping to have an ice thickness variable for the scenario that will determine which vehicles, if any, can cross. There will be no vehicles breaking through the ice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please say it will be possible to preview a QB map before unit purchasing (or at least make it an option if both players agree).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. In general, we are vehemently against this feature. And that is putting it mildly If it were a snap to add we probably would put it in as a double player agreed option. But major code changes would be necessary to allow this. Both players will, however, know what the QuickBattle settings are before purchasing units. Right now this needs to be communicated by the first player, which is subject to error.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, will we be able to create our own maps and then use them in a QB? ie create the terrain, but leave the unit purchase up to each player.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, we hope to be able to add this.

[Battlefront.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I heard you are including the IS-3. If this is true, why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is one mean motha tank The Pershing was added even though it saw combat only once or twice. From our perspective, there is really no difference between a super rare vehicle and a vehicle which never saw combat. So the IS-3, Super Pershing, night visioned Panther, Sturmtiger, Maus, etc. are all in the same boat.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Chances are the IS-3 never saw combat in Europe and it is doubtful it saw action against the Japanese. Is this just for "what if" scenarios or for fun? Same reason for including the SturmTiger??

Yes. It is cool to put in some of these vehicles if we have the time and they don't distract us from more relevant things. For example, submersible and night vision tanks are too rare and require too much special coding attention, but an IS-3 just requires a model, texture, and some data. A few vehicles like that are OK.

[Battlefront.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A quick question, will the existing Axis MODs be mostly compatible with the new texturing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean, Axis and appropriate Allied MODs Don't forget there are quite a few Western vehicles on the Eastern Front from about 1942 on. The

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Take the Stug you posted for example, could it be MODed with the previous work released by KwazyDog or Fernando or Tiger?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends if the vehicle model itself was reworked. KwazyDog has already redone the PzIV, Panther, and StuG families so I can say MODs for them will almost certainly have to be updated to work correctly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Question. There are sunflowers field with realted LOS problem?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... can't remember off the top of my head what we decided to do about sunflowers. IIRC we are thinking of having two different height "fields".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have read before that Winter War is habitually left out of games because the parameters of the game engine do not fit the Winter War scope of fighting, both in odds and in the final outcome (for example the conventional AT capabilities of the Finnish army did not warrant the 1 200 tanks the Red Army lost in combat). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... well, I can see this being a big problem for games that don't realistically simulate low level combat in terms of morale, weapons, and the all important LUCK. The same goes for some of the early invasion match ups between Germans and Soviets too. From past gaming experiences I have never really felt like the early period of the war was simulated well unless the Germans were on the attack with numerical superiority or on the defensive with the better stuff available at the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In other words Winter War throws a monkey wrech into the game engine. Is this what happened here too ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it was just one bite too many for us to chew. Unfortunately, doing the Winter War would have required far too much work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I take it Finns will still be included in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You better believe it I am probably one of the few Westerners that think this is one of the most interesting areas of the entire war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What will be the parameters you use to model the Finnish army ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If our first confirmed Finnish CM fanatic "TSS" counts as a parameter, then that is your answer I also have some good sources here for Finnish uniforms and equipment, but Tommi has already provided a wealth of details for us to go by.

[Battlefront.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will handgrenades be thrown one by one or in groups? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same as CM1 - one by one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After the release of CM2 is there going to be patches available to update CM1 with the advancements and changes to CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Patches, as such, are impossible for us to provide. It would involve many months of work to make CM2 backwards compatible with CM1. Much of that time would be spent making a scenario translation tool, if it could even be done. What we are going to do in terms of revamping the Western Front is still up in the air. Check out this thread for much more information:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019399&p=

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What kind of improvements will be made to the Campaign System?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We haven't quite decided yet. But I can tell you that nothing fundamental is planned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Are improvements being made in the Setup Zones between battles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. We had a variable frontline system back in the Beta stage of CM1 and it was a disaster. Think of all the slick things we pulled off, particularly the ones that nobody has ever done before. Now picture the same guys spending weeks trying to create/fix a system that did a variable frontline and then giving up in frustration. Hopefully that will hammer home how much of a nightmare it is to do things much differently than we do now. The current system does have its shortcomings, but it generally works fine.

We might be able to put in Objective Flags into Ops. But again, Ops work hasn't been hammered down yet so this is only one possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>will be present a command "follow" to be used in managing a convoy avoiding the classic traffic jam?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure if this will be in CM2 or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> how you will model the early war russian powerful but untrained army? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is easier than it may seem when you have a good, solid, non-hardcoded system to work with. We are changing the C&C system, have added a "Fitness" rating so you can have poorly trained physically fit soldiers (that was the norm for Soviet infantry early on), obviously simulating the equipment and organization as realistically as possible, and not assigning any "national bias" characteristics to either side. The latter tend to just cover up inherent game design flaws/shortcomings.

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am wondering now how CMBB will handle cityfighting differently from CMBO if "mouseholing" will not be possible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mouseholing was not as common as people think it was. In city buildings it took quite a bit of explosives to do this, plus there was always the risk of injuring/killing friendly troops when doing such an action. Don't get me wrong, it was done and was done frequently, but it isn't the type of feature that would dramatically change the basic nature of city fighting. Just gives one or the other side a slight edge in a given situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There was mention of different building types/shapes, will there also be different sized buildings to simulate large complexes, ones that say would encompass 6-8 tiles or more? Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We won't likely have a single tiled building of that size, but instead "building blocks" for people to make their own massive building complexes. There are other plans, but I think this is the only way to deal with large industrial type buildings.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just wondering if anti-tank ditches are going to be included. They featured prominently at Kursk (hundreds of km of them)as well as Moscow '41 and likely many other areas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, regular and AT trenches are planned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will the setup for PBEM games be made more secure, specifically regarding "computer Purchase" of units? As we all know there are some "cheats" involved in this that renders it unusable for playing secured ladder-type games with unknown opponents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly what "cheats" you are describing. However, it is the problem with Player 1 starting up, selecting random forces, then restarting to get better ones... the only way to fix this is with an extra fileswap. I don't think we are going to be able to do that for CM2. However, when Rarity is on (either Fixed or Variable) this problem will be greatly diminished.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will we be able to fight in the Spanish Civil War in the early war CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. This would require so much special attention that it could not be done along with other theaters. Like the Winter War, it is just too unique from later theaters to make inclusion easy. For example, most of the vehicles used in the Spanish Civil War were not found in combat at any other time from 1939 on. And obviously we would have to research and create all the Spanish specific TO&E, which is a LOT of work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>holy cow... I never managed to get an answer by god -Steve- himself...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... dude, if I were god the game would have been done on the 8th day at the very latest

Thanks!

Steve

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Kingfish]

The follow / convoy command?

[420]

:eek: Wow! Good morning and thanks for all that info! Sure beats the newspaper I was reading a second ago.

[Banshee]

replay of the whole movie file <<--?

[Panzer Leader]

Whoh, where did this come from??

As for campaigns...please???? Just give our programming friend from this thread: CM2 Campaign Proposal the keys to the car. Pleeeeeeeeease????

Oh, and what about CAVALRY?

[Frenchy]

Steve - Thanks for the answers. I have one...will air support be handled any differently? After all, the Soviets had some pretty potent tank busters.

Will individual types of planes be available as a choice rather than the generic "air support"?

[Schrullenhaft]

Muchos Gracias Steve.

We appreciate your efforts to answer our mind-numbing number of questions/requests/demands.

[BFCElvis]

Wow....Thanks Steve...Holy cow.

My only comment for now is....You can charge my card today if you want and send me the game whenever it is done. That preorder problem is not an issue...whack my card man and send the game later.

[Arsenal]

quote:

Also, will we be able to create our own maps and then use them in a QB? ie create the terrain, but leave the unit purchase up to each player.

Yes, we hope to be able to add this.

---------------------------------------------

Yeahhh!

[Username]

Lewis:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are vehicles in CM2 going to have generic percentage placement of hits against them or vehicle specific percetage-to-area?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same modeling as with CM1. Until we rewrite the game engine, which will do far more than just this, we can't do much to change the basic way the modeling works.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Against oddly shaped vehicles like the 152 this would be important. As I said, the vehicle seems vulnerable in areas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No more so than with current vehicles IMHO. We have the "lucky shot" thing in CM1 now and that will apply to CM2 as well. However, we are going to code up something that allows underclassed AT weapons, in given situations, to have a better chance of hitting a vulnerable spot such as the tracks. This was about all the 37mm AT gun was good for vs. Soviet armor Its high rate of fire and accuracy enabled it to still cause problems until early 1942 if the situation was right.

[Ron]

Thanks Steve, the time and effort answering are much appreciated. Looking forward to the finished product, as well as Optics-Part II...

Ron

[gunnergoz]

AAHHHH, There I feel better now. Thanks, Steve! I was getting that "waiting for the other shoe to drop" feeling after the magazine articles were announced.

[Michael Dorosh]

Much appreciated Steve. I think many of my questions stem from wanting to be able to better simulate Squad Leader and ASL scenarios in CM. However, I keep learning that SL and ASL were really poor simulations - my biggest shock was reading your rules and seeing that infantry smoke grenades - a staple in ASL - were not included. I do agree with your rationale for stuff like blowing bridges, clearing roadblocks etc. I guess wanting to do so makes me a "gamey bastard" along with the other ASL freaks...

Looking forward to CM2 - exactly as you described it. Incidentally, the spare trag on the back of the StuG in the screen shots blew me away!

[Maxx]

Steve was also asked if the map size limit will be expanded. The answer was YES

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will the setup for PBEM games be made more secure, specifically regarding "computer Purchase" of units? As we all know there are some "cheats" involved in this that renders it unusable for playing secured ladder-type games with unknown opponents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not exactly what "cheats" you are describing. However, it is the problem with Player 1 starting up, selecting random forces, then restarting to get better ones... the only way to fix this is with an extra fileswap. I don't think we are going to be able to do that for CM2. However, when Rarity is on (either Fixed or Variable) this problem will be greatly diminished.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I think hes refering to is the fact that the host can set up human-pick for himself but computer-pick for his opponent, giving him an obvious advantage. The opponent has no way of knowing whether the computer picked the hosts force or the host did.

I proposed a fix for this a long while ago, quite simply display, at the start of the game, the QB parameters to the players, in the same way that the game says "Allies are playing with a 25% bonus" is now displayed, or whatever it says precisely.

[-Havermeyer-]

Steve, you were right. You can't give us a little information. You'll be responding to questions till the release data at this rate.

Thanks for your efforts. I'd still like to watch a bridge blow up in front of the armored column of my opponent. And laugh and laugh and laugh over TCPIP.

[BloodyBucket]

This is like reading the menu when you are really hungry...tantalising! Thanks for the info. I am a little kid on Christmas Eve. It seems like CM2 will never come, and that's the beauty of it.

[Phillies Phan]

Put me down for CM2 and put it on Elvis's card. He won't mind. (much)

Thanks for going into such detail, Steve. Its much appreciated.

[Battlefront.com]

Havermeyer,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, you were right. You can't give us a little information. You'll be responding to questions till the release data at this rate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got that right Took me just about two hours to answer the questions in one thread. Doesn't take a mathematics genius to see that it ain't going to get any quicker

Just three quick responses...

Replay of the whole movie file -> Yes, that is on our plate as an "Important" feature. Only thing that will squash this is if we get going on it and find that there is no reasonable way to implement without rewriting major sections of code. That is, BTW, the best way to do it, so we are already planning on some sort of ugly code hack

Multiplayer disclosure -> we are going to add a notification that tells Player 2 exactly what was selected by Player 1. That means if the cheater gets to start the game he will be caught unless Player 2 is blind. In which case, I don't think it matters much

External Campaign System -> we currently have THREE folks asking to make a huge campaign system of one form or another. All three have made multiple detailed pitches to us. All three have started by saying all they need is the file format. All three have then described a system that requires much more involvement from us than just that to make their system work. We haven't rulled any of the three out (yet), but to be honest... I just don't see how it will be possible to do any of them. We know there is interest (though we don't think it is more than a decent minority of customers), but on balance it isn't as important as the other things we have to do. Remember, any campaign system is only as good as the tactical battles they contain. If we skip something major in order to do the campaign stuff, everybody suffers the loss.{correction. I made this sound worse than it really is. Let's just say that we are skeptical that "just an export file" will be enough. So we porceed with caution, but are still looking at the proposals I mentioned seriously}

Steve

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Mord]

Great responses. Now Panzer Leader has to get his butt working on the FAQ.

Mord.