Mord Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 It never ceases to amaze me at how this company goes out of it's way to be obtainable to it's customers. It feels very good to know that your questions/fears/dreams are being listened to, considered, and/or counted out...in short actually heard and cared about. It's the difference between Artists and a bunch of scumbags just out to make a fast buck... (did someone say Hasbro?). Mord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Damn! he never said if tank turrets would be able to turn independent of the hull on command. Isn't that just like BTS thinking of work instead of just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Lewis, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well since there wont be this relative spotting then BTS should consider toning down each individual squads/units spotting to reduce the Hive-spotting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It won't work. Toning it down more risks unrealistic behavior on a 1:1 relationship level, which is even worse than unrealistic strategic level info. There is simply no way to get Relative type behavior out of an Absolute system. We have done the best we can do with it. Putting in things like delays for armored vehicles and such. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This would be non-linear with range. It should fall off like an inverse cube. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spotting in CMBO has always been non-linear since the first day the code was added. A unit has a MUCH greater chance of spotting something up close than it does far away. Spotting is also dependent on unit type, unit state (i.e. pinned), weather, and terrain as well as distance. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Did anyone ask how much detail the AARs would have this time around? Mord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyBen Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 And will it be possible to have a post scenario briefing? (Ok, I know I am probably the only one who wants this, but it would be an excellent place for scenario designers to put spoily historical information, or give a pat on the back for a job well done...) SurlyBen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 In case this hasn't been addressed before: Will we be able to play QBs without flags when playing against a human opponent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Just repeating my previous question...will air support be handled differently; ie, instead of the generic "air support", will we have choice to choose from historicaly available planes? They wouldn't have to be modeled as the vehicles, but it would be nice to know I've got planes suited for the role of tank busting and not just "generic" air support. I hope I've made some sense here. If not in CM2 but perhaps down the road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Just repeating my previous question...will air support be handled differently; ie, instead of the generic "air support", will we have choice to choose from historicaly available planes? They wouldn't have to be modeled as the vehicles, but it would be nice to know I've got planes suited for the role of tank busting and not just "generic" air support. I hope I've made some sense here. If not in CM2 but perhaps down the road? Sorry - double post! [ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: Frenchy ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Wow Steve, thanks for the info it was unexpected and much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Thanks, but I'd like to know about the AAR's as well please. There was a big thread a while ago where many of us requested full kill information at least in fog of war effected battles , and while Matt acknowleged the requests at the time, it would be fantastic if BTS have listened. Any chance guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windopaene Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Not exactly what "cheats" you are describing. However, it is the problem withPlayer 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> Well more specifically what I was referring to was the fact that Player 1 picks forces, then opens the save file, adds an opponents password, and checks it out. Player 1 now knows what player 2 has got coming. An extra fileswap if "Computer Chooses" would do the trick. Go for it. No one ever plays "computer chooses" in ladder environments because of this, leading to cherry picking, etc. which I know you have said rarity will solve, but as long as this situation exists, it will remain an insecure and glaring flaw in an otherwise great system. Thanks for all of the other info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Thanks Steve. Still plenty of questions left unanswered (as you can see), but you'll never answer them all until the game actually comes out I fear. So I'll hold my laundry list for a later date . Again, thanks for taking the time to answer them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 There will be a lot of disappointed folks around if CM2 sells out as quickly as CM1 did. I hope CM's 'battle plan' includes provision for releasing a TON of CDs and manuals right off the bat. You greatly exceeded your sales projections the first time, what are your expectations this time at bat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 8, 2001 Author Share Posted June 8, 2001 Some very quick answers... No, no post scenario briefing is planned. No, we have no plans to remove FLAGS from QBs even as an option. Not a bad idea though. Yes, full AAR info on kills (i.e. no FoW). No, airpower will remain the same as CM 1 in terms of functionality. In terms of weapons available to planes, that will of course change to reflect what was used in the East. Yes, still some things to fix with PBEM. Just goes to show that the old saying that "if you build it, they will break it" is as true as it ever was We prevented so many things, but still cheaters have found loopholes. And they probably always will Yes, we plan on having PLENTY of stock ready With CM1 the preorders were about 1/5th what we wound up selling in the first two months. I think the current plan is to make about 75% of what CM1 sold in the first batch. And if you guys buy out all of those in two months, I think we might just have a heart attack Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 I forgot to say in my original post: Thank you for your lengthy replies to all our question. And thanks again for replying to my specific question. I'm always amazed at the time (pan enormous patience) that BTS lavished on the players on the board. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Steve, since the IS-3 is being added, will the Panther Ausf.F also be added for the what if secenerios. Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 All sounds good, and the news feed is appreciated of course. I especially like the vunerable area/track hits and the pop-up sewers. On the still considering bit about campaigns, I have one suggestion. It might help if you explain to those making suggestions to you, what sorts of things would be easy for you to do, as opposed to hard. Instead of them asking for a wish-list and it turning out to be too much work for you guys, give them some list of "here are the things it'd be easy to provide to campaign designers", and then let them think about what they can do with them, with external programs or procedures. I think it may be a case of them wanting the moon, but only actually needing two scraps of string - that is the idea behind the suggestion. Like, perhaps, "write AAR to text file", which others might be interested in anyway for printed versions of their triumphs. (The added thing there might be listed of the "kills" for each unit, off the existing "enter" window, below the overall AAR screen summary). Campaigns, I suspect, will remain a matter of work for some designer or GM. If only the easiest things are done to help them do them, though, that might be enough to see more of them. [ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 A question regarding Forward observers: Has a final decision been made as to whether we be able to shift an existing artillery barrage (i.e., already firing) into a nearby woods or village without the inherent dispersal involved whenever the arty is being dropped out of sight? In other words, will the FO's learn to tell the battery to 'drop 75m and fire for effect' without the current dispersal of shells? [ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Thank you JasonC for the clarity, brevity, and poignancy of your last post. I believe you are correct in your assumption that with a ball of twine and two rusty nails we have some geniuses among us who could tackle the "shaky at best" campaign issue. I for one think that the campaign game addition alone would take the Combat Mission from "premier wargame" status straight into the "Best wargame of now and forevermore" stratosphere. Steve, I get the feeling that you harbor some doubt about the validity of such a feature, and you are to be commended for your strict adherance to military and historical accuracy, but just as those ubertanks are "fun" I think there are huge numbers of fans for whom a campaign game would be the best and most enjoyable of ANY game improvement mentioned. Just a ball of wax and a spoon, that's all we need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barticus Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Yes, we plan on having PLENTY of stock ready With CM1 the preorders were about 1/5th what we wound up selling in the first two months. I think the current plan is to make about 75% of what CM1 sold in the first batch. And if you guys buy out all of those in two months, I think we might just have a heart attack Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No offense Steve, but I'll do my best! MUwahahhaaahhahahahah *COUGH**HACK**COUGH!* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrold Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Steve: Thanks for all the great info. I can hardly wait to give you some money! I have been having such trouble with another program that does not deserve to have it's name mentioned in the same thread as CM. It is continually refreshing to have BTS as a good example of how to interact with the customer. Were every company like you guys. Hey! I have a question. How would a battle that takes place over several days be handled in CMBB that might be different from the way CM might do it? Maybe I should know this is just a big operation but I'm on the vicadin and flexiril so brain mushy... :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGMB Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Sir, Steve, thenks for the tome of info! BTW: I did notice that on the models of the elephant, and T-34s there were MG's.... Thats way cool. And since they now have been included... in the models (which look WAY COOLLLLLLLLL!!!!) I thinki that we can all agree that they should really jam up on occation. This has been one of my big beefs over the years, adn I would love to see them jam as they should. So: will tanks MG's jam up on occation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 Thanks for all the interesting answers, Steve. You know how much we love these details on the sim aspects of CM. Hmm, on the aircraft topic, it would be very, very nice if scenario designers could choose between having an fully loaded IL-2 show up for the Russian side (an extreme level of threat to enemy armor), or just a Yak with no bombs or anything, just machineguns (a much lower threat). This would give the scenario designers much more flexibility in adding just the right amount of threat from the air for the battle they are creating. I hope you'll consider adding that as an option in the scenario design module. [ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: Lee ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: Damn! he never said if tank turrets would be able to turn independent of the hull on command. Isn't that just like BTS thinking of work instead of just me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an essential feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted June 8, 2001 Share Posted June 8, 2001 BTS: Why don't you just give everyone the saved game format and see what happens. Or do you think it will hurt the game in some way? I have done multiplayer campain for CC3 without any Atomic support and I don't need your support either. (Except saved game) MMCC3 works and people play it everyday. Converting it to CM2 should be easy - I just need to save units differently. http://home.san.rr.com/apiotrow/MMCC3/ [ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: killmore ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts