aka_tom_w

I hope there is an option for Realtime that will not allow the dreaded "pause". As an option of Realtime of course If you want to pause or can't play RealTime without the opportunity to pause, why not just play good old WeGo?? :confused: for the answer to that question it could just be considered a form of handicap. I would suggest the player with the smaller force has fewer units and it likely to get creamed by the larger force, BUT the player with the fewer units can pay more attention to each unit while the player with the larger attacking force gets more units, BUT must "attend" to MORE units in RealTime and perhaps spend less time commanding each unit, and that could be considered a form of handicap as well. IMHO -tom w

and more precise

Bigduke makes a very good point, most folks don't think or have any idea how to think or understand combat or war like military personel or those interested in military affairs. Doesn't someone's signature line around here somewhere say: "Strategy is the art of avoiding a "fair fight" at all costs" or something like that? or how about this one: And you can sum up all of Sun Tzu as: "Never pick a fair fight." -tom w [ November 10, 2005, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

re: commando-ization interesting term a search of the internet and web found only ONE reference by a person posting to another forum Hellfish6: from Aug 2005 Was that your post fytinghellfish ? just curious other than that there are no other references that I could find to "commandoization". -tom w

Well... here's one of them burned out stryker page More knocked out equipment here: web page and another web page interesting wreckage shots -tom w

Me too.... any new mac less then about 2 years old is NOT dual boot and WILL NOT boot into OS 9 we all know the CMx1 series will not play in OS X and it is now on its FORTH update (OS X 10.4.3) with 10.5.0 (Leopard) on the horizon so time in the next 12 months. this is compounded by the statement from Steve and there may be a delay in the initial release of the OS X version of CM:SF! Maybe we should start a new thread of Mac folks who want to be "on the list" to be notified when its time to play Combat Mission again. I USED to play ALL the time on my OS 9 laptop. (supplied by my employer) BUT the lease expired and I was supposed to be "JUST thrilled" by new top of the line G4 15 laptop! Guess what??!! its was not and is not Dual boot so NO more Combat Mission for me! So now all I have is this forum and a longing for the new game! (and yes ... I play CMAK a little at home on an OLD iMac that is old and slow and still boots in to OS 9) Such is the life of the Mac faithful... -tom w

Is this a credible news source? I am looking for other news about this since there was so much major discussion about WP use in WWII I thought I would mention here as it (if true) might be relevant to the new game... (maybe) -tom w web page web page from arab news web page US 'used' chemical weapon in Falluja Tuesday 08 November 2005, 21:57 Makka Time, 18:57 GMT There have been allegations the US used outlawed weapons Related: US toll mounts as Falluja battle rages Fighting in Falluja rages amid confusion Falluja facing humanitarian crisis 'Scores of civilians' killed in Falluja Italian state television has aired a documentary alleging that the US used white phosphorous shells in a massive and indiscriminate way against civilians during the November 2004 offensive in Falluja. The report on Tuesday said the shells were not used to illuminate enemy fighters at night, as the US government has said, but against civilians, and that it burned their flesh "to the bone". The documentary by RaiNews24, the all-news channel of RAI state television, quoted ex-marine Jeff Englehart as saying he saw the bodies of burnt children and women after the bombardments. "Burned bodies. Burned children and burned women. White phosphorous kills indiscriminately. It is a cloud that, within ... 150m of impact, will disperse and will burn every human being or animal." There have been several allegations that the US used outlawed weapons, such as napalm, in the Falluja offensive. On 9 November 2004, the Pentagon denied that any chemical weapons, including napalm, were used in the offensive. Reporter [ November 09, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

yup its big thanks! downloading now est time ~ 2 hrs ++ oh well -tom w

can you post the link thanks -tom w

One thing about head to head play in RealTime via TCP/IP would there be any time left for taunting your opponent? :cool: Perhaps for the defender early in the game he can say something like: "Ha Ha I can see you and you can't see me", or something like that (as you can see I am not that good at that aspect of the side-game), but in the heat of battle in RealTime I would guess the trash talking and taunting would be in short supply. BUT thats not really a bad thing. (Presuming for the moment the "taunting feature" with the radio squawk carries over from CMx1) -tom w [ November 09, 2005, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Well you can always play WeGo until you are comfortable with RealTime. and you can always just play smallish little scenario's in RealTime until you get good at it. Younger players who are faster (twitch) may adapt to Realtime quiet quickly but old and more experienced players should still be able to reply on solid tactics, experience and good strategy to overcome the "twitch" of fast reacting younger players. But you watch I would guess you might see some older players get FAST in RealTIme with practice and learn how to the MOST out of the game, your units, and the NEW interface, with the least efforst by playing and working the game quickly and efficiently in RealTime. You just watch -tom w

All this talk of RealTime Company Commander this and Company Commander that sort of makes me pine for comments from Master Grog Dorosh! Not a word from him lately No comments on the whole RealTime option in CM:SF news? Anybody have any idea where he went? Mr. Dorosh, where are you? -tom w

Don't think so

I would say he is correct about this part too... In CMx1 playing way back in WWII we all had the UAV that came with the game camera that flew all over the battle field, combine that with the old absolute spotting paradigm (one unit see's it and ALL units KNOW about it) and the WWII simulated UAV was alive and well and very effective. Now in this case in CM:SF the one thing the UAV might give the player is some NEW spotting info not previously available as to where some opposing units and vehicles are, I guess. (maybe) There should be a chance it could give the player false info as well, or at the least OLD info, even 10-15 minutes OLD would be enough to surprise some players who might count on the UAV spotting intel as the RealTime equivelant of actually seeing the opposing force that instant from the air. This could be interesting..... -tom w [ November 08, 2005, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

The same effect can he sort of accomplished in CMx1 by turning warning labels ON. (But you don't get the voice.) When the game starts turn on all labels and troops will have those little words pop up over their heads as soon as they take fire or are suppressed IIRC. I would hope some similiar feedback system or game mechanism would alert the player when their units are under attack would somehow be available in CM:SF. Something subtle and appropriate to the interface and the game. -tom w

I thought Steve said you could split squads into team (maybe even 3 teams?) BUT it would cost you the cost would be loss of command and control or longer command delays (or something) I would guess that the image of the user interface (UI) Steve posted would in no way imply the player can't split up the teams, I would say just the opposite it implies the teams can be split. BUT it also makes sense that they don't automatically start out all split up into fire teams... IMHO -tom w

Excellent! Thats why we all like buying your games so much!!! "You GET it!" I hate waiting for the "other guy" to finish up as well. I think the new RealTime option will seperate the IronMen from the "weanies" IMHO BUT that's JUST me! Thanks again! sounds great so far! -tom w

no problem Real life is calm for me now Consider it a Team Effort this is NEW: from this thread: main UI explained thread -tom w [ November 07, 2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted November 07, 2005 11:11 AM After more than a dozen years of making wargames I have come to the following conclusions about micromanagement. Gamers break down into (roughly) three categories: Habitual Micromanagers Give them an inch and they will double check that it is an inch then figure out if they can take an inch and 1/8th instead. They don't mind spending inordinate amounts of time to eek out a tiny bit more performance from their troops. Even if that increase is perceived more than it is actual. These are quintessential "micro view" types. Hands Off Managers The opposite extreme. These are guys who don't care if it is an inch or not... they want to just tell their guys to take whatever it is and run with it. They almost don't want to play the game at all because it is an inconvenience to them. Instead, they want to bark a few orders (preferably by voice recognition) and watch the whole thing play out without any additional input. These guys are the "macro view" types. Hands On Managers Right smack dab in the middle. They want to interact with their units in a way that yields the kind of action they expect from them, yet they don't want to get so wrapped up in doing this that they lose sight of the Big Picture. They get frustrated when they feel they are required to baby sit units too much, but also annoyed when units don't do what is expected of them. Anybody that has spent even a little bit of time with CM and these Forums knows that we cater to the Hands on Manager types. They are the hardest to please, in many ways, because they expect a line to be drawn where there is no one place to draw the line. The other two are harder to please for other reasons, but technically easier to cater to. However, the two extremes will generally enjoy a Hands on Manager type game, but will absolutely not like the opposite style. What's more, the middle guys don't tend to want to play the extremes. So if we cater to the extremes we lose most of our audience. Catering to the middle we get pretty much everybody. The reason I bring this up here is because CMx2 will walk the same fine line CMx1 did in terms of allowing unit micromanagement. Yes, there are more options to direct your units than in CMx1, but we feel that this additional control is necessary for the new environment. Otherwise the Hands On Manager types would feel the game is too Hands Off. Remember what I said earlier... the additional flexibility is available, but not necessary most of the time. We expect you won't be clicking on too many more Commands per turn, just that you will be using the flexibility to use them in different ways. For example, not setting a Cover Arc until 3/4 the way through a move or using "Fire X Rounds" instead of "Target". So hopefully there is more control without more micromanagement. Steve [ November 07, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

um OK I was mostly just being curious sorry it does not sound constructive I will edit it (somehow) -tom w

My question is about the RealTime option... How can the AI figiure out how to respond by "thinking" on the fly, in RealTime AND at the same time the computer will do ALL the combat resolution results and armour penetration calculations as well? (I guess that's where clever game design comes in to play and we know they have not had any problems in that department in the past . ) (maybe armour penetration calculations in CM:SF are not a big deal and are not computationally intensive like in WWII CMx1 game because of ATGM's and the "if you can see it you can kill it" premise??) This whole RealTime thing sounds Very very computationally intensive... On the other hand I guess newer high end dual core processor computers, less then one year hold with plenty of RAM (2 gigs or more ) may have no problem with the game... Again I am only guessing but this sounds like it is going to be a MONSTER of a game with a much wider appeal NOW with that RealTime option. The second version of the CMx2 engine for ETO WWII with the RealTime option should be a RUN AWAY MONSTER hit!!!! my mind boggles with the possibilities! -tom w [ December 06, 2005, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK then I am still surprised that this thread is not locked Just seen my signature line if you are unclear about anything... -tom w

That sounds great thanks for the update -tom w

any more news on if the old cover arc is in or out? -tom w

I am just guessing but I think that might be asking a lot of the RealTime system :confused: -tom w