aka_tom_w

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 19, 2005 07:45 PM We're not interested in making a "toolbox" type engine. Way too much work for that. No commercial incentive for us either, so that + the work = nogo While I did not really intend on throwing any bones into this thread... might as well toss one bigish one.... never again will we make the kind of games we did for CMx1 in terms of their scope. Why not? CMAK is the best way to explain this. It took us nearly a year, with a full time team of 6 people and a part time team of probably a dozen, to make what is basically a HUGE mod of the existing engine. Relatively little programming time went into new features for that game, and yet it still took that long. We though we learned our lesson with CMBB, but I guess we had to suffer through yet another massive development effort to really learn it. And that is... For $45 or $35 a copy it just isn't worth putting in that quantity of stuff. Yeah, I know some of you (like me!) really enjoyed playing Conscript Romanians, complete with Romanian voices... but really... how many (% of total customers) would have misssed it if that was missing? Yet we probably spent 1 year's worth of full staff development on those features. Really not smart from our standpoing, nor yours. You guys had to wait 1 year extra for BB and AK because we felt like we had to simulate every darned stinking thing for the entire Eastern Front. Yet I am sure that 95% or more of you would have rather had a smaller scoped version of the Eastern Front a year earlier and then had AK follow right up and then had something else right after (or CMx2 released a few months ago). So... from now on you will see from us: 1. More variety from title to title 2. Less time in between releases 3. Deeper game play within a title (vs. breadth) 4. More game engine improvements with each release I'm sure some will grumble and invent all sorts of negative things to say about all this, but that's par for the course with Gorgs After you get ahold of the first CMx2 title's demo, and you see what our new strategy REALLY means, only the hardcore whiners will still be bitching. And since these guys probably bitched about CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK not being up to their standards... well... you can guess how much we'll care Mikey... I figured someone would note the TM I hope nobody here works for the g'vmnt 'cuz we're not exactly allowed to use that mark without having actually filed and paid for a trademark Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 19, 2005 01:20 PM CMx2 allows us to, in theory, do all of the following game settings, each of which could constitute many stand alone games (i.e. setting is too big for one game): WWII ETO WWII PTO 1950s Korea 2000s Korea WWI Napoleonics US Civil War 100 Years War Medival Ancient (European) Ancient (Asian) Contemporary Cold War Near Future Far Future Fantasy (D&D style) Alien Invasion Post Apocalyptic And probably a whole bunch of things I just didn't think of in 1 minute The point is that as long as the combat is predominantly ground based, CMx2 can do pretty much anything. Certainly it could do all of the above, though with differing amounts of effort of course. So when I say we have a Top 5 List (which in a formal sense we don't), there is a lot of theoretical possibillities out there for us to pursue. Inluding all 5 being WWII ETO to all 5 being Fantasy, even though we would never enslave ourselves to just one genre for the next 5 years. Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 19, 2005 01:20 PM CMx2 allows us to, in theory, do all of the following game settings, each of which could constitute many stand alone games (i.e. setting is too big for one game): WWII ETO WWII PTO 1950s Korea 2000s Korea WWI Napoleonics US Civil War 100 Years War Medival Ancient (European) Ancient (Asian) Contemporary Cold War Near Future Far Future Fantasy (D&D style) Alien Invasion Post Apocalyptic And probably a whole bunch of things I just didn't think of in 1 minute The point is that as long as the combat is predominantly ground based, CMx2 can do pretty much anything. Certainly it could do all of the above, though with differing amounts of effort of course. So when I say we have a Top 5 List (which in a formal sense we don't), there is a lot of theoretical possibillities out there for us to pursue. Inluding all 5 being WWII ETO to all 5 being Fantasy, even though we would never enslave ourselves to just one genre for the next 5 years. Steve

HI! If you are NEW to this thread the MOST recent bones are at the bottom of this thread or those posts on the last or next to last page... OK? The other thread is about to go Super Nova (over 300 posts) So I will try to posts Steve's recent hints and comments here in order of appearance in the other thread: OLD bone update from Jan 2005 Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 31, 2005 04:05 PM (from HUGE old 1:1 Representation thread) I have to close up this thread due to its size. Feel free to start up another one. However, keep in mind that we (Battlefront) need to design something that is pleasing to both the eye and the grog. We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough. In other words... there is no one right answer to this debate you guys are having. We need to have a balance between the two, and that balance is in part determined by how easy/hard it is to program and/or how well it functions from a performance standpoint (eye candy and underlying sim stuff BOTH!). Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 30, 2005 08:48 PM The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design. Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical). The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out. CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around... Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2... What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2. In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 19, 2005 12:07 PM Ok, perhaps it is time for me to put in an updated 2 cents on this classic topic It is fairly accurate to say that a European conflict in the 1960s or 1970s (mid at least) would be more-or-less similar to WWII combat. The technology, though improved, was not a quantum leap from what was going on at the end of WWII. Night vision and thermal imaging, though crude, were around. Missiles were also around, but limited to guided LOS types. Airpower was vastly more dangerous to ground targets than in WWII, yet far away from the kind of lethality seen today. NBC... who cares The "N" is a non-starter for a tactical game, "B" and "N" are fairly similar in terms of how they would be simulated. In all cases the simulated counter measures are pretty much the same. Technically, Cold War wouldn't be terribly difficult to do with the CMx1 engine, though it would still be a royal pain in the butt. It is one of the reasons we dropped CMx1 and moved onto CMx2. Not because of a desire to do Cold War, but a realization that even the most similar non-WWII setting (Korea) was pretty tough but the next most similar (1960s/1970s) Cold war was even tougher. So why stick with something that is that inflexible? CMx2 can handle Space Lobsters of Doom™ as easily as it could handle Cold War, while CMx1 could maybe handle Cold War but no way handle Space Lobsters of Doom™. What that means is that "closeness" to CMBO/BB/AK is no longer any concern of ours. We can do whatever we want based on whatever we want And what do we want to do? Well, we do want to make a whole range of cool games other than WWII. Unfortunately for Cold War aficionados, Cold War isn't on our Top 5 list. And since we don't have a list beyond the Top 5, Cold War is effectively not even on our radar screens. And even if it were #5, at roughly 8-12 months of development time per title... CW would be a long, long ways away even if we promised right here and now that it would be the 5th game of the series (which I am most certainly not promising ). Sorry to rain on the CW parade yet again (at least I'm consistent!), but I just don't see it happening. Steve [ September 07, 2005, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

The other thread is about to go Super Nova (over 300 posts) So I will try to posts Steve's recent hints and comments here in order of appearance in the other thread: OLD bone update from Jan 2005 Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 31, 2005 04:05 PM (from HUGE old 1:1 Representation thread) I have to close up this thread due to its size. Feel free to start up another one. However, keep in mind that we (Battlefront) need to design something that is pleasing to both the eye and the grog. We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough. In other words... there is no one right answer to this debate you guys are having. We need to have a balance between the two, and that balance is in part determined by how easy/hard it is to program and/or how well it functions from a performance standpoint (eye candy and underlying sim stuff BOTH!). Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted January 30, 2005 08:48 PM The 3D environment of CM does offer us some challenges in terms of where to draw the line between a simulation of the individual soldier and larger groups of soldiers (i.e. units). It's something we've all be struggling with since the early days of CMBO's design. Back in the old days of wargaming you'd have a cardboard chit with some numbers and a shape on it. Nobody called for more than that simply because the system was so abstract probably nobody thought of it (at least not thinking it possibly practical). The first couple of generations of computerized wargames fell into the same category. As time went on and technology improved wargamers wanted better looking maps, more attractive looking units, and of course more under the hood. But again, for anything but the smallest scale wargames nobody thought about simulating the individual soldier to any significant degree. Until, that is, Close Combat came out. CC was the first commercial wargame to model the individual soldier in detail and in substantial numbers. And for all its flaws, the game worked very well and people saw the value in having the 1:1 soldier simulation. Then CMBO came around... Our problem, from the beginning, is our chosen scale. MUCH larger than CC's, yet not so much that individuals ceased to matter. But due to technical limiations we never once thought about doing 1:1 because it simply wasn't possible. However, the desire has always been there, at least to some extent. Now comes CMx2... What we are doing now is giving the individual soldier a place on a larger scale battlefield (larger than FPS, CC, etc). That is the right thing to do. However, there are limits. We must make sure to not lose sight of the fact that this is a larger scale wargame and not a FPS of even Close Combat scale game. Therefore, when push comes to shove, decisions are made which favor the larger scale wargaming environment. Clutter, unnecessary development distractions, big hits to the CPU for little simulation gain, etc. are all bad things for CMx2. In short... we know what CMx2 is supposed to be and what it isn't. We have this vision very clearly laid out and will not waiver from it. There will be no mission creep. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 19, 2005 12:07 PM Ok, perhaps it is time for me to put in an updated 2 cents on this classic topic It is fairly accurate to say that a European conflict in the 1960s or 1970s (mid at least) would be more-or-less similar to WWII combat. The technology, though improved, was not a quantum leap from what was going on at the end of WWII. Night vision and thermal imaging, though crude, were around. Missiles were also around, but limited to guided LOS types. Airpower was vastly more dangerous to ground targets than in WWII, yet far away from the kind of lethality seen today. NBC... who cares The "N" is a non-starter for a tactical game, "B" and "N" are fairly similar in terms of how they would be simulated. In all cases the simulated counter measures are pretty much the same. Technically, Cold War wouldn't be terribly difficult to do with the CMx1 engine, though it would still be a royal pain in the butt. It is one of the reasons we dropped CMx1 and moved onto CMx2. Not because of a desire to do Cold War, but a realization that even the most similar non-WWII setting (Korea) was pretty tough but the next most similar (1960s/1970s) Cold war was even tougher. So why stick with something that is that inflexible? CMx2 can handle Space Lobsters of Doom™ as easily as it could handle Cold War, while CMx1 could maybe handle Cold War but no way handle Space Lobsters of Doom™. What that means is that "closeness" to CMBO/BB/AK is no longer any concern of ours. We can do whatever we want based on whatever we want And what do we want to do? Well, we do want to make a whole range of cool games other than WWII. Unfortunately for Cold War aficionados, Cold War isn't on our Top 5 list. And since we don't have a list beyond the Top 5, Cold War is effectively not even on our radar screens. And even if it were #5, at roughly 8-12 months of development time per title... CW would be a long, long ways away even if we promised right here and now that it would be the 5th game of the series (which I am most certainly not promising ). Sorry to rain on the CW parade yet again (at least I'm consistent!), but I just don't see it happening. Steve [ June 19, 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Steve? Is this what you are trying to tell us: There's The NEW CMx2 Engine - (multi-functional, pan-dimensional living breathing, masterpiece of game code, pinnacle of game development achievement of ALL TIME!) or, the underpinings of everything There's The Game - Era specific... WW2, Cold War (NOT likely or so we are told), Space Lobsters, whateever ( Korean "conflict" MAYBE Arab-Israeli wars? ) There's The Module - Narrow focus addons to The Game. Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Austerlitz, whatever. (no more than 2-3 modules PER Game/Era ( with a new one maybe every 6-8 months?) BUT if the Game/era is WWII how could we (the CMxx Hardcore which are extremely well represented in this thread ) possibly be happy with only 2-3 modules FOR ALL of WWII unless I am missing something here OR the Modules you speak of are somehow quite broad and generous?? (larger than the narrow scope of one battle that I am lead to believe?) Maybe I just can't see the "BIG" picture yet? :confused: BUT I am trying -tom w P.S. and I am guessing from the tang, taste and texture of the recent bones (gristle and ALL!) the first game MAY not be WWII but some other interesting historically significant armed conflict between WWII about 15 years ago maybe?? Actually, if I understood the module concept, they add on to the existing game. So, new module comes out, I don't though the old one in the drawer, I keep playing with additonal capabilities. Just in case I misunderstood Steve, here's my take on what he's said... There's The Engine - the underpinings of everything There's The Game - Era specific... WW2, Cold War, Space Lobsters, whaterever There's The Module - Narrow focus addons to The Game. Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Austerlitz, whatever. So, we get a game with vastly more play options followed by modules that extend the unit possibilities. I really don't see what all the whining's aboot </font>

Well he has a point. I preordered CMBO because it was unique and ground breaking at the time and I simply COULD NOT wait to install it and play it as soon as possible! CMBB had GREAT improvements but no english speaking units. (so I bought the game and did not play it too much). CMAK contained ALL the great CMBB like game engine improvements, AND english speaking units so I was interested in that game as well. (Sadly it has no Mac OS X support BUT that is a WHOLE other issue!) BUT now... Now we are about to be offered the "next BIG thing" CMx2 game engine of our wildest dreams (or so it would seem from this early vantage point) with only a thin slice of salami to chew on. (narrow scope "modules"). I KNOW one thing for SURE, I won't be pre-ordering the first release of CMx2 unless it is a complete full featured Normandy SIM or something equally "fun" from the ETO in WWII Sorry, but to be completely honest I am somewhat skeptical about the "thin" slices of salami coming our way sometime this coming winter. -tom w

YES! Ken makes a Great Point! I agree completly I hope it is on "the list" "Okay, here's a better explanation of what I mean: A lot of hard-working folks have created scenarios, many of which I've downloaded. The game came with many, as well. I've also created a bunch. Now, I've got a friggin' huge, swollen, engorged, scenario list. My brain is smaller than the list. I have NO idea which battles I've fought, which I've won, how often I've played, etc., etc. I'd also like to search the list" Yes Please let us annotate the scenario list I second that request! I have NEVER heard of this feature request before BUT I think it would MOST certainly be a welcome addition to the game. Thanks -tom w

OK And I agree JUST so long as CMx2-Normandy is THE FIRST OUT OF THE gate. (AND I am thinking it should come with Tigers) Now... Can you really offer CMx2-normandy with only 50 distinct unit types? (not really I don't think if you wanted to include Hobart's Funnies which would be welcomed by most gamers here as a POPULAR and fun inclusion in the CMx2 -Normady OOB ) I quess the REAL question is what will be the first release?? -tom w That's my understanding, too. I.e., CMx2-Normandy comes with realistic hedgrows, sandy beaches, cliffs, Hobart's Funnies, realistic bunkers, maybe landing craft, maybe random dispersal of paratroopers or glider troops, etc. </font>

My thought was that they will no longer offer an entire front any more. OK that is a sound business decision. But the concept Steve mentioned that was that each game would offer a select "sub set" of units. Perhaps ONLY 50 units. Of those how many will be vehicles??? My thoughts go like this... I LIKE tank battles, with a limited number of units there might be limited replayability with a limited number of tanks and AFV's. I am not sure we are in for MORE historically accuracy? (Is that possible?) What I mean is a VERY narrow scope and a very limited set of units might mean I may not at all be interested in their first release if it does not have some variety or enough units to enjoy diverse battles and replayability with more than a handful of AFV's. AND Yes my point is Steve is SO RIGHT we have been Spoiled and Spoiled ROTTEN for sure by CMBO and CMBB! -tom w

You can be SURE...... that Most of the hard core, devoted, die hard fans and early adopters of the CMxx series will be looking for EXACTLY this: "We fully expect the game play value of CMx2, on a battle by battle basis, to far exceed CMx1." ("to FAR exceed" that is a VERY large claim, we'll see ) AND the first release better have Tigers, King Tigers or Elephants in it or you can be sure there will be much Bitching, Moaning, and Kevtching (if we are ONLY limited to 50 possible units and by that I hope to mean only 50 possible VEHICLES for me the rest of the units are JUST option extra's and also rans...) sorry... don't worry about it, this is JUST my morning rant.... I would humbly suggest that when you say 25 instead of 50 pre built scenarios you will find that most of us don't care if it ONLY comes with a handful of scenarios as long as you release the scenario builder and map editor with the game. THE REAL issue here, and the thing that stings the most, will be the lack of units and vehicles. We can build our own scenarios or download other ones, BUT if CMx2 is anything like CMxx then we know we can't add or modify vechicles in ANY way so the choices you make FOR US about what units you will put in any given game you offer to sell us, should be considered A CRITICAL FACTOR to the buy or not buy decision. (It WILL be critical factor in my purchase decision and it may well be the ONLY factor, If you offer us crappy or unpopular units, and ONLY a few of them I will be disinclined to buy it for sure!) AND by that I mean the armour and specifically the FUN and popular armour. You might consider (when the time comes) using the forum to offer a poll or a vote for the 50 MOST POPULAR Vehicles (Presuming WWII) (AND yes I am talking about a popularity contest for all military vehicles here), to include in the first release of CMx2..... (JUST a suggestion ) Posted in the BEST of humour :cool: . -tom w [ June 01, 2005, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

" My biggest concern with the module approach has been with them slicing the salami too thin. " !! :eek: YES I am EQUALLY concerned! WELL put: "A reluctance to tackle the whole east front again in one go, along with all the minors, certainly makes sense, but I hope they don't go too far the other extreme. Being stuck with Americans v. Germans at the Bulge for 6 to 8 months doesn't sound too alluring to this customer, even at a lower price!!" I am not at all happy with the prospect of being offered a really thin slice of a GREAT game engine, and then being asked to pay again for add on after add on! :mad: IS that not EXACTLY the marketing strategy that spelled doom for SL and ASL in the board game market? (I could be wrong about that?) concerned, (that the next BIG then will ONLY present a "thin slice" of something good!) -tom w P.S! Just found this: "To put this in a way that I think you guys can all relate to... think of all the wargame ideas you've had over your life. Now think about how disapointint and frustrating it is to not be able to play those ideas in actual games of your own design. Now imagine that you make games for a living and have the expertise and ability to theoretically make all of them come to life. BUT... you are tied to a philosophy that allows you to do only one every 9 years. Dontcha think ya might be a little bit jazz'd about changing things a wee bit in order to scratch all those itches instead of gouging one so deep that it leaves a scar? Dontcha? I'm not saying that you guys don't understand this... but the record of "narrow front" and "module" type games is not all that good. Usually the games aren't really that deep, the modules that exciting, and/or the prices pegged correctly. Guess I felt I had to reassure you that we know this VERY well and will absolutely not be going that route. We like money, but we like making the best games out there far more Steve" This sounds like I should NOT be concerned But we'll see :confused: Steve's comments are reassuring. My biggest concern with the module approach has been with them slicing the salami too thin. His previous reference to the possibly releasing a US v. Germany in Normandy game with a subsequent module coevring the Brits (which in all fairness may have been an off the top of the head, just to give us an idea, kind of illustration) did not sound very attractive to me. Like many of the other posters in this thread, I found one of the great things about CMx1 was its scope and almost endless replayability. BFC has good reasons not to want to take such big bites again. A reluctance to tackle the whole east front again in one go, along with all the minors, certainly makes sense, but I hope they don't go too far the other extreme. Being stuck with Americans v. Germans at the Bulge for 6 to 8 months doesn't sound too alluring to this customer, even at a lower price; however, I'll trust BFC to find the sweet spot. </font>

I think this is sort of a bone maybe just a little gristle or a fragment of a bone bottom line is we "might" have something to look at "mid summer" read from it what you will....

um yeah BUT if they don't have something new for me to play with by next April or May I will be PISSED! :mad: a release by Christmas 2005 would be nice but that sounds overly optimistic at this point I suspect! -tom w

Just a suggestion BUT someone in this tread should post a link to Steve's latest posts to give this thread and this discussion some context. OK ok I will do it Steve posted a few comments and bones in this thread. -tom w

Are there any other complete ETO scenario packs to download any where else? I would like to play ETO scenarios in CMAk ALL weekeind this weekend as I have a REAL human to play against for a change over the long weekend he he -tom w

WOW thats Great Many Thanks for the effort -tom w

OK that is correct as above BUT the fact remains some folks here maybe do not understand there is now and has always been ONLY ONE programer. AND a marlevous genius of one at THAT! -tom w

Developement Team/Programer = ONE PERSON that may suggest why there are so few "frills" If you want to beef about the Game interface why not take a LONG hard look at the game editor scenario Design (map making) interface. THAT is an the PERFECT example of a programer DESIGNED graphic user interface! (you know the one where the map is map of LOTS of little squares with numbers in them! Tell me that is not HORRENDOUS interface design!) -tom w [ May 02, 2005, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Realism? How about this I would like to see the possibility of the 88mm round go in the front side of the Stuart and OUT the back side of the Stuart leaving entry and exit holes and then penetrate the tank behind the Stuart (in column formation) and brew it up. NOW there is some realism NOT possible in the current engine. How about something as simple as tanks blocking LOF so units can take cover in that tanks LOS/LOF shadow? How about bigger heavier tanks blocking LOF for thinner lighter vehicles behind them in their LOS/LOF shadow??? -tom w [ April 06, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

sorry no computer I am %100 converted to Mac OS X and it does not run CMxx My current laptop is not duel boot and will not boot into OS 9 CMxx does NOT run in classic so this forum and dreams of CMX2 are about as close as I get to playing now a days.... sorry -tom w

I have played Elvis MORE than a fews times and he is GOOD! (he always beat me more often than I beat beat him but he was by no means undefeated against me ) Elvis is a VERY skilled player at CMBB. -tom w LOL! Well that was the myth Fionn did little to counter. Bil Hardengerger has beat him plenty of times. Fionn also had a bad habit of playing games that only match his style of play...sticking to his league so to speak. That being said he was pretty damn good. Wreck is probably the best I've ever met...that guy could play anything and still win. But you sound cocky enough to do some damage..and have I got a fight for you. Ok its been 24 hrs or so, I am closing the polls so to speak we have four brave souls who have put forward their names. Thanks to all for you interest and once we actually get a website up and running I'll post the address up here. </font>

Has anyone here read "Crossing the Rubicon" (its a new neoconservative 9/11, - "they went into Iraq for the oil"-, conspiracy theory book in case you were interested) just wondering? -tom w

that would be nice but if they do that then they ALSO need to let tanks CRASH into buildings and fall through the floor and end up nose down STUCK in the basement. Ted Posted this sometime ago (I still think it is FUNNY! Sad but True funny but entertaining none the less) comment on Squad Leader rules: he he he -tom w

!!! I can't wait to see how this will work in the game!! "We are doing a more realistic simulation of C&C in general, so the short answer is "yes". However... wire communications devices are still a super, duper, bitch and a half to simulate " I can't even begin to imagine how incredibly difficult this will be to code and model in the game! I sure am glad that is not MY JOB! -tom w [ March 16, 2005, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]