aka_tom_w

Perhaps its time for a NEW fresh bone thread? I think there is nothing left here to naw on! -tom w

This is correct and the makers of Virutal PC specifically tell you NOT to expect games or any graphic intense computer activity to work in Virtual PC. Its simply NOT designed for PC games to be played on. Any one who has ever tried any 3D game like a PC version CMxx on a MAC running Virtual PC will know it does not work at all. -tom w

Sorry I am not sure what you mean Steve said 1:1 Representation WILL be in the game for SURE and Relative Spotting (how ever it works or however it is modeled) WILL be in the game for sure. BUT I suspect Fog of War settings may be the "in between" varible you may be overlooking, depending on how the player chooses to pick his Fog of War setting, what the new Relative Spotting paradigm may show the player with regard to enemy units represented on a 1:1 basis might change dramatically? But I am just guessing about all this stuff like everyone else (except Steve ) here. -tom w [ February 24, 2005, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

We AGREE completely. On this issue. -tom w

Very good point. And whats to stop someone from just bouncing back to the first unit and making decisions based on his newly aquired knowledge of enemy dispositions? One could have a touch-it-use-it rule. Once selected, you must finish any movement/fire/etc orders and move on. But still, should the game decide which units you get to issue orders to first? Based on those with least intel being issued first? </font>

We are not suggesting to let the AI "cheat" just maybe you could find a way to balance solo game play against the AI by letting the user choose to have the AI use a more "forgiving" Fog of War Setting like for instance playing aginst the AI when it was set to "Partial FOW"? In this case the player would be choosing a more limiting FOW setting (MIA Ultra-EFOW) to somewhat "handicap" his much more clever human brain against the capable, but not so clever AI opponent. Is this doable? I wonder? -tom w THat is a VERY interesting suggestion I have NO idea how easy or hard that would be to program into the code, but if each side could have different FOW setting chosen by the player that would be GREAT. (I think it would be EXTREMELY hard to code, but then everything is hard to code so what do I know ) For sure it would be great to play against the AI with an "easier" FOW option Even NO FOW for the AI just to see if that would make any difference in how the AI played the game. I have never played any CMx1 game with no FOW but I am wondering if the AI is any better in a No FOW game in CMx1. (somehow I don't think it makes any difference to the AI but that is hard to imagine.... BUT I know I have never tested it.) -tom w </font>

Thanks Steve!!! I am thrilled to hear that CMx2 will have Relative Spotting that CANNOT be turned off by the player and it will have Various optional levels of Fog of War. (What about NO Fog of War?) To be honest, the new Relative Spotting and the OPTION of various differing levels of Fog of War and C&C modeling in CMx2 are the features I am MOST interested in. I think everyone here hopes you get these features and options JUST right so EVERYONE can find their own way (by choosing from the various optional settings) to enjoy the new game!!! Please give us a couple of Extremely Ultra OVER-the-Top Realistic FOW settings like Ironman or Extra Ultra HARD (even unrealistically limiting) Fog of War settings so that the AI might have half a chance to provide a much more challengeing game experience for the solo user against the AI opponent. Please. -tom w [ February 24, 2005, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

If it doesn't work like that I can't imagine how else you might make relative spotting work? However I am open to any other interesting theories as to how you could provide a game interface or user experience for the player to enjoy playing with the new Relative Spotting game code in CMx2. I am curious as well. -tom w

Sorry I don't think there are ANY home/consumer level computers that could handle a even a Company vs a company with Arty and Air support and tank support in REAL TIME???? :confused: What??? are you kidding me? Just look how long the "crunch" time is now. Any time you see a crunch that is about a minute long you know it could not show the turn in real time due to the armour penetration calculations. MAYBE 5 years from now it might be do-able but computers are not getting faster ( like doubleing in speed every 18 months) the way they used to now-a-days! The faithful here know that BFC will not sell out Combat Mission or any future Combat Mission Like games to the RTS market.... BUT I could be wrong. -tom w

Sorry I don't think there are ANY home/consumer level computers that could handle a even a Company vs a company with Arty and Air support and tank support in REAL TIME???? :confused: What??? are you kidding me? Just look how long the "crunch" time is now. Any time you see a crunch that is about a minute long you know it could not show the turn in real time due to the armour penetration calculations. MAYBE 5 years from now it might be do-able but computers are not getting faster ( like doubleing in speed every 18 months) the way they used to now-a-days! The faithful here know that BFC will not sell out Combat Mission or any future Combat Mission Like games to the RTS market.... BUT I could be wrong. -tom w

THat is a VERY interesting suggestion I have NO idea how easy or hard that would be to program into the code, but if each side could have different FOW setting chosen by the player that would be GREAT. (I think it would be EXTREMELY hard to code, but then everything is hard to code so what do I know ) For sure it would be great to play against the AI with an "easier" FOW option Even NO FOW for the AI just to see if that would make any difference in how the AI played the game. I have never played any CMx1 game with no FOW but I am wondering if the AI is any better in a No FOW game in CMx1. (somehow I don't think it makes any difference to the AI but that is hard to imagine.... BUT I know I have never tested it.) -tom w

I am suggesting it will depend on the player's choice of fog of war setting, (the player "could" be playing with fog of war OFF (in the past it was an option) and if fog of war is off then sure you should see all enemy units 1:1 but varying levels of fog of war might reveal differences in spotting levels that might lead to less than accurate 1:1 representation of enemy units. BUT if you waited long enough and if you got CLOSE enough and you finally spotted with %100 accuracy then you should see all enemy units represented in their true 1:1 glory. BUT that is JUST my guess... -tom w

yeah but.... 1:1 Modeling should let you know where ALL your guys are but it does not mean spotting info will ALL be 1:1. Fog of War should mean that not all enemy units or men will be spotted 1:1 or is that what you meant? I am sorry but I am not sure I understand the main point of your last comment? "Seeing the actual physical location of an enemy soldier will almost certainly make things unrealistic if targetting is allowed." Surly if a friendly unit has LOS to a spotted enemy unit, it will have LOF and be able to target that spotted unit. no? -tom w

CMx1 has ALWAYS had optional fog of war settings. after much moaning and bitching the CMBB offering included EFOW (Extrem Fog of War) I have been trying to read all the hints and bones Steve has tossed out and this is the ONLY one that seems to "hint" at Fog of War options: "Will some of you guys HATE some of the things we are doing with CMx2? I'd say that is probably true. Good news is that most of those features will be optional. Relative Spotting, 1:1 simulation, and some other things will not be, -Steve" I don't have ANY idea which "features" Steve means will be optional but it would not be just a bad guess to think there will be a RANGE of new fog of war options. At least I HOPE there will be anyway. -tom w

Well .... the original idea was to use the Player's Fog of War option choices to balance out other factors including the perceived short comings of the Artificial Inteligence opponent. -tom w

OK Maybe I did not exactly say that... "for a real challenge you could give yourself Iron Man FOW and the Artificial Inteligence would still be in God mode" BUT was thinking something like that when I posted: "Here is the concept, if you can't make the AI better/smarter, then make the FOW OPTIONs of the user experience MORE demanding or more challenging with regard to FOW settings so as to make the AI (in all its new CMx2 glory) "feel" more challenging and capable!" or words to that effect.... as you suggested AI still in all knowing GOD mode while the player is Stuck in Frankco's True Combat/Iron Man Rules FOW! The concept being this might some how artificially inflate the cabability of the AI to do something smart and out wit the player. Hey ! Its always good to dream! -tom w [ February 23, 2005, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Oh you mean its ONLY available for WINDOZE!? because BFC seems to be the only game company in the world that will release their OWN Mac and PC versions at the same time! grrrr :mad: oh well the up side is the Mac users won't have to worry about spending money on another game! The ONLY game I want right now is CMx2 and I don't plan to spend 1 red cent on any other video or computer game until I can buy CMx2! (so it looks like I have just about ONE whole year to save up for it!!!! ) -tom w

Well.... Apparently the Very Highest Authority has only had to post to speak with " the Very Highest Authority" 4 times. AND LOOK! one of them is in this thread! My my we who are reading this thread must be TRULY blessed by the wisdom of "the Very Highest Authority". (AND oh what wise words he did utter!) -tom w

Is this thread mostly about one addled person with mulitple personalities largely talking to himself? (or is that just too obvious?) -tom w

From this quote, he appears to be saying that commands like 'assault position' will generate fireteams automatically. It seems the micromanaging that is possible now will be replaced. But I am just going by what I read. There may have been some other thoughts about this dropped in the 1:1 thread. </font>

OK that stuff is pretty cool but it still JUST looks like a REALLY expensive Video game In some cases I would say the screen shots from Operation Flashpoint or T72 look ALMOST as good! but that is just my layman's opinion -tom w

I am not sure if your preconceived idea's are clouding your reading or perception or not... (although it looks that way to me) Steve said: "5. The plan is for unit focus (scale) to be flexible, though the tactical focus for the first two CMx2 games is the Squad/Team just as it was for CMx1. This may or may not vary from title to title afterwards, we simply aren't planning that far ahead. Just know that in theory the CMx2 code allows us to keep things a bit flexible. 6. The command level is, like the unit focus, somewhat flexible. However, like CMx1 the first two planned games for CMx2 are Battalion/Company centric. 7. Each soldier has its own 3D representation in the game. For the first two CMx2 games there will not be 1:1 control over these soldiers, but if the scale is lowered for another game 1:1 control is possible (eg. we make a Platoon level game where you only have 30 soldiers, obviously more control is desirable). 1:1 simulation is also desired, but hardware limitations will mean some carefully implemented compromises (i.e. 1:1 LOS checks are impossible). Overall the control should be roughly the same as CMx1, but the abstractions far less." This is the part that tells me it WILL BE LIKE CMx1 in the area of control: " Overall the control should be roughly the same as CMx1, but the abstractions far less." He did say the logic and reasons why you need to split down into teams of 5 from squad of 10 were valid and reasonable in CMx1 and "should" likely be valid and reasonable in CMx2 THUS it does NOT seem unreasonable to me the player WILL have control over split squad if he wants to in CMx2.... BUT that is ONLY my interpretation... ok? -tom w

I think this is the one I was looking for ...... "Will some of you guys HATE some of the things we are doing with CMx2? I'd say that is probably true. Good news is that most of those features will be optional. Relative Spotting, 1:1 simulation, and some other things will not be, -Steve" So I am left wondering if there be a WIDE range of settings INCLUDING new Fog of War options for the player to choose from in CMx2? I am hoping this means optional FOW settings that might even include IronMan settings! -tom w tom wonders..... I have been thinking about Fog of War options and the possibility of various new levels we might be hoping to see in CMx2..... how about: 1 No Fog of War (just a BASIC option to learn the game) 2 Partial FOW (same as the Partial FOW from CMx1) 3 CMBO Standard FOW (?) 4 CMBB EFOW (?) 5 CMx2 EFOW (with Relative Spotting AND the new command structure for C&C modeling battlefield communications) 6 MIA CMx2 EFOW ( units OUT of friendly LOS and WAY out of C&C are deemed MIA and replaced with a generic nationality maker or some such indication they are missing (From the player) in action) 7 MIA Iron Man CMx2 IMFOW ... Where you can ONLY see enemy units from the level 1 or level 2 (church tower) perspective of your OWN friendly units WITHIN C&C range as per Frankco's True Combat Rules. (I would guess the CMx2 AI should be able to easily beat any average player using these IronManFOW settings for the first time! So this would theoretically give the AI some "teeth" and a possible out for BFC when folks bitch about how easy it is to beat the AI, "Did you beat the AI in Ironman FOW??? huh, huh Did ya???!) It would be my guess that most folks would play with CMx2 FOW #5 and be happy with that as the NEW gold standard in FOW. However.... AS OPTIONS FOW #6 and #7 might not be the setting that most users would use most of the time BUT to add some spice to the game or VARIABILITY to the user experience if they could be included as REAL Fog of War options! AND as an AI "force multiplier". Here is the concept, if you can't make the AI better make the FOW OPTIONs of the user experience MORE demanding or more challenging with regard to FOW settings so as to make the AI (in all its new CMx2 glory) "feel" more challenging and capable! I guess Numbers 3 and 4 are not really necessary and/or advisable: (#3 CMBO Standard FOW and #4 CMBB EFOW... NOT needed) [ February 22, 2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Good Call CMx2 does not need any stinking lens flares! But the rest of those features sound GOOD! -tom w I think I could manage rather easily without the lens flare. I never understood what the point of that was. All the best, John. </font>