Dschugaschwili

Well, I'm not dead. But real life issues and a general lack of interest in modern warfare keep me in lurker mode most of the time. Funny how different views can lead to similar feelings. I usually don't have such an optimistic view of the situation, and I don't think about what the designer may have planned. I think the main reason that reloading feels wrong for me in CM is that there are no inherent boni for the AI player. I know that the opposing force has the same capabilities against me than it would have in my own hands. Thinking about it, I think that's a large part of what I called "feeling fair" above. Add a scenario that's marked as designed for two players (so the scenario should be somewhat fair, too) and playing a mission straight through without reloading seems not only possible, but the right thing to do, too.

To put it bluntly: as long as there is a save function that the player can use at will, there will be people who replay a mission that didn't go as planned. Or a turn that ended badly. Of course, there are a couple of ways to fight this behaviour: 1. Remove the save function. Well, not entirely. You'd have to use a system like in Nethack where the game automatically saves the current game on exit and removes the savegame after loading. (Yes, this can be worked around by the player, but that can be made more difficult than the average user is willing to accept.) This will certainly greatly annoy non-hardcore players, so it's probably out of the question. 2. Design the game in a way to make reloading a savegame feel wrong. In my opinion, BFC does a good job here. At least reloading a savegame after some bad luck or bad decisions has always felt wrong for me in all CM games since the CMBO beta demo, and not many games "achieved" that. 3. Set the difficulty level of the game/missions accordingly. I have played far too many games that basically assume that the player will be using save-reload tactics and make up for that by making the missions so hard that it's almost impossible to play them straight. And if I get the feeling that that's the case I automatically adjust my behaviour accordingly. If you want the player to play "fair", design the missions to feel fair.

Will there be an updated demo someday? Unfortunately, I don't have any time to try any new games right now, so it will be some time before I can test CMSF, and I'd like to know if there will be another demo with bugfixes and improvements somewhere down the road. Dschugaschwili

B. I want to know if the game runs properly on my computer before I pay.

A simpler explanation of friendly fire possibilities in CMx1: 1. Explosions hurt everyone, friend and foe, day and night. It doesn't matter where it came from, nor whether it's a hand-grenade, mortar/tank/arty shell, bomb/rocket from a plane or whatever else. 2. Small arms fire affects friendly troops only at night. It doesn't matter whether the fire is directed at a specific unit nor whether we're talking about the targeted unit or a unit within the area of effect (which exists for aimed fire, too). Dschugaschwili

A few reasons for taking WWII as the setting for a game: </font> The equipment of the time is well understood, with most of it existing in (theoretically) working condition</font>Most of today's weapon categories are already present, all of them seem useful, none overpowered</font>no guaranteed-kill weapons</font>combined arms tactics are essential</font>Different nations have different equipment with a noticable difference, but no one has any huge technological advantage</font>WWII is close enough to the present to still have a few survivors around who can share their experience</font>"moral certainty" or not, WWII just seems to deliver what an interesting game needs. Dschugaschwili

And most CM players who would have the technical knowledge to hack the game are not interested in cheating. I don't know about anyone else, but to me even reloading a save-game from a battle against the AI after a turn that went badly just seems wrong. Dschugaschwili

Not all of them are posting like crazy... Dschugaschwili

I'd really like to take a scenario without plans (say, a QB), have two players each make a plan for one side, and have the engine play the game AI vs AI. After some number-crunching and watching the game we'll see who won. Not that I expect this to make it into the game, but it's a nice daydream. Dschugaschwili

I guess after this statement coming out of lurker mode is justified. Thanks, Steve! Dschugaschwili

I think it's about 5m behind the vehicle. So it should be possible to reverse a truck very close to a patch of woods and unload the gun in them. I think I tested it some time ago, but I'm not 100% sure.

A unit can only embark on vehicles with a transport class higher or equal to the unit's transport class. So a jeep with transport class 4 cannot tow an AT gun with transport class 7, for example. Dschugaschwili

Steve: You're right, the system can be made safe, but not totally secure. A few general thoughts about gameplay systems like PBEM for a game with simultaneous resolution like CM: First, there are a couple of constraints that must be fulfilled for such a system to be able to work: a. To calculate the events for turn X, we need the calculated result for turn X-1. b. To calculate the events for turn X, we need all players' orders for turn X. c. To watch the events of turn X, we need to have calculated these. d. Each player wants to issue orders for turn X+1 only after having watched the events for turn X. This means that we need at least one file swap per turn: to get both players' orders to one of their computers so that the results can be calculated. A system that does this could be: 1. Player 1 issues orders for turn X, sends file to player 2 2. Player 2 issues orders for turn X, calculates turn X 3. Player 2 watches turn X, issues orders for turn X+1, sends file to player 1 4. Player 1 watches turn X, issues orders for turn X+1, calculates turn X+1 5. Player1 watches turn X+1 and starts over with step 1 with X := X+2 This system needs two file swaps for two turns and satisfied the conditions a-d. But it doesn't satisfy the security condition: e. The player that calculates turn X must be the last one to see the results. This means that we need an additional file swap per turn, between steps 2 and 3 and between steps 4 and 5. Then we get 1. Player 1 issues orders for turn X, sends file to player 2 2. Player 2 issues orders for turn X, calculates turn X, sends file to player 1 3. Player 1 watches turn X, issues orders for turn X+1, sends file to player 2 4. Player 2 watches turn X, start over at 2. with X := X+1 In a game system like CM's, we can't get better than 2 file swaps per turn in a secure system, or 1 file swap per turn in an insecure system. Dschugaschwili

This also means that a single crash at the wrong time can potentially ruin an entire PBEM game. And showing a turn from a previous match to a friend who has never heard of CM before to show him how the game works may not be possible anymore either. Dschugaschwili

Ok, guys, this isn't going anywhere anymore. The problem is that it's not even possible anymore to ask if PBEM will be in without getting somebody to demand that PBEM absolutely has to be in the game and if not, several bad things will happen. Actually, it's not even possible to ask if there's any new information on the topic without getting someone started. Apparently - and we just have to believe Steve on this one - Battlefront cannot promise that PBEM will definitely be in because there may be unforseen technical difficulties ahead. If this answer isn't good enough for you, go ahead and don't buy the game. But don't ask for the impossible from Steve. Dschugaschwili

Gpig has "animator" listed in his profile. Then again, you probably knew that already...

Sammy, not everyone who thinks that having a pause option may be nice cries "clickfest". And while you're right that time doesn't stand still in real life, a real-life commander also doesn't have to give precise orders to every one of his soldiers because each one has his own brain. We'll have to see how well the tactical AI can handle each individual soldier's brain, so it's too early to make definite statements now. Furthermore, you may have noticed that while I'm advocating the inclusion of a tactical pause, I also want to have restrictions in place that limit the use of this feature. Set everything to zero and you have your desired time-doesn't-stop game. But don't deny people who want a slower game the opportunity to have one, especially in larger battles with multiple engagements happening at once.

Now that development has progressed quite a bit since I last saw the topic come up, I'd like to bring it up again. Are there any news regarding inclusion of a PBEM multi-player mode? And if it looks like it could be included, will you use the two-files-per-turn system that was proposed a few times during the CMx1 days? Dschugaschwili

*bump* Any news on this subject? Dschugaschwili

I went into lurker mode a while after CMAK came out. I still play the occasional game of CM, but time is limited and my computer hasn't been upgraded for more than five years. Besides, as a simple non-grog who doesn't really care about the setting (actually, I would have preferred if you had gone with space lobsters immediately to side-step the discussions about real-world equipment) and doesn't know anything about real weapons my input doesn't seem to be all that important here. I am somewhat surprised though that you still remember me. Dschugaschwili

If I understood Steve's posts on the subject of realism correctly, there will be a couple of different realism settings in CMx2, just as there were different fog of war settings in CMx1. I expect the issue of bogging to be included there. And that's perfectly fine with me. If you want your realism all the way up, don't complain about a bogged tank. Otherwise, turn down the realism. I fully agree with Steve that providing dozens of toggle options is not the right way to go. Dschugaschwili

I see three ways of restricting the (ab)use of tactical pauses (meaning pauses that still allow giving orders or otherwise manipulating the game) in multi-player games (combine as you like): 1. Limit the number of tactical pauses each player may invoke during a game. 2. Limit the maximum length of each tactical pause. 3. Enforce a minimum delay between the end of the last tactical pause and the start of a new one (seperately for each player). If these values could be set as options before starting a game, that would be almost perfect IMHO. Dschugaschwili

Will it be possible? And if yes, do you plan to restrict the use of the pause function? (Like disabling the pause function for x seconds after the last pause or something like that.) Dschugaschwili

We will release somefink very soon Trust me you will have a lot of fun with that somefink </font>

The problem is that CM tanks always aim at the center of the visible part of the enemy tank, which is the upper hull for hull up tanks and near the turret ring for hull down tanks. They will never adapt and aim at specific plates (weaknesses) even after repeated bounces against the upper hull. This is the correct way of maximizing the chance to hit, but does not necessarily maximize the chance of a penetrating hit. This means that if the turret is the only vulnerable part of your tank, it's better not to be hull down. In every other situation, being hull down increases your chance of survival. I'll omit the math here because this has been discussed before. Do a search if you're interested. Dschugaschwili