Dschugaschwili

That's funny. I think that modeling of single men is a good thing, but I don't mind having only 3 men right now, especially since it's not bringing my aging computer to its knees. On the other hand, hearing "graphical improvements" rings a few warning bells with me, too. Not so much here at BFC since you don't seem to focus on graphics first (judging from past CM games). But I have a nagging feeling that game improvements in the last few years have been mostly graphics, while the depth has often gone down rather than up. I hope my trust in you to counter this trend is well justified. Dschugaschwili

Ok, I doubt that this thread is going anywhere, but still: As I already said in a previous post that got swamped, we (forum members) are at a severe disadvantage at the moment. A couple of words (or even a lot of words) can't give us a real feel for CMx2, and it's perfectly understandable why BFC doesn't want to give too much away right now. But Steve, you should understand that without a deeper knowledge about your plans it's very hard to come up with something more substantial than "per weapon ammo tracking", "two e-mails per turn PBEM system" or "better arty modelling". Most of us don't have time to think about how to improve the game all day. Now, I don't intend to defend people bitching about things they don't even know yet, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to you either that every single word you write here is interpreted five times over. This just shows how high the anticipation is already now. Just imagine what will happen if you release a CMx2 Alpha AAR some time. Dschugaschwili Edit: By the way, I certainly don't think CMx1 is flawed in any way. To me, it's a great game, and that's all that matters to me. I guess for most of your customers (including me) playability is much more important than historical accuracy, so please continue making tactical wargames. [ February 17, 2005, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Dschugaschwili ]

That question would have made sense going from CMBB to CMAK (read: largely unchanged engine). But with a totally new engine that changes almost everything, noone of us can know what changing one variable like the turn length would lead to. So if asking us can't produce meaningful results, why should Steve (who is not a programmer, by the way) ask us such questions in the first place? Dschugaschwili

And what if the designer has already planned a continuous transmission for the next model, so there won't even be any more gears to worry about? You can't know yet why the designer thinks that the gear box is a thing of futility, so why don't you show some trust in him? Dschugaschwili

Steve, I think the problem that Grog has is that the car designer already has a plan for his new car and already knows the basic shape. Grog doesn't know about that, and merely telling him to think bigger doesn't help him any, even if the designer gives a few examples of things that Grog can not really imagine. Going back to CM, I can only speak for myself, but still: When I read the short news post on VoodooExtreme that a small new company called Battlefront was developing a new turn-based strategy game (yes, it did say turn-based strategy) and I decided to take a look, I couldn't get much information out of the forum except some basic design goals like the WeGo concept (which sounded interesting) and the TacAI. This wasn't nearly enough to enable me to get a feel for how the game would be. But the Alpha AAR had just started, and that was what really got me interested, and it painted a much better picture of the game than any forum thread could. I think we have a similar problem now. You can't get your ideas across with just words. Of course, you may not want to do a CMx2 Alpha AAR because you don't want to give away your design secrets, or the coding is not yet done to the point where a game would be possible. But most of us will not be able to imagine what you have in mind without something like an AAR. Not your fault, of course... Dschugaschwili

Steve, if PBEM will be in CMx2, will it use the secure two-files-per-turn system that was already proposed a few times on these forums? You know, the one that was (according to you) too much programming effort to be included in CMAK. Dschugaschwili

You can drive your guns to their destination using the reverse command. The gun is dropped off about 5m behind the vehicle, so you can save a little moving distance that way. If you have a nice ridge, you can even drop off the gun in a position overlooking the other side without showing the transport if you get the waypoints exactly right. Tricky, but I think it can be done. Dschugaschwili

Since I'll have to upgrade to play CMx2, too (a Duron 700 + Geforce2 isn't exactly top of the line anymore...), I'd like to ask if CMx2 will benefit from a dual-processor setup or a multi-core cpu (that should be available then). Or will the game run faster on a single processor core with higher clock frequency? Dschugaschwili

Since CMx1 doesn't track ammo per weapon, this may be even more realistic than running out of ammo for your SMGs after some shots fired at 250m. We'll have to wait for CMx2 to have this advantage nullified. Dschugaschwili

So could it also happen that shells fired through a patch of trees sometimes hit one and go off early? I always wondered how the gunners manage to avoid just about any potential obstacle on the way to the target, especially if there are friendly troops in those trees... Dschugaschwili

Does that also mean that units will be able to aim at non-ground objects? Right now the only thing other than terrain you can aim at with area fire is the top floor of large buildings. I'd like to see troops being able to aim at building walls (tanks wanting to destroy a "hull-down" building) or trees (arty spotters aiming at a wooded slope, currently if you can't see the ground, you'll always get a blind mission even if you could see spotting rounds that explode in a tree). And it would be nice if shells fired through trees would have a chance of hitting a tree and exploding in mid-air. Especially if a tank fires through a patch of woods where friendly trioops are hiding. Dschugaschwili

Any gun (mounted or not) that hasn't moved yet gets a to-hit bonus for targets near the TRP. Mortars that haven't moved yet can fire at TRPs even if out of LOS. Dschugaschwili

I think that infantry can cross all fords, and (tracked?) vehicles can cross shallow ones. The manual will be more precise. Dschugaschwili

Obviously, flamethrowers are most useful when visibility is low. Try "Winter Wonderland" on the CMBB CD as the attacker, and you'll see how useful they can be if handled correctly. I got a total victory on my second try, mostly thanks to the flamethrowers. Dschugaschwili

I have never used it, but I rarely find an opportunity to do so anyway. If you can come up in an empty building behind the enemy line, it's probably worth it. But if something goes wrong, you're out of luck. You decide. Dschugaschwili

Good idea. I'd like to read something like that. Dschugaschwili

So I have the right to brag about my 50-50 draw with extreme FOW and default setup, right? Dschugaschwili

As others have already pointed out, air support always has a chance of being late, which is as designed. Of course, this still leaves the ammo replenishment bug. Dschugaschwili

You can always convince your opponent to play a scenario that has limited German armor or a QB with some combined arms Allied troops attacking some mechanized/infantry Axis defenders. The developers have always said that CM is a "tactical wargame", so don't blame them for not having delivered a perfect simulation. Dschugaschwili

The easiest way to cheat in CM would probably be to guess your opponent's password. And I'm not sure if I should blame the cheater or the cheated on that occasion. Dschugaschwili

According to BFC, routed units generally run towards a friendly map edge. So if you're playing a scenario where the designer has "reversed" the friendly map edges, or your units were attacked from behind on a "normal" map, you'll get this behaviour often. Blame it on the designer in the first case. Dschugaschwili

Well, to a certain extent they do, in an abstract way. The greater casualties that routed units suffer when fired upon can be seen as men who cast off their weapons. Without weapons, they are no longer combat effective and this can be subsumed by the "casualties" mechanism. </font>

Threads on this topic: PzIV tactics (mostly pages 3-5) Turret hits and the poor ole PzIV In short, if your upper hull armor is vulnerable to the enemy unit, you go hull-down. If your lower hull armor is your only vulnerable plate, you also go hull-down. Otherwise you do not. Dschugaschwili

Units in panic crawl for the nearest cover in CM. Broken units in CM hit the ground and stay there. Routed units in CM run for it. And routed is the single worst morale state, two levels below panic. Whether this state should be reached as often as it currently does or if more units should stay at broken is open for debate. But the basic behaviour pattern doesn't seem too far off to me. Dschugaschwili

When your unit breaks, it doesn't think rationally any more. It just wants to get away. You will probably have to accept that panicing units do stupid things. Dschugaschwili