Rick

Does the on the fly scenario editor do better maps than the one in SP? That was my biggest hang up with the battle generator in SP, the maps were plain stupid.

I think Doug asked the most important question, Is it fun?

That idea sounds great to me. Once upon a time Avalon Hill had two board games (Advanced Third Reich was one of them and there was one about the Pacific that I can't remember the name of) that could be combined to do the whole war. I always wanted to do that, but we know what it can be like to actually sit across the table from you for something like that.

2 vehicles? Wow those movies must take a long time to do. Anyhow, under conditions like that forget the movies. We wouldn't want you doing to CM, what UbiSoft has done to Road to Moscow - delayed it until 2000.

Wow, I was right about something.

Guys, no hard feelings. Steve, the perfect answer, everything I wanted to know on the topic. Definitely didn't expect complete documentation on the demo, because know you must withold things from the demo so that we only get a partial game with it and must get the full version to play the whole thing. Just making sure we weren't going to be flying blind.

Like I said I reread my post and will admit that I was unclear. I felt this question was necessary because making sure infantry and tanks went the same speed was laborious in Kampfgruppe, the only other simultaneous execution game I've played.

By your replies, I guess I stated myself poorly. Furthermore, I reread what I wrote and it reads like I expect you folks to be able to read my mind. I expect this kind of coordination to be one of the big issues. I guess my question was when they're just mozying down a road, prior to any enemy contact or whatever, will it be fairly simple to keep them together then? Basically, will there be some way to make sure they go the same speed when advancing prior to any contact? If the tank naturally wants to boogie on down the road at 15mph while the infantry are dragging their feet at 3mph and the only way to keep this from happening is our constant baby-sitting, I think that I for one would be overwhelmed when the combat began. If that kind of stuff didn't require work on our part once the fighting started, what fun would the game be?

Is there a clear method to make sure infantry and tanks stay together for mutual support, or are we going to have the problem of tanks rolling past the infantry that's supposed to be making sure that there's no panzerfausts in the woods ahead? The other question: Are we going to have some idea how to play the game when you post the demo? I hate it when game companies say here's the demo, good luck figuring out how to use it. I don't think doing it that way is good marketing either. How is a potential customer supposed to decide if they want to buy a game or not when they have no idea what it does because they couldn't figure out how to do it? I fully expect both answers to be yes, but I want to read more detail. Furthermore, this forum is one of the funnest things I can do so cheaply.

Can a crew, defend itself from capture? I wouldn't think that they would be good infantry, but my possibly be able to defend themselves from someone trying to capture them.

Have you heard that cloning may lead to extremely accelerated aging? We would have more of Charles and Steve to write games but they wouldn't live very long.

There seem to be some topics that have been avoided for many years too. I hope this changes. One example is, to my knowledge there hasn't been a good WW2 tactical naval turn-based game in a very long time. I like Fighting Steel, but I wish it had been something other that RTS. I say it like that since pure turn-based just isn't the best way to go, like you guys are proving. Also where are the Grand Strategy games, the operational naval games etc.? Too bad that two guys can't do the work of twenty, because I know you guys would do a real bang up job on anything you tackled.

Good, I remember once upon a time SSI would release a dozen or so games a year. Comparatively, there is slim pickings today. I do realize that with the extensive scenario editors etc. more can be modeled with fewer games. However, I kind of miss having several games to look forward to in the same time frame that we can only expect one or two today.

So what's the consensus on the new style of wargame company like Battlefront and Shrapnel? Do we think that enough of these companies are going to be around and do well enough to increase the numbers of titles available back up the levels they once were? CM is one of the biggest events, as far as entertainment goes, recently (to me). Problem is best I can tell it may be two years or so afterwards before an event half as exciting occurs.

CCJ, You have a problem with West Front too? It bugs the @#$% out of me. I tried to make myself play it again last night so I would have one more game I could PBEM, but I can't stand it. I'm not sure what it is about the game but I think that something about the interface just seems incredibly awkward to me. The most frustrating part about it is until CM comes out, how else are we going to tac level combat on Win 95/98?

Looks "spooky" impressed again guys.

This seems to be true to the best of my knowledge. Hope things will be changing. Others claim to be trying to cange this, in addition to you guys. I hope it works out.

Believe it or not I've never seen Quake. However, I definitely think CM is looking better than anything in genre. Of course, somethings look better than others. I never considered looks very important before in a wargame. The more I see, though, the more anxious I get to experience the realistic looking and sounding battlefield of CM.

Being that my main interest lies in photography, I have recently become well informed on computer graphics issues. I can tell you I was waiting for the answer on this direction of light thing. If you guys said you were going to do that, I think I would've died of shock. Such things are extremely taxing on computers. If you throw in the behavior of reflecting light the high end graphics stations can't even handle it. This being the main limitation on CG in movies. If you notice the times that it looks fake is when they try to mix in a CG element with real life objects that are supposed to be in the same light. Directors actually pick lighting circumstances specifically to minimize this problem.

Los, I agree with you on SPR. The only thing Spielberg was trying to do was show combat as realistically as it can be in a movie and then ask the audience if they have honored the soldiers sacrifices by making their lives extraordinary. He did this quite well. Other details are incidental.

I know. The University of North Carolina, where I went to school, showed the original - made in Australia - Mad Max in the free movie in the student union. I've also seen the video for sale. Which is what I was trying to say, I can find that made in Australia movie, but I don't know if I can any others. Admittedly, Road Warrior is much easier to find. [This message has been edited by Rick (edited 08-18-99).]

Haven't heard of that one. I wonder, how hard is it to find an Aussie movie in the US other than the original Mad Max?

Since were talking about movies, does anyone know of any Vietnam films that aren't about grunts. There are some Vietnam films that I like but they're all about infantry. Why can't filmmakers make something about Vietnam pilots or tankers or something? Of course the number of stories to tell about soe of these would be far fewer than infantry.

Los, I knew that, can't speak for everyone else. However, I suspect they will be in some scenarios and I was just making sure that they wouldn't be exactly like all other infantry. BTW, I hope someday there is a good wargame about the kind of things that Special Forces do.

Thanks guys, I'll have to look for it and Barnes & Noble and check out the web link. Guess I just haven't looked at the right part of the newsstand at B&N. You know, it's a little large and the idea of looking at the whole thing is daunting.