Rick

I never liked hexes because in reality one can travel in more than six directions and it means things like the enemy is either 25m away or 50m, he can't be 35m because the hex grid doesn't allow for that. Obviously some sort of coordinates must be used. However, I feel realism will be benefited if a very large number of possible directions are supported as well as many discreet locations. One thing I wholeheartedly agree with is that the obstacle to CM being revolutionary is, will it be seen by enought people? I like the web promoting idea, since it allows BTS to come up with a game that is detained enough etc. that it won't sell to millions and it will still make money. I market via the web myself, and the great thing is that even if you don't get you that many sales, the advertising was cheap enough that it's not a disaster. OTOH, if you pay for store space and only sell a few copies, Ouch!!!

One of the biggest hopes I have for Combat Mission, is that it influences the entire wargaming industry. The simultaneous execution and hexless map system seem to me to be qualities that all wargames could benefit from. So the question is, do people here think that those influences will be far-reaching? Will there be a game from another developer about say modern combat but share's at least the fundamental characteristics of Combat Mission? Will there be operational level games with simultaneous execution and maps without hexes?

I don't know about where you live, but here in Dallas TX the media was trying to blame Littleton on wargames. I kept saying to myself "No *!*!*! way, I bet they were actually playing Doom." (or something like it) I believe I recently read that it was Doom they were playing.

Only dabbled with FPS when friends invite me to their homes to check out their game, never have put one on my computer. -Rick

I think that most of us that you assume are in group 1 are actually somewhere in between. I definitely want BTS to be happy with the complete nature of their game. Just feel that the line needs to be drawn on the perfection process somewhere.

Fionn, So what is this blazer reactive armor?

Sounds like Iraq was in a real bad situation there. I've also heard that reactive armor can be murder on any nearby infantry. What's your take on this?

Fionn, Thanks for the names of the Soviet Field Marshalls. The 500,000 figure is what I heard, in the documentary I saw where they told about the tactical mistakes that the Red Army made because of being in a hurry. The show also talked about how the true casualty figures had been hidden from the Russian people until the fall of the USSR. I believe the show was made by Russians.

I can't imagine someone cheating at these games. I'm not surprised people do, but I really don't understand why. Rarely is there anything important at stake over a PBEM wargame. Most importantly the real enjoyment comes from doing your best not winning. In the 3d world, I like to play basketball and with basketball I can't tell you anything about the times I won or lost, but I do remember quite vividly when I played my best - when everything just seemed to flow. Well actually, I can remember the result of one game (my team lost), but it was one of those games when your body and the ball seemed to effortlessly fulfill your every wish. Basically, unless something valuable is riding on the game knowing you did your absolute best is more rewarding than winning. However, losing to the computer does aggravate me.

I heard that the Soviet's terrible casulties in Berlin were largely their own fault. They were in such a hurry, because Stalin made some sort of promise that the first Field Marshall into the city would get some great reward. They sent AFVs rolling down the streets ahead of their infantry support, which of course made them vulnerable to ambush. I am not saying that our casualties would have been light, but I don't feel that our leaders would have made decisions that would've escalated the casualty levels so high above what was necessary.

Sounds to me like BTS is taking the right approach to this. Would it be an easy thing to do to have downloadable vehicles? It was an interesting idea, I'm not sure how well I liked it, because I felt the majority of the vehicles types were pretty important.

I guess one answer to what is a ridiculously late release date, would be like late next summer. I'm not trying to hurry them, I definitely feel they should make this game right. However, my point is that an excellent game in our hands is more fun than a perfect game that is never released. I would agree that a crappy game is much worse than the excellent game that is never released. Although, I think they could release it now and it would be pretty good even with the unfinshed stuff.

I definitely feel that BTS should be patient and try to get this more right than the average game. However, perfection is impossible, BTS needs to make their money, and we want to play a great game. Therefore, BTS needs to say at sometime that enough is enough, finish what they already started (referring to finishing programming the features they've started but not adding any more), and sell the thing. Personally, I see this issue as the one danger of this forum. I have had a great time reading and writing here in this forum. Furthermore, it's informative and will I feel improve the game. However, BTS could try to implement too many of the suggestions put forth here thus delaying the game to ridiculously (Sp?) late release dates.

My question is how much does doing screen shots distract from getting the games done? If not much, then dump numerous screen shots on us. If on the other hand it is a major delay, then you can withold entirely as far as I'm concerned.

Yes. I mean I know the US Army trains with the assumption that in a high intensity conflict, they will be outnumbered, but give me a break.

Good to hear. I was of course thinking of SP when I made this comment. You are probably aware that the campaigns and random battles come with huge numbers of enemy tanks, which come at you in endless waves. This problem gets quickly ridiculous when the enemy is a nation that has equipment that doesn't take many points to purchase. I've had games where I had a platoon of M1s and one of mechanized infantry against maybe 60 T80s with supporting mechanized infantry. Seems like the best one can hope for in this situation is to cause heavy casualties to the enemy, but victory is virtually out of the question.

I am assuming from all the good things I am hearing about the AI that it will not be resorting to unrealistically overwhelming numbers. Is this a correct assumption? This is an all too common method to make the AI better in other games. Getting beat because you're outplayed is one thing, but it's a bummer to get beat when you're outnumbered 10 to 1 and the enemy just using the successive waves to overwhelm you tactic.

I agree. Never in the history of wargames, has a game been so hard to wait for. When I'm not busy I come back to this forum around three times a day to see if anything is new.

Think about the fact that the heat shielding on the Space Shuttle is a type of ceramic material and that might help one think of the possibilities. I think one problem with discussions on this is none of us know anything for sure since this stuff is so secretive.

I guess I wrote my message kind of unclearly. Because, what you say you are doing is exactly what I thought you were doing. I guess the other type of bombardment we are discussing would be for operational level games.

These artillery missions that should not be modeled in Combat Mission, are these the kinds of things you described the Red Army doing with their artillery, in another thread? Furthermore, is this why the largest German artillery doesn't appear in games like CM? I know they had guns bigger than 150mm, but that's the largest I've seen in a game.

One could probably claim that his death would have been a perfectly legal case of war related casualties in that case. Sometimes, I wish we could just assasinate foreign leaders, like Milosevic. However, I do think that law is necessary despite the problems it causes sometimes. The weird thing about this discussion is with the nature of the internet, Milosevic himself could be reading this. Not that I think he is, but it is within the realm of possibility.

Steve, Thanks for the insight on WWI. Most history classes say "hey, some dude was assasinated next thing you know the whole world is at war." Always, knew something was wrong with that picture. This thread is inspiring me to do some research.

I personally, was against our involvement in the gulf war. However, I feel that if we are to fight a war then we must play for keeps, figure of speech not meant to say it was play. Further, military leaders should be given full control of how to accomplish the goals that have been set in the operation. It is when we try to make the military do things in a non military manner, or make them pursue goals other than military ones that things get ugly. As far as the law against assasinations, it seems crazy sometimes, like Kososvo. However, I do understand the need for the law. In the past the CIA went around killing and trying to kill people that they had no business killing. Basically, in a democracy such huge policy decisions should be up for public debate, but can not be because of the need for secrecy.

Looks like you're still on schedule for late summer release, good. I get worried sometimes because I spend so much time in the Rocky Mountains with my photography that I think of September as being Autumn, here in Texas it pretty much don't start until almost Halloween.