Ron

Hi Bongokid. Yes you can strictly play offline and still have a rewarding game, that's how I started playing initially. The AI does a couple things(mistakes) a Human would never do which you can take advantage of, but it can still be very dangerous. At times when playing the Bots I feel it has outrageous luck in drawing cards but perhaps that's just my impression. And then when the opportunity arises there are a great number of guys online that build community and enhance the social aspect. You won't be disappointed. Yep that's another beer for you SixxKiller! Ron aka Zonso

I hadn't noticed this previously with the Bot 'high-flyers', ie the ones with Draw Card x 4, and am pretty positive they only drew the 4 cards. Yet last night while playing the Bots I shot down the Leader early(turn2) so the Wingman(ED/Draw Cardx1) took over and for the remainder of the game it did draw a new card every turn! A definite bug there. Hope that helps to narrow it down a little. Ron aka Zonso

Yes same here and ditto if it will be back up today. Had my first 'taste' of online play against live opponents yesterday and dare admit I can understand what crack heads go through :eek: Ron (aka zonso)

Yes a troll and almost certainly a regular member here at the SC forums.

Argh, I just realized I was trying to setup the BoB Campaign And yes thanks for tip on fatigue, just figured that out also! Ron

How to play it? I set it up vs the AI, log on etc yet when I go to play Campaign mission nothing comes up for me to select. I can play online missions vs the AI or other players though. Also how do your Pilots lose fatigue? I created 2 sets of leaders and alternated fights between them yet the fatigue remains. I have them from the US and Britain - do they have to be from the same nation in order for the fatigue to go down? Ron

Hmm, I don't know. Yes, the non-LOS blocking of vehicles pales in comparison to LOF blocking so not having that is a minor point. However, not being able to split squads into their 'component teams' has greater implications. We have been told that the game will model initially 1 Coy(2 max?) plus associated Teams and that the smallest controllable unit will be the Team and now in the case of the Squad, simply the Squad. No matter if graphically we see every individual soldier, as players we will only be controlling a relatively few number of 'units'. Also considering the Squad itself, in CMx1 we could use RL Squad tactics by splitting the squad and using one element to provide overwatch while the other manuevers/assaults at the time and in the place of our choosing. Now that will be removed from the player's hands and the burden will be entirely on the TacAI to 'perform' such an order not only in a believable/realistic fashion but also in the way the player intended them to. Not a big deal? - We will see. Ron

I won't argue the importance of TacAI versus StratAI, but to be honest I think the StratAI in CMx1 was the one needing the greatest improvement. I was almost always happy with the TacAI and chalked up the 'bonehead' things it did sometimes to the fortunes of war. If you had a sound plan then everything eventually worked out. I couldn't say the same about the StratAI which never even had any marbles to start with. Ron

This is something I don't understand. Are we going to have more variability, when reason dictates, in each terrain type where finding uniformity is the exception not the rule? For example, a "Heavy Forest", or "Sparse Forest" for that matter, could have a 'range' of values for sighting, cover, and movement but still be a "Heavy Forest" visually and for ease of use. Ron

Things to change 1- More fidelity in objects and terrain and vehicles, ie not simply just 'all or nothing' regards sighting and/or damage - includes firing through smoke, AFVs blocking LOS, AFVs being partially seen etc. 2- A more comprehensive and realistic C&C structure including SOPs, Plt-Coy-Bn COs relationship etc. 3- A vastly improved AI to stengthen the solo experience. CM's AI is decent but has a lot of holes that could be filled. 4- A more realistic and rewarding Operational level. 5- An even more realistic simulation, ie Relative Spotting et al. Things NOT to change 1- PBEM 2- WEGO 3- CM's adapability to play a QB, Scenario or Op from Plt size up to Bn+ size. 4- a WWII theme. 5- Price (JK!) Ron

I recall two or three years ago someone else 'discovered' BFC's trademark of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. Steve posted and replied it was simply a business decision at the time and they had no immediate plans to make use of it. As mentioned already, I also couldn't think of a more inappropriate setting than Iraq for the first CMx2 game - I know I wouldn't even take a look lol. Perhaps why it has expired now? Ron

Or in this case losing '1' since your 'lonely cry in the woods' hasn't been reflected by the continued and continuing support of the 'loyal and dedicated' fan base as shown in this and the other thread. However don't let that stop you, 'someone' has to be on the 'other side'. Ron

Or in this case losing '1' since your 'lonely cry in the woods' hasn't been reflected by the continued and continuing support of the 'loyal and dedicated' fan base as shown in this and the other thread. However don't let that stop you, 'someone' has to be on the 'other side'. Ron

Lol I disagree completely about WaW lacking the 'fun' factor. SC it isn't, nor A&A, but it is a great game, even against the AI, with lots of strategic nuances. To each their own I guess, but I am more than happy with the purchase, gameplay and value. Ron

JJ, yes very interesting and possibly even SOP for the day. Last night I picked up a used copy of Shirer's Berlin Diary and have only begun reading, but already am captivated. As you may well know the author was a Berlin correspondent, and his immediate impressions of the years leading to the war add colour and flavour to an otherwise 'dry' history. His observations of the German people and the ruling Nazis are both hilarious and chilling, and even the apathy and false cheeriness of the American public typified by a cartoon in the New Yorker from the late 30's showing a woman looking up from a newspaper and asking her husband, "Who is this Hitler and what does he want?" Anyways looking forward to playing SC2 when it is released. Ron

Italy's suprise invasion of Greece was also what did in any chance of an Axis alliance with Franco and Spain. IIRC Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were having a conference to discuss/negotiate further agreements when the 'news' hit. Hitler was incensed and Franco thereafter wanted nothing to do with such mad partners. I like the idea of enhanced and varied diplomacy but on the other hand real world politics are much more complicated. IMO the chance of Spain joining the Axis, let alone Turkey, would be very, very rare with an aggressive Germany and Italy. JJ, that's an interesting tidbit regarding Switzerland. Where did you read that? Ron

1:1 representation(modelling and representation) concerning a squad brings up a few questions and observations. Depending upon the squad's task, ie attack, movement or defend, its 'footprint' and deployment will have to vary visually and internally also. We have heard when attacking that a squad will deploy into fireteams as per SOP, fine. Will we have SOPs for when a squad is defending or marching or skirmishing. ie column or line to name two? What will be the 'footprint' for these different modes - 25m, 50m, 100m? I would assume that a unit's 'facing' and deployment would become much more important re firepower and susceptibility to fire and need to be accounted for also. What are your design thoughts/comments on this? Somewhat related but what are your thoughts now on 'national characteristics'? I know what you have said in the past but wonder if anything has changed. I am thinking specifically of Dupuy's combat model and its relevance to basic combat effectiveness. I may have missed it but what other factors besides morale, experience and fitness are being modelled for a squad? Thanks for the 'bones'! Ron

With all respect, simply looking at the "1:1 representation", "Much more complex environment", "Much more accurate simulation", "New more realistic C&C model" aspects alone and not seeing how it will radically alter the game we play suggests a failure on your part. I agree completely with Wisbech_lad, that's how we got CM in the first place. Maybe CMx2 will be a flop by breaking new ground again, no one knows yet, but any creator needs to create and not rehash the same, so let them create. I for one am looking forward to what BFC will do with the next installment of "CM", knowing full well it would never be exactly what I like or thought, just like CM was. Ron

Interesting articles about wargame design, but the author's perspective is entirely on boardgames. Most of his comments are hardly relevant to computer wargames where there has been design innovation though not always successful. One of his comments which stuck was the talk of the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu and how "Warfare is largely a psychological affair in which understanding your enemy and her relative capabilities and motives are as great a factor as firepower." It's interesting, in a detached way, to follow the heated comments in this thread since as Steve said "we aren't even there yet". Unless one believes that Steve is really secretly 'sowing the fields' for the 'crop' to come. Ron

I hear what you are saying GJK though IMO the abstract modelling of certain features, and in the case of CM, features not stated implicitly but still there, make it better. I can't argue fine points with you over ASL because to be honest I haven't played it for over 10 years now. What I said earlier about the bigger manual, more counters and bigger headaches re ASL are in fact my memories of it - I much prefered SL through COD simply because they weren't as "complicated" due to numerous/detailed/ambiguous rules. CM has its fair share of warts and teeth gnashing also don't get me wrong! Ron

Well I took 'Scrounging' to mean when a squad/team runs out of ammo (low) yet can keep on firing until the battle ends, albeit not as frequently, as well as the fact that when a squad takes casualties usually someone will pick up the best weapon available. A lot of this stuff is under the hood in CM and not displayed obviously. Steve/BFC has explained the design rationale and what it encompasses numerous times. Ron

Well, ASL has a much bigger manual and way more counters to go along with the way more and bigger headaches involved in playing! A lot of what GJK said as better in ASL is false and misleading: properly handles routed/broken units - in CM support weapon (SW) breakdown and repair - in CM dismantled weapons - in CM Fanaticism - in CM Ambushing in close combat - in CM AFV overrun - in CM Tunnels - in CM(sewers) Orchards - in CM AFV MG/MA targeting (different targets for each) - in CM Scrounging - in CM Jitter fire (at night) - in CM Ron

Radios and 'runners' weren't the only way of communicating - coloured flares were used also to signal enemy attack, enemy tanks, and for coordination purposes when attacking etc. I hope just because radios aren't present that platoons/coys are left 'hanging'. Ron

Interesting take PP, but perhaps a look on the 'other side of the hill' will broaden your perspective concerning the numbers that really did escape the Falaise Pocket and why it wasn't as big an Allied victory it could have been. Ron

Go for it if it's in you guys to do. Waiting for 'enough interest' likely means nothing will get done. Personally am not interested in QBs anymore, would more like to see something on armoured/mechanized tactics & strategies in the desert. The other 'theatres' have been around long enough and most players have spent enough time with them, that most know what to do now and how to get it done. Even simply a collection of 'tips, tricks and traps' would be welcome reading I am sure for the veteran and new player alike. Ron Viva Mexico Cabrones!