[Elevation step changes in CM2.]

It is interesting that you bring this up. I am currently creating a map directly from a topo map of a portion of West Germany, and have found that even with 5m increments, the elevation change is too small! It is not mountainous terrain, but I am finding myself cutting elevation differences in half (i.e. each elevation line, actually 10 m apart, is being modelled as 5 m apart) in order to simply fit the elevation difference on the map.

the only way to do both of what we want would be to have smaller elevation differences (as you want) but a wider range (as I am finding is needed).

steve

[Panzergrenadiers]

Mike-

you are right; it would be possible to set up a blitzkrieg STYLE game in CM. But to actually simulate 'blitzkrieg' at the company/bn level is a misunderstanding of the term.

However, to do what you suggest (and I think it is a great idea) requires one thing that CM doesn't provide: a bigger map. I have been clamoring for the ability to make larger maps for a while, to no avail. And for exactly the reason you suggest-to simulate operations in depth, to simulate the ability to bypass pockets of resistance, to simulate the necessity to make wise decisions with respect to reserves, etc etc (and NOT to just add bigger armies, more Tiger tanks, more explosions and stuff).

I am presently making a map of Hohenfels, the U.S. maneuver training area in Germany that allows battalion-level maneuver warfare to be simulated, and the maximum map size (3x5 km for operations) is just too small (and admittedly, this scale is more appropriate to modern armies than WWII armies). I could get most of the important areas of Hohenfels on a map about 4.5x7 km. But this is a start.

Steve

[Panzergrenadiers]

Mike-

I'm not sure that there is a really good difference between IFV and APC. I know that doctrinally, the M2 has a specific role in squad tactics-that of the base of fire for the squad, so that all dismounts in the modern squad (I think 6) are the maneuver element; the crew of the M2 (3 guys) are expected to lay down the base of fire for the dismounts with their machine gun, 20mm, and, if necessary, anti-tank missile.

The M113 had a machine gun mounted on top, and I am sure that it would be used in the same way (base of fire) but I'm not sure whether doctrine called for it.

So the difference between APC and IFV? Probably IFV is 1) better armor, 2) more weapons, and 3) doctrinally intended to be used in a firefight. Because the APC could be used the same way, albeit less effectively, its really not strict difference between the two.

steve

[Panzergrenadiers]

Desert Fox-

I think we are on the same sheet of music. I would guess that you are correct wrt the panzergrenadiers-they are expected to bypass resistance whenever possible in order to keep up with the tanks, and dismount only at the decisive point of the battle (just as modern, including American, armies are expected to). But Michael is also correct: what is being portrayed in a typical CM battle? More than likely, it IS THE DECISIVE POINT-i.e. the point when panzergrenadiers SHOULD dismount. If it weren't the decisive point, if it were an earlier stage of the battle when the panzergrenadiers are expected to stay mounted and shoot from their vehicles, then it would be a boring scenario-panzergrenadiers attack, suppress the defenders with quick machine gun fire, and drive off the far end of the map.

Thus, I think the debate is really one of the definition of 'fighting.' Panzergrenadiers are expected to 'fight' from their vehicles when possible during the early stages of a breakthrough, but in this case, 'fight' means 'spray with a machine gun, suppress, and drive around.' The enemy remains largely intact, the ground that they occupy is not the ultimate objective (and at the end of the 'fighting', they still occupy it), and there has not been a 'fight' in the sense of a CM scenario. But when panzergrenadiers DO 'fight' in the CM sense (i.e. destroy the enemy positions, occupy those positions, overrun foxholes, etc), they dismount to do it, and use the halftrack as a mobile machine gun mount.

steve

[Panzergrenadiers]

Folks-

While I wasn't in WWII, and I wasn't in combat, I have some relatively recent real world training experience that may bear on the topic. Last year, I spent three weeks training at Hohenfels, Germany as an infantryman in M113's (i.e. 1960's version of a halftrack-though it was fully tracked). I was a company commander, and was able to be one of the guys standing up in the track during the battle whenever I felt like it. My own experiences:

1) 'shooting' while moving: utterly impossible. You are being bounced around so much it would be impossible to actually hit anything. Those that are standing up literally hold on with one hand, perhaps hold a map with the other. You consider yourself lucky if you don't a) fall out, lose your weapon, or c) ruin your kidneys being thrown against the sides of the 'hatch' or open top.

2) 'shooting' while stationary: theoretically possible, for two soldiers. The open top is probably big enough for six to stand up in, crammed together, wearing no gear. With gear on, perhaps four could stand up. To realistically aim and shoot at something, perhaps two could stand up. Soldiers take turns standing to avoid getting sick and to get fresh air. The idea of 8-10 soldiers standing up and fighting is preposterous.

3) 'shooting' out of firing ports. Utterly ludicrous idea (note: the M113 does not have firing ports, but the M2 Bradleys do). Impossible to see anything. Inside the vehicle, there is just enough room for an understrength squad to sit next to each other, bent over. Weapons are aimed straight up at the roof, machine guns are laying on the floor, ammunition is in boxes under someone's butt, two guys are probably laying on the floor at everyone else's feet because there isn't enough bench room for everybody. The idea of fighting from 'inside' a M2, or BMP is some contractor's drawing room idea-utterly absurd in the field.

My own guess is that when field manuals describe 'fighting' from the back of a halftrack, they mean one of two things 1) some civilian contractor wrote a paragraph or two about something he has never experienced and which is completely unrealistic, or 2) 'fighting' is meant to be 'spraying a bit of suppressive fire as you drive by quickly, leaving the enemy that you see for the dismounts that are following behind you. In other words, use the machine gun to suppress, keep driving to your objective, and dismount and fight there-dismount as late as possible (dismount=delay and thus a loss of speed on the battlefield), stick with the tanks, leave the dug in enemy and bypassed enemy for the truck mounted or marching soldiers to your rear, and roll on as long as possible.

Steve

[Mega Huge QuickBattles & Scenario Design]

Slapdragon-

I understand that really huge maps will bog the average player's computer, and that really huge armies will bog the average player's interest. But so what? Why not let us determine what mapsize will bog our own computers, and design or play scenarios below that mapsize? Maybe my computer will handle 5x5 km, maybe my Peng's will handle 8x6, maybe someone else's will handle 2x2.5. What's wrong with changing the maximum mapsize in the editor and letting me find out for myself?

Also, just out of curiosity, do you know what kinds of map sizes were created that resulted in a bog-before the 2x2.5 limit was coded in? And what were the max sizes played around with during design/development?

steve

[Mega Huge QuickBattles & Scenario Design]

I'm with you (although I like large maps, and the maneuver potential, more than large armies). I have asked several times on this board why there is an arbitrary size limit to the maps creatable by the game (2x2.5km for battles, 3x5 km for operations) and have yet to receive a real answer. The lock on map size can't have any programming significance-just change the 'maximum map size' code from 2.5 km to unlimited, and let us overload our computers if we want to!

But, for some reason, such an obvious change hasn't taken place in either a mod or a patch.

steve

[BTS-Brilliant idea for large battles]

Think the Olympics Flag...

I assume that there is a size limit for battles (currently, at about battalion size) for two reasons: 1) drawing a large map is too much for computers, and 1) drawing more vehicles/squads than a battalion is too much for most computers. However, I also assume there is no real problem to do the calculations to 'execute' larger battles-without displaying them, a typical computer could do the calculations for a Bde or larger (div?) force.

So, imagine a multiplayer game between two bn commanders on one side, and three on the other, on an 8x8 km map. The map is too large to draw, and the units are too numerous to draw. But what if, instead of drawing the whole map, you only draw the portion of the map relevant to your own units (say, 1st Bn on one side)? A subroutine at the beginning of each turn would determine LOS from all of my own units, draw the whole map encompassed by that 'circle' of LOS (like a circle on the olympics map-actually, it would be a circle encompassing LOS and area of influence-movable distance as well as seeable distance), and then give me that smaller portion of the whole map, at the beginning of that turn, on which to plot my moves and move my units. It would draw all of my own units, any enemy units within LOS (or area of potential influence), as well as any other friendly BNs units (which I could see, but not move). In a sense, then, I would only have to call up, at the beginning of each turn, my own 'olympic circle' of the whole map on which my friendly units are able to see or move to. That circle may overlap other friendly players' 'circles', as well as enemy 'circles' (just like the circles on the Olympic flag), -and thus I would see, on my 3D map, overlapped other friendly as well as enemy units. I give my units orders, then pass the file to the next guy. HIS circle is then calculated and displayed, along with other friendly and enemy units which overlap him-and so on, through all the players. After the last player has gone through the order phase, he hits the 'execute' button, and the computer does all the calculations for the entire five bns. It then reverts back to the 'circles' on each individuals' computer and displays in the 3D map only those units within an individual bn's 'circle.' At the next turn, new 'circles' are calculated (presumably, some of the bns have moved on the big map, so their LOS/area of influence 'circle' will have moved as well), and you repeat the process.

You could allow each player the ability to see the whole map in top down 2d (like looking at a topo map) as well-but you would only have to draw the 3D map, and unit polygons, for the smaller, individually controlled units (in this example, bns). In fact, you wouldn't have to even play multiplayer-I could play an entire 3 BN brigade, on an 8x8 km map, by playing individual bns one at a time on a 2x3 km 'circle', or portion of the map.

Admittedly, there are complications: what if I spread my bn out to a preposterous degree (say, across the whole 8km front-maybe the front is a series of thinly held company positions)? I may end up playing a series of 'drops' scattered over the whole larger map-small areas of company or even platoon positions. Or maybe there would simply be a command and control range to the ranking hq unit, outside of which one's units can only be moved on the 2d topo map. You may want the 'circle' to be larger than simply what my units could potentially see or move to-to give the player a bit more perspective when plotting his move (though he could always glance at the whole 2d 'topo map').

But this would really open up possibilities-imagine a team of four with three players as front line bns, and one as the bde commander-in control of bde reserves and artillery-when should he shift artillery bns? When should he commit the bde reserve? Bde scouts suddenly become important-in a perfect world, a division battle would be possible (say between teams of 10-15), but each player is actually only playing on a small battlefield about the size of current CM maps, and controlling a small force about the size of current CM forces.

Steve

[CM: The Nomandy Campaign - Call for Players (disgustingly long)]

I'd be interested, too. Either side. I will have to get back to you with my email address. I am suspicious, though. I have (and am playing)Normandy '44.

1) My guess is that you are likely to have very few battles. Suppose you have 20 players (10 per side). As you know, there really aren't that many 'assaults'. The odds that 10 companies out of the whole axis or allied army are actually involved in an assault in a given turn are pretty small-are you doing the whole Normandy battle (in which there are probably 1000's of companies per side) or a smaller scenario with a few divisions per side?

2) What are the victory conditions for a given battle? Capture a flag? Is there anything stopping me as a company commander from either fighting to the death and losing my whole company (when you didn't intend it) or quickly withdrawing to save myself (when you wanted to hold the hex)?

3) What about artillery/armor/engineers? When I play Normandy, the engineer bns and sometimes armored bns fight as one- you could have 45 tanks, or 500 engineers, or 40 scout vehicles, in a 1 km battlefield.

Steve

[Is the Sherman a tank?]

I have a question on the timing of the Sherman's use being discussed. I don't know, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing (I am just asking) but is it actually the case that the Sherman was fielded in 1941? I can believe that it was DESIGNED in 1941, but my own limited knowledge of U.S. tank use was that there may have been some lendlease tanks provided to Britain before we were involved (December, 1941), but that those tanks were intially M5 Stuarts (or Honeys) and M3 Grants. Because those two tanks weren't up to snuff, the M4 Sherman came later.

Furthermore, were there really M4's in the Louisiana maneuvers? Again, I thought those maneuvers occurred really before the U.S. buildup began, so that the maneuvers would have had more trucks and light tanks or armored cars than Shermans.

Thus, I would have thought that 1940/41 may have had limited American lendlease equipment in Africa, but primarily M5, M3. After Pearl Harbor, it would have taken quite a while to gear up, so that substantial Shermans wouldn't have arrived in either British or American inventories until summer, 1942.

Am I wrong?

steve

[What needs to be changed about Operations?]

I haven't played any of the operations yet, but it appears that when one battle is over, the computer 'draws' a front line, and you get your units to set up along that front line in set up zones. Thus, surrounded units get returned to your lines, units that are poorly positioned (say down in a draw, when the main battle is taking place elsewhere) are allowed the opportunity to reposition, etc.

What if the computer didn't move everybody, but simply 'drew' a front line for resupply purposes? An artificial 'front line' is defined-and everyone on the friendly side of it gets resupplies, perhaps occasional replacements, etc. Anyone on the other side of it (overextended units, surrounded units, etc) do not. All units stay in place, with the strengths and weaknesses of the ending positions from the previous battle still in place?

steve

[Panther(a) knocked out by 50 caliber american machine gun?]

Jeez-

Don't you guys have a sense of humor?

Steve

[Panther(a) knocked out by 50 caliber american machine gun?]

You obviously haven't been reading the posts on this board over the last few months. As we all know, CM does 'dispel alot of myths concerning the superiority of German organizations and equipment." If truth be known (and CM does know the truth), German panther tanks were often knocked out by: obsolete French WW1 artillery pieces, Maori machetes wielded by British 14 year old conscripts, American propoganda leaflets (though only when hitting the weak portion of armor over the engine compartment), and WACs in desperation throwing the P-38 (otherwise known as the C-ration can opener). Your observation of the tank being hit by 50 caliber machine gun fire is nothing-if nothing else, it should be expected. CM accurately portrays the absolute invincibility of the Hetzer and U.S. Pershing tanks, but also reveals the previously ignored weak spot on the front armor of the Tiger tank, which allowed them to be knocked out by the 45 caliber pistol (Patton was known to have destroyed an entire battalion of Tiger tanks in Tunisia in 1943-a fact which has been suppressed up til now by pro-German propagandist historians). Lighten up-revel in the near invincibility of the American halftrack and the superiority of American armored cars to all enemy equipment! Enjoy the turret speed differential which essentially renders all German armor useless on the battlefield!

Steve

[Higher Point Value Games]

I second the request to patch and expand QB possibilities. I have mentioned this before, but if we have a computer with the memory to create more units/equip or larger maps (my own interest), why not let us do so? The maximum map size is arbitrary (as is the maximum point value) so why not increase it if some of us want a larger battle? I'm still waiting for an argument why NOT to patch the game this way.

Steve

[long range zook kills - who holds the record?]

I mentioned this in an earlier post-thinking it may represent a flaw/bug.

I lost a pershing to a panzershreck/panzerfaust (can't remember which), which hit the upper hull, from 208 meters. I was playing as Americans against the computer. Slightly off topic, but in the same game, one of my chaffees destroyed a king tiger with a side turret hit at 330 meters or so.

Both incidents surprised me.

Steve

[Wow, Squad Leader is amazingly horrible...]

Hofbauer and Slapdragon-

I remain skeptical as to your claim that blacks served in any appreciable numbers in combat units during WWII. It is well known that blacks served in quartermaster units and transportation (like the redball express), and that there was one black armored battalion (there is a book about it). But I had never heard of the 5th platoon, and have never seen pictures of blacks and whites fighting alongside each other (I have seen pictures of the two races fighting alongside each other during the Korean War-when integration was ordered by Truman). Black officers, of course, existed. But I am sure they were generally in the same quartermaster/transportation branches. I also accept that a black artillery unit, trapped in the Bastogne encirclement, fought alongside the 101st airborne-but again, that wasn't planned, but rather a result of the surprise attack.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong. That is why I asked for references from Slapdragon. He really didn't provide them-a reference to a surrounded artillery bn in Bastogne, and reference to a book that has been removed from libraries. Where can I learn about the 5th platoon system? How widespread is it? Where could I see pictures of black and white combat soldiers fighting alongside each other? As I said, prove me to be mistaken, and I would be happy to revise my opinion.

Steve

[CM2 Campaign Game Layer?]

Actually, I think a division would be a reasonable size to try this with. You really wouldn't have to 'downsize' a battalion into a reinforced company-battalion level battles are doable with CM -lots of the scenarios included are at battalion level.

So, to simulate a division, you would have roughly 10 (maybe 10-15) battalions to maneuver on the strategic map-some would be front line battalions, others may be parcelled out (AT bns parcelled out to infantry bns, maybe the lone armored bn would be parcelled out to infantry bns in an infantry division, etc).

The tough part would be simulating all the other stuff-how do you simulate resupply? What if one company in a bn is worn out, needs resupply, but three others are fresh and want to continue to advance? Now that bn is broken into two manuver units. What if you want to send individual at guns to cover important crossroads in support of a battalion (and not the whole AT bn at once)? How do you simulate the need to move artillery bns? The possibility that they will be overrun? The laying of landlines, preplotted targets, etc? How do you simulate overrunning or moving the maintenance shops? And how that movement affects tank replacement the next day? And these aren't minor issues-this stuff-breaking through to upset repair, resupply, preplotted artillery and preset artillery ammunition, this is all at the heart of maneuver warfare-its the whole point of the battle.

It will be great when we can do it-but it is no minor undertaking-and will undoubtedly require as much research, coding, and playtesting as a whole new game.

Steve

[Differences Between Troops of Different Nationalties - Why There Should Be Some]

I have a tough time with this, but in general, I guess I disagree with both sides . On the one hand, it does seem a stretch that there is some 'national characteristic' of Americans that makes them break easier and rally easier, or that makes Russians more likely to go fanatical. I suspect that those rules from SL were (inaccurate) attempts to create some national differences between armies. I would be skeptical if someone claimed that such a national difference could be applied to all American squads during WWII.

On the other hand, we all know that each army had organizational/equipment differences, and were made up of distinctly different populations. We all also seem to agree that there were definite strategic and operational differences between the armies (i.e. a Russian Tank Corps behaved differently from a German Panzer division, and both were different than an American armored division). Is is really plausible to suppose that at the squad and platoon level, everyone in every army from WWII basically behaved the same? Is it really reasonable to suppose that a Russian Guards platoon would behave the same as a German SS platoon and an American airborne platoon, just because they can all be quantified as 'crack, veteran, or elite?' I would guess that there ARE differences, due to their doctrine, training, and equipment, that CM will not model accurately without something added. For example:

1) russian mass/wave attacks. I can't imagine (outside of Normandy beaches) American battalions conducting these types of attacks. Simply creating a battalion of Russian conscripts is not going to create the urge in the Russian CM player to use Russian tactics. Instead, he'll play the Russians as he currently plays Americans: set up a base of fire, and try to infiltrate.

2) More extensive availability of radios for the Germans (vs. early war French/Russians). Germans perhaps should be more responsive on the battlefield than the others in order to simulate a quicker communication of information via radio. Maybe there should be a longer delay in giving new orders to units to simulate an absence of radios.

3) better small unit leadership in early war Germans. Similar to 2), above. Simply having one army of conscripts and the other of crack or veteran doesn't really simulate responsiveness very well-it just simulates likelihood of breaking/surrendering.

4) Perhaps others?

I am not confident that I know national differences very well (and by national differences, I am not referring to 'moral' or 'fighting ability' differences, but rather to differences in training, doctrine, and equipment), but I strongly suspect that they existed. Let's face it: CM is fun, it is quite fun, but there is basically no difference (other than relatively insignificant equipment differences) between the armies; choosing Americans vs. British/Canadians/French is really nothing more than choosing different colored icons to move around on the map (and Germans are the same). I wouldn't argue that modelling the entire American army in the Battle for France should be no different from modelling the entire Russian army in the War in Russia (save for a few equipment differences). I would think an accurate portrayal of the two would have to include the three factors mentioned above(training, equipment, doctrine). Why does the argument change at the tactical level?

Steve

[Wow, Squad Leader is amazingly horrible...]

Slapdragon-

Could you post a reference for the '5th platoon' plans at the end of WWII? I have never heard of this-I would like to know more. I am surprised to learn of it-I have heard of blacks in the military at the time, but thought they were always in segregated units (typically officered by white officers). In the 5th platoon scheme, when the platoons were dissolved, did blacks serve in leadership positions within those integrated 8 or 9 divisions (I mean, were there black squad leaders, platoon sergeants, and first sergeants over white subordinates?). If so, I am curious how this 'battlefield integration' went. Which divisions were they-you suggest a total of 17 divisions were eventually at least partially integrated-almost 25% of the total army-again, it is surprising that it is not more well known.

Steve

[Europa-Universalis]

This is actually for BTS. There is a fantastic looking strategy game being developed in Sweden -Europa Universalis - which is delayed because they cannot find a U.S. publisher (apparently, not enough US game players like strategy games, and all US publishers look for the next big hit and thus don't fund specialty games like this). Philosophically, this seems right up BTS' alley. Have you guys heard of it? Interested in publishing it? More info at www.europa-universalis.com

Steve

[Captains Exodus Has Army Fearing for Future]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13449-2000Oct15.html

I'm not sure why Charlie D228 (or whoever it was)was banned for posting the link to this article-I read it, and had actually forwarded it to my colleagues who are interested in military affairs before I saw it posted here. It actually seems pretty on topic, or at least close enough to being on topic to be a reasonable inclusion, so I am assuming that there is some history to this guy that justifies his being banned rather than the topic itself.

In any event, I WOULD be interested in what active duty or recently active duty guys think about this-is morale in the army today that bad? I'm in the Guard now, so I don't know-I have recently had experiences which both suggest and deny that active duty morale is low.

For: there was recently an article printed about a survey of AD CPT/MAJ at FT Leavenworth, the results of which implied that morale is extremely low, primarily because officers don't respect the higher ranks(both military and civilian). There was mention of the higher OPTEMPO and changing missions, but those weren't the primary reasons.

In addition, two years ago I taught ROTC candidates at Ft Lewis near Seattle. I was working with AD infantry soldiers (not so many officers). It was pretty common to hear AD NCOs getting out because 'the army had changed.' It had lost its warrior spirit, too PC, etc. This was right at the time when the 'time out' cards were being issued at basic training, and those trainees were just starting to arrive at their units.

Against: I just ran into an old ROTC colleague who is still on AD-SF, with the 18th airborne corps. He seemed to think that morale was still fine (though he has spent his whole career in the 18th-about as high of esprit de corps as our military has).

So I am very curious if any current or recent soldiers have any opinions on the issue?

Steve

[Few Odd occurrences....]

SPOILERS!!!

*

*

*

*

*

*

SPOILERS!

On the Elsdorf scenario.

I played the Elsdorf scenario included with the game. It was a great game, a great scenario, but I had several incidents which left me scratching my head. I'm not sure if they are impossible-but perhaps they are critical hits/events that should be more rare than they actually occurred?

1) I played as the Americans. Late in the scenario, the German reinforcements arrived-two platoons of tigers on two sides of the map. The first platoon (4 tigers) arrived on my left flank. I sent my pershings (4 of them, plus 2 chaffees) to attack. In a very short time, I destroyed all four tigers-which seems reasonable-but the tigers failed to fire a single shot! I was moving, and was able to move, fire, and one after the other destroy 4 tigers with NO return fire!

Problem: Was the tactical AI confused? I got the impression that the four tigers were sitting, unable to select one of the six enemy tanks to fire at-so they ended up selecting nothing and being destroyed one after the other (it required almost two full minutes to destroy the four tigers). Note that the tiger crews in this scenario are at least veteran-maybe even elite.

2) At roughly the same time, two chaffees advanced upon the second platoon of tigers. One of my M24 chaffees destroyed a king tiger, with a flank shot into the turret, from 335 meters. Again, the king tiger (and an additional tiger right next to it) failed to fire a single shot at my tanks.

Problem: Is this a realistic event (chaffee destroying a king tiger from that range-it was a catastrophic kill-the KT was burning)? And same as previously: why don't the tigers shoot back? Again, my tanks were moving, the Germans were not (or were moving very slowly).

3) As I then advanced my pershings towards the same area, they quickly destroyed the other tiger (without any responding fire). I then lost a pershing to a panzershreck round, into the upper hull, from 208 meters.

Problem: Do panzershrecks have that kind of range? that kind of penetration at that range? And same as before: is the tactical AI confused enough by multiple targets (for the tiger) to fail to do anything? I am playing with no patches whatsoever.

Good game, but if my experience is typical, the whole tiger myth literally is a myth.

Steve

[New MOD?]

Yeah-

I wasnt' sure about the point limit. I was playing with the battle design software very briefly and seemed to run into a limit at 7,000 points.

My interest is more in being able to create large maps than in creating large armies, anyway. I'd like to do scenarios with lots of maneuvering, lots of opportunities for recon, long range artillery, multiple avenues of approach, feints, etc. The armies limit seemed just a different, equally arbitrary limit that could easily be rewritten/modified.

Steve

[New MOD?]

I know several of the mods are improving the look of the vehicles, adding seasonal versions of vehicles, etc. I have read that this is being done because BTS originally wrote the game to be playable on lower-end systems-thus the vehicle appearances were 'simpler' than upper-end technology was able to produce.

By the same token, in user made scenarios, there are two upper limits: maximum map size (for scenarios, 1.6km x 3km or so, for operations, I think 1.2k x 4km), and as far as I can tell, upper limits for army size (around 7000 points). I assume that those limits were included for the same reason-to avoid swamping lower end systems with too many polygons (either on moving units or on terrain), and resulting in crashes, system lockups, and extremely slow play.

So how about a new mod which eliminates those size limitations? Allow us to make as big of maps (or as big of armies) as our own systems will allow? The rationale for them is the same as that for the better vehicle pictures-allow those of us who have systems to handle the mods (bigger maps) the ability to enjoy the enhanced game play (MAKE bigger maps, armies)?

Steve

[CM enhancement]

I may be wrong, but I don't think I mean 'relative spotting.' I suspect what I am asking for is an enhanced LOS command.

I am comfortable with the fact that I can see the terrain on the whole map. I am also comfortable with the fact that I the human can immediately see all the enemy units that my soldiers and vehicles can see-even though this is not necessarily 'realistic.' (it is, I think, an unavoidable part of a computer game). What I don't like is that it is difficult for me to tell what my units canNOT see-because I can see the terain on the whole map, its hard to tell what of that terrain is visible to my units and what of that terrain is visible to me with the 'God' perspective as the player, but NOT visible to my units.

An example. I move a unit into the second story of a house. I assume, by looking at the map and terrain, that that unit can see to the end of a field, 400 m away, and can see an intersection 100 m to the west (thus, if there are no enemy units on the intersection, I KNOW that there are no enemy units there-rather than suspecting that there may be enemy units there because that intersection is not seen my any of my friendly units). I can use the LOS tool to check if my unit in the second story of the building can actually SEE to the end of the field and to the intersection, but that gets tedious to go through and check each unit-because of that, I generally just arrange my units into positions which I think will 'see' all the areas of the map (based on my 'gods eye' view), and assume (without checking) that my defense is the way I want it.

I would like to be able to hit a button, and temporarily shade the map which none of my units can see, so that I can quickly determine which areas of the map are not within LOS of my friendly army-without having to use the LOS tool for each friendly unit).

Steve