Zackary

For what it's worth: It seems to me that the real disconnect that Oscar was having with CM is that he didn't understand that the 3D graphics had nothing to do with the 3D engine. The PR problem that BTS will have (with grognards at least) is that they are presenting wonderful 3D eye candy that is often not reflective of the highly accurate and well-modeled 3D engine. Thus, BTS is asking customers to take on faith (because the customers cannot see and decipher the code (nor are most people likely qualified to judge its acccuracy)) that the 3D engine is accurate/well-modeled, EVEN THOUGH what the customer sees they KNOW to be inaccurate (based on their own independent research). Not sure if this makes sense so let me be a little more specific. According to the Panzerfaust experts, Panzerfausts (at least the 30 and 60?) had relatively high arcs, a big back blast, and no smoke trail. In CM, all large caliber direct fire projectiles are shown with a relatively (emphasis on relatively) flat trajectory with a smoke trail. Panzeraust backblast is not portrayed. (And I might add that if I recall correctly all such projectiles are shown with square warheads.) How are grogs, who thrive on detail (much of which BTS has already decided not to provide), supposed to accept that the game engine portrays accurate/well-modeled real-world ballistics when the graphically presented ballistics are inaccurate? I do not have a solution for this problem, but some of Mr. Hofbauer's concerns seem to reflect this difficulty. In the end, BTS' answer may simply be "inadequate time" or "inadequate CPU power" to make the graphic portrayal more realistic. Either of those answers is legitimate, but the issue needs to be squarely addressed, in my opinion. Man, oh, man, am I ready for the Beta! Looking forward to putting the demo through its paces. ------------------ Zackary

Not to harp on anyone, but DANG!!! How many times does Fionn have to say "Email it to me, don't post it here. The only way I will be sure to get it added/corrected is if you email it to me." My wife's a teacher and I continually marvel at the inability of her students to listen to and follow instructions. I recognize that you may have emailed to Fionn in addition to posting here, and if so, my apologies. If not, however, "hello, is there anyone out there?" Ok, I'm done ranting about my pet peeve. I did not mean to offend anyone personally (that's why I didn't mention anyone's name), just trying to raise awareness. ------------------ Zackary

Ironrod = Ken Parker ------------------ Zackary

rwcanuck: Here's the link to Steve's discussion of how this will work: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000423.html Trying to save Steve some time so we can get CM by . . . Thanksgiving. Or the beta demo by . . . Columbus Day? ------------------ Zackary

Hello, rwcanuck, Steve of BTS addressed this issue extensively a month or two ago. I don't remember the specifics of his discussion now, but you can use the search function to find it. The long and the short of it is that you never see the execution of your moves after you plot. In other words, I think you have to send your turn to your opponent after you plot, and your opponent will execute it. Then your opponent plots and sends the game back to you. You execute, then plot, then send, ad nauseum. The point is, you cannot scout, restart, scout in another direction, restart, redo when you walk into an ambush, etc.... Steve was very adamant that that stuff could not happen because of the way they set up the PBEM part of the game. Now that I've put words in his mouth, Steve will probably jump on here and correct me. <gulp>

When playing multiple PBEM games in CWG2, I encountered the following problem (among many others) that I hope you will test for/correct in CM: I might sit down to catch up on two different PBEM games all at once. Load the first, plot moves, execute, hit Ctrl-S to save. I'd get the pop up box asking me to enter the name of the game to be saved. Load the second, plot moves, execute, hit Ctrl-S to save. This time, no pop up box, and the game would automatically save the SECOND game with the save-name of the FIRST game. AAAGHHH!!!!! Two comments: Obviously, this is "operator error," but I suspect it could be easily prevented through a programming option. Second, this really louses things up if you don't catch it right away. For instance, you email out the save-game to the first guy thinking it is the first game, because it has the first game name, but it is actually the second game. The other guy tries to load it and GRRRRRRR. *Error* *Error* *Error* Admission: I am close to being a PBEM novice. The only PBEM game I have any experience with is CWG2, and as I've mentioned before and confirmed with many others, including Ken Parker, the PBEM for that game is, for all practical purposes, unplayable. Can't remember anyone who ever made it more than half way through a CWG2 PBEM game, due to one error or another. ------------------ Zackary

Living in Boise now, but I spent most of my life in northeast Kansas. Ithai--Small world! Not too many people reading this board have likely heard of Bolivar. My brother, sister-in-law, and two nephews live there. My brother and sister-in-law are former basketball players at Southwest Baptist. My sister-in-law is from Bolivar originally, as well. Lokesa--This isn't nearly as remarkable a coincidence, but my sister, brother-in-law, niece and nephew live in San Diego. MERC--Go Shockers! I lived in Wichita from 8/96-8/98. My wife earned her masters at WSU. If you like small greasy burger places for lunch, I can recommend many, many holes-in-the-wall in Wichita. My personal favorite is Tak-hom-a Burger by Lawrence Dumont. You'll love the ambience including the metal trash can by the cash register filled with fresh potato peelings, as well as the hole in the ceiling tile. My second favorite is M-R Fatburger on South Seneca (not to be confused with the newer Fatburger on Hillside). Order their large fry just for fun one time. You have never in your life received so many fries with a single order. The portion makes McDonald's SuperSize look plain silly. ------------------ Zackary [This message has been edited by Zackary (edited 09-28-99).]

Greetings, Fionn, I've been rooting for your underdog Germans the whole way. Up until Turn 10 or so, you'd been resisting repeated suggestions that you really speed up your entire advance, especially in the north. In turns 11-13 (roughly), it seems you took a few more chances (in the center and south) and it has cost you fairly dearly. In retrospect, should you have been more patient and taken perhaps two extra turns to clear the south and center, should you have been more aggressive and stormed those positions sooner, or are you content with the decisions you made? In the city, I understand that you could not have known the enemies numbers and the arrival location of their reinforcements, but it seems like a substantial number of your men have been killed or captured while attempting to relocate. Should your initial lines of resistance in the town been more restricted to limit the amount of movement your troops would have had to do, or would that have simply allowed the Americans to advance quicker and been ultimately more detrimental? Finally, how suicidal would it have been to take a big gamble in the opening turns and to send the bulk of your city forces north to clear out the northern hill, then return to defend the city? Could something like that have worked? It's difficult for me to judge. Thank you, - Zackary

I just reloaded again, and for whatever unknown reason, Turn 13 is there. Have no idea why my previous attempts to reload were unsuccessful. Sorry to have bothered you. ------------------ Zackary

I have managed to get to the reports by examining the page info for the turn 12 reports, looking at the direct links for those turns, copying those URL's directly onto the location bar of my browser, substituting 13 for 12 in the URL's, then going to the site. On the other hand, I would suspect that you intend for us to get to the report the easier, more old fashioned way. ------------------ Zackary

I've gone to the site and reloaded (Netscape) the battle reports page, but see only turns 1-12. No turn 13. Any thoughts? ------------------ Zackary

Mike, I understand the two big reasons you want a system of condition-triggered reinforcements: (1) improves game balance, and (2) potentially reflects real world reinforcement decisions. Such a system would be nice to use once in a while, but I don't think should be the norm. First, it punishes success. If you kick my tail in battle 1 and battle 2, why should you be robbed of your victory because of my incompetence (which is the net effect of giving me big reinforcements to offset my losses)? Second, you posit that this is a sector gone bad for the army with the unexpectedly large losses. When I play these squad level games, I generally posit that the results in my sector are emblematic of the entire engagement. (It's not much fun to kick the snot out of your opponent, only to find out that your army was creamed on the rest of the battlefield, and therefore ordered to withdraw; your accomplishments therefore counting for naught.) Thus, if you put it to me in the first two battles, I globalize that to your army putting it to my army in the overall battle. Thus, my HQ is equally strapped across all sectors and has no additional reserves to give to me. The fact of the matter is that your army's mission changes with critical battlefield successes or losses. In your example, if the Yanks put it to the German attackers in battles 1 and 2, then the German mission in battles 3-6 likely changes from capturing the key cross-roads/town, to defend against the Yank counter-attack. I would write a little more, but I have an incomplete view of how victory points are earned, so I'll just leave it at that. In conclusion, I understand what you are trying to accomplish with a system of conditional reinforcements and I think it would be fun to play the game that way occasionally, but I would oppose using that system as the norm (or at all in tournament play). ------------------ Zackary

Does Fionn have the option of replacing deceased HT machine-gunners with members of nearby infantry squads? Seems like that would be the best allocation of resources, and can't see any logical impediment to the reassignment. Looking forward to your thoughts, - Zackary

Ok, ok, let me correct myself before I get thrashed. I just pulled this off the wire: "Flamboyant ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, head of the Duma's third largest party . . . ." His is a nationalist, but not a Communist, third largest party not largest party, and his name is Zhirinovsky not Zukhanov. Man was I wrong! lol Anyway, he's still scary . . .. ------------------ Zackary

That Russian leader's name was Zukhanov, and I have bad news for you: He is still the head of the Communist Party in the Russian lower house, which I believe, currently holds the largest plurality in that body. He is a total crack-pot, reactionary, nationalist, commie, and he has designs on the Russian presidency. Egad! ["Everything old is new again."] If bell-bottoms and tie-dies can come back from the '60's and '70's, why can't the cold war? [Ok, ok, I know things have changed dramatically in Russia over the past fifteen years, but still . . . . Zukhanov is scary.] ------------------ Zackary

I attempted to play be email with another game (Sierra/Impression's CWG2). I think the PBEM programming itself had flaws, but one thing I noticed was that PBEM turns sent by America Online subscribers were always corrupted. I have no idea why that was the case, whether a game-related problem or an AOL problem, but I wonder whether you know about this PBEM problem with AOL and developed a remedy (assuming the problem is susceptible to a remedy other than by AOL itself). I am relatively new to this message board so I apologize in advance if I am covering old ground. I also apologize if this is an old AOL problem that has since been remedied (it happened to me in several games with AOL users, but I have not bothered to try in close to a year). ------------------ Zackary

I think those of us who post on this board forget that not everyone has access to, or regularly uses, the internet. The release of a program with some bugs or without some features (or vehicles as discussed above) works a tremendous hardship on such purchasers. If I were one of those people (which I was until less than two years ago), I would be enraged if I bought a game that the designers rushed to production with the mindset that the users could simply download the patch or update or supplement or whatever you want to call it. I am tempted to pre-order this game, but I will not do so if it looks like the copy I get, which would be from the initial release, will not have all features. I would rather wait two or three months until the CD sold by BTS already includes everything. I am really irritated that my current favorite game (CWG2) requires a patch. CWG2 is a game I envision playing for years to come and it is quite irritating to know that I will always have to keep the patch stored somewhere. I would much prefer having a new CD of the game with the patch already incorporated. Bottom line is, I will not pre-order unless there is an option whereby I can request that shipment of my copy be delayed until all vehicles, etc..., have been incorporated into the game. Please don't misunderstand me. I really appreciate the reasons the rest of you have given for releasing the vehicles serially and for rushing the release date. In my opinion, however, it would be unfair to purchasers who are not online, and players such as myself would consider it an inconvenience. ------------------ Zackary