jim crowley

I would buy this - if it ever saw the light of day! CM is a wasteland for me now. CMBB and CMAK won't run on my Vista/nVidia8800 rig and CMSF (bought only out of loyalty to BFC - no interest in the subject at all) doesn't run well and is, frankly a disappointment and doesn't, for me, bode well for a WW2 iteration. The whole CM experience is, sadly, starting to slip away.

Which would pretty much kick ToW into touch? But it won't, of course, because you massively under-estimate the interest in WW2 and the potential in games that portray aspects of it. In terms of size, scale and diversity in locations, terrain and armaments, there is nothing to touch WW2. Falklands, Gulf War, Iraq, theoretical Syria, are merely skirmishes in comparison.

Thanks Steve. I must confess that from the time of the original announcement about CMSF, I had zero interest in the subject matter. Being one of those WW2 "bores", I couldn't see anything of interest for me; either modern or, much less, Syrian. However, the concepts and features of this game are intriguing and while the subject matter still leaves me cold, I shall no doubt buy it to try out those very features. With a view, of course, to seeing how they will work with the next, WW2, installment The next one will be WW2, won't it?

Fixed for CMSF or for subsequent releases?

From the Wargamer site: "Recognized global publisher Paradox Interactive announced today that it has signed a worldwide deal with developer Battlefront.com to publish their upcoming PC title "Combat Mission: Shock Force"." Interesting development.

An odd scrap of information, giving some indication that this project still has some life in it, would be welcome.

What have this to do with BFC http://www.wargamer.com/news/news.asp?nid=3707 :confused:

Phew! OK, good to hear. WW2 is still good to go and all is right in the world If only indirectly, I'm sure there will be a lot of positive spin-off from the lessons learned in constructing CMSF, to CMXWW2. So it won't have been all for nothing From a unashamed WW2 bigot,

Nope, no regrets at all. In fact, we feel the exact opposite. What we're working on now is the bleading edge of military simulation. Even the US military doesn't have something like what we're doing. That all on its own is enough to get me up in the morning for another 12 hour work day. For us WWII is going to be booring by comparison. Not only have we already done it, but there is really nothing new to learn compared to what we're doing now. Steve </font>

Oops! Have I made a mistake regarding HMGs? I do apologise. Unfortunately I do not have the time to pore over every post or screen shot that has been posted, relative to what units are in, or not in, ToW. Seeing the recent announcement pointing to the "ToW Unit Gallery", as opposed to the " partial unit gallery", I assumed it contained the complete list of units that are in the game. Silly me. Perhaps some kind soul can point me to the unofficial list of units that are in T0W, that do not appear in the official list of units in ToW? Markus86. I doubt that the existance, or otherwise, of HMGs in ToW will deter potential buyers who are content to accept WW2 battlefields without smoke, dug-in AT guns, platoon mortars, enterable buildings or a shred of C&C.

There are no HMGs in ToW, for some reason, therefore no Vickers (although classified as "medium" by UK). The Bren has an incorrect straight magazine; it should be curved. And the Boys AT rifle is still showing up as an American weapon.

Whatever you do, do it quickly then move back to WW2. No need for fiction there

Definately infantry entering buildings. I still think the omission of this feature is rather odd, given the ability to damage and destroy buildings. Why would you want to bother, if there is nothing inside, apart from the "cool" factor? If this game is going to grow (or should I say grow-up?) this feature will be an essential component IMO. Now that combat ranges have been increased (to realistic levels?), on-board mortars should have a look in. Very much a feature at this level of combat; more so than large offboard arty. Again, given the very small scale of these battles, foxholes and their like would be far more common than large scale entrenchments. And if you can have foxholes you can presumably have shell holes, hopefully caused by arty strikes in game. Some modicom of C&C would be nice It was and is, after all, the single most important factor in a battle and is the most ignored in pretty much every tactical-level game. So much for realism; mustn't get in the way of fun too much

From "Panzerkampfwagen" by Ellis & Doyle Argus 1976: Min. Turning circles Pzkw I A&B: 2.1m " II F : 4.8m " III M : 5.85m " IV D&G: 5.92m " 38t: 4.54m " 35t: 4.88m Panther G : 10.0m Tiger B : 4.8m Hughes & Mann "The Panther Tank" Weapons Of War 2000 agree on 10m for the Panther G and give: T34-76A : 3.8m Sherman M4 : 9.5m Cromwell MkV : in place However in the same series, Ford in "The Sherman Tank" gives: Panther G : 4.35m There is not a lot of info. on this generally available and I have seen nothing relating to how fast these turns could be carried out - something I always thought was a bit on the slow side, in many cases, in CM

Listed as a US weapon in the Russian website and quite clearly seen in one of the screenshots being carried by US infantry, accompanying a Sherman! Not American and not used much after '41. Cerainly not in '44