jim crowley

Well, no. Not for me, at least. I'm sure T-72, Down in Flames and Histwar;Les Grognards are all fine games; I'm just not interested in the subject matter. For me it is the subject that is most important (WW2), games on the subject are just a bonus. CMX1 was a fantastic bonus in all its' versions. But I only bought them because they were WW2. I suppose it depends on whether you are a gamer, first and foremost, or an "historian". I tend towards the latter. Will I buy CMX2 because it is a great, fun game. Yes, if it is a great, fun WW2 game. If not, then probably not (notice I keep my options open here

It isn't even safe to assume that "the announcement" will be out before Christmas

This thread is just a red herring. Well,very nearly red but definately very fishy. Long live SLOD:A Crustaceans'Tale.

Game. What game :confused: You mean there's a game here somewhere? Nah, you're having me on

Holien Standing next to you, at the back, in the CM group photo.

Wednesday August 17th Histwar™ : Les Grognards Developer Interview posted BFC still think it is the middle of August The interview date was actually 15 September.

This sounds very promising indeed. However, in CMX1, the AI tends towards choosing cover over platoon integrity. In other words, be it on attack or defence, the components of a platoon will more often than not be set up using any and all available cover, often out of C&C with the HQ. If there is a greater emphasis on C&C in the new engine, this behaviour would need, at least, to be moderated.

At the risk of having my head bitten off: we have smoke in CMX1, you would think that it shouldn't be too difficult to have it drift acording to wind direction in CMX2. But then, what do I know?

Not a bad idea. Green units, not knowing the form, may well try things that vets, with their experience, may baulk at. I have certainly read as much, although I would be hard pressed to quote chapter and verse.

If you have more than one company to control would you not need a higher HQ of some sort above that of a single Co. HQ?

If CMX2 doesn't have studds I'm not going to buy it.

HeHe, you've got to love those Dorosh graphics!

Well chalk up another sale for Brian Reids' book! Following this thread led me to ordering a copy on Amazon and also purchasing a second hand, but expensive, copy of Ronald Graves' "South Albertas" Both of these books look fabulous, and Robin Brass a publisher to watch out for.

Will rubble be handled differently in CMX2? For instance, instead of collapsing within itself, will the rubble from a building spread outwards to fill an adjacent road and, in doing so, might it cause damage or casualties to nearby units?

I enjoy a good PBEM every now and then and, yes, a good human player can present a great challenge. However not every human player is uniformly good all of the time; I'm sure I've made more than my fair share of howlers. And some players can be fairly lame. I also find that I feel much more under pressure to get turns out in a timely fashion, when playing someone else and while I like the competional side of the game I don't get as much enjoyment as I do from playing the AI in "simulation" mode. In short, its good to have both modes of play available to cater for all tastes.

I didn't do the "keep" options previously. They are: 1)Turn based WEGO 2)QBs - hopefully with expanded capabilities. 3)Same/similar scope to CMX1 i.e. up to battalion level. 4)Fuzzy logic - this allows for the unexpected fro time to time. 5)Saving maps and troops from one battle to the next.

So does CMX1; its called "Shoot and Scoot"

Good idea Kip. PS Geared up for Roma?

Not wishing to add any complication but using the "tad bit of logic", perhaps the percentage chance of pre-spotting could be geared to the type of battle as well. For instance, in an assault battle, the attacker would, mostly, have a reasonable amount of intel on the defenders positions, so might get 50 to 75%. The defender, on the other hand, may have much less an idea of the attackers disposition, so may only get 20 to 30% In a meeting engagement, which is more of an "accidental" battle, neither side would probably get more than about 10 or 15%. Features like this, allied to relative spotting and enhanced C&C, can only make QBs better and better and, who knows, may convert some of those who currently find them poor fare.

Superb! To what extent will terrain be deformable? I'm thinking particularly of the "indestructible" walls and fences in CMX1.

Apparently that is a "command level" game and no one, bar yourself and yours truly, wants a "command level" game. Shame, because I think it's a damned good idea

I've had my five but as my No.1 was AI improvement, I think this is a brilliant idea. Don't know how difficult or otherwise it might be.

1) AI. I don't buy the "AI will never be as good as a human" (given some of the people I have played!). If you don't try you will never achieve and everything can be improved. Vital for solo gamers. 2)Robust C&C which stresses the importance of higher level HQs to manage and co-ordinate - maybe nationality based. 3)More varied victory conditions, especially for the QB generator. So a "Fall Back" type of defence may produce a very small defending force relative to the attacking force and so on. 4)Convoy/road movement/follow my leader. 5)Greatly improved artillery/indirect fire. This should allow virtually anything, on map or otherwise, to fire indirectly given some sort of OOP system. It should also have a variety of arty missions such as "drop five rounds on this co-ordinate" and so forth. Damn, thats five. But ammo resupply and a pre-battle OOB (like Steel Panthers) would come a close sixth and seventh.

Oops. Hit the wrong button. In the current CM, C&C is pretty much set at the platoon level but does, at least, have company and battalion HQ's. While the latter do not have very much practical significance (to the extent that they should, IMO), you do have the makings of a battalion level command structure. If CMX2 is to have a more robust C&C system in place, will this be limited, at the upper end, to the "task-force" level? If so, even with faster PC's, you will still only be able to produce battles with multiple task forces, rather than an integrated battalion level formation, which would seem to be a bit of a backwards step. Or will higher echelon command be programmed from the go-get but only be usuable on higher-end machines?