jim crowley

No problems with your creations, Andreas, as well as with several other good scenario designers. Unfortunately not all designers are equally good; some are not so good and all can produce scenarios that are not to my taste (huge battles, for instance) I just really like having that open-ended option of punching up something random, semi-random or specific, whenever I want. Despite the defficiencies, the present generator can produce some nice surprises, although it requires a little work. I'm curious as to why some folk have not tried it or don't even want to try it?

No disrespect here folks but I really do think that the "I'm not going to spend all my dollars for this, that and another module" attitude, is bollocks. I've been playing CM for nearly five years for an outlay of around $100. Thats bloody brilliant value in anyones book. Would I pay $35 or $45 for games/modules with relative spotting, finer graphics more depth etc. etc. Yes, of course I would. Its my hobby; my main leisure interest. What the hell is $35 in this day and age.I doubt that $35 or even $45 would buy a decent meal for two, even the the USA. Get a grip! How much do you spend on smokes and booze, golfballs and fishhooks or whatever else turns you on? But I must have a battle generator

A random battle generator is an absolute essential as far as I am concerned. Irrespective of wonderful graphics, relative spotting, advanced ballistics or anything else, I really do not want my gaming experience to be entirely in the hands of scenario designers. I want the freedom to be able to roll up a random (or otherwise) battle without designer bias or constraint. Sure, the CMX1 generator is far from perfect. But it is servicable and can produce the odd little gem. I assumed that the whole generated-battle thing would be expanded upon and greatly improved in CMX2. The fact that it may not even make it into the first release tends to indicate that it is not a particularly high priority for BFC. That bothers me

Try also these personal accounts from tank-men: “Armoured Guardsmen” by Robert Boscowen “Tank” and “Tanks, Advance” by Ken Tout “Tank Twins” by Stephen Dyson “Armoured Odyssey” by Stuart Hamilton (All from the British viewpoint.) The primary conclusion from these and other personal reminiscences within other, broader scope, histories is that crews bailed, usually on first hit, and……stayed bailed. Sometimes, but rarely it seems, did they re-enter the tank; usually to return the vehicle to “base”. Swapping positions after crew injuries may have happened but I cannot recall having ever read of such an occurrence.

Just thought I'd pop this one back up to the surface in case any answers might be forthcoming.

I wonder if CMx2 will portray AFV crews in the same manner as Squads? Not so much when they bail, but when they are manning the vehicles. So when a tank takes a hit, the affected crew member is identified and the appropriate consequences are suffered (gunner - unable to fire, etc) And will hits on tanks be more precisely defined, so that a front upper hull left penetration is more likely to injure/kill the driver and so on.

What would be interesting, but horrendously ugly I guess, would be to turn anything outside a friendly units direct LOS into a 1:50k map with terrain features (that may or may not be correct) and top-down view only.

With the PBEM issue having been talked to death, I was wondering if Steve could throw out any clues as to the development of QBs in the new engine. Somewhat harshly critcised, unfairly IMO, they represented the opportunity to generate endless battles as defined by the player. Admittedely they were somewhat restrictive but with some extra features, I feel that they could be an important part of the next generation of CM

Given that the LOS tool sims a bunch of stuff that isn't/can't be simmed with current monitors, that might mean losing too much info. For example, the map and LOS tool combined are our 1:50 thou topo map. Turning off the ground info sounds ok, but turning of the range doesn't. I mean: how far is it to the far edge of the map/village/woods over there behind the ridge? Why, I'll just look at my topo map and read it off (= use the LOS tool). Perhaps rounding the range to the nearest 50m (or some figure based on the total size of the map - smaller maps more accurate, while on the largest maps you might only get +/- 100m) makes more sense? Jon [/QB]

Yikes, do I have to have sex with a pig in order to play CMx2 :eek: Can this be any old pig or must it a specialised variety like a Vietnamese Pot Belly? And afterwards; is it permissable to convert said pig into bacon sarnies?

It's nice to be able to contribute something positive.

Michael Probably the simplest solution, as you say. Either way, the illicit information is kept from the player and the cause of realism is advanced at least a notch.

DrD I wasn't suggesting dispensing with the LoS tool, merely restricting its use.

On its way shortly.

Lack of time has limited my access to the proliferation of posts within the several and diverse “bone” threads that have sprung up recently. So it is quite likely that some, maybe all, of this has already been covered. If so, apologies. My understanding is that Relative Spotting will be centred on the idea that you, as the player, can only see (the enemy) through the “eyes” of one selected friendly unit at a time. And you will then only see what that unit sees. So, when you select a platoon HQ, will you just see what that HQ sees, by itself, or will you see what its subordinate units see as well (but only if they are in C&C?) ? And would that apply up the chain, through Company and the Battalion HQs? In addition will Relative spotting be limited to enemy units or is there a possibility that it could be extended to terrain as well? It strikes me that there is nothing more “God-like” than flying around the battlefield with no restriction, potentially examining every nook and cranny, every patch of soft ground, steep slope and hidey hole. Anywhere; even places your units could not possibly see. If realism is the goal being striven for, surely some brake needs to be applied to this free access to terrain information which is just as important, in many instances, as the spotting of enemy units. Perhaps the use of the LoS tool – if it still exists in CMx2 – could be restricted in some way. Or its ability to “see” beyond obstacles, removed. How many times have I used it to measure distances to locations that are out of sight or tracked the possible route of a tank platoon through difficult terrain, checking for rocky or boggy ground and so on? All very unrealistic. Maybe when no unit is selected and, presumably, no enemy units are shown on the map (?), the terrain would only register the sort of features that the operational maps of the time would show. Towns, rivers, forests, roads etc. But when a unit is selected you also get to see the detailed terrain within its LoS as well as possible enemy activity. Just my thoughts.

A

If reinforcements are "locked-in" to the half/one hour battle, realistically IMO, then I'm not really sure that any units should be factored to leave during the battle, for much the same reasons. Having a platoon of tanks attatched to an infantry company to, say, capture a village; it seems highly unlikely that they would be re-assigned in that relatively short time period. Maybe afterwards but not during. It would also make planning very difficult, knowing that key components may vanish at any point in time. Really not sure about that one.

As someone who has received a huge amount of pleasure from the CM series, warts and all, I have been looking forward to getting information about the new engine with great anticipation. Whilst Steves' posts only lifted the veil a little, there seemed much to be excited about and, given BFC's track record of delivering the goods, I have every confidence in their abilty to come up with something rather special. For the most part I am enjoying the many ideas and suggestions that are being proffered by those who seem to have something worthwhile to say. Most of these posters, whilst acknowledging that the CM's were not perfect, seem to agree that they were groundbreaking and have provided enormous fun. What I am not enjoying is the small but persistant group of whiners; some perennial, some new, whose life-mission seems to be in finding fault with almost everything Steve says. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint but this group seem to share the common characteristic of thinking that what they have to say is so important and clever, that they have to keep on and on repeating it, ad nauseam. If you don't like what Steve is suggesting, then make your point and move on. Don't buy the game; I'm sure BFC will be less than devastated by the loss of a few hundred dollars. But, respectfully, please don't keep on stirring things up with your crass and pointless comments, the only effect of which is to deny the rest of us an intersting discussion and which will probably cause the valuable bones to dry up. And if respectfully doesn't work for you then for all our sakes, or mine at least, Foxtrot Oscar

Steve The premise sounds absolutely marvelous and I have no doubt that what BFC eventually deliver will be well worth waiting for (especially if it initially centres on WW2 ) My doubt: is a release date of late 2005/early 2006, in any way realistic for a game of this obvious magnitude? Especially since, according to a recent post of yours,it is not yet coded?

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/groping_new_paradigm_2/

I tend to agree with the notion that bailed crews are somewhat different from other units and, therefore, ought to be treated differently. They only pop into existence when their vehicle is disabled and, in their new and unwelcome role, have no place at all on the battlefield. Irrespective of how they are tagged - MiA, symbol or whatever - if out of command control, however that is to be measured, the owning player should have zero control over them and receive no intel or even current status report. The AI controlling them should really only need to consider: If being shot at; stay put (much as in CMx1) If there is potential danger; stay put (ditto) If neither of the above, withdraw to nearest friendly board edge. Once in C&C, status report could resume but orders should be limited to Withdraw only. No more gamey intel gathering. But...... If there was no radio in the first place, what has changed? Other than that the crew are no longer in the vehicle.... which brings us back full circle to the enormity of the problem surrounding this whole issue.

Were there 6pdr Vals in the desert? Michael

Steve Given 1:1 representation, in whatever form it ultimately takes, and the addition of a more stringent set of C&C rules, will these put an effective cap on the number of units/formations that can be used in CMx2 (as opposed to CMx1, where the theoretical C&C limit is a battalion but in practice this can be exceeded many times over, albeit without upper echelon C&C)

I think the usefulness of the information is relative. In a big scenario, yes, much of information becomes superfluous. But in a smaller scenario it could have more importance. The solution of course is to give the user control of the display of the information. Those who want to drown in nitnoid details should be able to do so while the "big picture" guys should be able to filter most of it out. </font>

I'd be interested in a list please, John