jim crowley

Very good point. Assuming the command stats relate to the CO himself, they never change with HQ casualties, so he must be the last one left. Perhaps, if the HQ unit takes a casualty, say at platoon level, then there is a 25% chance of that casualty being the officer, and so on. This could lead to possible C&C disruption until the 2i/c is able to take over, with the command stats changing, for better or worse, to reflect the change. This might be even more significant at the section level, where the loss of an NCO could have even greater impact on the morale and overall ability. The same percentage chance calculation could be made as per HQ's.

Hmmm... to judge by some of these posts BFC have already taken on more staff...spokesmen. In his obvious enthusiasm for CMx2 (a bad thing??), Tom has merely put forward a suggestion which, IMO, has merit, at least generically. Outsourcing some tasks to professional third parties is often a very good way to run a business. Whether this is needed or desired by BFC at this time is, of course, entirely up to them. But they have done so before, at least in the graphics department, so perhaps the suggestion isn't that far off after all. Irrespective of all that, I dont see that Tom was inferring any deficiency in the abilities of BFC; I'm sure if he had intended that, he would have been big enough to say it. Nor do I think BFC feel insulted by his post; I'm equally sure they are big and hairy enough to defend their own turf without all and sundry jumping up and down at other posters suggestions. I've seen enough apparently lame-brained ideas turned into useful results to simply dismiss suggestions, of any type, being barred. And yes, I am a partner and a director in a business and have been around the block (and the clock!) a few times.

Well, for the record, I would certainly be happy to pay a premium price for an (even more)premium product. However, I suspect, from a marketing perspective that will not happen and, no doubt, the usual "I've been saving for two years to buy CMAK and couldn't possibly afford premium prices" brigade will have something to say. On the other hand, Matrix, I believe, have charged "premium" rates for some of their more recent releases (premium, in the sense of higher than normal or average game prices)

Gaugeing the wind, I would say.

There is something in what you say, but it ignores the importance of coördinating squads and platoons, and even companies, and that is the job of company and battalion commanders. You can't win at CM, at least not consistently, without mastering those skills. So even if in the game the present company and battalion HQs don't do a lot, their roles as embodied in the player are indispensible. I think what some of us are trying to do is to find a reasonable and playable way to represent those roles in a tangible way in the game. In other words, to give company and battalion HQs some function besides spare platoon HQs. Michael </font>

This is exactly my viewpoint. And since orderless units are unlikely to do very much, there is a mighty incentive to get them back in the C&C net as soon as possible. If that is not possible, due to HQ casualties or poor placement etc, then your battle is probably lost already.

I like the idea of that a lot. Not for every battle for sure but occaisionally it would be good to command a company action (just like in CMx1 now) but in the context of a much larger battle. Frustration levels may be high sometimes, when your AI allies let you down. Or perhaps the reserve company will bail out your flagging attack. Could be exciting stuff.

Phew! Where did this thread spring up from? First a drought and now a veritable flood of ideas, information and concepts (including the bones tread) So many good thoughts and suggestions; practical, workable, programmable? Who knows? And therein lies the rub. As Steve says we, the consumers, do not really know the ins and outs of game design and the limitations of trying to programme it. Well I certainly don't. For the record, I'm not in favour of a command game, insofar as I don't want to be just the Battalion commander. Like Kip, I want the opportunity to control all the units of my force; just not necessarilly all of them all of the time. There are precedents; In CMX1 you can't control units that are panicked or broken, for a while at least. Many times in CMBB my conscript Russian troops were mostly out of my control, on and off, for most of the battle. Frustrating? Certainly, but it presented it's own challenges, and that provided a lot of fun in its own right. Why? Because it had a feel of realism to it and with practice you learned to adapt your plan to accommodate that realism. So what that A company is temporarily out of your control. If the AI can co-ordinate the whole of the enemies forces (and not a bad job of it already does) surely it can control your company. Especially if you have given that company a robust set of orders/SOPs, maybe in just the simple form of waypoints and a final target. I'm not advocating removing control from the player, merely reducing it at certain times when it is obvious that in the real world equivalent no such control could exist. And the only point of that reduction in control is to reduce borg spotting to a more acceptable level. It wont be perfect but it will be better....and still fun. I simply cannot accept that a unit, such as a bailed crew, even needs to be player controlled. Unless you want to use it as a rediculously unrealistic and gamey scout. I would certainly like CMX2 to be top-down as far command goes. As Battalion HQ you give orders to the Companies, who in turn give orders to the platoons and so. While the HQs remain in C&C you can run everything just as in CMx1 But as command chains break you have to rely on the AI running some of your stuff until you can re-establish control. At the end of the day, I am perfectly happy to go with BFC's solution to borg spotting but would prefer the AI route to multi-multi player. And even if BFC suddenly, God forbid, disappears in a puff of smoke, I'll still be playing CMx1 into my dotage.

THANKS Steve!!! The bones are going over VERY well! I am now comletely hooked and addicted to the info leaking out of this thread!!! aaaahh! To be honest I the whole "campaign thing" is a non issue for me and my Lowest priority, BUT I can see it is very important to lots of other folks here so I am glad there have been a few bones to keep everyone else on the edge of their seat and (mostly) happy! BUT for me this the BEST bone yet: "Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. " -tom w </font>

Imagine the following You are a battalion commander, you have three companies under your command (radio, hand signal, courier, proximity, whatever). As a consequence of this chain of command, you are therefore also able to assume the role of the company commanders. Take company A, which has four platoons; as company commander you have command over the four platoons (again proximity, eyesight whatever). Again as a consequence of the command control you can also assume the role of a platoon commander. The platoon commander has three squads under his control and once again command and control is confirmed and therefore, as in the current CM game, you can give order to each of those squads. Now as the battalion commander you give a set of orders to each of the companies. These orders will be more detailed that in the current CM and would take the form of fairly detailed instructions, instructing say A company to move from its current position, to position A, B, C or D, and then to execute an attack on point 100 (a village). The orders for company B will take a similar form and instruct it to execute a flank attack, via certain points on the map. The orders for company C, would be to remain in reserve awaiting events and further orders. You now drop down a command level to the company commanders. Take company A. As company commander you now give instructions to each of the platoons, in a similar form, such that platoon one goes in such and such a direction, platoon 2 in another etc etc. This is repeated for all the platoons throughout the companies. We now drop down another level to the platoon commander, who similarly is able to give orders to each of the squad / sections under his command. These last set of orders would be similar to what we are used to in Combat Mission. Time moves on; at some stage various squads / platoons / companies encounter fire, enemy movement etc. As a result of this, you as the player acting as battalion HQ, lose touch (radio breakdown for instances), with company A. You can now only give orders to companies B and C. You cannot give orders to A nor are you able to receive information from A about its current situation, or the enemy’s’. What will happen to company A going forward? You have already given the company commander an overall set of orders and the tactical AI (?) will now attempt to move the squads / platoons of company A towards the target previously given. What they see and what they do, in terms of inter-reaction remains unknown to the player until such time as command control is re-established with battalion HQ. It follows that the tactical AI, would need to be robust enough to at least move company A through the way points previously given in some sort of reasonable order, possibly using SOPs. The individual squads would react to the enemy little differently to how they do currently in CM. If the orders given to company A at the outset are sufficiently forward thinking (in terms of waypoints, SOPs etc, then the chances of it continuing to do something useful will also be good. Conversely if the orders have not been properly thought through at the outset, company A may well flounder and become useless, until such time as command control can be re-established. Imagine the battle progressing and communications being established, lost and re-established through all the various levels. At any given time in the game you will have control of all, many or perhaps even only few units and the value of your long term plan, from the outset will be tested, as these units, divorced from your immediate control, attempt to follow their “orders”. HQ losses will be automatically replaced, but with delays, so that a chain of command always exists. In that way it will always be theoretically possible to control all of your forces, all of the time. Only poor initial planning, combat and perhaps random bad luck (radio malfunctions) will cause C&C to break down. The above scenario, or something very like it, represents for me, an idealistic vision of what I would like to see in CMX2. Is it possible? I have no idea. Will it happen? We shall see.

Oh no! I'm on "Kips List"; the end is nigh! (Kip, just you wait 'til we meet again in May at the CMBB fest. Then again, it will be you who is designing the campaign, so I'd better be on my best behaviour) Ahh. It's great to see the old stuff resurfacing again; borg spotting, command or not-command games and so on. But this time with answers just around the corner. Very exciting. If a "non-command" game is one where a bailed-out tank crew, 500m from the nearest friendly unit, can instantly communicate information about enemy units, which only it can see, to you the player, and you, the player, can act on that information, then I most certainly do advocate a "command" game. To me, at least, having realistic restrictions on what units that are completely out of command, in all senses of the phrase, can communicate about themselves and what they see, in no way diminishes the fun in a CM type game. I suppose we shall all just have to hold our combined breaths and await the final verdict

At the risk of sounding stupid, what exactly is a "story" driven campaign?

Hmmmmm.... My original comment, "The outcome of a company or battalion level battle would never have had much overall impact on the larger theatre of operations. (emphasis added)", was made in the context of a thread discussing the use of CM-level battles as the cornerstones of broad-based campaigns. In hindsight, "never" was a poor choice and really ought to have been "very rarely" Compared to the huge number (?) of company/battalion actions fought throughout all the main WW11 theatres, those relevant examples that have been given thus far, represent a very small percentage. The point that I was originally trying to make was that such small-scale engagements, for the most part, would not, in themselves, carry much weight in determining the outcome of, say, the North African campaign. So "Well done Mr Player, the outstanding performance of your battalion over the course of the 12 battles in this campaign has pushed the British out of North Africa and given you a decisive win" doesn't really ring true. I still think that these exceptional cases are only influential in so far as other actions, on the same front at the same time, complemented them. The Snipe action, a remarkable feat of arms, only had the effect that it did because other British units did their "bit", albeit less spectacularly. Had the DAK found and exploited a weakness elsewhere in the British line, at the same time as the Snipe encounter, Alemein may well have played out differently and the influence of Snipe may have been diminished. So using company/battalion level battles to determine the course of a campaign (Normandy, Italy, Sicily etc.) seems entirely wrong to me.

It's "Iron Hulls, Iron Hearts" by Ian W Walker. A recent aquisition, so haven't read it yet but it looks to cover all of the main actions. Quite a few maps and several b&w photos; it doesn't appear to have many personal accounts.

OK. Nice one.....err, what did you say the first theatre was going to be?

There has, AFAIK, been no "official" mention of CMX2 at all. A few, what could charitably called, "hints" in the forums, spotted by chance. And a vague third-party article which was really something of nothing. The casual, and not so casual, visitor to this site would have no clue that there was even anything on the drawing boards, other than those featured products from other designers. For something that is, supposedly, only a year off, it seems very curious not to be even aware of what that "something" is, let alone any details of it. And even more curious why BFC, as the developers, seem in no hurry to publicise it. It's no big deal; just seems an odd "marketing" ploy. But then, what do I know?

Bump

Boneo, Boneo, wherefore art thou Boneo?

Bugger! What I tried to say was: ChristMass (Xmass) is (not the 2nd) coming, the goose is getting fat.... So much for trying to be seasonal, creative and inquisitive at the same time....

....and word on the great project has gone completely flat! Come on fellers; if there's no presents to give, at least let us "pull a cracker". Give us a clue!

I thought this battle was familiar! I do believe it was Mr H who, as the Germans, inflicted something of a defeat on my poor Ami tanks which were all suffering from some sort of mechanical defects (cough) Very nice write-up; looks as if it has/is taken much effort. Also looks as if the result is heading in the same direction as my battle. Cheers Jim

I have the BMPs but have the same problem. Windows XP Home/Gforce FX5900XT Cheers Jim