pcelt

A game is never "finished".Improvements can always be made .A line must be drawn in the sand. Bearing in mind the recent "age survey" some of us cant afford to wait too long. I urge release as soon as possible . An age challenged gamer

I apologise if this has been clarified before but I should like to know if and how Combat Mission will cater for the very different levels of skill and experience amongst its players to ensure a satisfying level of challenge re difficulty and also complexity for different individuals. Thanks for any clarification.

Are South Africans now learning to count as well as doing joinedy-up writing. -----fantastic news---well done

My problem with the major argument here is that you can never "get a game right" .Its like believing that,given enough time you can achieve perfection.Theres no such condition No matter how brilliant a game is(and this one certainly is),it can always be improved and enhanced.The developers could go on enhancing it until 3000 and beyond.It seems to me you just have to say we'll improve and enhance until a particular time. Improvements then cease and game is delivered. I must also remind you ,as the recent age survey illustrated ,for many of us ,time like size, is important.We really want this game while we can still see a faintly flickering screen and can weakly tap a mouse button.

It is worth adding, as a further large plus, that a dedicated Development Group supported by Wings has been set up and have begun to exploit the open architecture of the game to enhance and expand it. For example the group is currently working on the development of a new Campaign based on the British and Canadian armour's role in Europe 44/45 and modelling British tanks and vehicles with relevant maps and scenarios etc. This will all be freely downloadable and is only the first of many possible addons.(Desert 41/42, France 1940 etc) I think Wings have plans for PE2 based on the Eastern Front.

I am happy to acknowledge Sixty-four summers-man and beast. And Im determined to carry on until either I win a scenario or Fionn is unanimously voted "Mr Humility"----whichever comes first--and its just got to be the scenario victory. In regard to aging, I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment, I read recently, that the worst thing about getting old is not the false teeth or the grey hair or all the aches and pains but------the realization that you have become totally invisible to teenage girls.------mind you,looking back I think I was pretty much that as a teenage boy. In conclusion you can all clearly see why I am even more desperate than the rest of you for this game to appear as soon as is humanly possible--these days I dont even risk buying unripe bananas.

Having just read down through the next few strands I can see the answer to my question above-----excellent,exactly what I had hoped. Apologies for waste of time, effort and space.

As someone relatively new to this forum I should like to ask whether all the scenarios in the final release,though they are small scale, will be related to real specific and identifiable historic battles-----or will they be generic, representing various types of encounters but not specifically placed in particular and named battles.

I have pre-ordered CM and am running the demo quite happily with DirectX 6.1. My query is will the final version demand 7.0 or not. Apologies if this is clarified elsewhere. Thanks

I have seen several refs in these posts to "close assaulting". May I just enquire what are the specific game situations and "orders" used which people are referring to in this context? Many thanks

I should like to raise one query re the presumed relationship between experience and likely unit behaviour which is programmed in. At one point in "Unit Behaviour" section of the beta guide it states "The worse the unit the more selfish they are going to be.If you tell an elite unit to run across an MG fire swept field they might do it-----but not a conscripted one". And again in the "Unit Morale" section it states "The poorer the units experience the higher the chance the unit will do something other than you want". I would be inclined to argue the reverse is the case.Historically I believe it was those experienced and hardened veterans of,for example the Desert War (eg Desert rats)who learned above all else self survival skills and who later resisted any gung ho manoeuvres or "brave " and "rash "tactics and orders.It was the hardened veterans of the earlier campaigns who learned how to keep their heads down and how to survive in Normandy.In fact there are instances where fresh untried troops were introduced to undertake offensive operations which were being stalled by the cautious and self survival priorities of the more experienced and veteran units. I am therefore suggesting that an algorithm which relates greater unit experience with the more reliable carrying out of all orders is arguable and indeed in many cases the reverse might be true. Id like to keep this query in context---- I think it is an excellent sim and destined I feel sure to become even better. Thanks to all involved.

Fionn, Thanks for your response. Just a very swift follow up to make it clear that I am not in favour of Mandatory targetting as an alternative . As you rightly point out --in many situations it might be suicidal and in most situations the current "advisory" targetting where units can make overriding decisions is much more judicious. All I am suggesting is there might be odd occasions when ,as a result of an integrated plan and his reading of the situation a player/commander might decide on a mandatory targetting order for a unit in order to facilitate his plan. Of course it could well go horribly pear shaped and his squad get caught by an unexpected enemy sortie. Such an experience might be salutary. All I am saying is that perhaps a mandatory targetting option,however risky,ill-advised and however rarely used might well be a possibility for those who want to occasionally adopt that sort of plan

I make this contribution with great trepidation because I am virtually new to this sim. But I have been intrigued by this particular discussion and can fully see where both sides are coming from. May i suggest a solution a little like the "fog of war" solution--- a choice solution. i.e re"Targetting order only ---make 2 levels of order 1)Mandatory ---unit ordered to follow order to the letter. 2) Advisory (as now) unit may amend order if it sees fit and often will. In this way each type of "player/commander" can adopt his/her order to suit their leadership style and particular situations. No one is compelled to adopt an approach they disapprove. Apologies if i have missed matters of crucial significance or if such a solution would be impracticable from a programming standpoint Dave