Bertram

I think it has to do with relative spotting. Some unit had a (sound) contact here some time ago. If you have not selected any unit, all (sound) contacts are displayed. The sound contacts "gray out" over time, but they persist some time after the actual observation. So in this instance, there are some units/is a unit that had a sound contact here, and "thinks" there might be enemy soldiers here. The unit in the screen knows better - but that info hasn't reached the other units. If the unit in the screen would have been selected you would not have seen any ?, and might have seen some dead soldiers instead. But as there is no actual unit selected, you get a combined intel report. As most units "think" there might be some enemy soldiers here - or "think" there were maybe some enemy soldiers here (greyed out question mark), this is what is displayed. In this instance that is old and incorrect information.

The release date at the site in question is now 29th of april.......

I have just received 3D glasses. They list CMSF support of 3D as excellent. I can not get it to work properly though - the 3D system just wont switch on. No idea if this is due to the modules installed, or if the infromation is wrong - or something else.... (It does work with some other games, with different levels of succes).

The 5000 page views only make sense if they count unique users, not page views, or maybe only count the home page (and I guess most people jup directly to the forum). Now if the revenue is also of by a factor 1000 - you don't need us to pay for the game at all!

Obviously you should first define "realistic". It seems different people have different opinions on what realistic is. What is clear is that the point scoring is different from a scenario. In a scenario there is a background and a surrounding world. The outcome of the scenario can either be reflected on the real world outcome (if historical) or on the outcome the scenario writer expected. In a quick battle there are only objectives. There is no background - so it is anyones guess if preserving your forces is more, equal, or less important then getting the victory location. Maybe taking the victory location in this QB won the Germans the war.... would the loss of a few Panzers matter then? Maybe it was irellevant in the larger war efforts - and it looses the Germans the war because they lack the tanks elsewhere... As it is there is an arbitairy value to preserving your force, and an arbitrary value for the victory locations. You can not like the balance, but whatever the balance is, you can never state is isnt "realistic" without knowing the issue at stake in a wider view (which is of course impossible, because there simply isnt a wider reality).

Nuts plus 6 characters (wouldn't McAuliffe have been pissed?)

----------

Should have known this earlier . I live in Groningen, and around the 1990's I lost my playing partners - we all finished our studie, and most moved west (though the guy I played most with ended up in Eindhoven). I think PBEM is the best thing about computers and internet - even more then fancy 3D and the solution to half finished games.

Regauging a plain railroad track is simple, regauging a switch, a crossing or other more complex stuff isn't. Using wider track soviet stuff isnt a good solution either - they tended to take the engines with them when they retreated, and the ones they left behind were not in shape to be operated - not mentioning the need for seperate spare parts and other logistic nightmares. Regarding conversion rate - in Russian Front it is one hex each turn .

Been fighting virtual battles a long time. First with airfix soldiers and tanks, made up rules, lots of dice and a ruler (and a lot of arguments - we were about ten, and the rules were made up as we went). Later, (late 1970's) on boardgames when they became available here (more or less - you had to order them from the US, which involved money orders that doubled the price, and you had to wait up to 3 months for them to arrive). Kept playing lots of those during the 80's. Followed the computer side of games from the moment they started to appear (I was studying Physics and Programming then). I even tried to port some of the board games to the screen. I remember seeing Ambush, playing V for Victory, East Front, TOAW, etc. (and yes, also Panzer Elite) Saw a banner on a site I followed in 1999 (could be Leadeaters, or Wargamer). Same banner as mentioned above - several pics in a row of an armored column (Compagny is ready - are you? Combat Mission). Wasn't impressed.....(in fact found the add rather cheesy). Read some good reviews a bit later (februari 2000?) and tried the demo. Lost hours running the same turn over and over again, following my soldiers through some woods, looking at an 88 being fired, stuff like that. Ordered the game next day - took a long time to arrive by regular mail.... Have played CMBO and CMBB a LOT, mainly as PBEM. Been reading the forums daily since then. Always had a game running for several years, often I would get up an hour earlier to get a turn done before heading to work. Bought all the modern stuff, but hardly played them. Waiting for Normandy, and hoping to start a few PBEM games.....

My pre-order is in

The original question though, was if the British would enter the entente, if Belgium was left alone. Sadly I have to answer "yes". I tried a game in which I did not declare war on Belgium - I wanted to try to limit the war in the West, and go for Russia first. The British joined the Entente the next turn anyway, and immediatly started blocking German commerce. As the Germans have no points to spend the first turn, they can not try to influence British policy (not sure if that would make any difference at all). This is a bit of a shame - I think the British involvement wasn't a given, if the Germans would not have invaded Belgium, and it makes for an interesting alternative strategy.

October 44, and late october too (from the 22nd?).

I thought it was Joe for the Americans?

One of the falacies of that article is that it looks to a handfull of succesfull compagnies, tries to generalize what they did to get succes, and then declares that the formula for succes. This is by no means new - it is a general practice in management literature. It is a flawed approach though. First because the author starts with an idea, and then selects a handfull of - usually comparable - compagnies. As these compagnies are the ones that gave the author the idea in the first place, they tend to support his idea.... In this case it is pretty easy to point to other compagnies in the same field, that are a succes, and have a different approach (like Battlefront, or Blizzard with WoW, which is by no means free). Second because the authot generalizes over wildly different circumstances - as Martin and Steve discussed. And last, but most important, because the author looks at succesfull compagnies, and then looks backward. If you really want to see what is a succesfull strategy you need to follow a large number of bussinesses from the start, and see which survives. Maybe there were thousands of start-ups that tried to give away games for free, and just a few survived, while there were just a few that priced games according to cost, and most survived - no way to tell using the approach in the article. And even if you follow a lot of compagnies and analyze the difference in approach of those that are succesfull versus those that are not, your conclusions are still only good up to that point in time. One of the famous management book describes "highly succesfull compagnies" of ten years ago - and now half of them have gone under.....

Can't this weeken - next game maybe

I never have actualy read about instances of close combat (that is combat with bajonets, or hitting the enemy with rifles or entrenching tools) in Normandy. Closest I have read about is tossing grenades and shooting point blanc. Has anyone links to actual combat reports or reasonable reliable histories where there is any? (In this theatre and this time frame?)

Depending on the date.... I have got commitments in some weekends.

More general, every AI uses triggers, as do humans (and animals) . The trouble with the AI is describing the triggers in such a way that they are general usefull. An animal will let another anmimal come within a certain distance, before fighting or fleeing. The reaction depends on the animal in question, the size and kind of anaimal approaching and the circumstances as terrain, etc. A human, playing CM, will let the enemy come within a certain distance before retreating (or opening fire). The distance being dependend on the size of the enemy and the kind of units, as well as the units the player has, the terrain, victory conditions etc. A good AI would "recognize" (that is: would be programmed to take in consideration) all the relevant variables for a decision like that - and would be able to gather data on those variables (maybe an even more complex problem). For CM even the first would be rather complex to do. A shortcut is to make a system in which the designer of the scenario defines the triggers, and orders the reaction. You sidestep quite a bit of the AI complexity needed, by letting the scenario designer decide which triggers will be usefull in the scenario - the designer knows the terrain, the forces involved, and can guess the things a human will try. Of course you (as developer) wil have to decide twhich trigger conditions to offer, and how to implement them so that the system recognizes the values for those triggers. The more elaborate the available trigger system, the more choices the scenario designer has. And the more chance he has to make the computer controlled side act realistic. The flip side is that the more elaborate the system is, the more complex the setting up of a computer controlled side is - the scenario designer has to have more knowledge of the system, and he has to put more time in the the computer contolled opponent. The Decisive Battles system of the Strategic Studies Group is a nice example of this. Their first engine was relative simple, and the AI was easily tricked by a human. Fighting against the AI got stale very quick. On the other hand, lots of player made scenario's were available, and there were lots of options for a PBEM game. Thier latest iteration of the engine revamped the AI. It works much better -though the AI is still no fun when you have mastered the system (in my opinion). The negative side is that there are almost no player made scenario's anymore - the AI is just to complex deveop one. So PBEM for this system is down to the developer released scenario's - and in this case that seems not to be enough - their site is almost dead.

Of course you have to have Finnish troops to get a result like that with just a crowbar....

Just 483,- (euros) flying from Amsterdam (by way of Zurich) to Chicago.... Still, to much, but tempting....

Triggers or conditional statements sound nice and easy, but they are pretty difficult to do right. Not so much the triggering itself, but the conditions for the triggering are pretty difficult to do right. Suppose you have a defending force, and you want it to retreat when flanked. First you have to define what flanked is - a line passed? A certain piece of ground taken? And if a line, does a huge force just short of the line count? Does one sniper past the line count? So you have to weight the force that triggers the condition. With or without AT assets? Does a Tiger count - if you have an AT asset? And without? Does a PZ2 count? If you have an AT asset or if you have not? And if a few men don't count, how about an HMG section that cuts of your retreat path? Don't get me wrong, I would love some event driven triggers. And anything is better then none. But building in some triggers just would have us clamoring for more, better and more divers triggers. And all games with triggers I have seen tend to have gamers misuse the triggers for "gamey" tactics. This goes from "puling" in online RPG's to staying exactly 3 hexes away from towns in hex based war games.

RTS is only inherently more realistic if you limit the decisions in the game to the decisions a real person would have to made in that position - and then stick to that position. We (gamers) never do (except maybe in single person shooters), so the conclusion that RTS is the future - due to it being more realistic - is in my opinion flawed. It might be the future, but then it is because the gamers in the future like the quick reaction type game, not because it better stimulates reality. A compagny commander does *not* run around the battlefield reaction as much as possible to real time events, and directing individual squads, forward observers and verhicles. He plans the battle in advance (preferable at least the previous day) and bites his nails as it unfolds. He then (especially in WWII communication circumstances) has the choice to stay back and try to influence (occasionally over the next hours) the battle as a whole, or to get involved close up and risk losing the big picture - reducing his effectiveness to that of a squad commander (although with at first a better idea of the broader picture). Playing we-go simulates better the planning, and inserts the player intelligent as a substitute for the limited AI of the lower level decision making. It does have the flaw of to good general knowledge and to much coordination. Playing RT simulates better the pressure under combat at the lower, close tactical, level. It still has the flaw of to much general knowledge, but the coordination suffers due to time constraints. Unfortunatly so does the substtution of player intelligence for the lacking AI. Both have pro and cons, depending on the kind of battle and the size. And in the end it is a matter of preverence and enjoyment of the player.

Potato's? Beets? (bit early for those to have been harvested, but possible...) Tulips? Unions?

They just got their priorities wrong.