Jump to content

lassner.1

Members
  • Posts

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Converted

  • Location
    Montgomery, AL
  • Occupation
    Professor of Strategy, Air War College

lassner.1's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. As a devoted wargamer, as a player of the CM*1 games (purchased all of them multiple times), and as someone who deleted CM*2 from his hard drive after being sorely disappointed after its initial release, I am still hoping that WEGO TCP/IP and the various tactical options will make it back into this game. I really do want to play again ... but as it stands I continue to wait.
  2. Steve, (Begging) Please give any WWII CM title TCP/IP WEGO! Thanks! Alexander
  3. I, on the other hand, am extremely disappointed with CM:SF as it is currently implemented, and I have gone back to CM:BB and CM:AK. I can't see myself playing CM:SF any time soon, if ever.
  4. Unfortunately, at the current moment the answer is "no." I have stopped playing for now, maybe after a number of patches for the AI, pathing, and other issues, as well as implementation of TCP/IP WEGO I'll try to get back into the game.
  5. How about implementing the TCP/IP WEGO system but, for the moment, without the ability to replay the turn. That, at least, might give a huge number of us some ability to pay CM:SF while we wait for a true TCP/IP WEGO to come in some future date. Sheesh, at least don't waste resources on an American style football type of pause.
  6. Steve, I do understand the difference between the first two arguements, I was simply pointing out - as you correctly surmised - that there was a decreased level of support in CM:SF for turn based players. I also realize that there are other priorities now than putting in TCP/IP WEGO, but I do think that, long term, it is necessary. I am no longer playing CM:SF, though I will return to it someday if TCP/IP WEGO is added. I even went so far as to *re-purchase* CMBB and CMAK (my copies were destroyed during my last move here in Montgomery) so that I do have a wargame to play in the meantime. I might also add that I disagree with your characterization of BPEM as "similar enough" to TCP/IP WEGO that TCP/IP WEGO is not even on the mid-long term horizon for being added. In my view (and I am sure that others agree with me here) there is a real and significant difference between the two modes. That said if TCP/IP WEGO is abandoned altogether for future CM games, then I guess that it will be the time to look elsewhere for WWII turn based games, and I would be sorry to do that, as I have enjoyed CM very much up to now, and I love the implementation of relative spotting!
  7. The fact that TCP/IP WEGO was not included strikes me as dropping some level of support for WEGO. I know that some supporters of WEGO have been unreasonably savage on the boards. But I wish that some respect would be shown to those of us who are strictly turn based players, and who want to see, most especially, TCP/IP WEGO implemented. We are not some sort of fringe persuing our own "pet peeve or favourite feature," but, rather, a mainstay of support for hard core wargames such as CM:BB, CM:AK, *and* CM:SF. The thing that keeps frustrating me especially is this assertion that I keep reading some people make on these that "if WEGO lovers only played RT they would like it." I can assure you that most of us have tried RT and there are good and sound reasons *not* to like it, as a matter of preference in wargames. I cannot stress enough how much a desire CM:SF to have the possibility of TCP/IP WEGO. I hope that when other fixes Steve and Charles deem more important are completed, they will restore this key element to the game. At this point I am so frustrated by the lack of TCP/IP WEGO that I just *repurchased* CMBB and CMAK (the disks were among many that got destroyed when I moved last) in order to be able to play again, since it does not seem that TCP/IP WEGO will be making an appearance any time soon in CM:SF. Sigh ...
  8. Steve, With all respect, I think that there is some amount of tension between the statements: "The fear thing is also understandable, though I can't say enough that we will not drop support for WeGo ever. " and "I can understand better, though not necessarily agree with, the argument that we did not offer a full set of ancillary features to CM:SF" The fact that TCP/IP WEGO was not included strikes me as dropping some level of support for WEGO. I know that some supporters of WEGO have been unreasonably savage on the boards , and I know that you have been convinced by the RT format . But I wish that some respect would be shown to those of us who are strictly turn based players, and who want to see, most especially, TCP/IP WEGO implemented. We are not some sort of fringe, but, rather, a mainstay of support for hard core wargames such as those you have created. The thing that keeps frustrating me especially is this assertion that I keep reading some people make on these that "if WEGO lovers only played RT they would like it." I can assure you that most of us have tried RT and there are good and sound reasons *not* to like it, as a matter of preference in wargames. I cannot stress enough how much a desire CM:SF to have the possibility of TCP/IP WEGO. I hope that when you have made the other fixes you deem more important, you will restore this to the game.
  9. I have played RT and and currently playing PBEM. Neither form holds a candle to TCP/IP WEGO IMHO. That said, the game is good, but needs lots of polish.
  10. In my view of the matter, the WEGO system is much more exciting than that of PBEM; I'm surprised at how many people are trying to suggest that PBEM and TCP/IP WEGO are sufficently similar that those of us who love TCP/IP WEGO should just accept the loss of our favorite mode of play against another human opponent not in the smae location (which, in my case, is *all* of my opponents). I too am appealing to Steve and Charles to implement TCP/IP WEGO as soon as possible whatever changes have to be made to make it work. I played and loved all of the CM series in TCP/IP WEGO mode, and I hate not having it available now!
  11. Hi Mom! I, for one, would be very, very interested in an EF version of CM2 - and I have a number of friends who would buy it as well.
  12. I am glad to hear that Eichenbaum, but, as I indicated, my post is really a "wish" for those of us who like less unit denisty, but would like a more dynamic and compelling combat environment. Either way, keep up the good work - you have really innovated with this project!
  13. Point of clarification in light of recent responses: what I mean by a “huge” scenario has far less to do with map size (though that is an issue) and far more to do with quantity of forces. Many of us simply do not enjoy playing scenarios in excess of, say 2000 points per side. Indeed, speaking for myself and some of the people with whom I play, 1500 points per side is the largest scenario that we will play. We play CMBO and CMBB *because* we like to micromanage but we do not want turns to take more than, say, 10 - 20 minutes to plot. Now I know that there are players of CMBO and BB who love these mongo-sized scenarios, and certainly Operation Störfang in its current form is perfect for them. What I would like to see is Eichenbaum’s idea for a campaign (that is the map grids that equate to operations for each grid) scaled down in unit size, where the player is just fighting part of a larger battle. In other words the forces for the player would be, say, two companies of troops and a platoon of self-propelled guns on a smaller map. I certainly understand if this does not interest you Eichenbaum, and my post is not meant as a criticism. I really do love your ideas for a campaign, if in scaled-down form. This post is mostly just a plea for a scaled-down campaign from a designer (yourself) who has quite a lot of talent.
  14. Eichenbaum, I have been a longtime player of CMBO and BB, and I think that your work is really praiseworthy. Excellent research, fantastic maps, interesting forces are just a few of the highlights. That said I downloaded A1, looked at it lovingly, tried to play it, and abandoned it. For some of us, this is just too massive an operation. After you are finished with this project, however, I would love you to create a similar campaign but of much more limited size - say “small” or “medium” rather than “super-huge”. Obviously it would only be part of a larger battle, but I still think that it would be a worthwhile project: many of us (and there are a lot) that only play “small” and “medium” size scenarios - mainly because we LOVE micromanagement - would be thrilled for such a campaign. Keep up the great work.
×
×
  • Create New...