Kallimakhos

Is nobody else curious to see how the Hungarian armored division plays with their Turans and other very poorly known tanks? I definitely am! Yet, favourite time and place: Soviet offensive on the Karelian Isthmus in summer 44, both sides. Huge Portinhoikka-operation, any scenario-builder wizard interested???

So it's EU + the two renegades . Would have saved you some trouble to say so from the beginning, Western Europe is pretty vague consept. Too bad, I was hoping otherwise...

Is Greece Western Europe?

Couple questions I asked on the locked thread: I presume no swastikas also on Finnish tanks, even though Finnish swastika has nothing to do with Nazi symbolism, is this true? And out of curiosity, is the Finnish swastika (which is still used by Finnish airforce on some occasions) a legal problem in Germany? Second, what is exactly meant by western Europe? Does the deal with the European distributor cover also Greece, for example?

How about Greece? Is it under CDV distribution or can we order from BTS?

I'm curious, which stand does the German law take on Finnish swastikas? Obviously I don't know if the CMBB versions of Finnish tanks will have swastikas, but if they do, would this be problem in Germany? (Note that the Finnish swastika didn't have any historical relationship to the Nazi symbol)

One trick came to mind. The historical example is large scale, but the same principles hold, and I believe this is something Fionn would love to do. This happened in the middle phase of the Tali-Ihantala battle. The enemy has broken your lines at one point according to best Soviet tactics with three guards divisions, and is hoping and trying to manouvre deep and fast. Other parts of the front are engaged, still holding but not for long certainly, soon they face the threat of getting surrounded. What do you do? Though heavily outnumbered, you throw in your all and best reserves and do a pincer attack on the breach hole, leaving only mediocre troops to hold the enemy advance towards north. What happened was not motti, the two arrowheads from east and west got 1km from each other but not further, so no Stalingrad here. It was very slimm chance from the beginning, attacking with very limited number of battallions against overwhelming enemy, main parts of a guards army, and at the same time as the attack was halted the Soviet divisions broke out to north, forcing the remaining Finnish troops to retreat to next MLR. Yet it was decive for the outcome of the whole Tali-Ihantala battle. For many days the guards army was contained in a very small area, 2x5 km, packed tight and suffering heavy casualties from artillery and air attacks. More than this, it was a huge demoralizing blow to the Soviet leadership, their elite forces facing a real threat of getting surrounded by lesser forces. They were forced to remember Cannae and Suomussalmi, and were not so bold in their later attacks. Of course this is far from the whole picture, there were of course many other factors, esp. Finnish artillery, but I believe this example might be of interest for this discussion. I believe this is one very good example of psychological effects, which might very well work also on CM scale, or what do you think Fionn? Strategically the counterattack bought time to prepare new positions, get the new reserves and especially new AT weapons from Germany to the front, when at the same time the race for Berlin was beginning and Soviet troops were soon needed elsewhere. Finland stayed independent. [ June 16, 2002, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

Naturally, this excellent topic challenges one to think how to have at least a chance to beat Fionn style Soviet doctrine attack. Here's one theoretical suggestion. Let's suggest infantry only, battallion+ level for simplicity. What you need to do is slow down the recon screen, make the attacker commit his main body as early as possible, and most importantly make him guessing and frustrated. The way to do this could be defence in depth, getting tougher all the time. 1. Outposts for gathering intell and capable of ambushing a half squad or two. Important not to reveal strength. Keep him guessing. 2. Strongpoints that can ambush or hold platoon or even a company, close to the outposts to make flanking the outposts risky. Important not to reveal strength. Keep him guessing. 1 & 2. Surprise and slow him down. I repeat slow him down. That, if anything will make him frustrated. 3. MLR, MLR in depth or no MLR at all. Create positions crosswise to the front line to contain the breach and avert the attemps to roll your flanks. Keep a local reserve. Important not to reveal strength. Keep him guessing. 4. Reserve for immediate counterattack. Important not to reveal strength. Keep him guessing. The most important thing is that every level and all positions can support each other, give covering fire for retreating units, avert flanking attempts etc. Nothing should be totally isolated and every level of defence should be able to cause more casualties than they suffer in every thinkable alternative. MLR should be optional, defender could have one or not, if not just strongpoints in depth supporting each other. But the main key is the reserve. Fionn will reach your main positions where he wants to no matter what, and your best chance is that your forward positions and defence positions have attrited his troops and demoralized them and their commander enough to launch a succesfull counter attack. Try to take prisoners, he really hates that while on attack . Thumb rule in allocating your troops should be roughly: 1/3 to forward screen and forward strongpoints; 1/3 to MLR or it's equivalent; 1/3 to reserve. Be creative and flexible. Play with his mind (utilize the huge Ego ), do the unexpected. In the end what will really count is reading the map and guessing and counter quessing your opponents plans, then forgetting all of this and creating the system that is most flexible and can react to everything you can imagine and not imagine. As a matter of fact, this is pretty close to the Finnish tactics, which were fairly succesfull agains Russian attacks, I think is safe to say. Historically, between attacking Russians and defending Finns the decisive phase was the allways the counterattack, if that succeeded, the positions held one more day, if not, start thinking about retreating on the whole front. The importance of counterattack is shown by the fact that best men were allways reserved for the counterattack. Crack or elite if available, in practise ad hoc sturmgruppen, who ever was available not dead, wounded or panicked. When you think the time is right, don't hesitate to throw in everything you got, this is your one and only chance to turn the tide. Last, congratulate Fionn when he beats you no matter what and learn from your defeat . If I remember right, Fionn teaches rather similar defensive tactics in some of his AAR's. I'm not claiming to be original. Anyway, this is how I plan to face Fionn when we get CMBB and can try Russians against Finns with the historical troops to suit dogmas. I'll delay my challenge to that date, whenever that may be. I expect not to get many chances to play the greatest, so why not to make the best of it? .

What are the advantages for defender in armoured battle? I can think of three (I'm sure you can think of more): 1. Ambush. This is obvious but very difficalt against a good opponent, who uses infantry screen to find traps. And you get only 1-2 shots before you get shot at. Advantage, but not a big one. 2. Spotting. With patience, defender will know where the attackers tanks are before his own tanks are revealed. A definite strategic advantage. 3. Buttoning. Using snipers and other small armes to button up the attacking tanks before defenders unbuttoned tanks appear on the rigde, will give a good tactical advantage. Of course, all these advantages can and should be utilized simultaneously to create better odds for the defender. Last, one general remark that may have not come up. Usually one needs a good "fist" of many tanks to advance and create local superiority. But fist alone is suicide, four Panthers on a hilltop lose against four cheap TD's sniping at them from four different directions. As said, one has to also controll the map and deny enemy movement, spreading the tanks in good overwatch positions. The real art is reading the map and deciding how to balance your forces between fist and overwatch. Timing and synchronization are extremely important tactical skills but difficult to master. Also very time consuming, not for TCP/IP. As pointed out earlier, only very big armoured battles are chess-like fun, these finesses have little meaning when playing with few tanks, even though same principles apply. All in all I think armour is more difficult to master than infantry, and to play well with armour one has to be also good with infantry. Infantry alone can defeat combined arms, but tanks alone without infantry support won't accomplish anything. [ June 03, 2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

I think your excellent post makes one very good point: tank battles start to get really interesting only on the BIG scale, with at least a company of them and a huge map. This is where sound tank tactics, thinking platoons, using speed for manouvre etc., start to make a difference. On smaller, platoon scale, too much is left to sheer luck for my taste. Others might and do disagree.

I'm not sure what part you are answering, but if this about tanks beating infantry, I would like to hear more. Like allways, there is no rule without exception.

Good post, and I allmost agree. But I would say: go to battle knowing that you WILL very likely win. Everybody CAN win or loose. Maybe i understand you wrongly, but in "platoon terms" confidence means lot of game experience, calculating the odds and acting accordingly. Which is the basis but not the point. I'd say the totality of the situation is the real point and thats where mind games make a difference. Your ambush story makes a good example of not loosing your cool and resolution, and keeping your mind on the objective and big picture. Second guessing is where you hit a nerve. I do that. A lot. Are they suppressed enough or should I bomb for one more minute? Or if I don't move now will I lose pace and initiative? Can I risk these platoons getting annihilated if the rush goes bad? Are these just questions of understanding the game mechanics and having lot of experience against superior opponents? Are these just solvable calculations, or is there more to it?

Obviously, I can't speak for Fionn, but I think there are just two uses for tanks in CM: intimidate opponents tanks and hail that HE ammo. Infantry IS the king! And usually roookies buy too much of them and loose. It is virtually impossible to win with tanks only against infantry only. Playing combined armes one should remember that tanks are support weapons, like mortars and MG's. They can make a difference but they can't replace infantry. My few successes defending have been infantry only. Don't get me wrong, I love armored battles, there's nothing like a company of Shermans or PZ IV's attacking across a field in formation... One more thought: wheather on defence or attack, take greens! You can't beat greens!

To the original topic. I am a top dog, not the best one, but I honestly believe I can make it to the top ten on any ladder if I have the stamina and time. I haven't lost on attack or ME for a long time. But I really do suck on defence. If my opponent is on par, I will lose, and often if he's below me. The game is problematic in some aspects, playing axis, the usual defence is built on MG which ispretty much broken but I stubbornly choose to play "as it should be". Oh, if the time limit is low, it is easier, you can design your defence to stall, but this is no real challenge. I wan't to beat the attacker with plenty of time. I don't play very static defence, but still maybe too static. The main problem is I think my tactics aren't as good as my overall grasp of the situation. On attack, you are allowed some mistakes, on defence none. My small scale counterattacks usually end up the troops getting killed or demoralized. After reading these posts, especially Fionn, maybe the problem is being too cautious, not giving the counter/harrassing attacks my full heart. When on defence, also active recon should be paid more attention. Anyway, I bet CMBB is going to change a lot .

Jason, I believe you are very wrong. CM, as any other game including war is very much solved between your (commanders) ears. You can't count out the psychologigal effect of what's happening to your pixel representation of yourself, how much you wan't to hide behind numbers and systems. Your ego, when it's attached to your plans, styles, systems etc. is very vulnerable, and this can be exploited by your opponent. The point is getting the other MIND of balance so it's incapable of coherent and cool thinking. I've lost my cool many times, and the game as well. It seems to me that Fionn says there's a sore spote to be found in his style also, and it can and has been exploited at least occasionally(?). It is a mind game, and don't fool youself or anyone else believing otherwise. No one is praising foolishness, but pride and trust in ones capabilities do indeed bring victories. Don't confuse pride with foolish pride, which is utterly different thing. Else, put your money where your mouth is, challenge and give us the AAR of the year . [ May 31, 2002, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

Now we know how Fionn cheats. It is the ultimate cheat with no counter measure. He uses his overwhelming psychokinetic powers, the POWER OF BELIEF to twist the bytes to do his bidding . (There has actually been many parapsychological experiments where human intention seems to affect some random atomic level processes in a statistically meaningfull way. Go here for more info: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/ You can also hone your CM cheating skills trying those on-line experiments! Well, propably this is utter bull, but you never know...!)

Dan, if I read this right, you're saying that there is no extra turn to send to prevent people from continuously restarting 'til they get the rare unit they want? I would welcome an extra turn if it would alleviate any possibility of trying to cherry pick by re-starting. It wouldn't be much of a burden on the players since the file would be a once-a-game send, and would be very small. It would eliminate any suspicion of tinkering with the game. The variable rarity system sounds very nice; I can't wait to try it out. And I do know to try to play trusted opponents, but this one extra turn would help immensly, IMO. Thanks. - Chris</font>

This was also my question after seeing these numbers. But as was said, the example was only about non-computer pick, so I trust we will get on this front about half the time german vanilla and half the time something else, which should suffice to keep all-random historical type players happy. [ May 08, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Kallimakhos ]

I agree, I wouldn't mind seeing lot more recon elements implemented in the game. How much I try, i can not see other way around the combined effect of Borg spotting and God's view than to give up level 4 both during movie watching and giving orders, and there is a heavy cost, ex. using minor elevations for cover during longer movements besides some of the fun. But it is also fun to know you don't know everything, and at squad level, in the middle of the incomprehenciple chaos around you, you soon develop a new kind of relationship for your pixelmen. Also knowing that good communication lines would really make a difference would have a profound effect on how one manages his troops, and this would make the game tactically and strategically even more interesting. Now let's see how one certain player watches his movies, and that would be me, cause I can't lurk behind other players shoulders . There would be of course be as many styles as there are players. Usually first I whatch the movie 1-3 times on level 4, depending on the map size, to get overall picture of what is happening. Then, because I'm sucker for immersive graphics, I run aboard a vehicle along a road on level 1 locked to the unit, go along a infantry assault against enemy positions, whatch how my tank creeps to the hill and engages, smokes one enemy before getting smoked etc. This can go on for a long long time, depending on my mood. So for me the biggest thrill in 3D graphics is on level 1 locked on unit, which gives the feeling of immersion, other modes (mainly level 4) are more for the intellectual "chess game" purposes, seeing what is happening and how I can counteract. Conclusion? If I would see the generel development of the battle only on the 2D map, but still see the hot spot and other movies in immersive first person 3D graphics, personally I wouldn't feel like losing lot of the fun I'm used to, and this would be compensated in other areas. But I'm sure many players would feel otherwise.

Thanks for reposting the Iron man rules, a good memory refresher. I share your sentiments, it's now too much self control also for me but I hope there will be some kind of hardcoded option for this type of play in the future versions of CM. If not anything else, I believe this thread has presented many good ideas for this type of game.

Thanks, nice to see I'm not beating up a totally dead horse. Good questions. First the map. What I'm thinking, the maps are exactly the same in terms of game mechanics, just like now, level 1 (3D) and level 8 (2D). The difference is that the 2D map would have lot of various information filters, both on map details and positions of one's own troops (if out of C&C, only last known position shown) and positions of enemy troops, and also random distortion of information. It would be nice also make the map more maplike, altering the graphical symbols, for more realistic feel. I can see that the whole thing would require a lot if ingenious programming, but probably something similar is going to be done anyway in the lines of unknown territory. A very good question is how much randomness there should be in the beginning, maybe the commander on advance could some times have a just a crude map showing roads and villages (a LOT of filtering), and the map getting more detailed as more information is gathered. Defending commander would of course have much better map in the beginning, showing heights, woods etc. This information could also be bought before setup (aerial recon). A evolving map is of course not very "realistic" (your troops are not cartographers), but good for the gameplay. This whole consept is based on Iron man rules, and so the commander shouldnt be able to use any 3D map (exept the view from his command post), because that would allow "flying" and memorizing terrain features to use later when ordering units in level 1 view. I see that I forgot to spell it out that unit view (level 1) should be static, in the way that you can turn your hed but not change the camera position. This makes giving movement orders tricky. One problem I had in mind was this: it's night and thick fog, visibility 30 meters. Should the unit be able to move only 30 meters at a time, or more? And how to plot your movement to the other side of a house, where you can't see? Also what the player sees in level 1 and what the selected unit sees are not the same thing. So there are actually three possibilities: 1. Movements can be on plotted inside the visibility (line of sight) of the selected unit. 2. Movements can be plotted only where the player sees in level 1 view 3. No restriction on movement. Someone with more experience with the Iron man rules could have better insights if this is really a problem and how to solve it, but to me it seems the current system could be better, ex. if you leave a house, from which you can't see outside, it is very difficult to know how far away from the house you actually end... hey, now I got it! Well, to think of it, the solution seems quite easy, apparently too obvious to me! Make the movement line show distance just like the targeting line, and you can give easily simple order like move 100 meters to that direction, even if you don't know whats out there! Once again, getting confused trying to write and think at the same time, Kallimakhos.

Ha! I knew I wasn't going to be the first one to think of this. Now that I've read all (well, most) the previous posts I see that my thinking is going along same paths with Tom on many issues, but maybe there are some original ideas in my innocent little suggestion. So, where to go if we want to avoid both the Borg and Gods view problems as much as possible, and at the same time give the player control and ideally right amount of information at the squad/vehicle level, platoon/company commander level and at the supreme commander level? This is indeed possible and as additional bonus your troops can get lost or end up in wrong place both at middle and squad level, in a very natural way, which was before just a distant dream for Steve The solution could be called simply Iron man Immersion (bit easier than the IMSRS-FOW ) which naturally should be optional "ultimate ffow", meant only for the groggiest and the most anal gamers (which could very likely make the majority!). This is a solution to most if not all major conserns raised before, not perfect but closest I can concieve. This gives also answer to the question which role does the player take. A dual role. On the one end supreme commander, with the cumulating knowlegde of the overall situation on an evolving 2D map, being able to give direct and more general orders to platoons and companies. On the other hand the role of each squad/vehicle with very limited visibility (only level 1) and limited info (relative spotting). There is also the intermediate level, platoon/company commander, which would be some sort of mix of these two, and needs lot more thinking. One of the good points is that there is clear distinction between different roles, and player can choose by the size of battle, individual tastes and other factors weather he prefers giving the "planning orders" (2D) or "control orders" (limited 3D). Nothing good comes without cost, in return we must give up some of the fun, no unlimited movie watching (only level 1 and not even for every unit) until the end, and assigning individual orders to squads/vehicles could be bit tedious, as it must be done in a certain order and cycling through units without mouse pointing (unless there is a good roster which BTS might oppose). Even though this model greatly reduses the available information, I don't see how it would be possible to totally avoid some "unrealistic" bits and peaces of info spilling from the order fase and limited movie whatching for the perceptive human minds. E.g. whatching from a hill can give you clues how not to get lost with a unit. Also, it is actually quite hard to imagine how and if this would really work in actual game, for one I've never played with Iron man rules and this is quite different. Im sure there must be something very wrong with this suggestion, because it sounds too good, and I'm sure these will be pointed out. But now to the details: 1. As the supreme commander HQ ('you') you have the 2D map of the battlefield, and on that map you see your troops in C&C and the cumulating info on the enemy positions and map details. This info can also be falce. On the map you can give more complicated movement orders (many waypoints) with shorter delays to co's and platoons with established communications. This of course requires improving the AI, to handle formations with some skill. Changing these orders before the object has been reached or contact made with the enemy means long delays (getting the orders to all concerned, regrouping etc.) Once in contact (ie fired at) unit should respond with more autonomy, so shorter delays. In other words, now the player is in a way in the shoes of the platoon commander. Many intermediate C&C issues still need a closer look at this level. - 2D map can contain also some prebattle recon info, not necessarily allways true, on enemy troops and positions, depending on the type of the battle and randomized or bought before the battle. - Recon order, as somebody already suggested. On the 2D you can give orders to appropriate units to recon in a certain direction, and if succesfull and not dying, after a while, depending on communications, you get more info on the 2D map. Special AI routines needed of course. This way if a recon unit with no radio and out of C&C is totally destroyed, no info is given, except getting meeting enemy somewhere along the route. If crew or stragler survives the more accurate info comes after long delay if at all. - Same way all info from units encountering enemy units and in C&C, end up eventually on the 2D map, after certain delays which also take into account info going from up to down to all subcommanders, which then naturally happens "instantaneously" because they are your 'alter egos'. But because they can "see" only at level 1, in game terms they only know there is something in that direction, and their movement is more limited than when given orders on 2D map. - artillery: spotters in contact with higher headquarter units, especially 'you', mean shorter delays. - If the 'you' HQ is lost, also much of the information on the 2D map is lost. - giving a order on 2D map includes random risk that the unit gets lost or ends up in wrong location. This won't be presented on the 2D map, but if you notice something is wrong in the level 1 view, you can reorder with considerable delay. 2. Level 1 view, commanding individual squads and vehicles. First, different set of orders from the 2D map which represent "planning orders, and include only various types of movement. These control orders include also targeting, searching hull down positions etc. There could also be some special orders for midlevel HQ's. Relative spotting, only enemy units you see here are those spotted by the selected units and those spotted by units in close contact or good communication line, with a certain delay. The "send runner" command suggested by someone sounds also very good. - a big handicap is that to keep it realistic, control orders should probably be given in certain order (which?), after planning orders, to get no extra information from other units, and could be given just once in every turn. But maybe with the more flexible and easier "planning orders" on 2D map this could be avoided, if the biggest problem in "Gods view" is moving all the troops you want to handle a situation those troops should have no knowledge of. Also although the level 1 view would give you more info on enemy troops than the 2D map, it would be much harder to grasp and put to context. Anyway, there is a real problem here. - giving movement orders only in visible boundaries preferred, but it should be possible to plot also into "grey" areas, with considerable risk and delay. The system should be flexible enough to work well in all wheather conditions. - general "battle sounds this way" markers. - if unit out of C&C, only generic markers for spotted enemy units to avoid unrealistic ID'ng. - suppressed units available info even more limited. - unit can get lost relatively easily in the "natural way", as prescribed earlier. - possibility for enemy units to go back to totally unspotted under certain circumstanses. 3. The movies. Only level one and 2D map. Ideally the map shows "hotspots" which you can click and see when something worthwhile is going on, so you dont have to go through each and every unit, although this would still be possible, starting with HQ's, spotters etc down to ordinary units, except for units out of C&C (panic, too far etc), so no info can be gained from those. Unlimited movie wathcing after the game has ended obligatory reward after getting through the hardship! - units coming back to C&C could show their earlier movies (battlestories for mates ) at that point, if necessary. Underlying the whole system individual unit communicative abilities as has been suggested,(depending on technology, experience etc.) which affect information delays and accuracy, spotting aid for other units etc. Well, now that much of my original hybris has worn off I see there are many unsolved problems, programming difficulties, gameplay could perhaps get too complicated, so maybe this is not worth while (the price is too high?). Still, hopefully there are at least few good ideas to add to those presented earlier.

Haven't yet read all the posts to this thread, maybe this has already come up, but anyway: What I would really like to see in the next generation is the hard-coded, non cheatable level 1 view only hard core gaming mode (don't remember how it was nicked) as an option. Sure there would be lot of room to get this perfect, like forcing the player give orders in a certain order etc, but this would be quite close to realistic relative spotting. Also getting lost would be a real possibility especially in low visibility, when your unit has lost contact to his pals (it's night, all you see is woods around you, hear nothing but wind in the trees, have no idea where others disappeared and which way you should be going... no way to plot your movements but guessing - or start yelling for others and get shot by a nearby enemy MG ). Higher officer view could have a compass on the screen + a map with varying level of detail and accuracy, evolving as more information is gathered. Lot of possibilities here, one that comes to mind is giving grafical clues to where south might be, (moss on the stones, foliage of trees etc) which could make a big difference in player skills. The big problem here is how to show the movie without ruining the game. The all knowing movie would be out of question, and on the other hand going through the movie from each units point of view would take ages. One possibility is to show whats happening first on a crude map, from where you can jump to hotspots and visual goodies in 3d. Additional possibility is not to be able to see the movie when unit is not in C&C, or seeing it after a delay. At the end player should be rewarded by seeing the whole movie same way as now. Hope this makes some sense.

Good example. Actually I seem to remember The King of Dragon Pass got a very high ranking both in Mikrobitti and Pelit, and consequently I was one of the buyers. The majority of top ten sellers seem to be allways games given 89+ points by these magazines. They can also do real harm when they shoot down an overhyped sloppy game, which just serves right. Anyway, these magazines have their sway mostly among the traditonal gaming enthusiasts, most of whom like their games in anglo and for good reasons, as has been pointed. Then there are casual game reviews in other media, like NYT, City, even Suomen kuvalehti(?) and many others. It is here where the other than usual markets could be reached for a game like CMBB. I'm pretty sure localized game including Continuation war would have very good chanses for such publicity and consequently increased sells, but nobody can't guarantee it would be cost effective. But if BTS feels it is a risk worth taking, I say go for it. There is nothing wrong in offering consumers more choices, and those who want an english version would still be able to get one. I for one would take the Finnish version, not because I need one but I happen to like my mother tongue, and being a translator by profession (not from english, if that can be avoided, as you can well see!), all job opportunities to my collegues are wellcome. I understand very well Tero's points on complexities of a good translation, but there is no need to blow them out of proportion. Few mistakes here and there for grogs to point out go with the trade, it is a human affair after all, but as far the translation is logical, consistent and pragmatic for gaming purposes, all is well IMHO. Long words in Finnish are no problem if they are not that in French or especially in German (nachverteidigunswaffe etc). One possible problem that comes to mind conserning sales in Finland and nearby areas, is that CMBB is bound to create lot of interest in Russia, and even though I doubt that CMBO has been a huge article or even available in the street markets of Tallin, illegal copies of CMBB are pretty unavoidable and some are going to end up in Finland.

??? Why would you assume Finnish-made games to be crap? Max Payne sucks? Nowadays one can see good games being made everywhere. OT: There was some time a go lot of talk about a Finnish modern infantry wargame, any news on that? PS: Like somebody said, there could be many potential buyers for a Finnish localized game in 40+ group, but propably not enough to make it worthwhile. Personally if I had a choice, I would choose a localized game, even though it could possibly cause some problems that have already been pointed out.