Vanir Ausf B

Even if they didn't include it in the campaign, it would be a nice toy to have available to help balance out QBs and player-made scenarios. I would encourage BFC to error towards giving the Syrians the benefit of the doubt on these issues whenever possible. The T-80 fits in this category as well. Frankly, the Syrians are going to need all the help they can get. Why not? We got JS-IIIs and Sturmtigers in CMx1.

That would be fine with me as long as you can somehow make it a "fair fight" with CMx1 victory condition. Maybe giving Syrians more victory points for losses inflicted? Without playing the game it's hard to know how big the qualitative disparity will be. Oh, and as someone who plays QBs almost exclusively I will personally shoot the next person who suggests dumping them.

Will this also be the way it is in QBs?

The WW2 game is a seperate game completely, not a module for CMSF. EDIT: Oh, hell. Too slow. Time for bed...

Depends. In Iraq US troops are allowed to hit mosques if they are being shot at from inside it.

Um, of course it's classified. That's why the values are estimates in some cases (as I pointed out). Steel Beasts uses stats compiled by Paul Lakowski. You'ld have to ask him where he gets his info. I'm not sure where Major H gets the values used in TacOps.

You'ld be surprised how much info is available on this stuff. Some if it is estimated, but that's even true of some ww2 armor. Example: Linky

The game is set in 2007 so I would not expect to see FCS.

My brilliant suggestion for this thread: URL tags.

I think once the modules with countries other than the USA come out the game will have legs. Then you can have forces at or near the same tech level against each other using the blue on blue option. But this is not an issue specific to the modern setting. I predict a great wailing and nashing of teeth when the first WW2 CMx2 game is released and it only has Americans vs. Germans.

IIRC they've sold versions of CMAK to at least one military. It's nothing new, or specific to the modern setting. Some people are just pissed because it aint WW2.

BFC has made clear that OOBs will be far more limited in the CMx2 games regardless of setting. I do hope some non-US NATO forces are put in at some point.

I'm mostly pleased. I can't say I'm too excited about playing as Syrians, but if other NATO forces makey their way in through modules it could be everything I'd hoped for.

But for those of us who think Germany vs. France would be a hoot, I see hope. You said that future modules may add forces from other NATO counties. You also said there would be the option for blue vs. blue scenarios....

You guys are talking past each other because you're talking about 2 different issues. If it should realistically take 10 minutes to start moving around a copse of trees (for example), should it take less than 10 minutes to start moving through it? That's what Sergie is asking, I think. Well, it's what I'm asking in any case For some reason, I'm not surprised. It is true that the CMBO system did not penalize poor planning. It is also true that the current system penalizes perfectly good planning. Whether the game is too fast and whether waypoints should add to command delay are tangentially related questions in that one affects the other, but they are not the same issue and there are other ways to slow things down if that is the goal. Using the CMBO system, if it is deemed that a 20 second command delay is way too generous change it to 2 minutes. Or 20 minutes. By simply changing the values you can make the game as slow and ponderous as you wish without penalizing waypoints.

I think for gameplay purposes we should always assume that orders are being carried out while in contact with the enemy. This is in fact the case the large majority of the time in a typical game, and as you allude to in your later post this is knowledge that the player has that the troops would not, e.g. the bounderies of the opponent's settup zones.

Here: </font>

In comparing complexity of long and short movement I did not specify whether it was in the presence of the enemy or not so I'm not sure where you got that. To keep it apples to apples both would be one or the other, and in that case I think we can agree short is generally less complex than long? Sure, but those actions are not specific to moving around something. I would suspect most if not all of that would be in order when moving during a battle regardless of whether you're going around, through, over or just moving in a straight line from one position to the next. Does CMAK add delay for movement length? I don't recall CMBB doing that. If CMx2 could be made to do so, and if the number of way points were penalized proportionally less severely, that could work too. I'd be willing to try it.

This is really the crux of the issue. If we can't find a practical system that tailors the delay for what is most appropriate for each situation, the logical choice is to choose the system that is the most realistic the majority of the time. When the current system of adding more delay for more waypoints was introduced in CMBB it was because it was thought there had to be a way of simulating the diffculty of using complex commands with early war Soviet conscripts. It succeeded in doing this. Unfortunately in making those situations more realistic it made others less realitic. Was it a net gain or net loss? At the heart of the problem is the implied assumption that more waypoints = more complex orders. I think we all agree this is often not the case. As others have already alluded to, a complex order in CM would tend to be characterized by both many movement points AND long distance. Many movement points clustered into short movement orders would tend to be of the type Dorosh keeps talking about. Which is most often the case? In my personal experience it is the latter. It could just be my own play style, but longish movement orders become unusual after contact with the enemy is made and if large numbers of movement points are used they are bunched together around an obstacle. In my opinion rolling back to the CMBO system would be more realistic most of the time. It's not ideal by any means, but I feel that adding delay to waypoints was a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

A roster would be nice too. *runs for cover*

System specs aren't even known for the PC yet.

BFC has said this is the main reason for them.

Based on recent comments, my guess is that it will not be set in a historical war, but in a hypothetical near future conflict.

Hardly. But since BFC have already confirmed that a modern CM is planned, there's not much reason for us to continue asking for one. NATO vs. Warsaw Pact is the most often requested setting for a modern game, but it seems we're going to get something very different. I'm actually a little leerly about that, but we'll see.

I would be exceedingly surprised if CMx2 takes specific advantage of dual-core processors. That type of programing is difficult and very time consuming. I think it would be of dubious value for a turn-based game anyway.