Peter Cairns

I Like the aircraft too, sure i'd like actual planes but just keep them in the background, It's a command game, not a hoolywwod version like BF1942. You sehould sort of see them in passing, and they should be harrd to track, ( although I'd quite like a gun view for AA). Trutrh is people in combat tended not to look at planes, in fact they tended to do the complete opposite and hide from them. It would be nice to have better graphics and we'll probably get that, but i'd ahte to have more of them or any real greater degree of control. Peter.

I am posting to my own thread to get it back to the top because Iam in the HUFF about no one talking to me... So there... Peter.

I think in terms of delay people are underestimating just how difficult it is to move across unknown territory, with the constant danger of attack at amy kind of speed. The fact that in CM1, you can send a unit to flank by a route that has a dozen way points so that the take the perfect route, is it's self unrealistic as to do it you are utilising an unrealistic understanding of the terrain. As I said in my first post, the field behind my house is flat (though sloping downward) on a map ( with 5m Verticle interval), but in reality it is full of dips and bumps which would have to be negotiated. On the other side of my house, there is a wood of about 20 acres. i've been taking my kids for walks in it for a decade, and i can still get disorientated. In CM you can take a squad in to a forst you've never been in and come out 200m's later within 30ft of where you wanted too. In real life that is actually difficult to do, I am not saying you get lost, but you just can't navigate in unknown woodland over time to a high precision. I doubt if there is a simple way to simulate it, as having an own unit equivelent of FOW for out of command units or even whole platoons would be a big change, so having them slowed down so that the price of precision is time, seems a fair way to do it. Peter.

I tend to think the backflipping jeep is a bit hollywood, i'd guess that after being hit by a 150mm, you'd be lucky to find the steeringwheel let alone the jeep. Seeing light vehicles lifted and turned by artillery might be something, but as elsewhere, I doubt if it merits days of programming. A slightly larger range of graphic options from "abandoned with scratches", to "I can't tell what it used to be" would do me. Peter.

I think the way it works now is actually about right, the idea of a grid or contour lines would undermine the game and make things worse as you already have to detailed knowledge of the ground ahead. (Something that hopefully relative spottin g will improve). Over the years I've made about six CM1 models of the 1km2 around my house, with some degree of success, ( I like on the Black Isle in the North of Scotland, all rolling barley fields and strips of mixed forest and farms). The field beside my house looks flat from a distance but when you actually walk through it it's full of dips and bumps which can have a real effect on sight and line of fire when you model them. These dips don't show on any map because they are mostly only a dozen mtrs across and a few deep or high. So if you were to put contours in you would be able to plot a route with an accuracy that you couldn't do with a map or visually from a distance. The frustration with the 45sec delay in the gully is for me accurate and correct, as once in it you would have to go slow as from outside it is really hard to know exactly where it goes, and easy to losse your bearings. Whether intentional or not the need for multiple way points simulates this slowing due to staying in cover moving in unknow dead ground and having to "take a peek" to affirm your position. With View 1 ( ground level) it is hard in the game to pick out subtle changes in height, but hey thats because it's difficulty to do in real life too. There is rarely such a thing as "Flat Ground" but it's not till you try crossing it that you find out. Believe me you can hide half a platoon in a dip that you would see till you walk in to it and it woun't show in any map. On the interface issue, I once suggested replacing the fire and move orders with a sort of 3 coloured circle, Red, Yellow and Green. Red would be fire, Yellow cover, and Green , move. Click on a clour and it would expand, So all green would be move full speed don't use cover and don't fire, All yellow would be take cover and stay put, ( a suppressd paniced unit might be locked yellow.) Ammo, Casualties, Fatigue, Suppression and Morale would all effect the "Wheel" and how much you could change it, so that as well as a way of issueing orders it would also be an indicator of unit status. (They could even appear beside units when you clicked on them), This might be a way to allow more flexibility about how units move, a half green half yellow advancing unit would naturally use cover better than an all green, mostly yellow with a little green would crawl forward etc. I doubt the "TriWheel" will make it in to the interface, but I think it would be a good way to control units, perhaps in another game, where it allowed you to quickly order units by balancing their "Firepower, Protection and Movement). Peter.

It seems the way to tackle the fact that it did happen, but in desperation as a last result, would for it to be a morale effect handlesd by the AI, Thus in certain rare circumstances when tanks were close, one with low morale, or ammo, or wounded crew would "RAM and RUN" where by it would drive in to the most dangerous close enemy tank and then be abandoned by it's crew. This would mean it could be in the game, but not used as a deliberate tactic because, players couldn't order it or even be sure a crew would do it. I think CMx2 should focus on giving realistic orders to the units we command rather than us role playing every unit down to squad or crew. Peter,

Is there any indications yet about how fire and it's spread will be treated in CMx2. With the smaller grid this could be done in a more realistic way especially within buildings. (I think it's about as good as the system allows in CM1). Will individual floor be able to burn trapping people above if there is fire on the stairwell ( I read, stair positions within buildings can be modelled). Will fire spread out along walls or across rooms at different rates, and will it move up floors faster than it moves down. Peter.

Tool4Fools, So if the US had the massive armour advantage you are suggesting, why didn't they use it an roll the japs up by 1943.... Maybe the opposite is the case, that in close terrain, like vietnam, they couldn't use their mobility and were as restricted and vulnerable without infantry as in urban warfare. I agree with Jrcar, lets see the engine first. I've a real feeling that relative spotting will have a big impact on how we all use armour. I think the ability to see the whole battlefield means that in CM1 we tend to manouver unrealistically because we have to much knowledge of the battlefield. If whats been said so far bares fruit, tanks will be far more dependant on the eyes and ears of the infantry around them and much more vulnerable on there own, particularly with an 8x8 grid with 1 mtr overlays that allows for walls in gardens and ditches by road. It is the inability to get infantry with satchel charges close enough to tanks in CM1 that makes them look impotent against armour and that might well change. Peter.

The Uk version has ateam of four adults and is overseen by a host an two on hand military historiains who comment on the teams tactics and the historical battle. Peter.

In the UK they have a mediocre TV programme called "Time Commanders", where a team play one side on a real time computer recreation of a famous ( or not so famous) Ancient Battle. The format is a mix of watching the rather clunky repetative graphics and watching the players themselves controlling and making the decisions, ( which usually involves a lot of shouting and pointing as most of the so called teams can't read a map, let alone lead and army). It occured to me that with the help of some post production editting CM would be ideal for a similiar format. Two teams would fight a battle with the camera switching between the players discussing what they wanted to do, and then showing the actual "Live Action" parts, with the editor having the option to choose the best most exciting angles using replay to make it look good before the programme went out. (I don't envisage it being live, due in no small part for the need for extensive bleeping out of choice words and phrases). With luck (probably quite a lot), you could get a cheap to make ( TV execs love that), semi reality ( again popular) programme that would interest both people who new nothing about warfare and people like ourselves, and potentially a great way to advertise CMx2. Peter.

I tend to think that they will do a PTO, if not initially. A lot of what I have read about the new graphics, map design, morale/suppression split, relative spotting and 1:1 representation, makes me think that the coordination of armour will be more difficult and the infantry v infantry experience, especially close in more intense. This could lead on Infantry v infantry combat in heavy terrain being a more rewarding and challenging experience, which could make PTO more appealing. I have a feeling that the smaller grid texture and 1:1 rep, especially could well make a CMx2 Company feel like a CM1 battalion, where you will fight as intensely over a small farm as you used too over a town. Having said that the same changes might make Vietnam a more attractive option for them. Peter

Mrpwase, Did you post that joke just for the Halabut. Peter.

Current apple News is that there are download sites that let you run OSX on PC's already, so it should become clearer in the next month or so how much of a cahnge it really is. Peter.

I started a similiar thread called "Asymetric objectives", and steve replied that they would be in CMx2, so both sides will have their own objective flags, which may or may not be shared. Peter.

I yhought the idea might appeal to people as a quick way to learn the basics of the game, like testing tactics and finding out what does and doesn't work. In much the same way most armies start training "against themselves" , ie units of the same army equiped with the same weapons, later they go on to train against different tactics and units with or simulating different weapons. the follow on from dissimilar training, is specific training against forces emulating the tactics and weapons of a specific and often imminent threat or opponent. I suppose we could have a compromise ( yhough some posters seem to think thats a dirty word), of a "Green on Green" scenario, where you started off say in a demo with an Episode One "Band of Brothers" style training excercise, against your own troops. Peter.

You wouldn't need Ideantical sides but I think games like SPI's "Sniper" and "patrol" did effectively do so, and despite, the graphics there is hardly alot of historical accuracy in games like Battlefield 1942. A simplified game to develope tactics and get the feel for game play, could have identical or dissimilar forces. Peter.

People should shot less tahts for sure, i tend to think that ammo use is to high particularly at long ranges. Having said that i remember reading the account of the attack on Mount Tumbledown in the Falklands, where the british were astounded at the end of tha battle that so many rounds could be fired and so few people killed or even hit. This leads to the possibility that for realism people should fire less and hide more, so that ammo and casualties are kept lower Battles could be are won by your opponent falling back due to low moral, ie "Sod this I am getting out of here", rather than by being broken or destroyed, something that might be done now that Morale and suppression are seperate. It might however make the more "realistic" CMx2, less exciting.... As to Sharing ammo, If I was aplatoon Co and one of my three squads was going to sit an watch an assault for lack of ammo, I'd make damned sure it got at least enough to give proper covering fire, if the other squads had spare. Anyway my rough formula. would never equalise, only narrow the gap, If a squad with 10 met a squad with 1, it could omly give it 1 ammo a minute, and would stop at 7 to 4 after five minutesout of the fight. You would need to make atactical judgement if reajusting ammo was worth the time and effort involved. Peter.

Has it ever been suggested, that there could be a Generic version of CMx2 to show off the game perhaps the first module. This would have "Blue v Red" or "Green v Grey", it would have weapons like "Bolt Action", "Semi Automatic", "SMG", "LMG" etc. Vehicles would be "Jeep, Truck, Halftrack, Light, Medium, and Heavy Tank". In this way we could be up and playing the game and getting used to it, without waiting months for historical scenarios, because they have to a huge amount of research. I remember years back I used to play SPI's game "Raid", which although it only has Green and Brown counters and used a revisied version of the game system from "Firefight" was a really good game. Actually in terms of flow and tactics etc, it was a far better game and a fraction of the price of the like s of AH's "Squad Leader". SL, was a really well research and detailled game, brillantly reproduced with great maps and counters. But it was apoor game system and the gamescale had to be "squashed to make it work, (a bit like playing CM with all the vehicles at Maximum size). A first launch version that was ahistorical would be a quick easy way to learn the new system, and a good option for a "Demo" as the simplified options would let it run easily on most current machines. It could still illustrate the improved graphics etc, just cut down on the real demands by having simple uniforms and markings etc. Peter.

I thought that any product for sale legally in the EU must be allowed to be sold elsewhere. Does that mean that a version of CM made in belguim with Swastakas can be sold in Germany, or do the Germans have an opt out because of their constitution. I think this should be posted on the international law and constitutional politics forum. Peter.

If as steve says it is mainly down too poor positioning, then perhaps waht we need is some way to limit at least initail deployments to within command . This would effectively stop people from deploying AT teams out on their own unsupported in suicidal positions. Peter.

Don't tell me Dorosh is actually allowed to drive a car..... Peter.

Just to give BF a very rough steer as to where people would like the modules to go, and would most likely spend there money , people can put in there top five. 1) WW2 Western Front, 44-45. 3 mods (Cobra, Arnheim,Bulge) 2) Post WW2 possibly Korea, or Isreal 48' 2or3 Mods. 3) WW2 Pacific again abut 3 mods. 4) Centenial American 1775-1875, 3mods( Revolution, Civil War, Indian wars, though war with Mexico might be nice...). 5) WW2 Eastern Front again 3 mods, Invasion, Stalemate, Retreat I am sure most people have there own ideas, so lets see what scores highest. Personally I think it will be WW2 because thats what attracted us here in the first place, so BF may well be thinking to try a new market hoping we'll sign up anyway. Peter.

Wouldn't a modern setting cut in to thr "Balkans on Fire" market, Bit daft to bring out a game which competes with your also selling, even if you are only marketting it. My money ( being scots that's a half Groat...), is still back to the Future, Operation Cobra. Oh just as a thought if you take Gobra and put the enemy to the North not south but keep the Brits in the east and the Yanks in the West, you pretty much get the liberation of Kuwait.... Peter.

Well i've learned my lesson, so I guess there's a morale in there somewhere. Peter.

The problem is how to have the correct realistic effect without people overdoing it and using it unrealisticly, it's a sort of re run of the "Smoke grenade" debate. I'd be worried that if done badly we would go from a WW2 sim to an episode of "Whacky Races". Peter.