Peter Cairns

This is one more for Scenario designers. It would be usefull to play "CvC" games so that when designing a map or scenario you could watch it being fought out by competeing AI's to allow you to judge it for balance, playability etc. A Rerun function would allow you to replay a move but with fresh calculations. All the orders would be the same, but if you thought a crucial event was a fluk result you could run it again. That's not to say that you can't have fluk results in a real game, but if you have one when you are "playtesting' you have to go back to the start. There is also the problem that when designing a scenario, no matter how neutral you try to be you know what your enemy has and where it is. You also have to play both sides a couple of times to get it right, which is a fair amount of time for a large map with a lot of units. Any thoughts people, Peter.

In some cases the ID on the tank wold have given them some clues, but I agree you should have limits o what you learn from casualties etc. Having said that if the guys put up ahell of a fight you'd kind of guess. Peter.

BUT you never really know what really happened, Why not include a twenty page print out of all the fire calculations. There is an episode of Red Dwarf where Rimmer spends his time talking about a game of Risk, dice throw by dice throw, which he kept record of in a note book. Do you guys do that too. Peter.

Yes but with relative spotting and the effects of artillery, the position of dead or wounded can give an indication of enemy movemnets and or positions. They could also have a moral effect on new or reinfocing units. There is nothing takes the eagerness away from troops quite like seeing bits of their comrades spread all over the place. As long as it can be done in a way that doesn't alter game play i am for it. Peter.

The problem with all this is "would you really know all this", If an air attack destroyed a panther you couldn't see, in an area that had an artillery attack how would you know. Did Coy commanders really have time to stop and do fifty page batle reports giving a shot by shot account. People always want more information, but i'd be more interested in a format that actually tried to give the same information, or even looked like a real after action report. Now i am sure at least some of you people will have seen, read (written) those. How like the real thing in style and detail is what we get now? Peter.

I'd go for a seperation system Dead:- Lie their doing nothing spread eagled. Seriously wounded;- Crumple up and move a bit ,but wave unhurt troops on so they can't help and ignore them. Light wounded, these can move at reduced speed and slowly head back to the rear, or move to seriously wounded who they then help to the rear. By making the light wounded under AI control deal with the seriously wounded you get the graphic effect of casualties without the player having to do anything and it effecting game play. Lastly Unwounded:- These would be people who looked wounded (limp, lost helmet) who appeared in targeted squads that had taken fire, but who acted as normal, a sort of Eye Candy. Peter.

My good after all these years I finally got something right..... Peter.

Now if this was added in CMAK or apatch just ignore what I am about to say as i haven't played much since switching to OSX. The idea would be that rather than one set of Flags, all be it with Major and Minor objectives and the option of a boguse falg, there would be two sets one for each side. For example, A scenario has three hills running east to weat, small in the east and centre, medium in the west. It also has a road running north to south running betwwen the two medium hills. The attacking allied flags are two minor objectives on the two medium hills, and a major objective on the oad beyone and between them. The Axis objectives are a minor flag on each of the small hills and amajor objective on the westerly medium hill. In this scenario the allied player may well deploy heavy to the east in an attempt to take the easterly hill pressure the centre and then press through to his major objective. The axis player might however deploy almost half his force on the westerly hill leaving the other two less well defended. This can create a scenario where the bulk of the two forces might not actually engage, and where it might be easier for one side to win than the other, in effect unbalanced scenarios. A game designer could iron out any disadvantages, but in a QB it would not. As a result Asymetric objectives would be a "toggle" option, which like FOW players could select or disable as they choose. The advantage is that although broadly similiar always having identical objectives even with a bogus flag, is unrealistic, and that it would add something to play. When depolying at the start of a game, you would not only have to focus on your own objectives, but also try to deduce ( hell Guess) your opponents. In some scenarios it might be fairly obvious, like assault on a town on a featureless open plane, but a meeting engagement in hilly farmland might be far more difficult. Oh course all this might be overtaken by an entirely new way of doing VP's and objectives, but so far i haven't come across any posts specifically about that. (Steve if you have posted on it and I've missed it, sorry I promise to pay more attention in future. Peter.

Will this all you to sneak up on sentries and the like. It might seem a bit gamey, but I've like a lot of peoplehavetried to create "Rai" scenarios where you try to surprise a defending force. By and large I found this hard to do because no matter how stealthily you approached you never got that close, (unless you deliberatelt tweaked the terrain and deployments to create blind spots". I get the impression from Steves posts that though a static defender will still have the advantage it could be a lot more achieveable. Peter.

As I understand steves posts so far we will have 8x8 tiles with overlays and a contour system with 1m intervals. This means that if you put acontour line 1m higher than your first 80m away, you get a 1 in 80 slope. What I want to know is can you put contours closer than 8m apart, or is it free hand that would let you put an 80m contour 1m from a1m to create an 80 in 1 sheer cliff face. This raises issues particularly about graphics, as as well all know things like steep wooded slopes just looked weird. True combat in these extreme terrain types was relatively rare and it's WW2 not Lord of the Rings, but I'd be interested in any ideas about just how the interaction between the new graphics and the elevation system is going to work. If we can put contours 1m apart then in theory we should be able to do ditches running parallel to roads. ie Level (0m), -1m then 1m later -1m, then level (0m), for the road and the same at the other side. still not perfect but miles bettter than the CM1 option of "just pretend there are ditches. Peter

As I understand steves posts so far we will have 8x8 tiles with overlays and a contour system with 1m intervals. This means that if you put acontour line 1m higher than your first 80m away, you get a 1 in 80 slope. What I want to know is can you put contours closer than 8m apart, or is it free hand that would let you put an 80m contour 1m from a1m to create an 80 in 1 sheer cliff face. This raises issues particularly about graphics, as as well all know things like steep wooded slopes just looked weird. True combat in these extreme terrain types was relatively rare and it's WW2 not Lord of the Rings, but I'd be interested in any ideas about just how the interaction between the new graphics and the elevation system is going to work. If we can put contours 1m apart then in theory we should be able to do ditches running parallel to roads. ie Level (0m), -1m then 1m later -1m, then level (0m), for the road and the same at the other side. still not perfect but miles bettter than the CM1 option of "just pretend there are ditches. Peter

As I understand steves posts so far we will have 8x8 tiles with overlays and a contour system with 1m intervals. This means that if you put acontour line 1m higher than your first 80m away, you get a 1 in 80 slope. What I want to know is can you put contours closer than 8m apart, or is it free hand that would let you put an 80m contour 1m from a1m to create an 80 in 1 sheer cliff face. This raises issues particularly about graphics, as as well all know things like steep wooded slopes just looked weird. True combat in these extreme terrain types was relatively rare and it's WW2 not Lord of the Rings, but I'd be interested in any ideas about just how the interaction between the new graphics and the elevation system is going to work. If we can put contours 1m apart then in theory we should be able to do ditches running parallel to roads. ie Level (0m), -1m then 1m later -1m, then level (0m), for the road and the same at the other side. still not perfect but miles bettter than the CM1 option of "just pretend there are ditches. Peter

Just a thought but if the Mac market is pretty small (say under 10%) and the port to make will be left as late as possible to be sure that Apples shift to Intel doesn't throw up any major problems then why not look at asking it to bundle CMx2 with it's new Macs (probably a range of new powerbooks first). Now it goes without saying that you'd get more selling them retail than at the kind of price apple would want, but if the long term strategy is to have a core engine and repeated modules, then a loss leader on the Game to expand the Mac sector and create a customer base might have a logic too it. Iam not going to give you any rot about how clever Mac users are, as a dedicated Mac fan I tend to find other Mac users a n arrogant bunch. But I think the age profile of mac users tends to be higher and that means a tendency towards more strategy games than shoot-em-ups. Add to that the dirth good and up to date Mac games out there and I think CMx2 bundles with Macs would be a real winner. At the end of the day I think nothing will come of it even if BF like the idea because Apple being Apple , they'd probably want them supplied so cheap BF would make a loss. Peter

Steve, My Apologies, you may have said it's technical and nothing else a million times, but I missed it. As far as i am concerned you are about the only people out there trying to do anything close to a credible company level sim and you should get credit for that even if the result falls short of peoples ideal. CM1 may be old and a bit basic by modern standards but it is still as far as I can see pretty much the best sim of it's type on the market and thats a testiment to the great job you all did first time round. If I have a worry it's that no matter how good it is it will seem to fall short simply because it is standing on the shoulders of a giant. It's a bit like breaking a world record and getting four golds in the pool and then being told "ah but Mark Spitz got seven". After all the work youu've put in there will still be some who will have expected more... I bought BF 1942 a while back and it was fun, but as realistic as playing soilders when I was a kid. I'd be happy with an improved version of CM and all the current threads suggest we are on target for that and more... Peter.

I wasn't talking about full scale battles, after all CM1 can't simulate anything much over a battalion, but I haven't heard may people complain and say it's not a good game, because you can't do Omaha beach on one map. Peter.

As I understand it there is no intention not to include PBEM, but rather a caution to promise it because they can't guarenttee it will work at this stage. They definitely want to put it in , they are just being honest about where they currently are in development and what they can and can't definitely say they can do. Personally I think they'll do it and unless they reallly need the cash flow, they'll delay the launch of the new game to get it right. Peter.

In London they say "may", in Glasgow we say ''can".... yeh ken, Anyway, "Brother may I please have a dime", doesn't have the same ring to it does it. Peter.

In the book " A bridge to far" there is an account of an allied fighter pilot who gets shot down over the british DZ runs up to some Paras ( actually it might have been Infantry who dropped in the second phase not actual Red Berrets), borrowed a sten gun and ran off in to the trees saying " I saw the bastards that hit me and I am going to get them". Apparently a true verified account, although I'd still go along with Dorosh and say it's too unlikely to put in as it would be unrealistic. I think I'll log off as I've agreed with him twicw tonight and that is a little freaky... Peter.

"Being Scottish, I'm positive you won't pay full price for it if the possibility of buying it used, in a bargain bin, or just plain borrowing it exists..." hey Dorosh IF YOU BUY IT CAN I BORROW YOUR COPY.... Peter.

OKay but if we put smoke in should it be a weapon you can fire or should it just happen under the control of the TACAI. I am still of theview that like grenades it shouldn't be simulated as an option that a player can control. In my post on Helicopters I took the same view , that they should be tretedlike artillery not vehicles, as CM is about commanding a company not role playing 120 individual men. Peter.

What I mean is that in CM1 you see grenades thrown when units get close. If as it seems that the only real use people made of them was well surprise surprise within the throwing range of a grenade, given that in CM1 that was about 10m or so, then that's about the range at which they should be used. If as most people including yourself seem to think there was little evidence of them being used to screen movement or concealment as such, it would be most likely they were used if at all for close assault or as a last resort. Hell close in people might have thrown them by mistake or because they were the first thing to come to hand. I had a fiend who saw a squadie concussed in training and sent to hospital becuase he got hit in the face with a "Dummy" grenade ( the thing was an old style "pineapple style which was being used to get the weight right). Like I said I see them more as an effect more than a weapon, and if the only evidence we have for there use is close assault then thats when we should see them. Peter.

Maybe I missed it but given the philsophy that BF are following, a core Engine followed by period or Scenario modules, I am surprised that I've not come across any discussion of the American Civil War. I'd have thought there would be a lot of support Stateside for it to be in the top five. If the idea is that a major piece of work such as horses can only be justified if it is essential for a period, and then ported back to be used in other modules then The civil War would be an ideal period to justify the effort and generate the sales to make it worth while. Being Scottish I am not sure I would buy it, but it was a diverse theatre in terms of battle types terrain and weather, and it is often cited by some as heralding the birth of modern warfare, because of the impact of industrialisation, not least the train, and the growing lethality of infantry weapons and how they began to change tactics. Peter.

For me the issue is, should they be there as, A) "Eye Candy" so that in close combat situations with or without armour, smoke ( and in the case of grenades Flashes), would appear every now and then as a visual effect with effects limited for the units engaged in close combat, or A type of support weapon that can be "Fired" and targeted by order, under a players control. Personally as I have said I am in favour of A, so that they can be in , but controlled to limit abuse or over use. Peter.

I would be carefull about editing down to the last grenade, I better system would be a sort of "high" setting for Ammo that set it above the norm, for something like an assault, without people being able to pick and mix. In real life you may have a plan, but if something unexpected happens you could find yourself with the wrong stuff. The reality is troops tend to grab what they want and what they can get there hands on, and the idea of a company commander issuing a set amount out to each of his 120 men to equip them for his "Plan" is just unrealistic. Again I'd like to see smoke in, but you should no more be able to determine how much or how often a team uses it, than you can control the fire of the M1 carbine over the two Garands.... Peter.

Most of the rail we have today is based on the 30's and 40's and before... Single track lines are not uncommon, I like on the black Isle just north of Inverness and it's largely single travk north of here and on the line to the west coast. The expansion of rail in France and the rest of europe post war made it very different from what you would see today. One of the points made in CM1 was that outside major towns many roads weren't even metalled. So I have no problem with the idea that single track would be more common than double. Peter.