Peter Cairns

AS I recall the main problem with smoke im CM was a fear that people would abuse it like they do in "Movies" . My solution would be to simulate it on a scale with the Puff you get from a 2' mortar but to make it a "feature" like grenades rather than a "weapon" like a Piat. So in close combat situations troops either offensively or defensively would "pop" smoke, but it would be controlled like grenades are in CM1, but the tacAI as "Eye Candy", It's a compromise but it allows close in use of smoke without it being abused or distorting play, as it's effectiveness can be tightly modelled to prevent it becoming a distortion. Peter.

"You should be able to blow them up." Or at least parts of them.. Peter,

I think that the problem for BF in terms of the "Module" idea is that although helicopters do play an important part in modern warfare and have increasingly now for almost 40 years, it's the effort to put them in. Even if they adopt the FAC method, which gets over the problems of trying to control them like vehicles, ( imagine getting a move order wrong and it comming to a hover about 40secs into a turn), it would still be an immmense amount of work. Can we realistically expect them to do that and put off other things so that we can have the occasional Kiowa fly past or all our troops landed in three Chinooks on turn one, never to be seen after turn two. No, to merit that kind of effort you would need to have a sort of AIrCav module, or one covering Modern special operations and that would need to be a release on it's own with people paying for it to cover the development costs. The reason I started the thread was really to ask the question and gauge the response If you like look at it as a poll "Command or Control" Iam for "Comand" you designate targets or LZ and the straAI does the flying. "Control" is having them act like individual vehicles be they Gunships ( A really fast Hellcat) or Slicks ( A really fast truck) I use the truck hellcat anaolgy because I find these really fast vehicles like jeeps really hard to use because of their speed making it difficult to judge just where they will end up and when. Peter.

Rail infrastructure in europe in the 30's and 40's was pretty primative by todays standards and indeed all infrastructure was. If rail tracks are drawn on a gravel bed, then there is no reason why they can't be the same terrain on a bridge as either side. If I understand the terrain overlay system you should be able to draw a 1m by 3m by 250m block higher than surrounding terrain, to make a raised bed. Just as bridges can have high sides and be too narrow for heavy vehicles, it should be easy to make "Gateways that are too narrow for tanks, or even gaps in tree lines that let infantry through, allow LOF but don't let tanks cross. This may well allow you to "Turkey shoot", armour side on from a road they can't get off... Nasty. Anyone want to talk about "Bridges"... Peter.

Thankyou for that thoughtful and detailed contribution to the discussion. Peter.

We have no plans to do air assaults for any game in the near future. It certainly isn't a requirement for contemporary warfare. Only a small slice of units in the world have this capability within an active combat area. Recent combat, in the 1990s and current, has also proven that helos are a lot more vulnerable than they were in Vietnam. In fact, AARs from the battle of Fallujah stated quite clearly that even attack helos needed to be kept out of the battle for the most part. Fixed wing aircraft was used instead. Steve I tend to agree with that pretty much, I've always felt that a huey was more or less just an airborne jeep with an MG, not even a half track. Apoclypse Now looks goood but it would be pretty much suicidal if anyone actually tried it. My main point was about the bet way to handle control, rather than we need them now. I' am sort of assuming that if we are talking about modules 1 and 2 in 2006 and one every six months after that then Helicopters aren't in the first five, we'ed be looking at about late 2007 early 2008 as the first probably outting. We'll I got my thoughts in first. Oh and Steve, so far your doing a great job of keeping us up to date and in our place... Peter

This is a topic which has come up from time to time, on various CM forums, with regards to a Post WW2 game. Given that we will be having modules and that contemporary warfare has been mentioned I thought I would start a discussion on the way they should be treated. Basically I feel that it would be best for game purposes to treat them like aircraft, as a form of artillery. Now that we know that the new artillery system will be more flexible and realistic than in CM1, this might need to be adapted, but on the basis of the current game this is how I see it working. Helicopters would be controlled( though commanded is more accurate) by Forward air Controllers (FAC) who would be able to designate targets and LZ's just like artillery spotters. Helicopters would then attack, deploy or retrieve, automatically. rather than being individually controlled by a player, as he would a tank or vehicle. This would be in line with the game effectively being a company level simulation of ground combat and would also allow helicopters to be realistically modelled. There is an arguement that says that the game engine if it is realistically modelled should stop players controlling helicopters using them in unrealistic "gamey" ways by effectively making it suicidal to hover in a close formation line straffing trenches, but I feel for playability and realism over "fun" like aircraft in CM1 they should be "ordered" and then "remotely" controlled. One of the other issues to look at would be "Dust Off". Rather than introduce casualties and or stretcher bareres etc, I think the best way to proceed would be "Airborne Exit" where you received victory points for getting units out by air. Another possibility would be to receive points for squads that had casualties. Thus if you moved a squad of three which was down to two on to a helicopter you would score, but not one that still had all three personel. This would simulate taking casualties out and a wounded first strategy when collapsing a LZ. If you lost the FAC it could either allow control to a field commander (longer delays less accuracy)or the AI could take control and revert to pre set LZ's or attacking victory flags. Just some thoughts, what do people think....

Any word yet on how bridges will be treated... I know the new 8x8 with 1m overlays will make them far more flexible, but there are a number of other issues of Interest. STRENGTH You can get bridges wide enough to take vehicles but which can't take a tank. I don't think BF should go down the road of modeling ground pressure and doing calculations so a set of different bridges which you could visually recognise would be better. This could include insering damaged sections etc. WIDTH Very important as particularly in rural areas you can get strong stone bridges which are wide enough for a halftrack but not a tank. ARCH This is the classic Private Ryan bridge where you get a shot at the bottom as the tank comes over the brow of the bridge, but more importantly for most games it is the way the arch of a bridge can creat a hull down position. If possible this would be really good to simulate. PARAPITS(?) A know some models added these, but a range of railings (possibly just the ability to add fences or walls 1m out) would add really variety and can have a rewal impact on the ability to take cover when crossing. EXOTICS Rather than have dozens of bridge types I think things like Pegasus or swing bridges should be kept out of the basic game and be added latter in a module such as Market garden.... Peter.

Been away a while so a couple of points. The "Rod of God" idea is about precision as much as power, with as few as tewnty or thirty in a single pass(quarter of an orbit taking less than half an hour) you could take out just about the entire oil refining capability of the USA. Secondly if you look at something like Flight Internationals annual UAV survey you will see that the nature of the technology means that there are literally dozens of developments. The idea that we would abandon these and go back to Tanks or planes assumes that they are harder to make. Once you understand a technology it's down to resourcing. The aeroplane is more advanced than the galleon, but in terms of time manpower and resources it costs a fraction of the amount. In the time it would take to make a large sailing ship you could build dozens if not hundreds of biplanes with the same labour and resources. Finally the penlight example is a bit extreme although they are currently using low powered lasers to move molecules in Nanotech experiments. The point I was making is that the basic idea that war in the future will resemble war today is flawed, DT will still be a good game and I like the look of it, but just as the gun revolutioniesd warfare, then the plane and the missile and ultimately nukes, so future war will be very different. If there are consistants over centuries it's that forces disperse, engagement distances increase and that accuracy improves. If these continue in to the future and short of a "Post Apocalypse" fudge there is no reason to assume they shouldn't, a future war with Tanks and Dropships doesn't add up. Peter.

Sorry to bother people but this is more aquestion than a discussion point. Does anyone know if CMx2 will be able to simulate limited "pools" of light for night fighting, so that for example an area around a starshell could have different spotting from the other side of a hill. The other classic example is, will it be easier to spot units near a burning building which "illuminates" them. Less significant but of interest would be the spotting effects of firing. Will firing units be easier to spot, and or loose some of their spotting ability due to muzzle flah etc. Indeed though it's another issue what are the effects of fire on "sound" detection. Is a firing motar team less likely to hear that flanking Panther, than a waiting one. Peter.

No particular order. Cowardice and fanatacism, some will hold out, others break and run. Limits on what terrain you can see, so that details will be lost or lower behind hills. probably a lower detail level, or blanked out but you would be able to consult a map of the terrain to check what was there. Fewer dead before a side buckles ( I know casualties don't represent dead as such ), It just would fell better if units broke and ran before being destroyed. National tactics, don't really now a better phrase, a german unit would move different from a US one given the same command because of different training and or doctrine. Again I like the idea of tank formations, but again it should reflect national doctrine. Peter.

Problems with that scenario are that things like tanks aren't cheap to produce, they cost millions. the point of micro UAV's is that they can detect and target for a fraction of the cost of a helicopter let alone a fighter jet. We are already moving in to an era that could see the Tank going the way of the Battleship, to slow and big to survive a missile attack. Over the last decade it is the increase in accuracy that has revolutionised warfare not firepower. A laser can move at the speed of light, about 300,000,000mps (three hundred million metres a second), so to cut a hole with a 1m circumferance it could do 300m rotations a second. If it had the accuracy to cut to within a molecule, then it cut by nudging atoms slice a hole in a tank with the power of a pen light. Look at todays innovation, few nations are putting money in to a new generation of big tanks. So in the event of emerging from a colapse, going back to tanks when networked dispersed remotes are cheaper and more effective, is like us emerging from a nuclear war and going back to Galleons, and ignoring aircraft... Peter.

Problems with that scenario are that things like tanks aren't cheap to produce, they cost millions. the point of micro UAV's is that they can detect and target for a fraction of the cost of a helicopter let alone a fighter jet. We are already moving in to an era that could see the Tank going the way of the Battleship, to slow and big to survive a missile attack. Over the last decade it is the increase in accuracy that has revolutionised warfare not firepower. A laser can move at the speed of light, about 300,000,000mps (three hundred million metres a second), so to cut a hole with a 1m circumferance it could do 300m rotations a second. If it had the accuracy to cut to within a molecule, then it cut by nudging atoms slice a hole in a tank with the power of a pen light. Look at todays innovation, few nations are putting money in to a new generation of big tanks. So in the event of emerging from a colapse, going back to tanks when networked dispersed remotes are cheaper and more effective, is like us emerging from a nuclear war and going back to Galleons, and ignoring aircraft... Peter.

Yes and it still doesn't wash, You can talk about particle beams and hover tanks and the like, but it's just mechanisied warfare with different names. All the units just look like modern tanks , I've seen virtually the same in "Total Annilation" years back. Don't get me wrong it will be a good game and worth the cash, I might even buy it, and it will probably bemore realistic in terms of the physics than most SciFi games, but in terms of war in the far future forget it. A half our trawl of the internet will show that current future studies are dealing with more andvanced concepts than Dropship. If it was called Iraq 2030, I caught say "OK it could well be like that", but the far future, sorry but no... Peter.

I've read that the terrain for CM@ will be far more detailed and on a smaller scale. Is there any detail on whether you will be able to import or edit models, particularly buildings. I once saw a programme called canomia(?) which let you paste photos on the sides of boxes and the like to make photo realistic buildings, ( you basicallyy took photos from all four sides of a house and pasted them on). Although it was pretty expensive a similiar approach would br great for re creating historical scenarios from photos or even doing your "Home Town". Over the yeas i've done three or four models of the couple of square miles around my house, but the limited pallet in CM means that though it plays well it never really looks that great. A bigger palette of terrain and easier editing with cut and paste would be ideal. Peter.

I've read that the terrain for CM@ will be far more detailed and on a smaller scale. Is there any detail on whether you will be able to import or edit models, particularly buildings. I once saw a programme called canomia(?) which let you paste photos on the sides of boxes and the like to make photo realistic buildings, ( you basicallyy took photos from all four sides of a house and pasted them on). Although it was pretty expensive a similiar approach would br great for re creating historical scenarios from photos or even doing your "Home Town". Over the yeas i've done three or four models of the couple of square miles around my house, but the limited pallet in CM means that though it plays well it never really looks that great. A bigger palette of terrain and easier editing with cut and paste would be ideal. Peter.

As a big fan of CM I have to question the idea behind drop team. Although I am sure it will be a good game, the question is will war in the far future be anything like this. With the future of armour in doubt today are we really going to be airlifting in individual tanks in 100 years when a micro UAV the size of your hand can feed real time to orbit where a Rod of God can deliver a pin point strike that hits like a small nuke in under 60 seconds.... I like SciFi but I always laugh at the fact that although since almost the dawn of warfare ranges have increased and forcces have dispersed in the movies they seem to think that in the future the effective range of an assalt rifle will be about six feet. I'd have though that if anyone could come up with a "realistic" idea for what future combat might be like it would be the Battlefront team, as opposed to a copy ( all be it with a good game system) of your standard hollywood Buck Rogers GI in Space. Peter.

I spent a fair bit on a 20" G5 iMac last year so i'd hate to have to replace that.... Peter.

I spent a fair bit on a 20" G5 iMac last year so i'd hate to have to replace that.... Peter.

I agre with most of whats said but i think a better way to proceed is to focus on abstract zones of control. If you go back to old hex based games the further you went from your HQ the less effective you became. By reinforcing this in CM we don't deliniate AO's but rather people become less effective as they wander away from their CO, and you simulate AO's by where you put your HQ's. Units "out of command" would sight worse, be more likely to target friendlies, be more likely to be mis identified and ingeneral all units should have difficulty targeting in relation to there position relative to their HQ. I've often played games where I don't (or try not to) issue fire orders at all. I direct units and choose how they will move, but by amd large let them target for themselves. When you do this you find that by and large the AI, chooses close targets even if a juicy one pops up half way across the battlefield. I'd prefer sometime inate and built in than designating zones or AO's.

Will apples decision to switch to intel from IBM/Motorola chips have any effect on CMX2, will it make mean potentially buying a differnt version or delays in getting it, or could it actually make development easier. What about versions of other BF games... Peter.

Will apples decision to switch to intel from IBM/Motorola chips have any effect on CMX2, will it make mean potentially buying a differnt version or delays in getting it, or could it actually make development easier. What about versions of other BF games... Peter.

Just for the sake of keeping this going, and these are based on a road atlass as i've never been to cornwall, Beaches Penzance east to Marazion 2 Miles. Cudden point east to Trewavas head 11/2miles. Porthleven east to Chyanvounder 31/2miles. There are also small under 1 mile beaches at Kuggar, Whitesands Bay,Gerrans Bay,Chaple point,Veryan bay,Megaviisey bay, and Carlyon bay. St Ives has an exellent beach but it's on the north coast. At Penzance it is less than 4 miles North of the beach to St Ives cutting off the toe., From St Austal to Wadebridge is about 12 miles, cutting off the cutting off a 500mile sq peninsula That would seem the logical bit to try to lop off and defend, using bodmin moor as a barrier. One possibility is that they may have hoped that churchills on the beaches speech was bull****, and that the British would fold like the Norwegians, Dutch and Belgians. Finally as these events would predate Pearl Harbour by a year, I think the Royal Navy might have either not been prepared to risk it's Battleships that far south or if it did have lost a lot of them. Even with air cover 1940 British battleships would have been easy meet for a concerted Luftwaffa assault, indeed it might even be worth the risk just to draw them south. What about a landing further east say in Devon east of Exeter and then driving north in to Somerset to cut off the whole South West. Peter.

What makes people think the RAF had air superiority over the channel in 1940. Over the south east of england yes, but the closer you got to france the worse it got. Also short of scaping the white cliffs of Dover almost anything of any size would need to be within artillery range of the french coast. As to the type of terrain in Cornwall, the tanks we are talking about are Pz11, and PZ111,s, not King Tigers, and again look up the figures for Dunkirk, sure we got nearly 400,000 out but we lost virtually every anti-tank gun we had. The Germans if they got a foothold would have been facing an army that was seriously looking at using molotovs as it's primary anti-tank weapon. The if in if they got ashore is the big issue, but by late 1940 the British army was a shell in no fit state to take on the Wermacht in a straight fight. Alos like Normandy, would the British have committed everything or held back seeing it as a faint for a larger attack in to Kent, giving Hitler the space he needed to build up. Oh and in the debate on the Royal Navy no one has mentioned that concentrating that many ships in that area, would have been a U-boat's paradise. Peter.

I am not so sure that this is as daft as people seem to think. Firstly the key point for me is to use it as a staging post from which to build a bridgehead for the main attack. After Dunkirk the UK had virtually no effective armour or anti-tank. the difficulty of getting out of cornwall is actually an advantage if you are trying to defend it. Obviously you need to get ashore fast by taking ports and using Paras, but once ashore things change. If the Royal Navy tries to stop reinforcement then the Royall navy has to either run the gauntlet of the lufftwaffa in the channel of come in from the irish sea. For me a crucial factor would be how quickly german airborne forces could slaughter the home guard in Cornwall and get the airfields open and for ferried Me-109's to operate. Once ashore and the bridgehead is established with ground based aircover, then the UK would be hard pressed to drive the Germans in to the sea with the state they were in post Dunkirk. It's a risky strategy, but that very unlikelyhood means that cornwall was probably underdefended. In Scotland the Poles were based in fife, because they're were fears that an attack from norway could take the kingdom (for historic reasons it's know as the Kingdom of Fife) and use it to build up and then break out to take Glasgow and cut scotland in half. As a peninsula with the deep Tay and Forth to North and South, it would be easy to hold while building up for a break out. Again an unlikely scenario, but it was taken seriously at the time. Talking about a scenario, as it's easy to get good maps of fife, it might have the makings of a CM campaign. Peter.