Peter Cairns

I'd like to see motorcycles with or without side cars because I believe that almost alone BF would do it properly. What I mean by that is, that if the were to give in to popular(ish) demand and not keep them off map like Helicopters in CMSF, then people would very quickly see their tactical vulnerability in a real battle. If I was buying MB's in CM (and I probably wouldn't) I'd deploy them in cover close to a map edge, and then dismount immediately and fight as infantry for the rest of the game. I suspect that those who do buy then and drive them anywhere near the enemy in CMx2 will find that C&C makes them almost impossible to be effective and their susceptibility to even modest fire so great that they are effectively a waste of time and points. So go on Steve, put them in just to show how militarily insignificant they really were. Peter.

Steve, Please tell me you aren't thinking about selling add space, it's bad enough here without " CocaCola" on the side of Panthers..... Peter.

Steve, In I think 1940 or so some of my late mothers friends were equipped while in the army with cold weather gear before being deployed and all concluded that they would soon be in Norway. The were soon disembarked spent almost all their time below decks before about a week later arriving in Africa. They never did get an explanation but concluded that as Britain didn't know how good or extensive Germany's spy network was they had been part of a disinformation campaign. Probably not the explanation for Normandy camo, but I thought you'd like it. On the uniform variety question, would it be less processor intensive if instead of variety for individuals a squad would be selected from a half dozen different four man teams so that out of a dozen men you could have a couple of dozen combinations. Peter

In terms of vehicles I think a big move forward since CMx1 isn't just having variants but being able to have a degree of random variation between different vehicles of the same type. In terms of immersion I think I would prefer a half dozen M4's with different gear hanging off them, like Camo nets and tracks, than half a dozen different obscure vehicles. One thing that might take a bit of time but I think would be worth the effort would be to have more variation in clothing. One of the features that I associate with WW2 is that the average squad seemed to have far less standardisation in dress. Part of this I think is that they were less well equipped and a lot scruffier due to the intensity of the conflict and the limitations of the time. Peter.

Steve, Well I am one person who thinks that the philosophy you outline is spot on. If I go back to the Firefight analogy I thought it was a far better game than Squad Leader at the time. It had far fewer units and they well "Blue and Red", and the map was really basic. But the alternate fire/alternate move system that meant at any time the game was balanced was so much better than Squad Leader's where you really only got a feel for the where you were at the end of a full move. Squad leader had loads of special features but they tended more and more to be add on's and special rules that slowed the game to a crawl in an ever growing badly written rules book. Squad Leaders rules weren't difficult, they were just clumsy. You could pick up Firefight and play it in half an hour and it was a good simulation of modern combat stripped to it's basics so that you spent more time playing and developing realistic tactics than doing LOS tests and checking the rules. Of all the computer games I've played CMx1 & 2, are the closest to that I've ever seen. I liked sniper and patrol for the same reasons, easy to understand and play with a clear game system. Dorosh, might think the map was simple and boring but It's what you do with it that matters. A chess board is pretty basic but it's a game that once learned has huge depth. Probably the best example of simplicity in a game of depth is "Go" ; a simple grid with black or white pieces that once placed can't be moved, and yet the most advanced computer in the world isn't even a match for an average club player. I think the ASL geeks tend to want the designer to do everything for them and provided the entertainment rather than doing it themselves. Squad Leader was far more popular at my club that Firefight because it had all those units and rules, great counter and maps, but look beyond the packaging and it wasn't anywhere near as good a simulation of the period it covered. Heck, the game boards in SL bore absolutely no relation to the game scale that was being played. If they had then a SL road would have been about 70ft wide. As you quoted Charles as saying about ASL " Who'd want to play this let alone put it on a computer". Peter.

Michael Dorosh, You can't really say a game is good on the basis that it is still selling or that people are collecting it. Sure ASL is still going, but so is chess and I am pretty sure on a daily basis there are a lot more games of chess played. As to a game selling for $400, sure there are a handful of people willing to pay that ( sad but true) but put it on the market at that price as a new game and you would be bust pretty soon. I remember buying SPI's Cityfight when it came out because I really liked Firefight which was a really fast streamlined game. Problem was Cityfight was all but un-playable in that although it was a good attempt it was just to cumbersome to be fun for all but the dedicated. You could spend a night and get half way through a medium scenario. When playing Patrol or Sniper you could play a dozen games in an evening all of them more fun. You want a game that flows, is quick to pick up and where you don't spend more time reading that playing or on a computer having to type like a devil just to make your units do simple tasks. Chess is a good example of a game that is easy to learn and difficult to master. That doesn't mean that CM needs to be simplified but what you do need is to be able to focus on the strategy and have your units realistically do what they would do, (with the minimum of actions on your part). I'd like Helicopters landing, Parachute drops and landing craft in the game, but I can live without them because they aren't really much more than eye candy in terms of the actual combat. Peter.

I think you need to stay close to the centre of the bell curve, if not you risk the game, as in ASL (and your shirt as a company). There are lots of things that are possible but not all of them are probable. Throw two die and there are six ways to get seven but only one way to get two or twelve. The more you try to put in "all the options", the more your risk distorting the game. Yes these things could happen, but how often would it happen in real life. Do you spend a lot of time and effort putting in things that will only happen once in a dozen games? If they are in do you make them happen more than is realistic to show them off? Do you let players use them as options even though they undermine realism and make things more and more gamey? It even applies to bugs. If with pathfinding people do daft things that make no sense then it needs to be addressed but once you have it refined till it only acts oddly once in twenty times do you keep chasing it or do you say; "Hell, if once in twenty the squad leader makes the wrong choice is that something that we can live with and which might not be that unrealistic". You don't want unit or weapon behaviour to be erratic or unpredictable, but likewise you need a degree of uncertainty. Every so often when every squad should go to ground and crawl for cover one will do something different and cross that gap under fire. That might mean they get cut off and or cut up throwing your plans out but then that's (simulated) combat. I think BF understands this, probably better than any other game company, so they simulate the main possibilities and get them right and they are willing to sacrifice the unlikely or rare both to cut down a lot of effort on things that don't merit it and to avoid information overload for the game engine and the players. If you like it's "Want isn't need". There a limitless list of things that people want, but do they or the game actually need them. I think that is a good starting point for any person wanting to make a user friendly product that isn't too complicated or covered in knobs that never get used. I bought my wife an iPod touch because she can use it as an organisier and do Wifi e-mail and web which she uses at work. I've got a clip on shuffle with no screen because I just listen to music when I am out walking, so it's all I need. Both products do what people need them to do very well, and cut out anything else so that they are clean intuitive and reliable. If you like remember the maxim "KiSS", Keep it Simple Stupid. The current BF strategy of putting in what is needed and resisting lists of requests for more and more complexity and obscurity has to be the way to go for CM. Peter.

Steve, I think you have got it about right, Leaving aside the commercial logic which matters a lot more to you than the average customer, I played most of the CM demos to death and actually learned a fair amount from them. After that I got the full games but once I was through the scenarios my main use was most QB's either solo or with my son hot seat. By far the most usual scenario I played was US v German, combined arms with about an infantry company each and an armoured platoon in support. Favourite tanks, US; Sherman's and for me Hellcats, but usually just the good old M4A1. German; PZIV's or Tiger I. I have to say I liked the miss match between the fast light armoured hellcat and the slow heavy armoured Tiger, but Sherman v PZIV was more common. In short what I liked to play wasn't some obscure scenario with a bizarre mix of the rarest and weirdest vehicles in the game but a bread and butter fight with the most common kit in the field. With the depth and variety in CMx1 let alone the better texture in CMx2, a simulation of just the basic stuff should keep most people happy for years. If I represent a problem for you ( other than being Mac only) it's that I might not buy many modules if the basic game meets my needs, although I'd probably buy British Paras. Peter.

I like this one TOS-1 Ouch that's got to hurt Peter.

I know that there is no ETA for either the Mac version or the next modules but I was wondering this. If/When the Mac version comes out will there still be the same time lag as now with modules or will we be looking at close to simultaneous release? It could be that the native Mac version and CMx2 WW2 will be ready about the same time, but if I was BF I'd launch the Mac version first and delay the Mac WW2 a bit just in case lots of people decide to skip CM:SF and go straight to Normandy. That might be seen as cynical but it would be sound business. Peter

The problem with the WH40k type game is that where as through history engagement ranges have grown and troop desnsities dropped ( yes that's a generalistaion but you know what i mean so don't get picky), in movies and table top games ranges are ridiculously short. It's a fudge, in movies it makes them action packed. The Terminator should have killed Sara conners from 1,000m with an M-16 with no scope in the first reel but that wouldn't have been much of a movie. In WH 40K you should engage at about 500 ft, but who's got 60 or so 8 ft tables and somewhere to put them. Whether it be in-doors in "Aliens" or super power suits that allows a man to carry more armour than a Tiger 2, they are all just fudges to make it look good keeping it "on screen" or "on table". What the CMx2 engine allows you to do is break away from that and use realistic weapons at proper ranges and if you don't do it then you end up with just another novelty Sci-fi game. If they do it BF should aim for something better than that. Peter.

The problem with almost everything mentioned is that the combat in most of these novels and films is like in bad WW2 movies. Saying make it like "Starship Troopers" is a bit like saying the next CM module after Normandy should be "Where Eagles Dare". I like CM because it's a pretty realistic representation of combat, so given that most Sci fi combat isn't very realistic there would be the real possibility of a contradiction. I'd go for as original a format as they could come up with and start with the combat and game system and then create the aliens to fit. The difficulty is to try to create a balance without it being like CM only with Earth as the Syrians. It's unlikely that we will ever meet Aliens let alone be invaded and it's even more remote that two civilisations would meet who were evenly matched. I quite like the idea from Starship Troopers of the Aliens being spores or eggs that just seed over millions of years and have them arrive about 2020, so that we could have updated versions of what we have now versus something really alien. Peter.

A question come request. Are there any plans to add any new civilian vehicles with the up coming modules. A couple of trucks and articulated trailers would be good, and some agricultural stuff like a tractor would be nice. Peter.

Just a question, Has anyone tried to do traditional Afghan style dress. Peter.

You know it makes sense. Ouch.... Peter.

You reap what you sow, For any country you either bring people together under one culture which unites people with something that can bind them more than the differences between them. The classic example of that has been the US which has through "the American Dream" has created a unifying ideal that everyone regardless of where they came from, immigration ( legal or illegal), slavery, native or naturalised can sign up to. Nations like Iraq and Yugoslavia didn't do that, they did in some respects the opposite choosing one type of identity as superior to others and one which being ethnic other groups were excluded from. That is building on sand because ultimately what makes nations isn't land but people. Once the people in an area decide that they want something different, who used to own the land doesn't matter, possession is 9/10th of the law. After Tito the artificial unity imposed by the war and authoritarian rule was loosened and the divisions that had not been addressed re emerged. So what we then had was little short of tragedy. Rather than accept that in the long term it is better to have a friendly neighbour than a rebellious province they tried to hold people against their will with disastrous consequences, not least for Serbia. You would have hoped by now that they would have learned the hard lesson of the last decade, but it doesn't look like it. Oddly enough if you look at the nations that are backing Kosovo they tend to be democratic and ethnically diverse with a record of integration by choice and resolving there own political conflicts and regional disputes peacefully. Those who have backed Serbia or failed to recognise Kosovo tend to have had less success unifying ethnic groups and have had to use force to maintain and control areas where the majority want change. Peter.

God ... I remember watching Combat as a kid, Those were the days, no great special effects and a black and white TV with a 1 foot screen. Ah the sixties..... Peter.

Sorry about the images they were fine on the preview. Check here to see the range of Chinese kit. As Darkmath says, it's pretty much all indigenous these days although you can still see the Soviet influence on a lot of it. I think the Iraqi's had a number of earlier Chinese APC's. Chinese Defence Peter.

I know that it doesn't really fit in as a combatant, but just as the Marines module will include things like the BMP-3, there is a real growth of china as a major weapons exporter and it is only a matter of time before Chinese equipment like the Type 99 MBT becomes more common. What it might be is more a set of equipment than an actual Chinese army option. Peter.

I know that the British and (US) Marines (as the first two proposed modules) will have their own TOE and unit organisation, but will they actually fight differently? If we had two US units both Infantry with the same weapons mix would the tactical doctrine of the Marines lead them to react, fire or deploy in a different way? Would the traditional UK emphasis on fire discipline and accuracy mean that a British squad with the same weapons as a US one use them in a different way? I think this is both a question for BF to see what their current thinking is but also to forum members to express opinions and perhaps influence the final shape of the modules. To be honest I am not sure what my view is. Given that there seems to be more to the way that Syrian forces react in CM:SF than just quality, it looks to take in doctrine and training, then it would seem that there should be more to a Marines or allies module than just kit and eye candy. On the other hand there is always the risk that BF have rightly always taken extremely seriously of introducing something gamey. If pushed I'd say that I think there should be differences but nothing to stark, but it's all about getting the balance right so that they are not a characature but they "feel"right. It will be hard to pull off and given that I would be reluctant to be critical if it wasn't quite right. Peter.

KD, Just a suggestion. One way to deal with conjoined buildings that might work is extended dormas. Just in case it has a different name in the US a dorma is a vertical roof window that has it's own little pitched roof. If these are extended to meet a wall then you can have an L shaped or T shaped building that can then be linked together. having buildings of different heights also helps as it's common to have a ridged roof meet the end wall of a higher building. A 45' bend in a building would probably be enough to give character without LOS becoming a nightmare. Farmhouse with one level lower attached and set back. Farm house with one level lower at right angles. Farmhouse with extended dorma allowing attachment of same height building ( forget the two small ones it's the large centre one that creates the tee). Peter.

Dan, I wasn't so much talking about angling buildings but rather about having a building that had a bend in it, almost like roads that have bend tiles. Would doing it that way avoid the processor problem. What we need I think is to find a way to have the buildings look graphically correct while minimising the LOS issues. Hopefully there will be a way to recreate those long close continuously built up streets climbing up through towns. Peter.

Yeah we should all remember what BF always said, It will be ready when.....It's got to be published because of a contract. Peter.

For me a key thing will be buildings. In CM:SF you can get away with blocks as it's modern middle eastern and I suppose it looking like an American suburb is fine, but not France in 1944. If a Syrian village is a bit of a grid, then a French one is more a plate of spaghetti. So we will almost certainly need a larger stock of buildings that can interlock and at least some of which have "kinks" in them. They will also need to be able to be offset so that they stick out from each other by a couple of mtrs now and then. The good thing is that as almost every roof has a steep pitch it is probably realistic to keep units off them and so none of the problems with crossing from one to another. Peter.

Any sign of the new high speed assault craft that is to replace the AAV-7, Air Cushion landing craft or Ospreys. Peter.