Mike D

"and there are some indications of a clear direction to getting things done" should have read: and there are some indications of a LACK OF A clear direction IN getting things done Mike D

Gadzooks, looks like my being a pain in the *ss has gained me infamy once again . But yes Steve, I pretty much tend to agree w/ you. CM will most certainly end up being a much better game when it gets released as a result of this forum. I don't mind the least bit if the game releases a couple of weeks later as a result. Probably wouldn't even mind if it were a month later. Most other games out there don't even come up w/ their first patch after their initial release much sooner than that. And as you say, CM should already be at the equivalent of ver. 1.01 or 1.02 when it initially releases in comparison to the version 0.08 that most games release at initially. I only get concerned when things start to sound like they are going to meander on forever and there are some indications of a clear direction to getting things done. That's when it seems like games just slide from one month, to the next, to the next, until it is suddenly 6-12 months after the game was supposed to release. Just look at Road to Moscow. They have been working on that thing since about 1/2 to 1 years before you guys started CM. Rumors of it possibly being released have gone on for at least a year now. The company (i-magic I believe) has even given several dates this year that the game was supposed to hit the shelves, yet it still isn't there. Looks more and more like it might just be another case of vaporware. You guys, however, seem to have your heads screwed on straight, and know what you are doing. So, I really am not that worried anymore. Moreso, just anxious and growing impatient, because I want to start playing what may very well be one of the coolest wargames that will have ever graced a computer screen. Mike D aka Mikester

CM Team, This is much welcomed news. As I'm sure Steve will recall, I was harping on BTS regarding this very point just a month, or two ago. At some point you have to get on with getting the thing done and it looks like that time has arrived. Don't get me wrong. I think many of the ideas that have come out of this forum have been great and some of the discussions have been very interesting, if not outright entertaining, as well. Game looks / sounds great and Battlefront looks like it has tremendous potential to keep us groganards out here happy for a long time if these guys can pull it off. And I have every confidence from what I'm seeing and hearing that they will. Best of luck and keep up the terrific job you are all doing at BTS and BF. Mike D aka Mikester

Steve, What do we see when we turn the trees off? Close Combat has always displayed at least the trunk of the tree (kinda look like little tree stumps all over the place in the top down view). This is great because you can see your unit alot more cleartly in the forest, but you also still know where the trees are, how thick the clumps of them are, etc. Will we still be able to see where the trees were if we turn them off in CM? If not, you might want to think about this and see if it would be possible to display a short tree stump at least when they are turned off, or something. Mike D aka Mikester

Steve, You mentioned in the example above that when you clicked on the panicked tank that there would be some indication of some bigger tank shooting at it. What will this message look like? Will it simply be words to that effect? Will we see something like a red line(s), or other indicator, showing the the threat vector from which the fire came? Just curious. Mike D aka Mikester

Decisions, decisions. God, sometimes it is terrible to live in America isn't it? Guess I'll have to go check this out now. Mike D

BF / BTS, Beyond the Eastern Front I would really, really, like to see the CM engine taken into the modern day battlefield. Granted it would be a very large undertaking. Dozens upon dozens of new units and vehicle types, many new countries TO&E's and OB's to consider, helicopters, surface to air missiles, SAMS's, jet aircraft, the list goes on and on. But you will have a very solid game engine and other components already in place. And it would be oh so cool to bring the modern day battlefield and the CM engine together. And if you guys are not interested in doing it would there perhaps be someone else out there that would be willing and capable? Maybe a deal could be struck to license the game engine to an enterprising game developer willing to undertake such a task? Just thoughts, but I would really like to see this happen somehow. I'm sure many others out there would as well. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Steve, I don't remember when I registered, is our " account name" the same as our "real life name"? Mike D aka Mikester

Steve, I can only speak for the PC side of the world, but to the best of my knowledge you are correct. I believe every (or nearly every) graphics card made in the last couple of years, say since about 1995 or 1996, supports Windows DirectX. Now I presume that CM will require the latest ver. of DirectX which is DirectX6 in order to get the best video performance out of the video card and the game. Every other new game out there always seems to require the latest version and they generally include it on the CD rom w/ the game so those that don't have it don't have to go to the evil empires web page (i.e. microsoft.com) and download it. For those that are not sure whether their cards support DirectX I would recommend that they look at the spec sheet that came w/ their card and see if it does. Alternatively visit your cards manufacturer's web site and check it out. If you can't find it there you have a pretty old card (many of us do) in which case the best thing to do is call or email their tech support and ask. And while you are at the website it is highly recommended that you go find the drivers database and locate your video card and download the latest set of drivers for your card. Installing these is generally very straightforward, just follow the instructions in the readme/installation text file that you also need to download if it isn't encapsulated in the main download file which might be zipped. In some cases w/ older cards getting the latest driver might mean the difference in having, or not having, DirectX support (i.e when card first shipped the drivers didn't support DirectX, but subsequent driver updates added this capability). Besides that the latest drivers usually run better/higher efficiency. If your card doesn't support DirectX and a driver update won't cure the problem then you are probably way overdue to upgrade your video card and probably your entire computer. If you are going to play high tech games then you need to have a computer that is equal to the task. In my humble opinion if your computer is 5 years old, or older, you need to get a new computer (or at least do some major upgrading). That's just the way things are these days. Like it, love it, or leave it. I've been putting this off for a year now myself, but the time has come. Very soon I will be upgrading my motherboard, cpu, memory and video card in my 3.5 year old pentium 100 to a Pentium II 400 Mhz machine w/ 64meg of RAM and a just released Diamond Viper 770 ultra video card which features the Nvidia TNT2 chipset, 32 MB of RAM and unheard of display resolutions and framerates. For those that are curious this is only going to cost me about $800-$900 and a little bit of my time. I say bring CM on, I'm going to be locked, loaded, and ready when the UPS dude comes knocking on the door later this summer to deliver CM. Mike D aka Mikester

Dear Battlefront, Just curious, how many copies of CM have already been pre-ordered? I hope it is a lot. I would really like to see you guys along w/ other wargame developers out there succeed. I'm oh so tired of seeing nothing more than the Command and Conquer clones which so many in the general public accept as "wargames" come out one after the other. How utterly stupid do the major game publishers think us Joe Publics (groganards and non-grog's alike) out here are that we will keep buying the same game over and over again just because it has been reset in a different time frame / environment and comes in a shiny new box? What ever happened to creativity in game development? Did it die with the invention of Command & Conquer and Doom? Are we as gamers to be relegated to only seeing and buying the crap that the big publishers and retailers push onto the store shelves? Please, oh please, just tell me it isn’t so. And what of the state of wargaming itself? Computer and board wargaming alike both seem to be dying even as I write this. Why, oh why? Even some of the actual wargames that are out there like Close Combat, which fun to play, are so filled w/ enough erroneous game modeling and other errors that they are totally unrealistic in my view. In fact some of the errors in CC are so bad they actually detract from the game play to the point that you don't even want to bother playing the game anymore! What’s worse just look at the number of games that come out in general that have a totally worthless manual (some of them should be burned), or are so filled with bugs that they never should have been released in the first place. What ever happened to quality and accuracy in wargaming? Has this too gone by the wayside? Worst of all, much (maybe even most) of what is out there in the way of computer games in general on the store shelves today is pure utter junk! Yes there are some great titles out there. But, they too also seem to be getting fewer and far between in their appearances. I guess when I and hopefully many others stop spending our hard earned money on the computer gaming crap shoved into our faces by the big publishers and retailers things will start to change for the better. Are you listening out there you big game corporations? Being a wargamer for last 20 years (started at the ripe old age of 12 playing AH's Midway), and a computer gamer for the last 10+ years I do sincerely wish you and your co-developers the best of luck in this venture that you have undertaken. Your success, or failure, may very well be a pivotal point in the struggle I go through to find quality games. Especially the "real wargames" that I do so dearly enjoy playing. And thanks for trying to preserve our hobby as well as design and develop some kick-ass games like CM. It is about high time that something like this happened! It looks like there may very well still be hope for us die hard wardogz and arm chair generals out here. I most certainly hope so. Regards, Mike D. aka Mikester

BTS, I was just looking at some of your "research" video footage that I downloaded from the web page. Research at the old firing range eh? And with mg's, flamethrowers, and Sub-machine guns to boot. Really cool. Thanks for posting a few videos of this it is very interesting. Looking at and hearing these weapons brings to mind a question that has been in the back of my little pea brain. How authentic are the sounds in CM going to be? While I'm certain that you will have sound bytes of hand grenades, guns, etc., do you intend to record many / most of the actual weapons sounds that will be included in the game? How many of the mg's, main tank/anti-tank guns, various small arms, etc. actually still exist and are available to record? Where does one find the sound of a King Tiger ripping of an 88mm round? Will a Thompson sub-machinegun really sound like a Thomposon smg? I imagine it would be quite a job to go and find all those that are available and then get them to a firing range and be able to record the sounds. Are there authentic sound recordings of specific models of mg's, main guns, etc. that you can use? I hope the sounds will at least be as genuine as possible given the limitations stated above and time restrictions in developing the game. I think having the sounds be authentic as possible will add a lot to the game both in terms of overall realism as well as the actual game experience itself. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Fionn, I believe the Banshee by 3dfx company does support Direct3D. You can go check for yourself at www.3dfx.com if I remember correctly. The Banshee should be there, just check and see if it supports the Direct3D graphics mode. While you are there you will probably want to download the latest driver for your card. More than likely when you get your "gift" from your friend it won't come with the latest one. Anyone wanting to check out TNT chipset specs made by nvidia can go to www.nvidia.com Mike D aka Mikester

Thanks BTS for the new movies, screenshots, info, etc. It looks FANTASTIC! I "feel" much better now, won't have to go and see the doc this week. Just got done downloading all the movies here at work. Took less than two minutes to get all the new ones. Would very much like to see at least 1 really long / better resolution clip in the future. A 20-50meg file would not be out of the question for me to download here at work. The 5+ meg one you just posted took me just under 20 seconds to download. I'm sure there are others out there that would like a nice long movie as well. Otherwise, like a said, it looks great. Many thanks and keep up the good work. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Would also like to see some artillery hitting troops, buildings, etc. Some heavy stuff would be great, in addition to say, some mortar rounds. Some burning/damaged buildings would be good to see too. Also, some additional variety like mg's firing at onrushing troops, a pillbox w/ an AT gun taking out a tank and then getting clobbered by a flamethrower like BDW suggested, etc. Thanks, Mike D aka Mikester

Sounds good to me.

To BTS, Many thanks for providing us war dogz out here the opportunity help make Combat Mission a better game. This forum is great. Special thanks to Steve for helping keep it that way. Best of luck and hope to see the game out this summer. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Will CM have some mechanism to model the initial shock and corresponding potential lack of command and control during the initial turn(s) of an attack? Perhaps as an option if nothing else. For example, during the Battle of the Bulge the American units on the front lines were woefully unprepared for the German attack that came on Dec. 16, 1944. Chaos and most likely a total lack of command and control must have reigned supreme for the American defenders at a tactical level during the intial minutes of this attack (at an operational/strategic level it was probably more like hours or even days). Could this perhaps be simulated by some/all of the defenders units being under computer control for the first couple of turns (minutes) of the game? This could help simulate the realities of the command situation more fully where the company / battalion commander (i.e. we arm chair generals) didn’t have complete control of our troops and the situation in general during the first minutes of an attack until the tactical situation became more apparent and the initial shock of the attack had "worn off". Might be particularly applicable to the "campaign" games where a "local" offensive is being protrayed in CM. Mike D. aka Mikester

Along the lines of "all becoming clearer". Some time ago there was some discussion and veiled comments from BTS I believe (sorry, but I don't remember the details of said discussion) in regard to packaging, distibution, etc. of the game. Will next week bring to light some of these topics as well?

I know the flanking discussion has come up before. However, building on what Lokesa has said, what would happen if something along the following lines were implemented. Say a map is 5000 meters x 5000 meters. Along the two flanking edges of the map there is a zone on either side, say 5% or so of the overall width of the map (scenario designer would probably define the actual width in meters or percentage of the overall map width), into which neither of the players can deploy or move there "primary" units (units under direct player control). This could be depicted by two dashed lines parallel to the left and right map edges so that the players could clearly see these zones. So we now have a map "playable" area of 5000m long x 4500m wide with an "unplayable" strip along both sides of 250m width. Where "playable" area is the area where the players main forces are deployed which he has under direct control and "unplayable" areas are those areas where only flanking units assigned to the flank zones are deployed which are only partially under the players control. More on this in a minute. Think of the above concept as defining the map zone where your company, battalion, etc. is assigned to the sector of front of 4500 m between the dashed lines. The areas to the left and the right represent the flanking areas and units of the bordering companies / battalions assigned to your adjacent sectors. Now, in addition to the units under your direct command, you also are given a number of units (or in purchase point scenarios a number of flanking purchase points to buy said units) to place in your two flanking zones on either side of the map to represent your neighboring friendly units. The player can choose which ones to place on which side (i.e. the player may choose to "load up" on flank more so than the other depending on the tactical situation, terrain, etc.). These units would be under partial human control. Meaning the "controlling" player can at least give some general orders like defend, probe, advance, etc., along with the ability to change these orders during the game. Other than having these generalistic kind of orders these units would be under computer control. They might decide to shoot at units within the primary zone of the map where both players are controlling there main forces. They may decide to fire at your opponents computer controlled flanking units that have been ordered to advance from the opposite side of the same 250m wide flanking zone of play, etc. Think of it as having these units in support of your attack and/or defense in the primary zone (map area between the dashed lines) you have been assigned. What would all this accomplish? It would help prevent the totally unrealistic occurrence in most/all wargames where the attacker can move forward with total disregard for his extreme left and right flanks along the map edges. No more protective "magical shield" formed by the totally arbitrary and unrealistic edge of the map. Now the commanders must think about protecting their flanks as they advance. And, for that matter, the same would apply on defense. For the attacker, in addition to giving the general orders to the units deployed in the flanking zones the player has to consider directing fire from tanks, artillery, infantry, etc. into these flanking zones to pin down, suppress, route, or otherwise silence defending units located there (maybe a pesky machinegun, infantry units, or even a tank or two is over there) so that the main units under direct player control can advance without taking flanking fire, being pinned, etc. Likewise, the defender has to worry about his flanks as well. Assume for a moment that in an attack/defend situation the attacker may be given 1.5 to 2 times the number of units to deploy in the flanking areas. On top of this during the pregame setup the attacker might decide his strategy is to try and turn the defenders left flank. He therefore puts most of his flanking units in his right most flanking zone and orders them to advance in support of his main forces (under his direct control) attack on the enemies left flank. Now the defender not only has to worry about the attackers primary units advancing on his left, but he also has to worry about units in the flanking zone advancing on this flank which might be moving up in support of the attackers primary units. The end result is the defender no longer has a "magical shield" of protection anchoring his flanks either. Bottom line is you have a more realistic game from both the attackers and defenders perspective. Now this may be stretching it a bit. But it may also be appropriate to allow the players to divert units that start under their primary control into these flanking areas during the game as well. Say the defender in the above example can’t afford to let a horde of attacking units come up to turn his left flank and he only had two infantry squads initially set up in his adjoining flanking zone. So on turn 2 he orders a tank, mg, and another infantry unit to move over into this zone to support his flank. Once there they could only be given the generalistic orders of advance, defend, attack, etc. and otherwise would come under computer control. Also, these units would most likely not be able to be recalled back into the main map area under the players direct control at a later turn in order to prevent players from abusing this capability. However, this would give the players some additional flexibility during the game to help support their flanks in these flanking zones if they didn’t have enough units to deploy there intially, the units initially deployed have been wiped out, etc. Is this proposal perfect? Doubtful. Is it a good idea? Perhaps. With all the great minds here on the board and at BTS to go over it, it might just possibly turn into something. If not, I had fun thinking about it anyways. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

I'm w/ BDW here. Give us at least one "good" movie clip. I've got a superfast T1 or T3 connection at work. So in a worst case scenario, I can always go download it and watch it there. Got a good one at home too w/ a 56.6 modem, so downloading it here wouldnt be too bad either. Better resolution and a little bit bigger frame size than that little postage stamp movie of the originals would be greatly appreciated. Also, a lot of still shots of maps, tanks, buildings, soldiers, smoke, general destruction, etc. would be really cool. Thanks in advance. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester

Not yet, but I may have to soon. Right now I'm holding on playing my buddy in Close Combat III and The Operational Art of War. Mike D aka Mikester

Withdrawl… Losing………..….consciousness…………… Heart rate…………..slooowwwwwwwwwwwing……….. Each breath comes harder………………………. Fading into …………….oblivion………. Need information…………… Need a new movie………………… At least a new screen shot, or two……………. Some interface screen shots perhaps?………………… Something………………Anything………………… What's up doc? What's that you say? Stick out my tongue and say ahhhhhh………….. Ahhhhhhhhhh,………… Ack THpppptttttt (Bill the Cat) It's no good doc…………………….…. I'm in a bad way…………………… Only an update will cure me…… It's the only way to save the day. Poetry ala Mikester (who said engineers don't have any creativity) How bout throwing us a bone BTS? Of course I won't be fully cured till the game is out. (or at least till the playable demo is available)

Speaking of point values. I don't recall if this has been discussed before, but will 2 players going head to head be able to pick a map, then be given a certain number of "points" with which to purchase tanks, vehicles, squads, wire, mines, etc., based on meeting engagement, assault/defend, etc. type of encounter? I seem to recall the original Squad Leader game series allowed this type of play and it was rather fun. Would be nice to do this in CM as well. Mike D aka Mikester

If the timer is in there already that's great. I just hope it is optional, not mandated, so that if I don't want to play with it on I can. Don't recall BTS saying there would be one, but then there are a lot of things that I seem to miss. Mike D

I guess I would say that I would disagree with implementing a cease fire option for a certain number of turns during a given a scenario. Sounds totally unrealistic to me. "Hey, GI Joe, this is Hauptman Hoffmeier, stop shooting at me and my men for 5 or 10 minutes (5-10 turns) so I can reposition my unit up there that is in no mans land being ripped apart by your 50 cal machinegun and bring up some support units from the rear to blast you." No way this would happen in real life in the heat of battle and if it did it would be an exceptionally rare occurence. On the other hand, I think a cease fire option should be available in the sense that if both players have been bloodied and no longer want to continue to fight then one or the other side can send the cease fire request and his opponenet or the computer can accept if they agree. But then the current game ends. If it is a single scenario it is over and the victory tally is displayed to both sides. Where an option like this would be of more use is during a campaign game where both sides would then have the time to like their wounds, bring up reinforcements, and reposition their units prior to starting the next battle/scenario segment of the campaign. Which in this case would mean resuming the fight on the map where you left off when the cease fire was agreed to. Close Combat has always had this feature and it does add a lot to the game. I think it would also be a great feature to have in CM, but only if it is implemented correctly. Mike D. aka Mikester