Mike D

BTS, I think John might have a great idea here. What about adding a timer? Chess, for example, is a totally different game when the players turns/moves are time limited. I think it would add a totally different, and quite valuable, dimension to CM as well. It would not only level the playing field when going up against the computer AI, but would also prevent players from taking all day to plot their moves and issue orders to their troops in head-to-head play. In addition it would add another dimension to what the real battle field commander faces in having to issue orders and cope with a situation in a much more realistic manner. Those guys out there didn’t have all day to order their troops around, why should we arm chair generals be given the luxary? As far as implementing something like this it should be totally optional. If the player(s) want to use it great, if not just turn it off. The timing factor could be set to scale to the scenario’s initial number of units per side, or some other way to insure scalability with varying size scenarios. Alternately, the time limit for issuing orders, etc., could be set by the scenario designer, or perhaps even the players themselves could choose from a set of time limit choices (eg, between say 3 min. and 10 min). The time limit and countdown could be displayed somewhere on the orders screen once the player, or players, decide to proceed with the next turn (I’m assuming that the orders phase won’t start until the player, or both players, hit a button to proceed in order to allow time for the player(s) to replay the video playback from the turn just executed, review their troops status, etc.) Trust me, I’m not suggesting turning CM into Command and Conquer Mission, or any sort of real time game. I think that would be a very big mistake. However, I think limiting the time the player(s) have to issue orders to their troops before the next 60 seconds of the game are resolved would add a great deal of depth, challenge, and exitement to what already promises to be a great game. What do you think? Mike D. aka Mikester

In my opinion there are many, let me repeat that, MANY, shortcomings and very strange/unrealistic occurences in close combat series of games. ALL OF THEM. As an example of the complete and utter inaccuracy of the game let me cite the following. My friend was playing the Germans and I was playing the Russians in a recent campaign game in CC3. In the pregame set up I targeted a wooden house in the German setup zone that I suspected might have an AT gun with a KV II (150mm gun, HE ammo only if I recall correctly). In any event the game starts and the KV launches its first round into the side of the wood house. I didn't know it at the time, but there were two Stug 40 C's just behind the house. One almost right against the opposite wall to the one a fired into, and a second about 10m or more away. Blammoo! The 150mm round explodes in the house, I was looking right at it. Center of the explosion about 10m from the nearest Stug which is shielded from the blast by the opposite wall. Almost immediately thereafter I see two more explosions where the two Stug's were, even though I couldn't see the tanks at the time. Later on I find out from my friend that the two Stugs behind the house are taken out by this single shot that detonates inside the house. And it was only an HE round to boot. That, in my opinion, is totally rediculous. Would never, EVER, happen in real life. Just goes to show that even the most basic modeling elements in close combat are pretty much absolute crap. And regardless of what Mr. Zabouli might claim, the game is filled with such "mistakes". The game is still somewhat enjoyable, but as far as being realistic, it most certainly is NOT! And this is just one example. Trust me when I state that I have seen many another strange happening in the close combat series of games. That's why when I see a game like CM come along, I start to literally drool. It is about high time someone made a tactical wargame that actually models reality instead of some hocus-pocus abstraction of that reality such as occurs in close combat, among many other wargames. Can't wait to see the final product BTS. Mike D.

Just out of curiousity. My friend and I usually play our games via e-mail, or direct dial up. You guys are not offerring the direct dial up connection which is too bad, but are offerring the TCP/IP connection. Questions: 1) When close combat initially only had a TCP/IP type connection there was a way to use it to direct dial via Windows 95 dial up connection. Will CM also allow this type of connection so that those of us that play in a local calling zone dont have to be burning up our internet hours. 2) Will you please reconsider the direct dial up connection, or maybe add it in a patch later? 3) It would be nice to have the flexibility to start a game say in play by e-mail mode and play for a few turns, then switch and play direct via say TCP/IP, then switch back in later turns to e-mail mode again. Might this be possible to incorporate? Thanks Mike D. aka Mikester

Lokesa is right on this one. Close combat sucks in that prisoners act as eyes for their fellow country men as they march off toward the enemy rear on their own. There is absolutely no reason for this and it does at times provide some great intel on what's going on behind your opponents lines until the reach the rear edge of the map and exit. Like he says, please don't repeat this kind of dumb mistake.

BTS, I see you guys have put in the versions of the Sherman already w/ the armour kits. I did receive some photos from a gentleman named George E. Bush showing a Sherman 76 that is at the Rock Island museum here in the US showing such modifications. The tank served in the 4th armoured division and was knocked out during the Battle of the Bulge. They are rather interesting and I was going to post them here, but alas, the new web site doesn't appear to support this capability like the old one did. So, I'm going to e-mail them to you so you can take a look. There are a couple of very thick (appx 2" or better) plates added on the upper and lower front hull. It is also interesting that there are some somewhat thinner plates shown welded on the right front side of the turret. There seemed to be a similar set on the left side which are now missing. So the armour mod's apparently were not just to the frontal hull armour alone in some cases. The added plates on the front hull have taken 3 or 4 very good licks from what appears to be fairly sizable AT rounds which have dished out some major gauges in the plates. So these mod's do appear to be quite effective. The tank was apparently knocked out by a round that just clipped the upper edge of the left turret, possibly just above where it appears the additional plates that are missing on this side were welded on as evidenced by the two vertical weld lines left on the outside of the turret (note: hole appears to be covered with some sort of wire grating similar to that covering all the hatch openings, etc.). I also have a question. I seem to recall that in the ASL series they included a feature for certain US tanks that were equiped with some type of gun leveling/stabilizing system intended to help in firing accuracy while the tank was moving if my memory serves me correctly. Were such systems used and how prevalent were they in service? Do you plan on modeling this capability in CM? If you guys already covered this in a thread somewhere, my appologies. I don't get to keep up with everything going on here as often as I would like. Regards, Mike D.

BTS, Do you mean by no mixing that we can't have a mixed US / British Force against a German force??? Just curious. Mike D.

Steve et al, Thanks for the insight into what is going on in the design and development of CM. It always helps to understand what you guys are doing and why. If you guys have come up with a better way of doing business that cuts out all the beauracratic BS that's great! My main concern was that once the slips start they never seem to end. And while it is wonderful that you are incorporating a lot of great features into the game, it is nonetheless way, WAY, too easy to fall into the trap of constantly adding these new features to the game and getting caught in the proverbial design loop spiral that leads to nowhere. Sounds like you guys have a rough cut-off/freeze date in mind though. So that shouldn't be a problem. To you, Charles, and the rest of the crew keep up the good work. Game looks and sounds like a sure hit. Can't wait to see the final product. Best Regards, Mike D. aka mikester@ibm.net

Dear BTS, While I fully hope BTS doesn’t rush CM out the door like so many other game developers have done (and ended up creating complete junk as a result I might I add). I am beginning to get a little concerned about when we are actually going to see this game released. Granted, you have always stated that none of the dates (more appropriately general time frames) you have tentatively set forth for release to this point were set in stone. However, we have already seen this game "slip", for lack of a better word, from a spring release to what is now being called a summer (possibly early summer I believe I saw here somewhere here recently) release. That is all well and good until I read much of the recent traffic here on the board. People are coming out of the wood work with all sorts of ideas. Not that this is in and of itself a bad thing. In fact it is great. However, when one reads what some of these people are looking for you to add / change in the game one really begins to scratch ones head. Some of the minutiae and totally senseless suggestions (my personal opinion only, so don’t go ape on me here the rest of you) being put forth really don’t seem to make much sense for inclusion in the game. And to your credit BTS you seem to be doing a pretty good job of sifting through all this and deciding what should, and should not, be included. However, in many of your responses, you yourselves even indicate that there are things you are still thinking about adding to the game. This is fine too, but only to a point. And my point is simply this: Sooner, or later, you have to put a stop to all further additions and tinkerings to the game and get on with the final coding so you can actually get the game released. Being an engineer and having worked on a number of very large projects in my day tells me that you need/should establish a date where the configuration of this game is going to be frozen so you can indeed actually get it completed. What I seem to see going on here (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is an apparently endless string of progressions in development of a product which seems to lack a certain direction, if you will, and likewise seems to have no defined ending point. Those "schedules" that I have seen you sarcastically refer to now at least a couple of times in your postings that the other game companies have to follow do serve some other purposes besides a status report to satisfy their upper management. They serve to keep a project "on-track", if you will, and moving forward instead of meandering aimlessly like this project at times appears to be doing. At the very least, please tell me that there is a date, or that you are planning on coming up with one soon, where the configuration of the game (what is and is not going to be in it) is going to be determined. Until that happens I cannot see for the life of me how you are ever going to even begin to talk of an actual planned release date. If you are not careful (and it has happened to plenty of other game and other software projects too numerous to mention I might add) your early summer release will become a late summer release, and then a fall release, and then a maybe Christmas time release, etc., etc. Bottom line is please take the time to produce a product that is fun to play and not full of bugs and other problems. And one which will hopefully include many of the wonderful ideas and suggestions that have been put forth in this forum. But remember that I would much rather be playing this game (hint, hint, it needs to get released) than talking about it here on the board for months and months on end. My personal opinion is that we/you have done plenty enough of this already (how many months has it been now anyway?). Some subjects have been beaten to death here so many times I’ve lost track while the law of diminishing returns seems to be taking effect in that that the overall number of "good ideas" seems to be drying up. There will always be more and more though. And they can always be included in the follow on releases to the game if they do indeed merit inclusion. But for now, let’s get on with completing the original game so that we can all start playing it and enjoying it. Talk, as they say, is cheap. And we’ve seen plenty enough of that here to date. I want to play this masterpiece and I want to play it sometime soon (summer sounds soon enough). Just don’t’ let the proverbial scope creep that kills so many software projects get to the point in this project that it never gets out of the endless loop of adding that one more feature that will somehow make it better. Somewhere (more appropriately, sometime) you have to draw the line. And if you are going to make any sort of a summer release I imagine that line is going to have to be drawn very soon. Best Regards, Mike D. PS: The game is looking fantastic. I can’t wait to actually play it (hint, hint)

BTS, I don't care how you implement multiplayer so long as it works. As I stated in my previous post the initial Close Combat multiplayer implementation via the internet totally sucked. Sounds like from Stens comments it still does. As you have stated, however, CM is a different animal, i.e not real time. So hopefully your head to head implementation via the internet will work smoothly. Since my friend and I live locally, modem to modem is best for us. But if you make the internet connection work smoothly, that will be fine too. Bottom line is to not repeat the mistakes of those that have gone before you and it sounds like you don't intend to do that. Regards, Mike D

Definately put in the modem to modem direct connection. My friend and I play CC3 using this all the time. We've had more problems like what Sten has described trying to play the Close Combat series over the internet vs. direct modem. We've been playing CC3 (probably 12 or more separate occasions now) with direct modem connection and only ever had a problem once. By comparison, when CC1 first came you had no choice but to play via inernet, or some other screwy method which was very similar to playing over the internet (had to use TCP/IP and other such balognia). IT SUCKED. WE HAD PROBLEMS ALL OF THE TYPE SIMILAR TO WHAT STEN HAS DESCRIBED ALL OF THE TIME. Bottom line is that I would highly recommend that direct modem to modem be an option. For those of us that play our games locally it seems to work much better than bothering with the internet type connection crap. Thanks. Mike D. mikester@ibm.net