FinnN

Unfortunately I sometimes have had AT guns do exactly the same thing - rotating 180 to pick off some panicking vehicle crew whilst tanks advance through brush, even though hold position and hold fire are both selected. Have fun Finn

Random events and random units both seem possible using triggers. I think, using a complicated set of triggers you could probably construct something to get a retreat happening, eg if such and such a rect is no longer under our control, move units from rect A to rect B - but I doubt it'd be a very intelligent one without a lot of them to cover all sorts of possible player action. Also I have to wonder what sort of impact lots of triggers have on performance? Have fun Finn

But not very historical - I'd rather them be both. Have fun Finn

I think it's a good idea, but wouldn't it be better to wait for the first patch if it's going to jumble up LOS and LOF? That said I'm sure some practice using the mission editor etc wouldn't go amiss. I'd certainly be willing to help if possible. Have fun Finn

I've only had a quick look at the mission builder documentation, but I think both of these are already doable. In the case of victory locations you could define a rectangle then set up a trigger count up the forces on each side and work out a ratio. If it's above a certain amount you win. Add a few checks for minimum numbers and hey presto - victory locations. Modelling exhaustion could be easily done too - add up units and compare to the total number of troops at the beginning (which the mission designer will know). Do it for both sides and you could define some sort of stalemate condition. Put them both together and start testing for them every 15 minutes after, say, 20 minutes and you can even achieve both without a 'hard' time limit. From what I've read none of that seems too difficult, but obviously stalemate conditions etc could have no meaning in a campaign as they stand now. Now wouldn't it be good if instead of win or lose and repeat a scenario outputted the name of the trigger that caused it to end to the campaign engine? Then a scenario is chosen based on that trigger. Hey presto a branching campaign! Unless I'm missing something that would be a really easy change, or if it wasn't just outputting the end trigger from a single mission would allow for a 3rd party campaign engine. Have fun Finn

Nice info! Just one quick question - do trees behave as cylinders when blocking visibility, or are the trunk and canopy two different things? Have fun Finn

I bought CMBO, then CMBB - but it didn't work with my graphics card at the time so I gave it to a friend. I didn't buy CMAK, but then bought the anthology with all 3 in it. What I'd like to see would be the units from all three put into the CMAK engine - it'd be a great foundation for use with CMC, and would also probably sell to people who weren't that interested in CMC by itself. No idea how much work that would be though! Have fun Finn

I agree completely - I wonder if it's a legacy of the really long development time? IL2 is also very un-moddable (at least not without direct developer involvement in getting models into the game) - on the basis that it eliminates all possibility of using mods to cheat online. I notice that in the next flight sim from the IL2 team (Storm of War?) that it's planned that people will be able to do a lot more independently from the developers, it's just crazy to do otherwise and I think everybody knows it these days. That said even IL2 allows textures to be modded, which has to make ToW one of the least moddable games out there. I hope that we get some more info on plans to get the game a bit more customisable in the future, such as what might be possible and what might not be - eg 3D models, maps (not just the objects on them), sounds, textures, weapons, etc. Have fun Finn

I would agree, close combat - 2D engine aside - is probably the closest I can think of. CC2 in particular was great. Subsequent versions improved things only slightly (and went backwards campaign-wise) - the maps got better, but things never progressed. Give CC a 3D engine, or ToW a 2D view and you'd really be looking at 2 very similar games indeed (though obviously not identical). Have fun Finn

It doesn't seem to, if you give a move order they go to the exact spots you send them to, any other order after that and they appear to stick to their positions, even if they're slightly out of cover and it makes no sense for them not to adjust. That said with no orders applied they do seem to wander around a little - no idea if this is them getting into cover or not though. I agree though, a group move command that gets the individual infantrymen to pick final waypoints behind some sort of cover unless ordered individually to do otherwise would save a HUGE amount of micromanagement. Have fun Finn

I really enjoy sneaking people up to the enemy positions, scouting with one or two men then moving the rest up followed by the tension mounting as you plan the actual final assault, adjusting the position of the various team members. When things work out and you catch the enemy on the hop there's a great feeling of satisfaction. I could mention that at this point you usually then get counterattacked in the flank by 6 King Tigers. Whining aside though, when you play a scenario for the first time the ratcheting up of the tension, not knowing what's going to happen next, followed by a fury of battle is pretty hard to beat. It's a shame that artificial reinforcements/counterattacks and a lack of a 'real' campaign which allows stalemates, withdrawls, partial wins/losses etc detracts from this. Looking forward to the new campaign though, and hoping it'll be more on the lines of what I enjoy - especially in the conjunction with new LOS stuff in the patch. Have fun Finn

This is definitively not true: Yes, all types of grass offer the same amount of visibility. </font>

Me too! Have fun Finn

How about smoke shells/grenades from tanks and other sources? If an add-on adds a new set of environments to ToW that's great, but it'd be nice to see the open countryside battles rounded off and there are numerous occasions where you have no choice but to attack in situations where smoke would be a big help. Have fun Finn

Same goes for AT guns - I'm sorry to say that I sometimes count the bodies caused by artillery when evaluating what to do. Greyed out guns are a similar problem. Would be better if bodies obeyed LOS rules like everything else (or maybe appeared once spotted and then never disappear). Have fun Finn

Looking forward to this a lot, should come just in time for me to finish the campaigns that came with the game. Have fun Finn

There are some very steep areas in one of the maps towards the end of the allied campaign, so steep in fact that units won't go up. I'd love to see the Italians, as well as a wider range of lighter vehicles and AT guns. Have fun Finn

I really liked the first video - put together properly to make a narrative, not just some game footage lumped together - really good! Couple of questions though regarding the comp. In the rules it says only ingame footage can be used - but then later down it says no nudity - does that mean there are nude missions in ToW????? More sensible question, the first video linked here uses footage from IL2 and a map that's not from in-game. Is that sort of thing allowable, because according to the rules they don't seem to be - or are the rules more like guidelines? Yarrr! Have fun Finn

Well I've moved from easy to normal difficulty now, and I guess the practice must have paid off as so far I'm not finding normal much harder than easy. I guess if you use reasonable tactics you're hitting the enemy when they're not hitting you and so the effect of the difficulty settings isn't going to be that great. That said I'd be amazed if anyone could do the German Dunkirk scenario right first time. Have fun Finn

I've had AT guns and tanks picking off men one by one too - definitely the main gun, and a crater at the feet of each corpse. I'd expect heavy casualties and lots of wounds from HE shell fragements, but not the sniper like precision that I see pretty much consistently. I guess the outcome is fair enough, but the way it happens seems weird to me. Talking about the PIAT, it's a shame that vehicles have 360 vision as it eliminates its main advantage (no rocket smoke trail). I'd be interested to know if this is somehow compensated for by the engine? Have fun Finn

Right click on where you want the selected unit to look at. Have fun Finn

Yes it does horizontal calculations as well as vertical. </font>

This is the most detail I managed to come up with: http://forum.xentax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1915&sid=555a36410e83abf5afa487f5ce9a24aa E-mail sent! Have fun Finn

Looks good - but you have your e-mail address hidden! Have fun Finn

Medals and experience is all there, from what I remember (been a long time since I played CC) it seems to be better in ToW. Campaign is a series of inconsistent battles (at least in the allied campaign, others are probably a little better - in any case no 'operations'). This seems fine. You need to remember to always issue hold position orders or over eager troops will head off on their own - annoying but not game breaking. Units get pinned, panick, etc pretty much as you'd expect. Broadly correct, but not 100% in all cases. Seems to be in the scenarios I've played to date. I read somewhere that some of the polish camos are too early but I think the correct ones are in the object browser, not sure which ones appear in game. Don't think so, and textures aren't moddable. You won't find any game with swastikas built in these days as it's illegal to sell them in many countries. Could be that the interface graphics are moddable, hadn't looked at those. Didn't notice any ss-camo in game when playing as allies. Maybe someone can answer if SS units in? If you liked the demo then the game itself is a lot better. I think the missions/campaigns are a weak point, but they're plentiful and enjoyable enough to fill time until some better ones come from either battlefront or mission designers. Have fun Finn