FinnN

All sounds really great! Can I suggest that you update the training missions in the demo as well. Training missions are usually fairly straightforward when you get what it's try to tell you. The one where you get attacked by waves of tanks needs more than a slight decrease in difficulty! Also an extra mission or two with fewer units requiring a more thoughtful approach would be a good addition to the current one between two largish forces. As it stands I think the demo would put off my friends if they were to try it rather than encourage them to buy the game. Have fun Finn

Thanks, that's really useful information - didn't realise that commanders were involved in that way. When you say that visibility is circular, do you mean that a tank can spot a bazooka team behind it that has just fired? I'd not noticed this happening in game, seemed to be more connected to the firing arc/facing? Which is correct? Just to confirm - the different grass types, eg wheat fields, green fields, ploughed fields - all offer the same amount of visibility? Have fun Finn

Unlikely, I'm pretty sure IL2 has accurate trajectories. The reason that the SPGs can't use indirect fire is that the longest distance on a ToW map is about 2.8km (diagonal on a 2x2km map). A quick google for minimum ranges for indirect artillery fire comes up with 3km-4km for various types of howitzers - I'd guess that similar minimums would apply for the Wespe, Hummel, etc. Have fun Finn

I'm guessing it's this: http://www.aidaim.com/products/sfs/sfs_spec.php Have fun Finn

I wish ToW was more moddable - it's looking like nothing will be alterable apart from missions and (when the map editor comes out) object placement on maps. Games like this sell over a long period of time due to a buzz where one person tells someone else about it, either directly or when someone comes across a reference on the internet. You can either do this with official add-ons - like IL2, or by making the game very moddable - the Microsoft flight sims being a good example, or with something like really solid multiplayer (IL2 again). ToW has clearly taken the IL2 route so far - if anything it's even less moddable as you can't even change model textures. I'd take the $5000 with a pinch of salt - either someone was working really slowly or getting paid too much if that's true. In any case user created content would remove that burden from the devs - most games now take this into account as a cheap way to extend a game's lifespan. I hope that future patches will make it more extensible. Have fun Finn

I'm guessing most the people there will have heard about ToW, like me, via an interest in flight sims. Now flight sims have dozens of forums dotted around the internet, many of them excellent. I don't think that's the case for pseudo-realistic RTS games - in fact would I be right in thinking that there aren't any apart from Close Combat and ToW? As a result I'd personally prefer it if this board didn't turn into a flamepit like the Ubi IL2 boards used to be (still are for all I know). Originally ToW, rightly or wrongly, appeared to be marketed as an ultra-realistic RTS. I was expecting maps that looked like real terrain based directly on real confrontations (rather than inspired by as seems to be the case now). Instead we have a game that has 'cool stuff' and we are told that we shouldn't expect historical OOBs. It's hardly surprising then that people from that background are disappointed. I know I am to an extent, but luckily all it'll take is some well made missions/campaigns to fix this and I'm sure they'll come soon enough. Have fun Finn

In terms of spotability - do the different terrain types have an effect. For example, does a wheat field hide a prone soldier better than a road? If so could you outline the order in which terrain types help with sneaking? I understand that none of them will stop a bullet. Have fun Finn

There is no smoke. Personally I'd rather see this than enterable buildings or on-map mortars. It seems to me that when you fire a shell the explosion occludes vision behind it briefly so presumably it wouldn't be too hard to add? Maybe a dev or moderator could answer? Have fun Finn

Usually it works out for me too - but from time to time weird things happen. In one scenario I had tanks pick out my AT guns instantly even though they were completely hidden and holding fire/position. I also find it a bit weird that AT guns can pick off every member of a squad with craters exactly at the feet of each kill - although of course being cautious avoids this, I'd expect heavy casualties but not in quite the way they happen. In another on the other hand (2nd to last allied mission) I had a series of long/medium range duels between tanks/ATs guns where neither side seemed to be having much luck. People who say that the terrain is wide open, that trees etc have no effect or that the AI has ridiculous advantages are clearly exaggerating/making things up for effect - but for me at least some tweaks to the system are needed. Have fun Finn

Well I just finished the Allied campaign on 'easy' which initially I found to be pretty hard, but by the end I was getting the hang of it - finishing the last mission on my first attempt. Basically I think the game as it is now is pretty good, here's what I liked the most about it (in no particular order): * Vehicle graphics - absolutely spot on. * The terrain when you get really close to it - I love all the detail in the flowers, grass and so on, not too keen on zoomed out view. * The fact that you really have to think about what's going on around you - even on 'easy' attacking something head on without taking into account results in a massacre. Learn to use terrain and cover and casualties drop considerably - which goes to show that neither is the lay of the land completely flat and open nor are the bushes and trees just for show! * All the little animations - such as when a gun crew drags the gun around. * I like the interface, pretty straightforward, some interesting options and I never felt as though it got in my way. * I guess it's only a minor thing, but I like the graphics in the game screens where you choose which campaign, your units, etc as well as the briefing maps. There were also a few things I didn't like, first the biggest one: * Mission design - by the end of the campaign I could reach my objectives reasonably easily provided I took my time. Unfortunately every time you then get pounced by large numbers of tanks, which results in heavy casualties. Then your reinforcements arrive and you hammer the enemy tanks. Sometimes this is repeated several times. Ultimately this removes a lot of the satisfaction from doing well and results in a slog fest, which I personally find neither enjoyable nor realistic. * The campaign - I guess this won't apply to the other campaigns, but the allied one had no feeling of progression. One mission you'd be all Americans, the next you'd be British, then American paratroopers, then British again, etc. I don't like 'win to progress' campaigns in any case, but I'd expect there to be some link between each mission for it to qualify as a campaign. * Waypoints - you get used to not having them after a while but they really would make for a better game, several times I had squads of infantry take 'odd' routes (not always the quickest ones) directly into killing zones. If you're not distracted then you can stop them and micro-manage of course, but this isn't always the case and waypoints would eliminate this annoyance. * Smoke - I'd like to see this added, I'm sure attacks in broad daylight would be accompanied by smoke. * I'd like to see a move and halt order added - too often I move units to an area, then after a while they get impatient and run directly in trouble like headless chickens. Tanks and officers seem particularly prone to this. Again if you're alert you can prevent this. Once I was sneaking up on a flak halftrack with a bazooka and just as I was in range some drunk ran around in circles in front of me with a grenade - then we both got shot as he'd gotten the attention of the halftrack. Was quite funny at the time actually, but shouldn't have happened really. * Clearer LOS. I think the basic idea is good, but sometimes the graphics don't represent what's going on. In one battle I'd moved two AT guns directly into bushes - not visible from any angle, and on hold fire/no movement. The moment the tanks came over the ridge they zeroed in on the guns and destroyed them both in one shot. If the graphics were representing LOS then it shouldn't have happened. In another instance I had an AT gun very visible hanging out of bush and it seemed to be perfectly hidden and wiped out several tanks without ever getting spotted. Overall I think an indication of how much cover you're in is a must. In general I think the game is really good, let down by missions that seem to be aimed at people after strategy-lite that doesn't match up with the way that the game plays out. Once better missions come out I think it'll be a cracking game that I'd happily recommend to the people I used to play Combat Mission with (just as they stole me from Close Combat!). Have fun Finn

I get exactly the same thing happening. Have fun Finn

Actually it seems patboy's link answers your question (hadn't noticed that thread before). Essentially Martin is saying that right now 'real modding' as you call it isn't possible, but they're looking at it. Have fun Finn

Do you think it might be possible in a future patch, or by 'this version' do you mean not until ToW2? Have fun Finn

OK, I have a serious question. Overall I have some issues with the game but I think a lot of these come down to mission design, but there's one thing that continues to frustrate me and other than people dying you don't get much feedback about it in the game. Whilst we wait for a possible patch to provide feedback on LOS in-game, how about a detailed (with screenshots or diagram) outline of where your units need to be get benefits from cover, and roughly how much you get from each thing. For example, to get cover from a tree - do I need to be under the tree, behind the trunk, behind the whole tree? To get cover from a bush, do I need to be in it, behind it, etc? I tend to line my infantry up in prone position along the lines dividing fields and I've not particularly noticed troops behind bushes - does this mean that the bush graphics show an area of cover or does each bush provide cover and the bits inbetween none? Finally do all types of grass provide the same amount of cover? Have fun Finn

Problem is, because the predictability of the way that scenarios play out, once you hit the correct solution the scenarios become fairly easy (easyish anyway, lucky shots aside). If things weren't as tight you could vary things even given the scripted scenarios by trying out different tactics, but as things are you more or less have to do things one way or lose. Have fun Finn

With experience I can now usually do moderately well getting to the first set of objectives without excessive casualties. The problem is as soon the enemy reinforcements arrive it's very easy to get swamped. Now, once you know where they're going to appear from you can preempt that the next time you play the scenario as the enemy always comes from exactly the same location each time. I think that is what Pascal is getting at - each time you play a mission you're developing your ability to respond to that mission - not developing your overall skills to allow you to cope with any situation. Personally, I think most scenarios are unbeatable unless you've already been through them previously as the odds are just too great to employ anything much less than 'perfectly'. Have fun Finn

Regardless of whether game X is worth the money or not, Hertston is right about the general principles. A computer game, or just about anything in the media industry for that matter, whilst in development doesn't bring in any money unless it's getting an advance from either the bank or a publisher. A released game that's selling will be bringing in money. It's not uncommon - in fact it's usual - for the income from one release to go some way towards paying the wages for the development of the next release, either directly or via publishers' advances. In passing, when you see the long list of credits in a game don't forget that lots of them will be either short-term contractors or people working on multiple projects - not to mention various people that might get credited that didn't get paid. As to pricing, let's say (to keep the numbers simple) a game generates $10 of profit and sells 1000 copies. Drop the price by 25% and maybe it'll sell 15% more copies. Total income would be $8625. Increase the price by 25% and maybe it'll sell 15% fewer copies. Total income would be $10625. All other things being equal any business will sell at the higher price. Someone will have had a look at what other games are selling for, and there are a handful of fairly standard prices to pick from, and then make some sort decision as to which price will generate the most profit based on estimated sales.

I see this too, send a squad in to assault an AT gun (admittedly possibly not the most sensible thing to do) results in a massacre as each infantryman gets picked off one by one by the AT gun without doing any damage that I could see in return. Not sure what the range is, but it's pretty close. I would expect casualties but not a wipeout when the assaulting team is spread out widely. Have fun Finn

I agree, trees and bushes do seem to be having an effect - but quite where you need to be exactly to gain that effect or to what degree they affect LOS and/or LOF is not at all obvious. If it were you wouldn't be seeing all these threads/posts about it.

I'm interested to an answer to this as well. I'm finding it very hard to get a grip on what's going on with LOS. Typically I'll move a group of infantry to behind a row of hedges in prone line formation and they seem to get the same amount of cover regardless of whether they're behind a bush graphic or not. Trees are equally confusing, although based on how tanks seem to collision detect with them possibly it's the radius of the canopy? I'm getting used to the (frustrating) lack of waypoints but the LOS is just trial and error and I have no idea whether my guessing is right or wrong. Have fun Finn

I doubt it - there are much better games out there for that category and I don't think BF have aimed to make a game for that crowd. It appears to be more for strategy players who want a more immediate experience than a turn-based game can provide, or rts players looking for something with a bit more thought and realism than is currently available elsewhere. To get the most out of the game I find the best thing is not to rush anything, and to work out routes carefully and be patient with attacks and so on. When I do this I get something along the lines of a real-time Combat Mission style game - which is what I guess most people here want. Unfortunately I think the mission design works aaginst that. I remember reading that ToW was intended to simulate back and forth battles - and I guess it does this. Unfortunately it does it with scripted events - so if I rush a position so that I can prepare for the counter-attack in time or if I work my way up there slowly it makes no difference - the moment (it seems) I take an objective I get swamped by enemy reinforcements. Just as my troops are on the verge of destruction the enemy gets swamped by *my* reinforcements. Sure it's a back-and-forth battle but it comes across as forced and artificial not as a result of my actions or clever AI. For my tastes at least, it detracts from the strategy side of the game and turns what could be a really nicely paced rts into something else. I'm certainly enjoying the game so far, but longer term I'm hoping for less gamey scenarios. Have fun Finn

I've come across the opposite problem a few times - tanks with disabled main guns heading full speed directly into enemy armour. Something seems to be up with crew from destroyed vehicles as well, it's not uncommon to see them charging their target, pausing in the middle of an open area running back, and running forward again. Of course it's easy enough just to order them behind some cover and hold position but in the meantime it looks more than a bit ridiculous. In the avalanche mission I've had enemy infantry charging me down the hill in the open - with predictable results. Personally I think the AI is much too prone to just attack, attack, attack. So far I'm playing on the 'easy' setting, maybe it's a bit more sensible on harder ones. Have fun Finn

On a related note I spotted a tree falling over when the tank was just clipping the edge of the canopy, which makes me wonder just where the limits are for collision detection - not to mention where you need to be to get benefits from cover. I'd be interested if anyone who has got some definitive answers to, for example, where troops need to be to gain cover from bushes and trees, could chip in. Have fun Finn

Talking of beserker tanks, it seems that if one loses its main gun it'll keep on attacking its target using its machine guns. Yesterday I had a lone tank drive down a hill directly into a group of 3 panthers and a tiger and then drive around them aimlessly for a while until it was knocked out by another unit. Likewise the crew from knocked out vehicles seem to have a liking for grabbing grenades and charging enemy vehicles/positions if left to their own devices. Very weird all round. Have fun Finn

Multiple waypoints is definitely top of my list so far - sure a frenzy of clicking, scrolling and/or pausing gets around it - but I assumed this game would avoid that. Second I'd like to have a clearer indication of how much cover my troops are in/using. Right now it's guesswork as the graphics seem to be almost irrelevant to how much cover you have. I guess it'll make sense eventually, but for now it's a gamey frustration I could do without whilst trying to get to grips with strategy and tactics. One solution might be to add an extra number underneath the range readout that gives an idea of what well covered you are from the location - or even just change the colour of the numbers, red=wide-open, orange/yellow=partial cover, green=no LOS. Overall, still loving the game though! Have fun Finn