Tarkus

Since I am no software expert, the ground gets slippery pretty fast for me in these topics, but don't you think there might be a way to safely implement some sort of user-end content making tool ? For example, say BFC retain for itself the unit models and data (therefore a relative control of what theaters are adressed), if it can manage to let people create a larger variety of terrain, buildings and so on, the mod scene could burst and help reduce the BFC effort. They could just sell units package and basic, generic terrain. An example *could* be Half-Life . It gave birth to many quite extensive mods. I am far from sure my example holds though, since a) Valve is a larger team and I think HL is now open source, which is, as we all know, a word BFC understandly does not like. Another example: Neverwinter Nights . I don't know this RPG game very well, but from what I understand, there is a complete tool that enable people to create very extensive materials for scenarios, including 3D objects, scripts etc. Again, the manpower behind this thing is tenfold, but the principle is not uninteresting: the NWN tool is almost a game in itself... The point is: a middle ground maybe could work. I mean, one thing that is almost sure is that the community would definitely be there to produce quality material, so any rope its been given will be taken care of to the full, IMO. The fact that BFC isn't a large team could then be an assets, keeping the focus on the core engine, researches, patches, new games developpment, while the 3D environnement is fed with new material by the community. And even if the user-end 3D tool is restricted to terrain, that could still be very useful. Obviously this whole thing would need a very thorough thinking. These are just as-they-come ideas. :cool:

Right. Reading this reminds me that BFC, from the little bones we've been reading so far, are apparently developping a much more flexible core engine. Possibly the point to that is to enable/facilitate development of multiple theatres? Then we're back right were we started. No ideas whatsoever.

:confused: You think so ? Does this imply that anything but WWII is doomed to commercial failure ? I wonder what are the options...

I would definitely suggest CSDT-Hilly Graveyard from Panzerman. This one does have the feel of Valley of Trouble, exquisite map with a nice rainy and grey ambiance, medium OB, rather easy mission and Canadian Troops . Great for first timers. I am curious to hear about the reactions of your friends. BTW what board game is it ? Cheers

OK. That I already knew. But what does this business setup has to do with their choice to implement [or not] a modern CM ? The fact that they didn't code Dangerous Waters does not rule out their own option for the modern wargame genre, does it ? Or let just say it does and hope for WWII still

I am not sure to understand what you mean, but perhaps you know something I dont. BFC -the game designer- is committed to historic warfare while BFC -the game publisher- on warfare at large ? If I made it sound like I am tired of WWII, then my apologies. As far as I am concerned, it could be CM:WWII 'til the end of times and I would be happy and buy it. 39-45 is the military event I am most interested in, by far. All I am saying is that I would buy and surely enjoy modern day battles, fictionnal or not, should this be the direction BFC take, and that fictionnal engagements are not unrealistic by definition, although I suspect the job to make it accurate certainly isn't easier. Cheers

Right on. I agree with that. Beside, BFC is releasing a naval combat sim that's just as fictional, and while I am sure they strive for realism, the fact that few modern naval battles occured doesn't remove its interest. Given, it is not quite the same feeling as playing battle that occured, but I for one enjoy well made fictionnal battles just as much as historic scenarios in CM. Not exactly the same but still... Cheers

Sorry to get back a little in the middle of these interesting mapping/command ideas but allow me to briefly digress and refine an idea... I suppose you are right, but I would have thought that a tank that have not been taken care of properly would rather breakdown in battle instead of before or after since it is in battle that the crew ask the most of its machine, travelling full speed off road, turning sharply and so on. Also, I realize it would not be right (and very difficult at that) to set the focus on relative mechanical reliability of given vehicules. Rather, the interest in this would be to try to measure/represent maintenance. Just like an "unfit" squad tells us that supply are scarce and combat frequent, I thought a mechanical value might help set the larger scope without actually showing it. I am not saying this should happen all the time though, far from it. In fact, even a very rare occurence would make it an even more realistic factor. All in all, maybe a cosmetic feature. I don't know. Cheers

Thanks for the clarification. Although the actual curve handling in the game still appears quite complex to me, I think I get your point. It could adress part the waypoint issue Philipe is talking about by limiting (or simply preventing) relocalization of the point in favor of the path. Meaning you would not be allowed to displace a waypoint 360 degrees around the unit and shift the mode, but simply reorient its current path in the general direction of the original waypoint. To put the unit in reverse would imply resetting a new waypoint (Not mentioning SOPs refered to in the other post that would get very useful in such a context). In terms of userfriendliness, I suppose you could manage to simply draw a straight line as of now, with "handles" readily workable as you demonstrate. Maybe a blend of straight waypoints (rotate, cover arcs, etc) with bezier nav waypoints could be interesting. Since I am very far from even remotely grasping the implications of these ideas in terms of implementation (or plain mechanics for that matter) in a tactical simulator, I'll let other, more knowledgable people comment on this. Cheers

I sure would like to read a more elaborate explanation of this. Would you care give us one ? TIA

I have no basis upon which to say this would have been faisible or not. I've seen a M8 in Saumur (or was it in Vimy House ?) and I would tend to believe it's turret is too small, at least for practical azimut aiming. I don't know how many men it takes to effectively operate a 81mm mortar. (CM teams get what, 6 ?) not mentionning ammo dotation. On the other hand, I suppose the M20 could have taken it. Do you know if it was ever tried ? All in all, I still think HT are ok for the job, with vastly superior ammo load, better off-road mobility (not sure about this one though) and reasonable road speed.

The problem, AFAIK, is that mortars are mouth-fed weapons and need huge elevation clearance. This isn't practical for turret mount. Also, having them mounted on HT allow them to be fairly easily dismounted, where turret mounted ones would be longer to remove, if at all possible. Turret mounted mortar where designed and built though during the cold war (was it Brandt in Belgium ? I don't remember.) but I don't know what was said about their usefulness.

Agree. Isn't the Pershing an example of this? It is also interesting to note that the next generation of German AFVs (E-25, E-50, E-75...) were supposed to be a step toward standardization, yet within a vast variety of role as far as doctrine goes. It shows well how industrial capabilities, economical planning and what actually happens (or appears) on the battlefield tighly combine.

I recall a game that shall remain nameless where graphics where quite interesting but commanding troops on the ground was next to impossible and REAL boring. The result was I dropped it after two play sessions. On the other hand, big fat nice explosions within the frame of a deep, realistic and accurate engine is something that will not hurt. On the whole, I guess people are expecting the game to simply get better all around, with the focus being set on realism. Considering how good it is right now, that is something I completely agree with and prepare my bucks for. (still, dynamic trackworks would be nice ) Best [EDIT: ...second thoughts. Explosions need not being big to be nice ] [ October 10, 2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

I am reading The Battery Commander, His Batman, And A Cook and while reading Robert Crisp comments on armored warfare in North Africa, it occured to me that mechanical failure would also be something to ponder. Just as the fatigue indicator from CMBB on, breakdowns would be a realistic addition, of course depending of the era depicted. (I might be wrong but I would assume Abrams in Iraq were taken care of a lot more than a Pz I in North Africa, although I've seen shots where some M1s did look battered all right.). Consider this: As it is, there is something close in the game when vehicles bog down in difficult terrain. But to go further, why not try to model a tank being in action continually for weeks and therefore very highly at risk of suffering mechanical difficulties at any given time ? It would add a nice twist for a tight defense scenario. ("Should I commit my last two panzer there ? Will they only GET there in the first place ?") Of course, to develop a realistic and solid model of mechanic reliability is not exaclty easy and shoud most probably rely on some sort of luck, maintenance and reliability estimate based on reputation (since I doubt there is any reliable source on this), which isn't really what BFC usually base its numbers on AFAIK. Then maybe a value from, say, 1 to 5 (or 100 ?) from best to worst maintenance factor with related breakdown percentage. Breakdown could go from track throws (in which case tanks would still be fully operationnal, only immobile) or engine failure (that could induce crews to abandon ship). This value could also get tweaked for gameplay, i.e. making breakdowns not as frequent as in real life, but still possible. Nothing decisive or frequent, but possibly a realistic addition. Cheers __________________ * Robert Crisp, Brazen Chariots, 1959, in Thomas Reiter, ed., The Battery Commander, His Batman, and a Cook, Small Unit Actions From Egypt To The Alps 1940-1945 , Washington, Vsadnik Corporation, 2004, 88-90. [ October 09, 2004, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

I would personnally be content with the current level of detail for armor, maybe with some improvements like distinct side turret markings and, well, dynamic trackwork. The later being rather useless, I know. Realistic animations for infantry, on which there are reasons to hope. But above all, IMHO the graphic aspect that would benefit the most from a large overhaul is terrain. It affects both gameplay and ambiance and is largely responsible for realism. I am confident

Thanks Andrew, this offering is stunning !

Although there are people on this board who I suspect would be fully capable of explaining both the data, the theory, AND the tactical deployement of the Panzerfaust, or the shape charge concept for that matter, Here is an interesting stater that you may already know about... HTH Best.

Quick note. MickeyD, your StuGs and StuHs are all outstanding really. Thanks for this prolific production. Keep up the good work.

Went for a Radeon 9200 deal, rendered completely numb by the low price, only to recall -once the card was tightly set on my PC, of course- that I got rid of ATI for this fog bug in the first place. *sigh* I almost never fight in fog. Yet now, somehow, it bugs me not to have access to it. [ October 06, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Might be wrong but I believe there were rules from Frank "Franko" Radoslovich. The rules were dubbed "Franko" true combat rules . But Don't know where they can be found now... :confused:

They are discussing at lenght those exciting brain storm sessions we all made recently for CMx2. Yeah. Right.

Hey Hoolaman, that's one bunch of nice ideas you have there. Your map (and screenshot refs) ideas are very interesting. Very interesting. Disapearing units... losing contact and trying to regain it. I don't know about the impact on the gameplay, but it seems to me that would still enhance the feel for the battlefield chaos. From the top of my head, I'd say it would slow down the game tempo, of course depending of the era BFC pick, with its impact on comm model, should they go this way. The challenge is to keep it playable, which is not that obvious I guess... Again, very interesting. The way you put it, it does sounds like good gaming still This again will have huge impact on gameplay, but I agree this should at least be thought about. Maybe make it just like when you start a TCP/IP game and you select a time limit. That way, PBEM could make longer turns, TCP/IP game much shorter. But again, I have know idea how these things work around the code... I would suggest the use of switches on the interface instead of order panel for some of your suggestions. Instead of being a binary option (selecting "target" or not), a switch controlling fire discipline could present more flexibility. You could select "do not return fire" to "fire at will" and include in between options ("Harassing" or "Sporadic" fire, support weapon only, etc), keeping in mind that this is always relative to troop experience and HQ caps. Also, I was playing CSDT-Lonely Country, from Panzerman yesterday, an infantry only battle, where part of my troops stayed a good 25 minutes in one position, exchanging fire with the enemy. It came to me that a progressive cover model would be interesting. I can easily imagine that these troops strived for better cover during a fire fight, and staying in one place longer, although not always a good idea, at least has the advantage of allowing one to enhance one's cover. I'm not talking about entrenching frenzy, just the fact that instead of woods having a generic cover and concealment value, this could improve with time up to a certain level, depending of unit experience, HQ bonus and other factors.

My two cents: Using your assets 'en masse' might prevent these annoying occurence, since the nasty little allied tank will get blown to bits by that other equally nasty >>put your favorite axis afv here<< advancing right next to the first one. Contact with cover arc, as suggested by cpl. Carrot, is indeed useful and let you control the threat your tanks will react to. Also, try protecting your moving units with overwatch, be it ATG, other AFVs, whatever you have that can succesfully engage and, if not destroy, at least suppress likely menace. But I can well understand your concerns. As for me, at first, I was always quite mad about loosing armor. After all, tanks are pricey toys to loose, and hit the point count pretty bad when dying, not to mention getting your Panther G late blown after treating it with that sexy cool mod and trying it for the first time. Not directly related, but still on the topic of 'loosing assets', here's an interesting quote, IMO: It's plain common sense when you think about it. Gaining initiative, getting a better tactical situation than one's opponent, inflicting him heavier losses, by loosing a tank, is a good trade. HTH. Good game. *sigh* time to take your pill Yoda. ___________________ * Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe , New-York, Doubleday & Company, 1948. p.119.

Also, I wonder if anyone ever felt safe driving around the battlefield into one of those. Look pretty thin to me. In any case, the quality and current state of the various pieces is outstanding. Very well preserved. Remind me of a Pz IV (ausf J IIRC) in Saumur, look as if it drove straight out of the factory into the museum. It's good to know some people are dedicated at preserving these pieces of hardware.