[Open Circuit Turbine...]

I would almost not worry about thermal signatures if I were in a vacuum. If you're on the "cold" side, no matter how small your signature you should show up very clearly since there is extremely little, or no, ambient heat. If you're on the "hot" side, then thermals could very well be entirely useless.

I did say "almost not worry"

[Is there a target date for DropTeam's release?]

I was excited about the possibilities, now with the improvement in graphics I'm excited about the pleasure of playing. We all say that gameplay matters more than graphics (and it does!!), but it sure is nice to enjoy looking at what you're playing

[How will the OPFOR AI respond in RealTime???]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

At least BFC's been getting practice lately. T72 and DropTeam are both realtime and both use decent ballistics modelling, I hear. I know, I know, just publishers not producers - but still they must be observant enough to learn a little from close association with others' mistakes/successes.

The sub game Dangerous Waters seems to have disappeared off their list of products. Perhaps it was too Cold War retro to be popular. Or perhaps it did as well as they expected and ran for as long as they expected.

Dangerous Waters changed publishers, but its still available. A demo that includes multiplayer was released not long ago.

Just FYI

[The main UI explained]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

What I mean by an Order of Battle is simply a list of all your units and having them act as hotlinks to the actual unit.

Steve

I could be wrong but I think that is all most folks here are asking for when they want the Order of Battle to be somehow part of the interface.

This is all we are asking for "simply a list of all your units and having them act as hotlinks to the actual unit."

I could be wrong but I had thought that was all that was ever requested?

-tom w </font>

[The main UI explained]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

An ingame Order of Battle will eventually make it into the game. We'll have to see if it gets into CM:SF or not.

I thought an in-game OoB was something "ruled out" more than once as too much information? If I wasn't at work I'd search the forums, but I would swear that it's come up more than once as a request.

[Are newer game releases dumbed down? Is it now all about graphics and no gameplay]

I think all us gamers, as we age, grow jaded with seeing the same thing over and over but with prettier graphics. Probably the nature of the beast, really.

So far the GTA games have been my favorites with the longest replay outside of the CM series. Since I only have the Mac versions of CMBO and CMBB and an OS X-only machine, that's left me with GTA for a game I will pull out and just play for a bit.

The reason that I like GTA so much is, as stated by others, it gives you a very free-form world to run amok in but I also really like having a story.

My ideal game would be able to generate story threads that you could follow through if you wanted, but where you could just wander around in the game world as well. I think it could be done, too, just not with the fidelity available to a human designer. And since a lot of the stories have sucked, I feel they could probably do at least as good a job.

[CMx2's new movement system explained]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I would suggest it is unreasonable to expect the Strat AI to be upredictable each time a designed and hinted scenario is played over and over again.[/QB]

I have to disagree with that; since even the simplest random chance (50/50) could be used to sway the Strat AIs choice at key branches in a way that makes the route planned by the Strat AI different each time.

From a user perspective, the simplest method would be to allow a type of hint that is random as to whether it is followed or not.

There are more complex methods and other options (like being able to place randomly weighted objective points) that could also enhance the replay value of a designed scenario.

None of those options would make a scenario entirely random, but that's fine. Of course, some scenarios should play out the same way each time, but there's no reason that a system couldn't be put in place to allow the scenario designer the flexibility to provide options to the Strat AI.

[CMx2's new movement system explained]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

I want voice recognition software so I can hook up my old CVC to my computer and relive my glory days!

Seriously thought it sounds interesting, can't wait to try it out.

Take a look at a program called "Shoot" -- it uses the Voice Recognition tools that Microsoft provides for Windows to "press keys" and such. I use it for the game X2: The Threat and others; works brilliantly.

I imagine it could be real handy for CMx2, too

[Space Lobsters, When would people like it set.]

I'd be for a Starship Troopers-esque game (definitely book based). I'm equally for far future as near future, though maybe leaning a bit towards far. I don't see any need to break physics to include a great many different technologies, so I don't see that as an impediment to creating a far future game. Whether it would be star-spanning or simply solar system spanning would be up to physics, but you could do an awful lot in-system.

And I don't care what any of you say, I'd love to see a BattleTech game Definite licensing and realism issues, but I'd still love to see it.

[Wheel of Time CM:WoT]

I would love a fantasy setting or Warhammer 40k. Oh hell, I'd love if they could do a BattleTech game. I enjoy riding around in 'em in the MW series of games, but I'd really love to get BFC to do the full field

(and bugger all the non-realities! )

[CMSF-Disappointing]

Originally posted by Dillweed:

So BFC says its makin narrower games and this guy expects one that fully simulates every major conflict over a 50 year period. Wow.

Didn't you get the memo? That's the new definition of narrow.

[CMSF-Disappointing]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon:

Why, RMC, it's because they see a screenshot, say to themselves "Those soldiers look as good as an FPS!" and then conclude that somehow it must be so!

And you know what...in its own way its actually a hell of a compliment considering its a very early CMSF screen shot and we have considerably less staff and budget than your after FPS developer

Dan </font>

[I apologise to BFC for all the WW2 whiners]

I think there's a post somewhere in here giving more info on the modding.

One texture per model, with all the parts being in that one texture rather than a bunch of textures per model.

Or so I recall. I'd have to use the search to really find out

As for difficulty... what makes you think it will be more difficult? They've specifically listed what will and what will not be mod-able (another post somewhere). Basically the same sets of things as was in CMx1, i.e. the graphics.

[CMSF-Disappointing]

Why, RMC, it's because they see a screenshot, say to themselves "Those soldiers look as good as an FPS!" and then conclude that somehow it must be so!

Maybe that also, in a way, explains how Warmonger could mistakenly believe that BFC ever had any intention of doing another game with the breadth of CMBB. It's been clearly and repeatedly stated by BFC that they are doing narrower games. Despite that, Warmonger came to the conclusion that they would not just do a game that offers a broad conflict like CMBB, but that a game would cover all theatres since WWII. (!)

I also find it more than a little amusing that it's "Arab bashing" if it's current and in the Middle East, but if it is WWII then there's nothing "wrong" with it.

Maybe we're suffering a sort of parallel universe overlap. Someone mend that quickly before their universe and our universe get stuck together indefinitely!

[How will it not be a "Turkey shoot"]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon:

Uh, perhaps because it is small unit tactics? Company and such-sized?

I'm sure infantry are quite capable of neutralizing an Abrams in a MOUT setting.

Some people seem to be forgetting that the CM games are company sized, not "You've been given the assets to invade a country"-sized.

uh, yes, and uh what assets is a US company able to call on? </font>

[How will it not be a "Turkey shoot"]

Uh, perhaps because it is small unit tactics? Company and such-sized?

I'm sure infantry are quite capable of neutralizing an Abrams in a MOUT setting.

Some people seem to be forgetting that the CM games are company sized, not "You've been given the assets to invade a country"-sized.

["We're tired of WWII..."]

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Well well well. Let's have a look in this thread over the last 24 hours.

[snip because it's pointless]

Wow, I don't think I can quite find the words to describe the crap you're spouting so dramatically and, I warrant, with as much righteousness as you can muster.

You can't reason with fanatics, and certainly not with people who believe they are entitled to whatever they want, or think they want. You ever hear someone say something so totally crazy that the best you can do is stare at them while your brain tries to comprehend that, yes, they did just say something so incredibly stupid? It took me a few moments to get past that after reading, well, any of Plucker's comments.

I'm sure there are plenty of disappointed people because their favorite genre isn't being covered right out of the starting blocks. What I don't get is how, for some, that disappointment transforms in their heads into anything other than disappointment. You don't like the setting? Fine, don't buy it. You don't like any potential political aspect? Fine, don't buy it.

Try as I might, I also can't fathom why some find it acceptable to play as, for instance, the Germans in WWII but not as the US (or whatever power) in, say, a Middle East conflict game. I imagine they are the first to pull out the "But we're just playing as the soldiers involved, not as the SS or the troops that were murdering the Jews." Yet they are practically having seizures over small unit combat scenarios because the first game is vs. a country from the Middle East? I can't wrap my head around it, but then again I don't think its supposed to make any sense.

Given their reactions (and by 'their' I refer to the crazed people), you'd think one or more of the following:

A) They personally and specifically financed the CMx2 engine under contract that it would be a WWII setting

Someone is holding them hostage to purchasing the first title with the CMx2 engine

C) They believe that, by purchasing something from BFC in the past, they are entitled (nay, called by <deity>!) to attempt to dictate what should be developed in the future

At first I was appalled, but that has worn off into curiosity. Any chance we can study these individuals?

[Where's the Beef?!]

I love it Gpig, love it

Wish I had your drawing skillz, those other pics of various infantry concepts were sweet.

[Move to Contact]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A "Move to New Contact" order is an excellent way to put it Cameroon, I'm sure BigDuke6 would agree with me.

Well, you sure wouldn't if we implmented it . Situation...

You have a beat up Squad in front of your tank, it stops. You don't like that so you issue a "Move to New Contact" order. 2 seconds into the next move it spots another Squad, stops, squirts it with MGs, and then turn ends. You issue another "Move to New Contact" order, you start to move and, hey, whadda know, those Squads have an HQ! Tank stops, squirts it with MG, turn ends.</font>

[Move to Contact]

I think the idea that Bigduke is looking for is "Move to New Contact".

And I can see the usefulness of that, and is even something I had wanted (but not known how to convey) in the Borg Spotting Era since units that I'd seen and were inconsequential were still halting a unit that should be cautious about new threats, but not about the known and dismissed threats already in view.

I'm not lobbying, because if it's not in and not going in and not deemed a necessary feature, well hey that's ok.

I just figured it was worth saying "Oh, hey, yeah that'd be nice." and giving it a name/phrase that I think is more precise in what it Bigduke's command wish is.

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

with tanks, it's usually too tempting to put tanks one after another in good keyhole positions, instead of side by side, because you can fire thru friendly tanks. i hate doing it, because it simply could never be done in real world, and to lesser part because it takes away many reasons for real world tank tactics.

I'm fairly sure that the changes to LOF as described already take care of that issue. You can't fire through a vehicle that is blocking LOF, but a vehicle could move through the path of the round at some point.

I tend to agree with your comment on making in-flight checks for large-bore weapons and not small arms. There aren't many large-bore weapons on the map and their rate of fire is low, so tracking each round would seem feasible on an "as often as possible" basis.

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

Originally posted by Metto:

This thing, that moving objects(tanks etc.) only tell the units "you must not fire here", creates an exploit.

Situation 1: A tank is advancing towards a machinegun and has infantry following it, "in cover". The player controlling the machinegun gives it an area fire order ahead of the tank -> when the tank and infantry moves forward, the mg keeps shooting the spot and hits the infantry through the tank.

I'm not sure that this is the case. It would seem obvious that LOF must be checked each time a unit wants to fire. With infantry, I imagine that would be for each "burst".

Since units can't walk into the LOF and be affected by already fired rounds, the advancing infantry won't be hit by a burst of MG fire that they weren't the target of at the firing/LOF check. So they can't walk into the tail end of a MG burst, and the next burst that would be fired has LOF blocked by the tank.

Situation 2: There's a light infantry gun instead of the machinegun, and the tank is a heavy tank, so the gun can't kill it. The tank is sitting in level terrain, so even a small adjustment in the guns elevation may result in the gun's rounds going very short or very far from the tank. The player sets the gun to fire in front of the tank and when the gun eventually misses above it's ground target, the shell flies through the tank and hurts the infantry.

Seems far more likely to end up with a dead gun than any dead infantry, as well as being a poor tactic for the tank + infantry. If you know the IG is there and its IDed (thus why you're advancing behind a vehicle that the IG can't kill), I would expect you advance your tank to a firing position and kill the IG.

And all of that could theoretically occur in CMx1, because vehicles block neither LOS nor LOF in that engine. Hasn't been a big exploit that I'm aware of (other than tank stacking).

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

Damnit, Steve beat me to the post about FPSes

[HELICOPTERS.....]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have no plans to do air assaults for any game in the near future. It certainly isn't a requirement for contemporary warfare. Only a small slice of units in the world have this capability within an active combat area. Recent combat, in the 1990s and current, has also proven that helos are a lot more vulnerable than they were in Vietnam. In fact, AARs from the battle of Fallujah stated quite clearly that even attack helos needed to be kept out of the battle for the most part. Fixed wing aircraft was used instead.

Steve

Regarding the Fallujah experiences; was that due to the urban terrain? I admit to being not very well informed about the details of the combat experiences of the Gulf War, but I do seem to recall a lot being said about the Apaches (both the wear-and-tear of the desert environment and the anti-tank effectiveness).

[BRIDGES.....]

As for an on-topic post...

Expanded bridge detail would be a bonus, though if you could overload and collapse a bridge there'd need to be some method of guessing that.

Maybe your visual recognition suggestion gives you an idea of the capacity of the bridge, but you don't have the specifics. That is, maybe you know it will hold a tank but will it hold two?

*shrug*

I think I would like to see at least bridges that can handle vehicles and those that can't. I don't particularly like fords for simulating small, foot-traffic only bridges because of their penalties to movement. The exposure penalties don't bother me, but the speed of movement seems totally wrong as a viable solution.

In the end though, bridges aren't at the top of my interest list.