Steiner14

No need to go back decades into history written by USrael. Remember "Weapons of mass destruction"? Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq? The real weapon of mass destruction in Iraq (and Yugoslavia), is the radioactive ammunition used by the USraeli agressors. What you imagine to celebrate and what is the dark reality, USraels reality, are two different worlds.

Don't you know, that the USA are the most hated country worldwide? - or is this simply beyond your naive and egocentric view of the world? The USA are always making war all over the world, against countries that didn't attack them and you are stupid enough, to close this stupid post with "peace"-greetings? Incredible.

Then you must be a pervert, if your hobby is being interested in this hell. This kind of pseudo morale from wargamers makes me laugh. War ofcourse is not hell. For some people it is hell, for others it is not. Some people are frightened by spiders, other people like the adrenalin, when they are in highest danger and can proove themselfes or their comrades to withstand the danger. I can't hear this always repeated liberal Hollywood dogma anymore. It's nothing else than a stupid lie. All wargamers are attracted by the danger that lies in fighting. Some only virtually, others in reality. There is nothing to be shamed for, to be a man and being attracted to fight. I have the impression, some of you are already that feminist, that you have forgotten how a real man feels and how a real man acts. You are trapped in this pacifistic and liberal dictatorship and then you try to find excusions, why you are interested in wargames. Oh no, gore in a wargame! How evil! I'm only interested in weapons, because the mechanics and technical aspects are of interest for me. Not the power, they give to the man behind it - oh god, how bad! I'm a good wargamer, not a primitive one. And i'm a liar. The biggest liar. I've inhaled the lies as truth and now i believe in them myself. And warfare? Evil, evil, evil! I'm a good wargamer. I'm only interested in the tactics on the papers. Not in the thrill in reality. Best would be, to see only abstract symbols. Oh, i'm so gay and good.

War without blood, is like life without death. A realistic tactical wargame should be full of gore and splatter elements. How about a 18+ module?

B + C + E

No haze/distance effect. No grid overlay. :mad:

Same here. Good question, Klavan & Kineas.

Syrians.

From what i understood, CMx2 still is somehow abstracted - but to a much finer degree. If a wall doesn't have any windows or doors, i'm sure no shooting through the walls and no LOS will be possible. But a soldier, close to window or with LOS out of it, can also shoot "through" it, althoug graphically it seems, the representation is shooting through the wall.

15-18 dual RPM?! Impressive. Wow. What kind and how many air-forces would be necessary to reach an equal one-minute firepower?

Please, could someone translate this text into a language or write a short summary?

Some interesting background information: http://judicial-inc.biz/a.,ssassination_of_hariri.htm http://judicial-inc.biz/Lebanon_Prime_Minister.htm http://www.judicial-inc.biz/ha.0riri_assassination.htm

Unsobill, look at this pic and all negative feelings will disappear:

Same here. :mad: :mad: :mad: Please make it public! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Wow. Here we see another example, why BFC is the leading developer in the genre: from the deep understanding of the problem, the effects of the real thing, they conclude what they need and what they don't need to get it done and then they decide how they implement it instead to follow the simplest solution. What i would like to ask Steve is, if they follow structured formal procedures, to get things analyzed that well. I assume so, since the outcome is always of such a high quality and he never seems to make any mistakes or oversees something. [ May 30, 2007, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

@JaguarUSF How many email sends are necessary per turn? A1: moves A1 - file with data A1 - email B1: moves B1 - file with data A1+B1 - email A2: comp. calculates A1+B1 + view R1 - moves A2 - file with data A1+B1+A2 - email B2: calc. A1+B1 + view R1 - moves B2 - files with data A2+B2 - email A3: calc. A2+B2 + view R2 - moves A3 - file with A2+B2+A3 - email B3: calc. A2+B2 + view R2 - moves B3 - file with A3+B3 - email ... 1 turn / email?

And mostly meeting engagements. Correct? I also started to play random maps, after i knew all the CMBO scenarios on CD. But then i started ladder playing and soon i was sick of the impossibility to adapt to the terrain. So i started to look at the scenario depot and since that time, i never ever looked back at random maps. Later, when ladder playing lost it's attractivity, because of the nature of all meeting engagements, unbalanced battles became more and more attractive. What i want to tell you is, that you are missing a lot, if you play random maps. Good scenarios have so much intellectual work of the game designer in them, that the random map is like a blind painter compared to a good one. IMO this will become even more true, with the much greater possibilities of scenario design in CMSF. Every bet, soon you will have forgotten the random map generator. [ May 29, 2007, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Wow, with that CPU and a 8800GTS only around 20-30fps? So at highest settings a state of the art system with an extremely fast GPU seems to be quite adequate, isn't it?

allenj7 thanks for explaining. Very interesting

@allenj7 Are you sure? Recently released pics from gallery4 with overcast weather do not show any distance effect: http://tinyurl.com/2j3k5h

IMO a visual distance effect (haze) is very important to create a feeling of depth on the 2d screen. Therefore fog in CM doesn't only look better, it simply feels better with a much higher immersion effect. Probably this is the main reason, why i didn't find the screenshots not that extremely exciting so far. Maybe Battlefront decided to switch it off for the demo-pics and keep it back as a nice surprise for later?

Since this wouldn't make any sense and be a huge step backward in the WEGO-system, and because i trust in Battelfront, this can't be the case. So i guess you mean, that the VISUAL representation of the turn is not calculated prior, but the results are ofcourse. So we have to watch the action turn in realtime, the graphics engine receives and stores all data, and afterwards we can rewind, ff how we like it. Is that correct?

Nice preview. What i don't get is the description of the new WEGO-system: if the action is not calculated prior, couldn't i reload the oponents turn as often as i want and watch the results until the result will be as expected? And how many emails are necessary per turn?

I've read about it in a german WWII book, too but can't remember anymore which one it was. Maybe it was in Heinrich Severloh's book.

VEry interesting. This game looks better and better. But i think a grid overlay will indeed be necessary for scenarios at noon or with a high standing sun.