Steiner14

And the important key-areas handmade.

So the operational control is done for one side by one player and for the other side by the AI only?

In the FAQ i could only find info about the price.

Credit card? PayPal? Euro-transfer? PreOrder? When? I want to give you my money!

Excellent! After reading the FAQs on the CMC-Homepage about multi-multiplayer :eek: and looking at the screenshots, i'm overwhelmed. That is more i ever dared to wish for CMBB.

Hey, don't you know that it was Syria?!

That makes hope!

'The Jews?' How about the 'Israeli's?'</font>

qued.

Big disappointment. 1. US-centric view. Maybe i could live with the modern-warfare setting, if it is fun and really works. But what i can't stand, is the US-propaganda-view. Everytime i switch on the TV, i could go mad, about all the lies, US, the West and the NATO. Don't want to go into detail. I will definately not buy such a setting. 2. The story: sorry, but Syria is one of the most hatred countries by Israel. The jews will do everything, to throw it down. And that means, USrael will fight and bleed for it... So to me this setting, that the ZOGs (US, NATO) would fight for one of the last really free and independent countries, is simply ridiculous. An invasion in Syria to install a ZOG, that could be a realistic setting. 3. For the second game, it is only mentioned, that the campaign could be played from US-side. :eek: I guess BFC underestimates the attractivity of the german side and overestimates the attractivity of the US-side by far. BTW: BFC should NOT calculate, a module with British and German troops, in a near-east-setting will sell well. The oposition in Europe against the US is big and in Germany it is HUGE. i.e.: everyone i know is happy, that the US are bleeding that much in Iraq. Most people i know, have big respect for the Iraqi freedom fighters. All people i know were happy that hurricane Katrina hit the USA and not another country (me included). Only to give BFC a feeling about the potential attractivity of such a setting...

I feel exactly the same. The US-centric view was the real shock for me.

Really? Do you know, in which thread? What i read about was, that the shooting calculations are done on a per shot basis and not every µs for the flying projectile. It doesn't exclude cover behind moving vehicles.

Cool. Regarding battle-variety: don't forget that the little symbols in CMx1 about the battle type in the left lower corner, give way to much information away...

After the initial disapointment, i think this isn't really a bad solution for the customer: In CMx1 times, usually even single battles need to be balanced, for both sides enjoying it. Unbalanced (but maybe historically) campaigns usually cause huge frustration on the weaker side. The (planned?) asymetric vitory conditions could really shine on this aspect, but i guess much more experience (and user feedback) with them could be needed, before integrating them into really working multiplayer campaigns. So for me it is fine, if the first release will not offer multiplayer campaigns, since i prefer well working functionality, over feature overkill. This is really good news. I interpret it as the beginning of saying goodbye to the philosophy of always and everywhere balanced battles. So with CMx2 we will not only get a much better engine, we obviously can expect a whole new dimension of battle-variety. Super.

My bet is for Germans vs US. Biggest market. So location will be: Normandy. Since Steve loves water, at least the first module will be the invasion (if not already included in the game).

Regarding the bigger profit from an online sold copy: i want to give my money BFC AND want a german version, not only because BFC will deserve every cent, but i don't want to support the (anti-)german state with my taxes if i can avoid it. Is there hope? Ot at least hope to mod & patch it to a german version, maybe inofficially?

It was quite common for the Germans. I.e. 15 minutes barrage on area A before attack and then 100 meters further. Or light-signals for the arty-spotter to move the barrage further.

Just a few more thoughts, on extra time, or expanded battles: the possibility to expand battles like i suggested above, offers another (IMO complete new) aspect: Say, you choose such a "tactically enhanced battle" (then you know, many unexpected things could happen. So no disappointments, if a battle will last longer. Those wanting to finish battles until teatime, just can choose scenarios, which aren't marked as TEBs, btw. But for all others, they offer the possibility of total uncertaiity). So you choose a TEB battle and read the briefing and see: 30 minutes is your timeframe. Now in CM, the duration gives away a huge amount of information. If you see a big map, you know, there will most probably not be much resistance in the first few hundred meters - so you can rush forward to save the time for the real attack. If it is a smaller map, you can expect the line of defense quite closely. You choose your tactics accordingly, only becasue of the given timeframe. And so far this has worked in 99% of all battles i played. But in a TEB, you still see the minutes but you can get no additional information out of this display! Maybe the designer shows you a big map, and a small timeframe? In old CM-terms you knew, you have to rush forward. But now, this timeframe can be completely wrong. It may be based on completely wrong intelligence. Maybe the enemy has been reinforced over night and has silently taken new positions? You will need not 20 minutes, you will need 60+! And a unrealistically rushing forward, would lead to a desaster! Easily possible with TEBs. Finally the timeframe would become what it should be: a tool for the designer to put time pressure on the attacker, but not a tool offering HUGE additional information about the battle itself.

I always have had a problem with the feeling the strict timeframe produces. After the first few minutes of firefights, someone usually knows, if things work fine and how the rest of the whole battle will develop. A lot of certainity is taking place, once this point is reached. And usually this point is reached quite early. To make this point of certainity appear later, would be desireable IMO. On the other hand it is necessary to keep up time pressure, to give the attacker not the possibility to concentrate all his foces on one objective, taking it, and afterwards move to the next one, without any punishment. Therefore the secenario designers need the possibility of some kind of time-pressure. But on the other hand, we have interrupted battles and miss the possibility to give the commander more freedom to decide if a battle should be continued - maybe at some costs... Who knows what the next future in war will bring? This brings me to the idea of some kind of player-influence, if he wants to attack further, beyond the planned timeframe, but maybe at some cost. There should be the possibility for the scenario-desingers, to punish the attacker, for taking more time, than 'allowed', but to reward good decisions, too. Example: attacker has 45 mins to take objective A. He comes close, is sure to take it, but needs some more time. But therefore he saved a lot of his men and material. Since the time is up, the player should be able to decide if he wants to attack further. "The time is up! What do you want to do now: 1) End of battle - show me the results! 2) I want to continue. He chooses 2. Then he recieves a pre-made message from the scenario designer: "There came just a radio message from the BTN-HQ: strong enemy forces moving from north in direction of Hill 117. Contact expected in 30 minutes. Do you want to continue?" YES! "You have 20 more minutes to reach objective A". But the enemy reinforcements appear already after 10 minutes and suddenly the remaining time time of the battle is expanded to 60 minutes... In this example a victory could turn into a total defeat, because the attacker needed to long to reach his objective. This concept could be expanded, to several 'ends' within one scenario. Quite some uncertainity could be added to the battles outcome (not in a random sense but according to the wish of the scenario designers, what decisions they want to honor and what they want to punish, but a lot of uncertainity for the players). And it probably could be used quite effectively for modeling the outcome of historic battles. I imagine how this enhanced possibilities could be combined with the briefings: how much will be told to the player? How much freedom will be given to him in the briefing? Or will he just see the huge chance and maybe even ignore an order? Even within single battles, it suddenly would become important, how much a player takes care of his men and material, since a battle could last longer. Since i can imagine, not all players would be glad about more uncertainity about battle durations and their outcome and freedom for the player, such enhanced battles could be marked somehow (enhanced tactical possibilities). [ September 17, 2005, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Thank you WineCape. If you add comments, would you mind to add the date adding it? Example: Old text. 23.Sept: New Text [ September 15, 2005, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

ROFL!

I agree. It is just a basic idea for BFC, how the spotting cpabilities of snipers could be reduced and uncertainity could be increased. I would have no problems, if the player can't choose the targets. On the other hand, for the fun it would be good, if we could decide to make TCs hide or to go for a fat major. But whatever they decide, i hope snipers will not show the player directly what they can see.

What, if sniper-units don't show the player exact locations and IDs of units, but instead show only their "contacts" in a list like: 2 TC commanders 1 transport 1 major 1 platoon leader 3 squads 1 team. All the player can do is to choose a target from the list, i.e. "TC commander". But he doesn't get the information where the units are.

I don't understand the, "played against humans" comment. I've playtested dozens of scenarios against people, many of them in this thread, and have often found that we differ on how we view the results of the battle.</font>

So there still is hope, that at least AFV's commanders can be split from the crew for spotting? I'm asking this, because with the reduced battle-size, it becomes even more important to be able to use this standard procedure.