Steiner14

Master Steve, does this mean, AFV comanders can not leave the vehicle for spotting?

While i can understand those lobbying for BTN-battles and upwards, becasue i prefer big-huge CMx1 battles myself, i think you simply transfer your knowledge from CMx1 to CMx2 and are afraid, the smaller battles will become less exciting. I'm sure the 1:1 representation will create a whole new dimension of complexity and immersion and therefore we will receive way more action in smaller battles. But also the tactical view can't be projected from CMx1 to CMx2. With relative spotting and all the other enhancements we know until now (i.e. buildings), it will become much more difficult to achieve things.

What is [m/joules]?

Panther Commander, if you've played against humans, you know, where you stand. Judging a scenario easy - medium - hard - very hard should be for scenario designers with some experience no problem. To have at least a subjective rating from the designer is better, than absolutely no knowledge.

Steve, thanks for all the information. I'm totally overwhelmed. And sceptical: what you describe sounds simply too good to be true! What we heard so far, would be the best computer game ever. Do you know that?! Are there BTS shares to buy?

I second that. It could be done by using a simple lowpass-filter, with cutoff-frequency set by unit's distance to the camera.

With the (much) increased realism of CMx2 (what i can see so far from the bones), historically accurate battles become more and more interesting (at least for me). But who wants to play battles one side is most probably going to lose anyway? Not much. And the available scenarios reflect that. And why? Because we always expect balanced battles. When battles are played, now we always have in mind, they are more or less balanced and if someone loses, he was simply the weaker player. This automatically leads the scen. designers to make almost only balanced battles (and they have to waste hours of hours to get the balance right, although the battle is already much fun, exciting and historically accurate). The BALANCE rating at TSD even strenghtened this view that good battles need to be balanced. With CMx2 i hope to see a much wider range of difficulty and especially more hard to win battles. To get away from this "a scenario must be balanced" myth, it would be nice, if CMx2 would allow the scenario designer to give the battle a rating. From very easy to almost impossible to win. Or something similar. Then we would not only get a much broader variety of battles, but also experienced players could play against beginners, by choosing the appropriately rated battle. Ofcourse there should be the possibility for the designer, not to rate it and to keep people believing, it were balanced like it is now... [ August 28, 2005, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Whatever you guys decide to do, please do not allow to rate balance! Much better would be a rating from easy to hard for a certain side. Because of rating the balance, unbalanced battles revceived a lower rating at TSD, no matter how historically accurate, exciting and great they were, because everyone expects always balanced battles and so we have the situation, that only balanced battles have a good image now, which is absolutely wrong IMO. And it makes a huge difference, if i play every battle with the ideal of balance in mind. Victories or defeats are always judged absolutely and therefore no one wants to play unbalanced battles - who wants to lose? But if you know, the side you play is rated HARD, while the other side is EASY, then the battle result is seen with completely different eyes. And then it also gets more attractive for scen. designers, to make unbalanced but exciting battles again. [ August 28, 2005, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Once again, i'm extremely impressed. Thanks for the infos!

That is a lot of very good news about the improved terrain!

Keep: WEGO PBEM MODDING possibility, but HARDCODED MODELS PLACING AVAILABLE UNITS DIRECTLY ON BATTLEFIELD (i just read, a few are really suggesting to put available units in a separate window - that would mean the end to learn the units, putting them in an order prior to the setup and to choose their tasks accordingly to their qualities) Want: FULL MOVIE REPLAY VEHICLES - mobile cover VEHICLES - commanders can leave for spotting 3rd party campaigns - kind of .txt output/input BATTLE DESIGN - much more commands for scenario designers supporting the TAC-AI (trigger points, trigger cover-arcs, trigger levels (plus time), on contact/enemy-fire retreat to point X, don't move,...) [ August 27, 2005, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Why don't you just answer the question? </font>

...propaganda hero...rudel's war diary a propaganda book...blahblahblah. Rudel was that ineffective and such a braggart, that he was forbidden to fly. Hm, strange. His kills are all confirmed? All wrong! Propaganda numbers. Rudel was involved in the development of the 87G: bah, this plane doesn't hit tanks and therefore it was judged as highly effective just for - guess right - propaganda issues.

Andreas, only the confirmed kills are counted. Each one needs to be confirmed undoubtedly by another soldier and if two claimed the self hit, it wasn't counted twice. The Germans were extremely strict about that. If you are interested in Stuka usage, i suggest to read Rudels war-diary. There you get a good impression of the effectiveness of the Stuka, which seems to be quite a mysterium here. The ineffectiveness of Stukas in CM against tanks, where i.e. ILs perform better, indicate, there should be researched a bit more.

Ah, that is good news! Just a reminder: don't forget, if a covered-arc for vehicles is set, an AP-round should be loaded! [ August 02, 2005, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Ah, that is good news! Just a reminder: don't forget, if a covered-arc for vehicles is set, an AP-round should be loaded! [ August 02, 2005, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Feature request for vehicles: A feature i'd like to see in CMx2 and so far haven't read about: the preloaded ammo-type should be modeled. But i'm not sure, if the player should have control over it. I think it would add quite a bit more realism and maybe would give an additional possibility to differentiate between experience levels of crews.

Feature request for vehicles: A feature i'd like to see in CMx2 and so far haven't read about: the preloaded ammo-type should be modeled. But i'm not sure, if the player should have control over it. I think it would add quite a bit more realism and maybe would give an additional possibility to differentiate between experience levels of crews.

And what makes combat a thrill? That you don't know the outcome. IMO unpredictiveness (does that word in English exist? ) in general increases tension. The uncertainity forces you, to choose a more careful, a more realistical aproach to the problem. What's bad with that? You want the unit hop out? Then make sure, they have enough time. It's really that easy. But giving them more time, can make things dangerous. So it adds in general difficulty, uncertainity and tension. I'm not sure. What if the sucessful setup of the gun decides about an open or a protected flank? I understand what you mean, but i think this moments of frustration work more on a psychological level: we all know them and hate them, but they only happen, if we did something wrong - too much orders in too less time. And what is so bad, about this happening: do you think in reality such things don't happen? Imagine it, as the driver recognizing, he drove to the wrong place, or the Geschützführer (gun-leader?) thinking that. Warfare means controlled chaos and you can't really complain, that CM doesn't give us enough control over it. I don't see it as seperate things. They both are integral part of warfare each with their own problems. Just think about the two week delay of the attack on Stalingrad: units didn't know where to go, the streets were jammed. This delay was decisive for the outcome. And you want really complain about a gun not disembarking? I think, you underestimate the impact of those "restrictions" on the whole gaming experience. [ July 26, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

And what makes combat a thrill? That you don't know the outcome. IMO unpredictiveness (does that word in English exist? ) in general increases tension. The uncertainity forces you, to choose a more careful, a more realistical aproach to the problem. What's bad with that? You want the unit hop out? Then make sure, they have enough time. It's really that easy. But giving them more time, can make things dangerous. So it adds in general difficulty, uncertainity and tension. I'm not sure. What if the sucessful setup of the gun decides about an open or a protected flank? I understand what you mean, but i think this moments of frustration work more on a psychological level: we all know them and hate them, but they only happen, if we did something wrong - too much orders in too less time. And what is so bad, about this happening: do you think in reality such things don't happen? Imagine it, as the driver recognizing, he drove to the wrong place, or the Geschützführer (gun-leader?) thinking that. Warfare means controlled chaos and you can't really complain, that CM doesn't give us enough control over it. I don't see it as seperate things. They both are integral part of warfare each with their own problems. Just think about the two week delay of the attack on Stalingrad: units didn't know where to go, the streets were jammed. This delay was decisive for the outcome. And you want really complain about a gun not disembarking? I think, you underestimate the impact of those "restrictions" on the whole gaming experience. [ July 26, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Good to hear, that BFC stays on the realistical route. I'm sure, besides the conjunction with reality, one of the aspects that make CM so interesting even after years, is the difficulty of certain tasks, i.e. the synchronization of an attack. Less dificulties would not only mean less realism, but also less thrill and would reduce the long-time motivation a lot.

Good to hear, that BFC stays on the realistical route. I'm sure, besides the conjunction with reality, one of the aspects that make CM so interesting even after years, is the difficulty of certain tasks, i.e. the synchronization of an attack. Less dificulties would not only mean less realism, but also less thrill and would reduce the long-time motivation a lot.

What new features the first demo-scenarios should showcase? My wish is not really spectacular but i would like to see a really, really difficult battle, showing all the new possibilities of the AI in defence. But difficult demo-battles could easily become frustrating for CM-newbies. So a difficulty-rating could be a solution? n/a-easy-medium-expert-crack? This would also have the positive side effect, that we would see more unblanced battles, without the designer being blamed for an unbalanced battle. The variety of battles would become much wider, which only can be good.

Bah, what are points if you can have the EK1!? You have 5 Panther left? Drive them at full speed through his lines, turn around and kick his a..! Not possible?

Thank you!