Steiner14

What is this "Plan" thingy of which you speak? </font>

Losing a precious tank. Losing a second one and recognizing, that the whole plan is collapsing.

Because SS rulez!

That is not true. The exported file doesn't have to contain the same information. You simply don't know, what information the encrypted file with all data has. Additionally the format of the data can be completely different. Secondly, if someone argues with cryptoanalysis-theory, i want to mention, that we already know, what information any PBEM-file contains. No one needs a plain TXT-file for that. The TXT-exportwould only summarize certain aspects of a finished battle. If someone is really interested in hacking the encryption, it is not that hard, with all the information and with accessible computer's memory, which contains the encryption-algo. It is not valid, since the computer's memory contains ALL data unencrypted... See above. Don't worry. I don't cheat, because it's impossible, i don't cheat, because it's simply no fun to play in "god-mode".

That is not true. The exported file doesn't have to contain the same information. You simply don't know, what information the encrypted file with all data has. Additionally the format of the data can be completely different. Secondly, if someone argues with cryptoanalysis-theory, i want to mention, that we already know, what information any PBEM-file contains. No one needs a plain TXT-file for that. The TXT-exportwould only summarize certain aspects of a finished battle. If someone is really interested in hacking the encryption, it is not that hard, with all the information and with accessible computer's memory, which contains the encryption-algo. It is not valid, since the computer's memory contains ALL data unencrypted... See above. Don't worry. I don't cheat, because it's impossible, i don't cheat, because it's simply no fun to play in "god-mode".

It is very bad news to hear, that still no TXT-export option is planned. First, the argument, that it would allow reverse engineering to hack the encryption is not valid at all, if the exported TXT-format has nothing in common with the encrypted one. Secondly, it is already very easily possible to cheat, Steve and it has nothing to do with encryption of the files: ammunition load and type, armor angle and thickness, gun-type/calibre, crew experience.

It is very bad news to hear, that still no TXT-export option is planned. First, the argument, that it would allow reverse engineering to hack the encryption is not valid at all, if the exported TXT-format has nothing in common with the encrypted one. Secondly, it is already very easily possible to cheat, Steve and it has nothing to do with encryption of the files: ammunition load and type, armor angle and thickness, gun-type/calibre, crew experience.

Really a very convincing logic: because the Wehrmacht wasn't prepared for a long war and in no way for a WW, not the established fairy-tales about conquering the world are wrong, but guess what: Blitzkrieg didn't exist, it was a myth!

probably B - my time is way too precious than to waste it with TCP/IP. PBEM is the only way i play CM since years. VERY disappointed about that plans. Good bye CM.

Play 'Opening Moments' and you will begin to understand what he means... Yes, how the unbuttoning is handeled is not only extremely unrealistically, it also is very frustrating to micromanage that.

In general use tank-destroyers like a Marder against the enemy's best tanks (Fireflys, 76Shermans). Vice verse that means, attacks are never lead with tank destroyers. In attack operations, keep them a few 100 meters behind your strong armor wedge until the enemy is forced to come out with his good tanks. Then the time of the TDs has come. If you defend, use them against his best tanks. Don't waste them against small guns. As a general rule: try to knock out the best enemy armor with the TDs, so that your good armor only has to deal with the smaller guns.

What i'm afraid of is, that Battlefront could decide for a complete new C&C system which no one likes or really needs. There are too much examples of good programs, games, movies, sequels always suffering the same fate: in the wish to make things MUCH better, the 'magic' of the original is lost. It's a misbelieve to think this 'magic' lies only in perfection or - in the case of games - in realism. Sometimes even the limitations create the magic. I doubt, that the same two or three persons who developed a brilliant product like CMx1, will be able to produce a complete new CMx2, which is all new AND even much better than their first strike. This would mean the same person winning two times the jackpot. What makes me worry, that BFC could leave the proven good old paths, i.e. is the planned 1:1 man representation. It sounds cool. But it will only work for me, if it will look really convincing. And that must be a HUGE amount of programming-labour, just for the eye-candy. How will the 1:1 representation work in houses, upstairs, in trenches, behind guns? What will that look like, if two squads are very close to each other and fighting? And what about the turn-sizes then? Will it still be possible to PBEM via modem? Instead to see one or two pixelsoldiers in the open, although the squad is in woods, i would by far prefer three (fine) modelled symbolic soldiers. Until now, i've not in a single moment had the feeling, that with the three man representation, i'm missing anything. But i can imagine, that it would look already fantastic AND convincing, if they were modeled with motion capturing and would offer different gestures and movements. I also don't see the necessity of a complete new C&C concept. The base of CMx1 is rock solid. Is there really the need to throw the not perfect but good working things away? Is it necessary to throw it away to reduce borg spotting? It has limitations. Sure. But are all of the restrictions really that bad, or do they maybe even create their part on CMx1's magic and fun? The balance in CMx1, between fun and realism is perfectly right. But if we demand more realism, and maybe get it, this has nothing to say, that the game will still have any magic or be fun to play. I hope BFC will only make the not so good and limited things a bit better, instead of falling into a megalomania, where everything is planned to be made new and 'much better'. And i'm really afraid now, after reading Steve's posts about fundamentals of simulations. Steve, you don't have to invent the wheel new. You've invented it already! Don't try to do so a second time. Just make this brilliant product a bit better and adapt it to modern standards. Just my 2 ct.

"CAN contain". Every bet, campaigns will be designable by users. Wouldn't he had said otherwise "will contain"?

That sounds fantastic. Although i'm sure you already have a quite detailed plan, how the system should work and what it should be able to do, i want to lobby for non-linear campaigns with tree-decisions, depending on the battle-results but also givng the player the possibility to decide about the way to go. If non-linear campaings will make it in, don't forget about including the possibility of 'vital units' - certain units which affect directly the outcome/performance (i.e. if BTN-commander is lost).

The new campaign system sounds fantastic and it could be really powerful. I hope the number of maps and battles will not be too restricted, so that i.e. a campaign of the size like the 'Stalingrad-Pack' will practically be possible. If units are kept and crews can receive new tanks/vehicles I see not a single backdraw in the new campaign system. But I hope you won't forget how much briefings can add to the atmosphere and that enhanced briefings with pics will become possible. I completely understand, why in the first CMx2 titles, no meta-campaign im-/export function will be available. With all the improvements and the new campaign-system, it simply will not be necessary for some time and since the new campaign-system will need some kind of (internal) im-/export functionality, i'm almost sure, the 3rd CMx2 title will have it. Regarding borg-spotting: a target for the CMx2 engine was a memory for each unit. I'm quite sure already, how the solution will look like, if we take into acount, that CMx2 will be not a completely new game, but a much better CMx1: if you select no unit, you'll see what all units can see together, like it is now. But if you select a unit and this unit has a memory, it also knows, what it has seen and identified so far...(enemy vehicles suddenly could turn into sound-contacts or disappear, squads turn into 'last-seen' markers,... I could imagine that this new concept will be supported by some additional rules for certain units under certain conditions, i.e. sharpshooters or crews or single squads out of command-range. I really hope the full-movie replay will finally become reality for us players - but also for BFC itself: if CMx2 graphics will really be that good as discussed, the advertisement effect taking place with a free downloadable CMx2-videoplayer-version must be quite big.

What is the typical battle-length (and size) for the ROW-battles?

Cool. Thanks.

Dorosh, despite your ad hominin attacks, ridiculous and evasive replies, you now suddenly acknowledge that the Wehrmacht launched instant improvised local counter-assaults (Gegenstösse) in addition to preplanned counterattacks (Gegenangriffe), quite an about face & retreat on your part. Most gratifying even if you can't/won't explain your changed viewpoint (embarrassing isn't it?) Perhaps too embarrassing for you to justify, so to my next point... There are plenty 1st hand accounts and photos from the Ostfront showing infantry from both sides using tanks and SPWs for cover (fireshadows) against hostile direct fire. There was less smoke available than one thinks, especially on the Russian side and the terrain was frequently as flat as a billiard table with little cover, surely Mr. Dorosh must be familiar with flat terrain being from Canada. Joachim Peiper was famous for using this sort of high speed charge and von Ribbentrop specifically with his PzIV company during the battle of Prokorovka on 12 July 1943. And Dorosh, this has nothing to do with your complexes about 'Teutonic Superiority' (the Canadians were respected as tough boys and good knightly fighters, except the 'strange' behavior to use German POWs as protecting-shields for their vehicles), but is simply a matter of hard facts, that only good soldiers with highest trust in their NCOs and leading officers like it was very common in the Wehrmacht, are capable to immediately attack without any preparation out in critical defensive situations. This was indeed an extraordinary soldierly performance of the German soldier. This was because in the Wehrmacht NCOs and officers were promoted from the ranks to leadership positions only after having proven their bravery, leadership and tactical skills, what is known in German as battle strength (Kampfkraft). The Western Armies by and large commissioned their officers before they proved themselves. But in CMx1 we have the situation, that even a single MG 1km away can bind whole platoons in the trenches and counter-assaults out of the battle, are mostly impossible. [ January 10, 2005, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Even a bit more, as if the fire would be coming from the front and the squad were behind the tank. I'm keen to hear explanations, how the german counter-assaults were conducted. Oh let me guess, why the german counter-assault wasn't what it was but was like that: full arty support was ordered, full air-support, then a company of tanks arrived and advanced, while the infantry in 10 minutes brought up the support weapons and placed them on the right positions and advanced over the best terrain, hundreds of meters away, right? No? Oh, then maybe rushing in hordes over open terrain like the Red Army? I'm not talking about packing infantry platoons behind single tanks. I'm talking about german counter-assaults and tactical Blitz-attacks, which heavily rely on fire-shadows for infantry and SPWs. I.e. SPW-drivers oriented on the leading tanks gun direction showing the direction of the fire-shadow in case of gunfights. Another example: in CM, a few 20mm AA-guns, make a typical combined arms tactical Blitz-attack impossible, because they knock out the SPWs with ease or shoot down infantry from the tanks in seconds and with a few MGs a minute later, you can easily route them, before the MGs are taken out. This forces to way slower and more cautious advances, even against weak enemy resistance. Another example? A tank-platoon with an order to secure a street-crossing, while the enemy already controls the area. Now you simply can't bring any infantry there, without fighting down all enemy resistance torwards there. In reality? Infantry was transported with the tanks with enough partial cover behind the turret, to get there (if not a direct arty-shower goes down on the at full speed moving tanks). [ January 09, 2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

@JonS: Seems you have no imagination, how important a moving cover like from a vehicle was for fast counter-assaults, don't you? Now you can't either move over open terrain, nor you can't move with SPWs against light AT-fire. You have to compensate either by using terrain, smoke or firepower. Vehicles providing cover would not only finally allow to play real Blitzkrieg tactics, which isn't possible right now. I don't understand, why it would be unrealistically, if infantry (edit: and SPWs) would be allowed to move quickly in the fire-shadows of tanks or can be transported through enemy firelines to be positioned behind enemy positions? Did you get it now? If not, i also can explain it in German to you, if you are willing to understand that better. [ January 09, 2005, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Could you be a bit more specific?

I think there should be made differences between at least three different 'counter-attacks'. The first is the pure tactical counter-assault. It was done in immediate response and strongly dependent on the quality of the leaders and prooved highly effective. The key was to attack the enemy as long as he was in a bad shape from the attack - either if the attack succeeded or failed. A good example is a combined attack with heavy tank forces breaking through the main defensive line followed by infantry trying to take the positions, after the tanks decimated the resistance. In case the armored tank-forces are beaten, forced to withdraw or simply can't develop, an immediate but energetic lead counter-assault against the enemy infantry often had big success, because it hits the attacker in a quite weak condition - being hit by an attack in exactly the moment you recognize the own attack doesn't come through is a big burden for discipline and morale. Ofcourse this is only possible if leaders and troops are acting as one single part. IMO the highest level of tactical warfare. Another kind of counter-attack is the local counterattack, led a few hours later with local reserves, before the enemy can fortify the taken positions. Here the doctrine said, it's better to counterattack with weaker (or at the extremes even insufficient) forces but have a potential success due to the surprise effect, than to lose definately the positions to the enemy and as result needing much stronger forces to throw him out again. Again the factor time was seen as critical. The third kind of a counter-attack is the one, with operational elements and the much better prepared one. I don't agree, that is is the non existant confusion on the battlefield, why we don't see counter-assaults. Why we don't see counter-attacks is IMO mostly the extremely restricted timeframe. CM battles are mostly finished, when the enemy grabs the flag - and everyone usually has to hurry for that. There usually isn't any time for tank-maneuvers and so the battles are solved within a few minutes in a slugfest. Once you lose the position you usually have so high losses, that a counter-assault isn't possible. It usually is also better to risk high losses and decide the battling between units within seconds, than to give positions up and prepare for a counter-assault. Another aspect IMO is, that vehicles don't give any cover. So you need either long, time -consuming approach routes, well prepared smoke screens or lots of suppressive fire and this costs a lot of time and even more units, you maybe don't have anymore after the enemy's assault. I'm confident, if CMx2 would offer cover behind vehicles and longer battletimes or a solution, that forces the players to knock out the enemy somehow, instead of grabbing flags, we would see more counter-assaults in the game.

I have no clue, but i would not feel comfortable with skies on in close combat...

Thanks!

After years of playing CM, i've never had Ski units. But finally the time has come but i can't find any info, how my units can get rid of the skis (nothing in the manual nor in the forum). Please help, the Iwan is already coming and my poor boys still stand on their skis in the woods...