Folbec

For a number of people the main "problem" with small engagements is the low number of tanks involved (point value limitations) because there is always a big luck factor in individual tank vs tank *duels*. Tactical games with only 2 tanks per side give a BIG bonus to the german big cats, because they do not factor in the operatinnal fuel problems, lack of range, lack of mechanical reliability... that plagued the Panzerwaffe. And tanks were normally not used in one or twos, spread over the whole front, but preferably in companies or more. However, I think it is more of a problem with the point value distribution of QBs than with the game system itself.

It's in CMx1. Use random losses in QB.

The sad thing is that community fragmentation will start as soon as a second or third "module" is out. Looks like it cannot be helped.

Better be coding fast, then, before Microsoft gets its latest offering out (end of this year ?). Or maybe you are looking forward to recode for 64bits?

Will "captured" (unspiked) weapons count toward the final score ? This may prove to be an incentive to area shell an abandonned gun or MG.

Battlefront did not include it in the CMX1 game because they feared it would be overused, but I just saw an interview of civilian survivors of the late 44 Alsace battles (Strasbourg and villages nearby), and they stated spontaneouly that it was heavilly used, to the point that tiling the land later (after the front line had moved) could be dangerous because some bit would be brought back and start burning again.

Lurking on the "Something Awfull" web site I found this : Strange Japanese site (there is even stranger things on the same web site by the same guy, but quite off topic...)

Very true, I almost only play above 2000pts and I can see my attitude and that of my opponents is very different from what I can see of smaller games. Many things go under the "so what?" heading when you handle full battalions. The law of averages takes over.

The main danger with the many toggles approach is that each new significant toggle tend to fracture the player base for 2 player games. Some people will want to play only with "fragile tank on", others only will "fragile tank off" and so on for each toggle. And each optionnal feature will have an impact on game balance, favouring one side more than the other. We may end up spending more time arguing on the options to play with than actually playing. A good example of this is the option screen of the Panzer Campaign series : confusing and you wonder if you still play the same game. A CM exemple is the "random losses" QB option, I almost always play with this set to random or 30%+, a fair number of people dislike this, and do not play with me. Or the parent unit / unrestricted options.

The survival chance of prisonners of both sides on the east front was not that good, and this was more or less known by the men after a few months of fighting. Many (most?) returning soviet prisonners were also shot by the NKVD, because they were "ideologically contaminated / potential spies". Surrender was not really an option.

see here : http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=010208;p=2#000038 BTW : the "knee" part was a legend. The recoil would break the leg as a few US / british soldiers found out.

Rather than whine... try to discuss a workaround At the simplest level PBEM = hotseat + the capacity to save the game between turns (at the password prompt for exemple). Imagine now the save game grows a lot, to more than 10Mb (many providers limit attachements to 5Mb to cut down on spam) => no mail possible. How would you do to play asynchronously ? For techies (personnal ftp server, web server) ? For non techies ? All suggestions welcomed (specially for the second case).

Just one thing you forgot, that often frustated me : more control on victory conditions, both for scenario design and for QBs. A system that would allow to design "delaying actions" or "desperate defenses" scenarios at real bad odds for the defender and still allow him to win "by fullfilling his mission" would be great. Maybe allow the scenario designer to specify the win / loose formula ? And/or add a loss formula simulation to the editor ? Win by capturing n out of p flags (selected by the attacker) ?

Don't let him select the parameters (such as tabletop + late war), play early war, buy T34 and KVI, let him whine, tell him to use more realistic purchases for late war games...

It is also a game system limitation, I think snipers are programmed to stay very quiet under 150-200m (unless you order them to shoot manually, and then they die real quick because of Borg spotting)

I had this behaviour recently with late war soviet assault guns and T34/85, I knew I was getting near a "hot" zone, ordered them to button up (I had toasted the overwatch tanks), and they oppened, lost no one but having to tell them to close up each turn is a drag. It just happens, too often for my liking.

There have been many discussions on the simulation part of the future engine, with quite a number of bones thrown out, but on the other big aspect of the game we know very little (unless I missed some posts) : - Operations are out, replaced by "campaign" : Good riddance, operations were indeed almost impossible to make right, or to play test, but I'm not quite sure I'll like "campaigns" more : i did not play eichenbaum (looks somewhat like the description of a "campaign") for instance, because it was focused on one side and play vs AI, while I prefer Russian and play vs human player. - terrain will be much more detailled : here the quality of the editor will be critical. Will we get as many scenarios, or will the entrance cost be higher ? - will we get more control on victory conditions in scenarios ? The assault / attack / probe / ME point formulas did not always work out right for specific scenarios. - will it be possible to edit maps between QBs on the same map ? - and so on ...

Be happy then, even if the game has already been postponed a number of times and has changed names 2 or 3 times, it looks like there is some real potential : (formerly named battlefields!) Combined Arms: World War II (formerly Battlefields!)

AT gun did not last long after a first shot, when faced with accurate overwatch tanks : Memories of a russian soldier This really feels like CMBB. Shoot once or twice at short range, get toasted.

I think the Tac AI picks up units by point value (+ maybe some fudge % ?), this is the reason why it has a strong tendency to target HQs (specially tank HQs), FTs, and so on, even if a more dangerous target is nearer.

</font>

The PBEM file format is a "plain text file", you should be OK, specially since Mac & PC versions are able to play together. (it looks like it is a uuencoded compressed and encripted binary file)

I, too, think that all the people who ask for modelling the individual soldier in squads do not realize really what they are asking for : - first, a lot more load on the graphic system - second, and a lot more critical, a real big improvement in game AI (I do not care for that, I play PBEM) - third, and even more critical, an even bigger improvement in TacAI, for correct placement of individual infantrymen. (if, for instance they are near a wall / an edge, they need to be "well placed". That is already no small feat if all your men are the same, but if you throw in the mixed weapons of a squad (MG / gun / SMG), this gets even more complicated, since the MG must be really well placed tactically, and this also depends on your intended axis of attack / defense (psychic AI anyone?, or a more complicated order phase to tell the AI what you intend to do next turn ?, or micromanage each man ?, or change the scale of the game to smaller than company ?)) So I think that any improvement in the number of infantrymen shown would be either "pure eye candy", and it would still look silly in many situations such as walls, buildings, etc (more silly than now for sure), or a major load on the TacAI, for maybe dubious results, or a change of scale for the game. Maybe the developper can pull this off. Maybe. Then he should contract for US army battlefield AI, there is surelly a lot more money to be made than in gaming.

Are you aware that the definition of "penetration" is different for each country ? That the firing test setup is also different, that the quality of ammo used on tests may not be the same as on the battlefield ? Comparing German and Russian values for penetration is difficult, and the figures in CMBB and CMAK seems to be computed for different type of armor (normal for one / face hardened for the other).