Le Tondu

Run for the hills!!!!!!!

When I went to The Scenario Depot http://www.dragonlair.net/combatmission/ , I thought that I would get a total mod converion of CMAK to CMBO, but this appears to only be a scenario that is available for d/l.

Same here.

But in his own forum he'd have you banned in a nanosecond. </font>

I'd say that they're out of line. I once played a night QB where both sides stayed where they were and didn't move much at all. Each side was hoping to ambush the other side. During the entire battle, not one of my units was even fired upon. The endgame report comes up and says that I had 5 killed and 7 wounded. Can someone please explain that? I read somewhere that these casualty reports are randomly generated. If that is true, how can that be kept in CMx2 with so much push for realism these days?

Quick Battles are one of the most important cornerstones of Combat Mission. I play them almost exclusively. The idea that you can purchase your own units that end up making a fair and balanced battle is a terrificly wonderful idea. ---Especially for Meeting Engagement types. This cannot be underestimated. In my opinion, it rates up there with We-go.

Steve, I've only recently became PBEM leaning because of a good friend's preference for it due to his military commitments. It is funny. When CMBO was not TCP/IP available, I didn't like leaving PBEM behind. When TCP finally arrived, I loved it. Actually, it is my preferred way of playing the game. When (and if) it is gone, I will still be happy with owning a copy of CMx2. You're right. We will love it. Also, I think your strategy of revealing now what might bother some folks later on is a sound one. It gives us time to come around so when the game is released it will be smooth sailing. I see only success for BFC because of it all.

Cutting PBEM out (if it ends up being cut out) will be a gamble for sure. Personally speaking, I think Steve is underestimating the pro-PBEM crowd. We all must be prepared to have it mentioned in every review of the game as a negative.

Now that is VERY good news. I'm for keeping the game --a game. There is a fine that I think you guys are getting too close to if you haven't already crossed it with this realism push. My questions are : Will turning off these features on my end in a TCP/IP game affect only what appears on my screen? (Like how mods work in CMx1) --Or will we have to negotiate what features will be used before we play any game at all? [ March 01, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

Hopefully, the casualty report at the end of a scenario will be accurate and no longer randomly generated.

Wow, stop reading for a day or two and.... I cannot believe that there is a possibility that PBEM will go down the toilet just to allow 1:1. I cannot believe that would even be considered. Now I understand the silence about this game. If you do it, you guys will be shooting yourself in the foot. I play PBEM ALL of the time. In the past, I've bought two CMBOs, two CMBBs, and two CMAKs. Drop PBEM and I will be forced to seriously consider not purchasing this game. This is especially true when one has to consider spending hundreds if not a thousand dollars on a new computer just to buy this game. You see, I'm one who prefers to play TCP/IP, but playing a large or huge scenario that way is counter-productive when you consider life outside of CM. Finding an opponent with that much time is hard. PBEM is the only way.

1:1 is here to stay heh? OK, but how about fixing a few things along with it? 1. How about the giving us the ability to move assault boats on land? 2. How about ending those strange weather combinations like snow in Hot weather? 3. How about allowing vehicles to block LOS? (Actually, I think this was already said to be included. I could be wrong.) 4. How about allowing infrantry to fire from vehicles? 5. How about an image on the ground for a fighterbomber that has been shot down, when it is shot down? Smoking wreckage would be cool. 6. How about using more than one CD so we won't hear, "Sorry, there wasn't any room left on the CD for......" ? I know that others can give more examples. Please don't get me wrong. There is MUCH to this game that is right. 1. The 3D environment. 2. WE-GO. 3. The dedication of BFC to getting it right (as best that they can.) 4. Unlimited re-playability. Are just a few. Do you have any that you would care to add?

Why thank you Wicky.

How can it be known? Good question GJK. Should we be planning on buying the absolute best that is out right now just so we can play this game? It is a fair question in my opinion. Thank you RMC, you've been very helpful. If you think about it, what kind of systems are BFC working with? Are they using the absolute best to test it on, or in general is something less being used? What types of systems are they going to have their employees and eventual Beta team use? It "seems" that they're in the same boat as us. I'd bet your life GJK that they have an idea, if not an initial idea of what type of system it will take. ---OR at the very least, what type of system that they want it to take. So, no I wouldn't call you a smartass.

OK, I am not asking for any State Secrets or anything too specific that would make anyone think that they're being tied to any kind of a promise. I just want to have an idea of what I should plan to spend my hard earned $$$$ on. You know. ---Something to daydream about at work. Will the following work with CMx2? PC Processor: 2.5 GHz Graphic card: 256MB RAM: 512MB OR do we need to plan for something even better? Many Thanks.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is valiant to want to have 1:1. I would toggle it off because I like how the game is right now. The current level of abstraction is a perfect balance in my opinion. It is what keeps me playing it. To me, a 1:1 representation is a roll of the dice. It is trying to capture real life and that is impossible with the foreseeable abilities of PCs. There are too many variables to accurately show what would happen because of the randomness of terrain. The approach to realism with abstraction is bound to produce some severe oddities. Its gonna look real strange when that 12 man squad has only 5 men graphicly behind a wall and 7 men in front of it. I know that they said things are abstracted and one shouldn't take it literally. Its just that with a 3 man squad, it won't look as bad. That is why I want to toggle 1:1 off. I respectfully say "improve/ fix what is wrong with CMx1 first." Fix things like stopping LOS with vehicles, fix the snow in hot weather thing, fix the artillery "bug", improve the scenario editor by making it easier to create maps & OOBs, make it so we can import/ export maps from Operations, how about giving us a list of what units we have, etc......... Then go after the eye candy.

It seems to me that the perfect balance would be to keep it scalable. Make it so we can toggle off the 1:1 representation and make it more like CMx1 when we toggle between a 2 or 3 man representation of a full squad. In this case a 3 man representation would be the only choice. For those that don't want 1:1, they can turn it off. For those that do want it, they can keep it going. I believe that both sides should be happy with that.

Please tell us this 1:1 representation thing will be scalable like it is now with squads being able to be represented with 2 or 3 figures. The folks with slower PCs sure could use it. Thanks.

The flexibility that CMx2 will have for other theaters is a good thing indeed. To prove how flexible it really is, I've read it in another thread somewhere that the first two titles for CMx2 will be: 1. CM: Revolution in Teletubbyland. (This will be where we all learn how big that purple guy's gun really is--and they said that it won't be moddable.) 2. CM: Smurfs vs. Predator What can I say? If I aint telling the truth, then call me a liar.

Wouldn't one issue be repetition of the visual? I'm thinking of the arrangement of the individual men while on the map. Say you look at a squad from overhead. Might not the arrangement of the individuals look the same as another squad a short distance away? Is it possible to have enough variety? Lastly will it be scalable like the current representation of a squad with 3 men or 2? If we like the current 3 man squad, can we still have it? I wish you all the very best. I know that you'll kick ass.

This 1:1 effort must be driven by the "let's make it more real" crowd. Well, to be fair, this game won't be anything like "real" unless you show limbs and heads being blown off. What about the cries of the wounded calling out for their mommas? Combat Mission is just a game. We should not forget that. Any attempt to make it more than a game, will detract from it, in my opinion. Detract because it won't go far enough. It will be a never ending proposition until ALL of the aspects of warfare at this scale are in the game. Including the cries of the wounded. I say keep CM as it is and instead improve the graphics and fix the problems that already are known to exist. Problems like vehicles not interrupting LOS and snow falling when the weather is hot. Make sure all the vehicles are in the game. Things like that. I fear that CM will make young kids think that war is fun. This game will make them numb to what happens on a real battlefied. Numb that is until it happens to them.

Amen!

Thank you very much Steve. Seeing that come from someone official gives us an important perspective that was missing when what little we knew was just "rumors." We never wanted the jar of beans to be spilled. We just wanted to know what was on the label of the jar. We still do, but now we can wait some. Thanks again.

Maybe we shouldn't call it CMx2, but should call it CMAFAIK. CM-as-far-as-I-know. Which is nothing. Didn't BFC have a mission statement onetime that said something to the effect that they wanted to bring the gaming community together? Where'd it go? The lack of any information is causing new folks to leave sooner than later since they don't have much to stay around for in terms of the future. The situation isn't bringing a hobby that needs help, any help at all.