Bruce70

I also consider overly using the edges gamey (although the trees on the left are obviously meant to be used). Thats why I set up in the centre on the reverse slope - worked just as well anyway.

The only successes I have had have been using a reverse slope defence also.

Most people seem to agree that luck can play too big a part in then game (to the extent that a few games are 'ruined') while some of people think that this hapens so rarely that it doesn't matter. But if you can stop any games from being ruined (however small the percentage) then surely tht is a good thing. I like the one point change per turn idea. And other ideas have been good too. Here's just one more idea. Someone mentioned the principle of diminishing returns (in another thread). So why not have the first point give you a 5% chance, the second increasing that by 4% the third giving another 3% and so on. [bTW it has been that long since I read the early posts in this thread that I may have forgotten that this has already been suggested]. This would have the effect of evening out the tech advances (since it is better to spread your research), but it still doesn't solve the problem of excessive luck (good or bad).

Well I wish I was some hot programmer because I sure as hell am no communicator. At least I hope that is the case and not that you are deliberately trying to put a negative spin on my comments (can't think of any reason why you would). I guess I will just drop it. My concerns regarding the engine rewrite have been put to rest to some extent.

I am not saying that it was possible to make the file format compatible only that is *should* have been possible. Furthermore I hope that with the benefit of hindsight BTS will *endeavour* to make a more flexible file format in the future. ? Please do not try and tell me how "code works". It is not a good idea to make assumptions about the knowledge (or lack thereof) of your customers. I have none. Your comments that I have no right to judge CMBB from the demo are justified. But I can guarantee that no-one on this forum will be able to say after playing CMBB "there is nothing they could have done better - it's perfect". I have tried to make my criticism (such as it is) constructive. This is just one area (of many) where I see room for improvement. I am not being judgmental, I expect and welcome similar criticism of my own work. If you say "we have no desire to improve in this area" I can accept that (although I will be a little dissapointed) but if you say "we *cannot* improve in this area"... you would not be BF/BTS. Perhaps it would have been better if I had mentioned all the things I love about CMBO and CMBB as well, but I believe that others have already covered most of that. [ September 06, 2002, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

I'm glad I read this thread it has cleared a lot up. Its funny I already knew about the 4-man turret arrangement in the T34 but for some reason didn't stop to think about the implications for CMBB.

Ditto.. well pretty much anyway.

I stand corrected, thankyou. Would it be difficult to find a mapping (pardon the pun) from the old tile set to the new tile set? Agreed but I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to find a mapping from the old parameter set to the new set also. If you converted an old scenario there might still be some work to do but surely a lot of time would be saved. In an ideal world I would love to replay all the old CMBO scenarios with the nice new graphics, the new order types and the new combat mechanics, and see how they alter the game. What we have is a great new game but in a sense we have lost a great 'old' game. I guess I am just getting nostalgic in my old age.

I think for this to work well you need lots of non-players to run things. The problem is that there are never enough people who want to do this. If CMMC2 is smaller that is a start. I think that if you can have a small system but run 2 campaigns simultaneously with one group of players acting as the admin staff for the other and vice-versa that might work well. You would have a one-to-one ratio of administrators to players. And yes, bad title, when I see an uniformative title I wait until it gets a few responses and I'm very bored before I have a look. [ September 05, 2002, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

Thankyou for your very honest post Chad. But I really do want to know what you think. In particular I really want to know why you don't want the new engine to be designed with future expansion in mind? Most of the other stuff I can understand but this I just don't get, maybe I am missing something? Why do people keep equating expansion packs with other genres? How many times have people (including the grogs) asked for certain features on this forum only to be told that it is not possible with the current engine?

Now that would be cool, can we have this in the new engine pleeease?

The way I understand it the tank moves on the exact line you set until (and if) they reach a position that is hull down to the end-point. So yes you place the marker on the gun (or line of trees) that you want them to be hulldown to. I think this will be more useful in more irregular terrain. I agree that it does seem easier and less error prone to find a good hulldown position youself or, if you know there is a threat over a ridge, just use hunt.

I am very appreciative of the work that has gone into CMBB. Whether or not the game is backwards compatible has (almost) nothing to do with the historical work that has gone into it. I have never mentioned the price and if it's $45 I will be very happy. This is the point I wanted to make was: I would have preferred a less exTensive expansion pack followed by an engine rewrite. I have now been told that due to design decisions made for CMBO this was not possible but the new engine will be better designed for future expansion.

They are not Again, an incorrect assumption I suspect that very little is backward compatible</font>

I am glad they made this an option because it really annoyed me in CMBO. I would hit esc every time I wanted to close the Unit Details dialog.

Thats strange, I thought it was a bit slower. Perhaps I am just a pessimist. It certainly runs faster on my current computer than CMBO did on my then current computer

I think I may have had the same problem. I had a t34 platoon that was buttoned and hence not in command. So I unbottoned them (all) and still they weren't in command - no problem, I thought, it will probably update once the turn starts - I am 90% sure (sorry I had other things to worry about!) it didn't.

Got my first T34 with a panzerwurfmine last night

Thanks but I don't find it a huge problem as long as I'm aware of it. I don't like the look of the map if the contrast is too high. I'll have a look at some mods as they come out and re-evaluate the situation then.

I chose this as the first game I played in the demo - wish I had chosen the Axis first. I read that the Advance order was supposed to simulate running from cover to cover. I found that (aside from crawling) the best thing to do was in fact get the troops to run from cover to cover manually rather than use the advance order. At least that way if they get supressed they usually head for the cover that you ordered them to anyway. As a side issue I found that the graphics don't seem to do a very good a job of showing elevation from higher camera angles on that map. Maybe I just have to get used to it but it took me a while to realise there was more cover on than map than it appears.

Thanks KwazyDog that's good news. I didn't cop nearly as much flak from this post as I expected (touch wood) and this response has made it more than worthwhile.

Whoa! I just reread that last paragraph. In no way am I suggesting that BFC made it a new game just to get more money, sorry if I gave that impression. Personally I think expansion packs are a better way to make "a quick buck" and I am all for them.

Conceptually there is no reason why these things couldn't have been backwards compatible if the original engine had been designed with future expansion in mind. The map format for example could have allowed for future terrain types. I am not criticising the original engine either (how could I after getting so much enjoyment out of it?), I don't expect you to have a crystal ball. But with the benifit of hind sight I hope that the new engine will be designed for the long hall. Wouldn't it be great to get an expansion pack every 12 months! If well designed the engine could handle everything up to the Vietnam war at least (and please include the remote posibility that one day, in the fullness of time, there might be a need for a campaign option). I don't expect everyone(anyone?) to agree with my analysis of CMBB but I do hope we can all agree that the next engine should be as expandable as possible. [ September 03, 2002, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

Good points Pvt. Ryan. There are two ways to look at it I guess. Some things from CMBO could have been forward compatible with CMBB. Maps for example are essentially the same as far as I can tell. Unit models I assume are the same format just lower poly's. If you did have all the units then scenarios should be essentially the same, but of course would need to be re-playbalanced for the new combat mechanics. From the other side quite a bit (but obviously not all) of CMBB could be backwards compatible with CMBO (graphics, sound, orders etc). I am not so much complaining about CMBB (well I'm not complaining at all really - just a little under-awed), I just hope that BFC will keep the future in mind when designing the new engine. [ September 03, 2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

I thought it was a badly needed update, was glad that they provided an upgrade option as opposed to paying the full price and was even more glad that all my programs still worked in W98. What's your point?