Fetchez la Vache

Or may be optical sensing devices on the base of your chair? With qwerty keyboard set into the arm rests. And maybe some sort of big red fire button on the desk in front of you which you could hit with your head?

Sorry, Real Life interrupt. :-) Well, at the moment we build up a series of orders in WeGo which we hope will keep our little pixeltruppen gainfully employed for 60secs. I would love to see the orders I am building up summarized in text as a table/list in an onscreen text-box (space on the lower RHS for this). So as well as a visual cues on as we currently get, I could also see it clearly written down so I can more easily see if I've made a mistake or what I'm asking for has been properly picked up. It's just that I'd love to see a real step-change in WeGo. I personally feel it's still the way to play Combat Mission. So I guess in the end I'm simply looking for more control in WeGo to enable me to better string together a coherent set of orders. This would be the cherry on top of a fantastic cake.

I agree, I'm being a bit too simplistic. There have been improvements and the incremental pause is probably the most important for me. However I do have the impression the that RT has been the primary focus of development. And it's nice and is a huge change over the CMx1 games - a real paradigm shift, to use the hackneyed saying. Unfortunately RT doesn't suit me. I simply don't like it - sorry. So WeGo is there but hasn't really evolved in my mind. Incremental pause in, but armour cover arcs out. Deployment in, but classic hunt out. I'm still happy and I still love it. But I can't help but think that I shouldn't be restricted in the many of the same ways I was 10 years ago and looking for workarounds or advice to get orders down to my pixeltruppen. For example I'd love to see a table of commands for each unit being 'built' up within a text box on the screen: 1) Move to waypoint 1. 2) Face angle 320deg. 3) Pause 20sec. 4) Light target fire on Target 1 for 30sec. 5) Fast move to waypoint 2. etc...

I must say, the one thing I am somewhat disappointed in with CMBN is the apparent lack of improvement of the WEGO command system - namely the problem of 'stringing together' of orders into a coherent minute-long action. For this example of exiting troops, it would be good if the engine would recognize the disembark order, pause the vehicle in question's current movement long enough for the troops to get off and then continue the vehicle movement order. This would certainly mean linking the vehicle and troop movement in some way (which possibly isn't the case at the moment) but this is exactly the sort of improvement I would really appreciate. Another would be some sort of pop-up list of the orders given, in sequence, per waypoint, to a particular unit. Do this, do that, face this way, deploy hamster, wait for 15sec, then look this way and then finally set up a cover-arc. I still love this game and it's a massive improvement over anything that has gone before (imho). But a part of me can't help but think we shouldn't still be discussing WEGO command 'tricks' and limitations 10 years on from CMBO. (RT is[/] a huge step forward I know, but WEGO is still the core of CM for me. I want to um and ah over a move, wonder what will happen in the next 60secs, set up my orders, execute and then watch it fall apart. Plenty enough RT games out there for me.)

The UK still has dedicated PC game magazines (e.g. PCGamer as Salkin suggests), although frankly for how much longer I don't know. Online mainstream game review sites (e.g. IGN) I don't think will give the game due coverage, either because they won't give it a full review or else users filter reviews to only look at the type of games they are interested in (well, I do, so I am illogically extrapolating to encompass everybody... internet SOP). Hardcopy magazines still have a place in today's world, specifically a place where you can't take a laptop. *cough* Incidently, it was a review in either PCGamer or PCZone (actually both I think) which alerted me to CMBO all those years ago.

Agree. However it would be great to have some refinement of the 'target' tools to permit a greater control of suppressive. Equivalent linear/area/target options c.f arty is my suggestion.

Also in the same vein, shouldn't direct fire (no spotter) on-map mortars have the linear/area/point fire type options?

Completely agree. I would have avoided these type of infantry missions like the plague in any of the CMx1 games. Now I'm finding infantry more interesting to play than armour.

I don't know how you chaps do it. I've been playing for 4 days now and I'm still on mission number 2... ... and thoroughly loving it. :-)

Close Combat is a pretty good game, Blackcat, and I wouldn't necessarily jump to any conclusions about people who play it. I've played it and enjoyed it. :-)

I think the OP makes an exellent point. In retrospect I realise I am routinely spltting my squads into sub-teams in order to increase the effectiveness, and decrease the risk, of typical infantry actions (recon, assault, etc). But how historical is this? Surely a squad 2/3 full of replacements is simply not going to be able to work like this and it would in fact have to stick together as a big unit? Should I perhaps be self-imposing some limits on myself? For example: 1) Veteran squads can be split into 3 teams 2) Regular squads can be split into 2 teams 3) Green squads cannot be split at all

Who's grid mod are you using?

A "% to hit" on Bocage might be called for. :-)

Several books I have read actually point out that US Army tactical flexibility was pretty poor at the beginning of the invasion of Europe. General McNair set up a training programme that stressed quantity over quality given the tight time period imposed by the war. Significant learnings were made in Tunisia, Sciliy and Italy but this only really ensured that there were a few 'veteran' divisions knocking around (who rapidly lost their edge thanks to the replacement system used). After more than a month in Normandy, it was probably Cobra that saw the first real widespread tactical flexibility being implemented. I am not an expert, but this is the impression I have be given...

I guarantee my one will be press-ganged within 24hrs as a pencil case for my sons' colouring pens... ... and I will be forced to use a Charlie and Lola DVD lunchbox case.

Better cover arcs would be number 1 on my wish list as well. Mainly because I cannot figure out a suitable workaround except by simply withholding fire until an enemy unit is postively seen - and that's not very good for WEGO. Was this not an issue and desired feature in CMSF?

Incidently I have just been re-reading a book on Cobra. Traffic jams were one of the main issues holding up the American advance. Made worse by the pre-assault air bombing (both times). I'll refrain from commenting on leadership failures, okay? :-)

I have to disagree with some of the posters here and say that I do not think posts that criticize are jumped on by people refuting the issue. In fact I would say the precise opposite. I currently see several 'critical' posts with constructive discussion and no descent to the pits of flaming Peng. However I can see why it might be appear that way and I suggest it's related to visibility - flame war posts are more easily remembered and dominate. It is important how criticims are expressed. As in Real Life it is better to couch posts on this Forum with a certain degree of decorum (and that is a general observation and not a commentary on anyone in particular). Maybe it's related to the 'older' demographic* here? Maybe it's a hangover from too many nerfed-Russian-armour and bren-tripod discussions. Maybe it's simply because there are some damn knowledgeable people posting here so it's always better to perform a recon probe before launching a Corps-level offensive. :-) * I find myself in the that category now, much to my horror. Fatherhood has aged me rather more quickly than I like to admit...

2-man recon teams are your friends. (Is it gamey to use these excessively?) Fear the Burp. Crawl up to Bocage. Check wind before popping smoke.

I must admit to using XO teams as recon elements occasionally. I'm trying to stop myself though since it's ahistorical and I like to try to play things relatively realistically. I find the lack of a radio for the XO odd but I suspect that it's historically accurate since BFC do think these things through. However a radio would make them much more useful as a 'command' unit.

The AI pathfinding isn't perfect. I know, I'm playing Ecoqueneauville and just asked a jeep to move through a blasted bocage hole. Instead it turned around and shot straight up the main road and into the waiting clutches of a 75mm PaK. Which is a double bummer: jeep flambe; and now the surprise of not knowing what was guarding the road has been spoilt. Ho hum. As people are saying, you do have to manage road convoys rather carefully or else they get snarled up. I think as a result many players probably would avoid what LemoN tried - they knew it'd get snafu'd somewhere. And I have a minor gripe myself concerning bocage, or rather blasting bocage. The only way to reliably blow a tank-sized hole is to place the Blast point clearly on the other side of the bocage, but then your engineers get chewed since they run through to have a look at their handy work. Dur. You can place the Blast command on the same side of the bocage as you are located, but then I find that maybe 50% of the time the hole blown is only man-sized. Too narrow for a M4. I guess it's due to the 8x8 grids and action points, but it's annoying nonetheless. So now I lob smoke over the bocage before Blasting. Saves my engineers with their precious loads of TNT but it does take an extra minute. Fortunately the scenario designers have been generous with the mission times so I don't mind too much. Incidentally my double flanking movement on Ecoqueneauville is going rather swimmingly. Which means that things are about to pear-shaped once again... :-)

I think trying to handle a battalion sized force in bocage country with CMBN is going to be extremely frustrating. Moving a line vehicles down the roads is a pain and has been ever since CMBO. I would love a "Follow Me" order now as I would have loved one 10 years ago. On the other hand, I haven't yet found the quantities of armour in CMBN to feel any frustration at all in terms of handling tank movement. In fact it's handling all the sub-teams I create from splitting my infantry squads that I am finding rather tricky. Overall I am finding the level of detail about right for my platoon-company sized battles. Then again I play only in WEGO. RT might be another matter entirely for all I know. Oh, and adult argument has never been possible on the internet. Don't even try. :-)

Yeah I agree it's crossfire hitting the surrendering chaps. But it's still not cricket, what? :-)

As Lanzfeld shows, there are ways of doing this, albeit rather 'clickfesty'. I would like more area fire and suppression options available. I think it's possible more important than direct fire for winning games!

D/L but haven't played the PCO demo. Single biggest reason is that it's Windows and being on a Mac I hate using Boot Camp since it stops me doing all the 'other' stuff I do in-between playing wargames*. I will play it and I'll almost certainly like it. However the OS will probably put me off buying it. * Well that should read "wargame", since the only other one I have on the Mac besides CMBN is Hearts of Iron. Not counting Civ or EU of course and I'm still waiting for Slitherine to bring out their promised OSX Battlefield Academy. So if anyone else can point me to another I'd be grateful. :-)