energy76

Ditto. It takes maybe 2 seconds to do these things manually. There are better things they could spend their time on. [ November 19, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

Ya' know, I know I'll get flamed for this, but Sudden Strike II is fun. Not in the slightest tiniest bit realistic, but fun. I've been playing the demo for a bit now, and it's really quite entertaining. There are a lot of aspects to the game play. Anyway...

Um, are you serious? Are is that a joke? I'm Confused...if you are serious, go read the "Next Combat Mission Game" thread.

Simple facts. Fantasies. America _did_ win so America _would have won_ - cool, you are a lawyer!</font>

1. USA bested Germany. 2. USA bested USSR. 3. USA still leading. Point 1. Not by itself it didnt. And I would argue it couldnt. Point 2. In what? Point 3. Track record has not been the best since then now has it? Cheers</font>

Uh, what's "CMDD?" And do you really think it will take two years to revisit the Ostfront and France with the new engine, when they've already done all the research? Oh, and by 2007 the guys from BTS will have lost interest in CM, and will be off building their portfolios somewhere else... *shudder*

I had read that O'Connor was captured. Grog help?

Italian Campaign (incl Sicily): 9th July 1943 till 2nd May 1945. So, 22 months, compared to the 11 months of the campaign in NWE. I suppose 'very small time frame' depends on your point of view. Regards JonS</font>

LOL!

I thought of another thing: What about the Pacific? In theory, anyway, the Pacific was half of World War II. It was probably the largest naval conflict ever.

I meant as a theatre in general, as in, a whole game just for Afrika, not the scale of the units. So you dont have as many different types of units, you dont have as much variation in terrain etc</font>

They don't really need a new engine to do anything. Trying to read between the lines, I think that the point of rebuilding the engine is to make it more easily expandable(or "flexible")and more detailed in the modelling system; some specific examples I've heard mentioned: no more universal turret sizes, and individual tracking of the load of every infantryman. Those are just two things I've noticed MadMatt mention. A new engine would not be for the purpose of adding in new types of units or weapons, or different types of terrain. In fact, when the new engine comes out, people may be surprised at how little change has occured...all speculation, of course. Wouldn't be a whole lot different from fighting in the Russian steppe. Except the infantry in North Africa could actually take it. And of course Tunisia wasn't desert. And also, if you discovered that really don't like desert warfare, then you'll be able to play the Sicily and Italy scenarios. [ November 11, 2002, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

Hmmm. I had thought that the Russians won. [ November 11, 2002, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

But Jon! I love my preconceived notions. They allow me to stand, look life in the eye, and march forward, feeling secure in my knowledge of the world... But seriously...yer right, I know absolutely nothing about the German occupation of France. Only that it ended up being a lopsided conflict that was won with suprising efficiency. So, anyway, I guess I'll shut my big mouth now... CM:BI Forever! [ November 11, 2002, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

What!!? Hold on!!! Does this mean we can't complain about it anymore? What are we gonna whine about now??? I didn't expect you guys to actually do anything about it... But seriously. This "patch" is amazing! And that's an understatement...I'll say one thing: you guys sure know how to build a loyal customer base. Best wishes! [ November 11, 2002, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

Well, Colonel, to some extent you're right. The tank did rain supreme in desert warfare. OTOH, how different is that from CM now? Actually, though, many of the North African battles that I've read about relied on infantry to spearhead the assaults. Two such off the top of my head: El Alamein and also the first battle for Tobruk(Desert Rats against Italian army). Also, here is a quote of war correspondent Alan Moorehead I found, speaking of the battle for control of Sidi Rezegh(during Operation Crusader): "...the hard, armored coating of both armies was destroyed. The softer, slower infantry was...left to decide the battle." So, in short, infantry in North Africa was a major factor. I'd also like to make it clear the the desert in North Africa was not just a flat expanse. Featureless, yes, but not flat.

And Operational (Operational level) is Airborne Assualt! Gosh, Battlefront should combine the three and... :cool: I suspect that I manage a simplified strategic level of war whenever I play Freeciv(a Linux Civilization clone). How cool... [ November 11, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

Well, you could say that WWII was won in Russia. As much as you could say it was won in The Battle of Britain, where the invasion of Britian was "delayed." Or in North Africa, where access to the middle east's oil fields was denied. I also wonder if Germany would have won if they could have thrown all their forces at Russia, instead having of dividing them up between North Africa, Italy, France and Russia...I bet they would have. So my point is: It's called World War II for a reason. And on another point, I wonder if a Nazi regime would have been much worse than the Russian Communist one was. Personally, the problem I've got with CMBB is that I hate both of the causes both sides were fighting for. The Nazi's were dangerous and cruel aggressors. The Communist's formed their "empire" from the ashes of WWII, not to mention the atrocities committed by the Russians as they neared Berlin. All well, it's just a game... And to bring this post back to the topic: Yes, I'm now more interested in the Eastern front. I knew little about it before and could've cared less.

No terrain variations?! Where did you get that idea? I mean, come on. It's not like the Pacific islands were nothing but pure, flat jungle. I think you'd have as much terrain variation as anywhere else. I'm no grog, but I'm pretty sure that there were a lot of different facets to jungle hopping. Two things about the U.S. having endless heavy support: 1)How would that be different from any other theater the U.S. was involved in in? 2) Most of the weaponry went to Europe. It's my impression(not well informed) that the Marines in the Pacific weren't nearly as well armed as the Army grunts in Europe. In my reading, the equipment wasn't available in endless streams...also, tanks weren't as large of a factor because of the restraints of the jungle. However, they were used, so that tells you something, eh? I bet there was more open space on these islands than people imaginge... Actually, I thought that in the early years of teh war, the Japanese had endless amounts of artillery. And also, what would be the problem with the Japanese having unbreakable morale? It would be realistic, after all. And, finally, I agree with you. A new engine is far more important. [ November 11, 2002, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: energy76 ]

Hmmm. Well, I could be wrong(and quite likely am) , but as I understand it the data structure will be different in the new engine, so BTS may not be able to just reuse old models. Personally, I'm not interested in France 1940. What's the point? Most of the battles would be something like this: Germans attack. French put up fierce resistance but are outgunned and isolated. French surrender or flee. I'd much rather have a even sided theatre where both sides had the advantage at least once. North Africa provides exactly that. It was a crucial theatre, as victory for the axis would've meant control of the Suez canal and control of the middle eastern oil fields. Also, there was the possibility of launching a offensive into the south of Russia once the mid-east was taken. Fortunately, that never came to pass... I'm a little disappointed that BTS has no interest in the Pacific, but North Africa will be great, if that is indeed what they're planning on doing next. Of course, I can't imagine trying to use CMBB's infantry model in all that open ground. Just imagine El Alamein: the sappers(they led the British assualt) are trying to cut through The Devil's Gardens(vast mine fields constructed by the Afrika Corps), but the German's open fire with their machine guns... "AHHH!! Sir! They're shooting at us!!" *all soldiers then hit the dirt and then crawl back through the open ground until exhausted and lie vulnerable in the desert sand* No, that wouldn't work at all. Anyway... North Africa is ideal for combat mission because the balance switched several times, because of Rommel(what self-respecting CM-er wouldn't want to try fighting as an officer of the Afrika Korps?), and because it was a completely motorised war; the tank rained supreme. And I as I said earlier, it wasn't an unimportant theater. It was crucial to victory, for both sides.

Actually, I don't really understand what is so confusing about the Peng thread. It's just a bunch of people shouting tongue-in-cheek insults at each other because they enjoy it. They use the term "Peng" for themselves, because it's well, odd and unique. What's so complex about that?

Oh my gosh, this is turning into a mini Peng thread...the cesspool is starting to spill over into the Other Places of the forum! Quick, Madmatt, lock it, for mercy's sake!

*another shameless self-bump*

*bump* I'm telling ya' this would really be a good idea. Not only that, but it shouldn't be a hard feature to implement and it shouldn't take much manpower or research hours, so it's an easy and useful improvement that actually won't delay the release CM2(3?)!

Things move too fast on this board and a lot of topics don't get enough attention. Once a topic moves to page two it is essentially dead, I think that's because people just don't think to go there. I know it would slow things down some, but I think it would be worth it.