Charlie901

How do you move a waypoint end point after it's been laid ala CMx1? and... At the start of a Battle Map I cannot seem to be able to grab and lift the units to place them where I want at the start (within designed area of course). I checked the manual but couldn't find anything referenced above. THANKS!

Now that we finally have the Map editor is/will it be possible to modify/add custom campaings? I would love to see the stock campaigns improved and maybe deal with several battles in an operation before jumping around to a major campaign a year or so later. Also I would love too see more persistent units carried over within the campaigns (troops/armor) so that you could track yours soldiers experience through the battles/operations and give this game a little more RPG element ala CC Series. How about fighting on the same map or slightly off it for several battles, within a campaign, to simulate attack/defense/counter-attack situations. Would it also be possible to alter/create maps that would allow you to advance in between campaign battles....say you start in map 1 and then gradually work your way to the edge of the map where battle # 2 it starts to blen into Map # 2.....??? Basically, is it now possible to make the campaigns more like the latter CC Series? IDEAS!!!!

I don't think they have the final say ..they can only suggest or request. This is not their game. Regards, gunz </font>

SAME HERE!!!!

Guys, I think we're getting way off track here!!!! Like I said initially a lot could be done to improve the Campaigns if they just focused on one Battle or Operation on one front at a time...i.e. For the Germans: Poland invasion France invasion Moscow Stalingrad (encirclement and rescue attempt) Kursk Seelow Heights D-Day Battle of Bulge Each one of these listed could be it's own seperate campaign with approx 10 battles each. This alone would go a long way to improve the game and the way units get carried over... Then the option to carry core units over from one campaign to the next in historical order would be the next step in improving things further.

Overall this is a great game and has the potential to be truly outstanding. However, I'm finding the stock Campaigns severly lacking. I appreciate the scope of ToW in it's Campaigns and the battles themselves are outstanding. Unfortunately I'm playing the German Campaign right now and am getting only one battle for each Front during the war... :confused: I guess I'm just spoiled by the CM series of Campaigns which were centered on specific battles or Operations. In ToW it's kind of silly, IMHO, to be able to carry troops/equipment over when the battles are months or even years apart on totally different Fronts... It would have been better IMO if these Campain Battles were just made individual missions until some proper Operational Campaigns centered on specific Battles and dates could be combined. For instance... instead of fighting the Invasion of Poland one battle of the campaign and then fighting through the Dunkirk Defenses during the Battle of France during the next.... How about having a Campaign just center on the Invasion of Poland or the Battle of France with each seperate Campaign containing about 5-10 individual key battles. It sounds like the upcomming Battle for Moscow Campaign will hopefully have about 5 battles for each side and I hope that this will be the future standard for ToW Campaign structures. Now bring on that 10+ Kursk Salient Campaign!!!

This is exactly why we need Helo's in this game...to test these Insurgent RPG Theories!!!

OUCH...!!! The New SF WEGO system means you have to "Playback" the action every time...??? </font>

OUCH...!!! The WEGO system means you have to "Playback" the action every time...???

Will we get the ability to insert troops via Blackhawks! If so will the Blackhawks be visible during insertion and be targetable for OPFOR?

Whats the chance I'm going to see my DVD copy relativley soon here in the USA? Ordered ToW about 4 days ago.....???

Who says this game is without POLISH.....!!! It looks like one of the most complete and well Polished games I've ever seen and it isn't even released yet!!!!

Very nice!!!!

Sorry if this has been asked and answered before... I'm really looking forward to the release of this game and was wondering if the # of squad men are still abstracted (3 per squad)or if we will have the option to have all men visible...??? I think it might look strange to have casualty control with only 3 men visible for instance (if two men are left visible and one goes down injured and the other renders aid, although you have maybe 4 men left in your squad, it might look strange to visibly have nobody firing back).

I'm on a budget lately and was wondering if I should get TOW now or wait and get CM:SF in late July? I'm a big fan of the CM series and enjoy tactical strategy games.... What would be the best choice comming from those who have played TOW?

I actually think I might enjoy the larger strategic picture of CoH as much as the tactical battles themselves. As opposed to a Linear Campaign of progressive missions CoH has a Campaign Map system akin to the later CC series. It seems that you play the campaign in an actual Theater of tactical maps. These Theater Maps can be atacked in any order during the campaign eliminating linear missions. Some Theater Maps have Fuel Depots (neccessary for Armor, etc.) and other Theater maps have other strategic resources (which you benefit from by occupying those Maps/Areas). The fun seems to be in attempting to cut off the enemy's supply route during the larger Campaign strategy while the enemy A.I. will be attempting to do the same to you. This feedom in the Campaign of what map to attack next seems like it will add an interesting larger strategic element to the game.

Okay, this sounds reasonable, thanks!

Funny how the market seems suddenly flooded with WWII RTS games all of a sudden. Based on all three which do you all feel is going to be the better of the bunch? I know that both FoW and CoH are not going to score very high in the realism department but in CoH I believe you can order your soldiers to OCCUPY BUILDINGS and they can blow apart walls to move through different rooms and create firing positions.. I gotta admit it sounds fun to have such destructable buildings and maps. Quote from Gamespot on CoH: On the flip side I heard that ToW is being produced along the lines of FoW and CoH proclaiming "fun" over realism as well. Although ToW sounds a lot more limited in occupying buildings and destructable terrain. I guess I'm going to hold out for realism and replayability over anything else (spoiled now by the CM series) and if ToW comes in first in those departments it will be my only WWII RTS purchase this year. So what do you all think?

I've heard that smoke will not be modelled at all in this game due to the engine limitations? Is this true? If this game is using the IL2 engine than smoke should be possible??? Actually if the former were true it shouldn't be too difficult at all to add smoke to the game, prior to release, should it? Is there a final word on this yet? Thanks!

I dunno. I am still too puzzled trying to figure out how they want to include tanks with the sinking of the Bismarck. </font>

I think that a RTW style of Conquest could work in a Modern Era if it was broken down into specific Campaigns...kinda like the Close Combat series did toward the end. Many successful Tactical Battles could be carried out in smaller Campaign map areas like the "Battle of the Bulge" or "Operation Barbarossa" with Army Group North's drive to Moscow, thus affecting that particular campaign.

Martin; Thanks for the reply! Definately sounds encouraging; especially the "Random Events", "Randomized Placement" and "Changing Objectives based on players actions". The less Rigid/Scripted the better IMHO.

I was wondering since you get task orders during a battle like, "Take out those guns on that hill", during play .... Will it make the battles in this game totally scripted? Anotherwords will the A.I. be free to place their units around the map in different locations, randomly... trenches, dug in positions, fortifications etc... ala CM series? Or is each battle going to be exactly the same and play out the same way every time, with the A.I. units, guns, trenches, fortifications in exactly the same place every time you want to repeat/replay the same battle??? I hope not for it will kill battle replayability. Anyone know?

After playing the aforementioned game for about an hour I had to permanently shelve it, do to the lack of "Realism" and "Accuracy" I've become accoustomed to in the CM series. Is this new title going to be more along the lines of "G.I. Combat" in it's play? I saw from screen shots that you actually get tasks during the battle; like take out those newly discovered AT guns on the ridge.....wouldn't a prudent armchair general decide his own tasks as the ebb and flow of the battle develops on its own??? It seems that being given linear "Tasks" during an engagement kind of takes the strategic or tactical thought right out of the battle. I really hope this new title is more of a Real-Time CM game and not another prettier "G.I. Combat" clone.

Yup! The exact details have yet to be determined, but the stuff you mentioned is pretty basic and therefore assured. The campaign designer gets to decided recovery rates inbetween battles. This allows a certain amount of simulation of decision making. For example, if the player decides to skip a battle perhaps he will be better off in terms of his force, but skipping might hit the total victory score as a penalty. If you're in bad need of a rest, perhaps it is worth the hit in hopes that you'll be more likely to win future battles in better condition. Going ahead with the battle "as is" might cause long term harm. That sort of thing. Again, the details have yet to be worked out, but the overall structure of the campaign system does allow for a lot of creative freedom long term. Steve </font>