David Chapuis

You forgot: routed = urine soaked leggings casualty = blood red +2 moral HQ = Superman Blue And people call you a grog - sheesh!

i just got a 2 way satellite system - but I cannot get a tcp/ip game going with it. Works fine with my dial-up still. It will not let me host or join. Any suggestions?

The one question that I have now is about the squad 'footprint' - for a lack of better term. In CMx1, it seemed that a squad really only took up about 4m, which seems much much too small. Also, Another play feature that would make sense to model is longer load/fire times for teams that are missing one or more men(ive never checked if that is modeled in CMx1) - which now we be make much more sense with 1:1 represenation. Imagine 1 man trying to load and fire a 150 mm inf gun - is that even possible.

HPQ and HTQ about evenly. But I do throw in an HTS or HPS or HTC or HPC every now and then for variety.

If BFC can make the game look THAT good, then ... WOW!!!

Isnt that what the entire current movie play back is? Graphic details for something that is really just abstract? The calc section of the game doesnt care about the tress swaying in the wind. It doesnt care if a mortar round shoots into the air before it lands on the target. It doesnt care if the squads point their guns or if little bullet lines fly around the map. Those are all visual details that dont really exits in the numbers. No it doesnt have to - CMx1 is great without it. And if you read my posts, I dont necessarily care to see 1:1 if there arent additional play features that brings to the game. But since they could now show in accurate detail squad facing, it makes since to enhance how squads target. They could have enhanced it in CMx1, but we wouldnt really have been able to see a graphic of what was going on. IMO, now it makes more sense.

Of course it could! 1:1 presentation wouldn't really change that at all. However, it would require some VERY elaborate coding, for absolutely no benefit. </font>

Real Time Shooter sorry </font>

And I was interested on features that make sense now that 1:1 will be represented, where it didnt make sense before. To expand on the squad facing/formation post the YD did previously, there is a CMBB forum thread right now about 'gamey' half squad swarms, and how they can be more effective since half squads can shoot at a full squad from two different angles, and if one half squad pins the other still fires. Well with 1:1 representation, it makes much more sense for a single squad to be able to target mulitiple units. That does not mean I want to be able to control which man shoots at what, but I think it would be good game feature, that is realistic, and could be modeled abstractly but shown in detail with 1:1, where it could not (at least not well) with the CMx1 squad modeling.

What I have visioned in my mind, wouldnt really change anything from a player spective. But in RL, from what I have read and talking with people in the military, killing a soldier eliminates 1 person, but wounding a soldier can tie up three or 4 soldiers. All of that is internal to a squad (most of the time), and since you could display it with 1:1 represenation (which you couldnt in the old CM), why not account for it in the calculations. Ammo bearers, medics, stretcher bearers, and runners are outside a squad, and wouldnt be detailed in the calcs, but could be shown in the movie just for eye candy, even though they mean NOTHING to game play. I'm not too interested in those, but trying to make a distinction. And I agree with this. So if 1:1 doesnt actually add some game play posibilities, why have it. I would argue not to.

Can somebody explain how the ROW tourney works? Or point me somewhere that does.

That is basically what I am saying too. But I am hoping that they have some graphic scripts that will run that will try to show what is only calculated abstractly - afterall they did the say the graphics would be as good are better than anything on the market today. So why not hope for a script that shows a couple men breaking windows and tossing grenades inside a building and the resulting explosion. You shouldnt have to calc each soldiers movements to show that kind of detail. If they are trying to make a realistic combat sim, how can you leave treating casualties out? It wouldnt be a player controlled function. Or have I watched to many war movies?

I hope the movies try to show this, but that the actual squad level AI does not try to calc this. I was under the impression that the squad will still be the low-level unit, but visually represent each man 1:1. And what I am hoping for is visual details that represent only abstract calculations. But I am thinking that a few new play features, still squad level, not individual level will be added because they can show them. Some more I just though of: Assualts on buildings/MG nest/bunkers or advancing cover to cover with 3 men vs 10 men. I would assume (having never been in the military), that an assualt on a building with 3 men would be much different than one with 10 men. Since CMx2 could show the difference graphically, maybe they will have a calculation for each also.

I was trying to think of what extra play features 1:1 could add to the game - and then the visual representation that would be exciting to see. I am hoping that it is not merely a graphicaly representation of what already exists in CMx1 - that would seem to just add clutter. And I know it is not, because in the other post they said they were going to have individual unit stats. The play features that could be added with medics/casualties are pretty deep. I am assuming all of this would be calcualted abstractly at the squad level but played in detail in the 'movie'. The way I imagine it, if a squad were to take a casuality, here are examples of possiblities - depending of an array of variables: 1. Bandage script (light wound) - squad firepower drops for 30 seconds (that is CM bandage time) while two guys quickly bandage their friend 2. Checks man who is KIA 3. Pick up comrade - squad halts its move/advance to gather their friend 4. Call for medic (serious wound) - firepower drops for longer as men treat a more serious injury. An medic appears and takes over. 5. Retrieve wounded man - (this could happen when a unit starts advancing but then becomes pinned and a casualty happens at same time) 6. Wounded man left behind (when squad routed) 7. Man wounded but dies while being treated 8. Man wounded and then helpers get wounded Other than handling casualties and keeping track of indidual ammo, what other play features does 1:1 add. Watching a 6 man MG team operate would be fun to watch, but there is no new play involved - that I can think of. And I know it probably wont be included, but it is fun to suggest.

I was thinking about this and trying to imagine some of the different features this could bring to the game. This first that came to mind was squad medics/taking care of casualties. Imagine a squad taking a casualty, and then two or three of his buddies shouldering their rifles and bandaging his wounds. Or maybe a squad is advancing and somebody gets hit, so they pause for a moment to pick him up and drag him to rest of the way. BFC could add huge play features around this concept alone.

The issue is that there are an entire group of players, myself included, who wnat logical limits on that. I would take Tom suggestion further and like to see a Friendly Unit FOW option (for people like me, not you). In a limited capacity, I think this could do wonders for the All Seeing Eye problem and yet still give players - not AI - control over their units. The way I picture it, at some point when low-level units go out of CC and LOS of all other friendlies (the lonely squad sent off through the woods on its own, or the Jeep that is sent behind enemy lines) the player only gets FOW info about the unit - perhaps a sound-contact-like icon. The player can still give orders to the unit, which it will carry-out if possible, but the player doesnt know with certainty the state/location of that unit. I would only want this on a very limited basis, but I think under the right circumstances it makes sense, and it doesnt really hinder the players ability to control the unit. And as an option, it wouldnt have to be used by everybody. [ January 19, 2005, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

I, for one, think that turn time would be an interesting option. A CM game with a 2 or 3 minute turn will be a very different game than a one minute turn. But for that to work well, I imagine you would need some pretty hefty SOP options.

This, IMO, would be a great improvement.

How about John Paulding capturing Major Andre (American Revolution)? That, quite possibly, changed the outcome of the entire war.

I did a test with the artillery that I have in my qb. One tank out of 15 abandoned. Not very good odds. However, I did notice that those tanks moved forward as soon as the rounds started falling. that might come in handy.

Does anybody know if art/mortars will knock out open turret TDs, like the M10? I guess I could run a test, but ... there is so much knowledge here.

TxAggie it would be much more entertaining if you would not turn the other cheek towards Seanachai. Give in to your hate. Stretch for your hands and strike him down. [ December 28, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

Why the condescending attitude? Why do you care how I play my CM games? </font>

I am playing an operation, and had quite a few squads vanish between battles. Is that normal? I have the games saved to prove it.

The movie I would like to see made is the one about Yeo-Thomas (The White Rabbit). To be done right it would need to be a Band of Brothers-like mini-series. That would appeal to American and European audiences. Another movie that I think could be made that would be very successful is about the massacre at No Gun Ri in Korea. It would need to have 'war' as the bad guy, not be an anti-american propoganda piece.