C'Rogers

Giving the length of time most people have played CM it probably lasted far longer then any of the most optimistic predictions from BFC when they were making it. I wonder what this forum would be like if the original CM series had been modeled off a modern game or a future Space Lobsters one and then they came out with the CMx2 engine and announced the first game would be in the WW2 genre? Then again I am one of the few people looking much more forward to Shock Force than Campaigns so I am somewhat of an anomaly. Though I would be fairly shocked if SF doesn't set a new sale record for BFC. Here is a question for the many of the people who posted about not getting the Shock Force concept? If the first game could not possibly be set in WW2 would a different historical setting have been okay? What about far future setting? Or is it WW2 or bust? Really just curious to hear because always been surprised by the reaction SF has gotten.

Two questions. 1) A high level (crack) ME with guns is supporting a low level (green) ME of troops going into battle. Will the quality of the FO for the battle be determined by the level of the gun giving support, or the level of the troops receiving it? 2) By whatever means the above is determined, is there a penalty for losing an FO. If I have a crack FO for a mortar who dies in battle will I have a crack FO for the next battle or is he lost? Two clarificaions. I am going to give statements about the nature of the game as I understand how it has been laid out, if someone could say whether I am right or wrong it would be appreaciated. 1) There is no way to attack/damage/kill the units of a tile without actually having a ME move in to engage (no artillery bombardments or air attacks). 2)I have a battery of guns with three MEs in support range, of which I think all will be in battle. The battery can only be used to support one of the MEs, and which it chooses to support must be done before the battles commence. Go away for a week to come back to see not only an update but with a picture, good to see.

Being I haven't played the AI in years I tend to forget that is option. Sorry I meant vs humans.

Question for those who have played far more CM:BB than I have. In a quick battle assualt who is more helped by a large map size? Is it easier or harder to attack a huge map vs. a normal size one? My gut reaction is that a small map helps the defender as it it narrows the field that needs to be defeneded. On the other hand it is easier for the attacker to employ artillery and in a huge map the defender has more opportunities to ambush. Any of the map choices most balanced? On a second note what is a balanced number of turns for a battle. I normally play relatively small battles compared to some people on this forum, never much over 1000 points. The more turns the attacker gets the better fairly obviously. I have been tending to set it to 40 turns variable though this may be given the attacker a bit too much of an advantage from my experience.

For limiting the commanders view of the battle I think it is important to remember that the game is a tactical simulator, not a command simulator (to my understanding of BFC goals), thus the player gets a certain amount of unrealistic knowledge. As for networking, I wonder how the game engine will view it for a total standpoint, not just US vs. Syrian for the next upcoming game, but how the engine will be made to handle future things on this issue (ie WWII). So I guess the issue has to look up as what advantages do a 'networked' unit have against a unit with radios, and what advantages do they have against a unit using more delayed communication. The most obvious is that the more communication the quicker order times could happen. Secondly 'borg' spotting should be more allowed the more networked, but this also depends on whether BFC can solve the Borg issue. The second thing would be the list of ideas mentioned by Knives. Overall networked units would be more efficient. How you apply that to the game without a major change I don't know. I think networking would improve a lot of things a little bit. They would probably have better morale for example, but when the bullets are flying by would it be a significant bonus vs. a simple radio unit? So to answer the original question, it would make a significant difference in battle. But that would be over many different issues that it would be difficult to model.

This was more than I was expecting from the first release for airpower so very good news to hear.

I remember when I first read that quote I thought "what other options could there be?" After a battle I want to be able to watch the full battle again as I saw it. Watch it as my opponent saw it. And be able to watch it with all units visible. Other than that what more could there be?

Here is a question for the grogs on this issue. How often during WWII during a company level engagement did one side defending an area get attacked and was taken completely by surprise? And by taken completely by surprise I mean when the bullets started flying no one was remotely expecting it. How often was one company able to sneak within 1 km of the other without the defenders knowing about it? Correct me if I am wrong but too my understanding this would be a very rare situation. A platoon or so might be able to sneak in very close but getting a company, that may have had tanks and vehicle assets in close would be incredibly difficult. Now if you took out the tanks and heavy equipment for a side so they only had infantry I could see it as more possible, but it does not sound like BFC is going to try a game like that any time soon. If anyone was too be surprised it would be attackers moving through an unknown area where they were ambushed. But this really wouldn't be much of 'battle' and so not really something seen in the game. Of course surprise was a major issue but more on a strategic than a tactical level. Something like “the Soviets have flanked us with fast moving light vehicles, maybe even tanks, we do not have time to get you any heavy armor or anti-tank weaponry so you will have to defend the town with what you have”. In which case one side has been “surprised”, though when the actual battle occurs the defenders have been expecting it. They may not have known that “the battle will take place at 8:30 AM, everyone be in your best position” but unless the game adds a complex recon system (which would be out of scope) it would be impossible to tell how much readiness would be available. I think the worst case scenario that would have happened is that the defenders would have had little knowledge of who/what/how many they were being attacked by, which again can be modeled by the system. But I highly doubt that a company of troops assigned an area to defend would not be aware when another company has got within a few kilometers. And I expect that we will see some of this strategic surprise with CM:CC, were one side attacks with overwhelming superiority that catches the other player off guard. But as for the ability to have units locked in place at battle start for CM:SF, I think it is an unnecessary and unrealistic feature given what I know of tactical combats.

To the game engine infantry is always moving forward. Even though we know that we are moving them to the back, it still marks them the same as moving in a forward direction (unless the engine is far more complex than I have been led to believe). You can not "advance backward" is the problem, you can only advance towards or away from an enemy. A "reverse" is probably the best option, keep facing your current direction, but move backwards. Fallback is I think the best word that descrbes this. As a game note I think units "falling back" (if implemented the way I am conceiving) should have a slight moral penalty to incoming fire and move at a slower speed (fire, run, turn, fire, repeat). But as Juan pointed out, with the ability to specify movement order priorities (and perhaps how the movement is carried out) this whole discussion may be moot concerning CM:SF.

To my understanding ... Units will not "Heal". You have X number of guys with X number of reinforcements coming in their own groupings. You get no more guys then that. How they will handle broken platoons I don't know, whether you can merge them, the system will force merge, or what I don't know. The system tracks every guy, no more than that come in.

Now we will have many a thread over what stats are being left out and arguments for why those stats are needed to make the game more realistic. For example, where is the intoxication level stat? How can I create a blue on blue National Guard training exercise that end up going horribly horribly wrong do to the unapproved kegger afterwards without it? Oh well, guess I will just have to live without it. Excellent news to hear though. A serious question btw. What do you mean by "Main Stats?" Are there more non-main stats?

Alright when I first read this I thought 'sure, why not'. After I thought about this though I think this would make quick battles even more unrealistic. As Flammenwerfer pointed out it can be done in scenarios, so not really talking about that, just the quick battles. One of my biggest problems with quick battles has been the question of "How did the attacker get there." I can just picture my soldiers. "Sir, there is what looks like a full company moving towards us." "How far are they away private" "About 1000 meters sir." "Ummmm ... and we are just noticing them now?! There are huge open fields, and I put all those spotters and guns up on the hills tops. What happened!" So I have always had the above problem but can get by it. Maybe spotting was poor. Maybe they were spotted the defenders just couldn't engage them at range. Maybe it was nap time. Whatever, it is a minor flaw that doesn't really seem correctable. But now I am trying to think about this with your suggestion. "Sir, we are being attacked by another company." "Let me guess, they are almost on top of us." "Yes sir. Oh, and they have dug a line of trenches by the road and built a couple concrete bunkers." "What! That must of taken weeks. Are you saying those guys have been down in that valley over there building bunkers? I can see a howitzer of ours right on that hill that can blast them at any time? What were you guys doing that you missed all that!!" "Well to be perfectly honest sir we saw them and thought about firing but decided that wouldn't be very sporting so we let them finish up building." Of course Kip is right and that both sides would have their own fortifications for their defenses. But most CM quick battles take place at relatively close ranges that it seems ridiculous to think the defenders would have given the attacker time to construct the fortifications. And while I am sure there are many specific instances of forces with relatively close fortifications I think that, for sake of realism, they are better handled in only scenarios. I think fortifications for the attacker in quick battle would create more gamey and unrealistic situation then they would realistic ones. On the other hand if they did a WWI game then I would say both sides should have fortification options.

Personally for large scale meeting engagements I always had an easier time imaging that my forces (and my opponents) were reinforcements for an already existing battle between smaller forces that had created a no man's land. But generally speaking Meeting Engagements are realistically unlikely (despite probably being the most common type of scenario for games outside CM). But even fights, with both sides willing to throw every unit into capturing victory, is pretty unrealistic as well.

Hmmm, my fiance could build a nice Sims neighborhood to serve as the next battleground (alright alright ... I play the Sims as well, I would help). And just think of all the options when the modules are out. You could have Syrian, British, American, and so on. And then mod that with CMC and you can have the occasional mass neighborhood war. Obviously this must be done. The only real question is should the US Marines bunk with the other American forces, or are they goning to take off and form their own camp.

Well since the game has been announced that has been the first bit of tentative news that has been disappointing to me. Which I guess leaves me only 1 million times happier than the WWII grogs.

I was going to put a thread up today about movie playback being it will be the best part of the game (ok, a bit of exaggeration, but the feature I have been looking most forward to since my first game of CM:BO). Then I thought, nah of course it will be in, how could they leave out something so amazing. Either way real time should not be an issue. Despite being revealed late I imagine real time was always in the concept, it isn't like something they decided to jam in at the end (I hope). For this game it will still be 1 vs 1. For others, good question and I am very curious as well, though I am pretty sure the answer will be 'not certain, will see what we can do'. Alright, that's my attempt at speaking for BFC.

I had to ask this a while back as well. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000573;p=1#000000 John D. Salt provided the answer of ... "moseholing is when you make a hole in a wall to move from room to room without having to go out into the street." Though it is debated in the thread (among other topics)

This post is more in relation to the above post by Steve, and in general what is the nature of conspiracy theories. I have no expert knowledge on this subject beyond my interest in psychological matters but will try my best to make a solid reasoned argument. Conspiracy theories can arise and be believed by someone for many different reasons. Many sane and rational people fall victim to a conspiracy theory at some point in their life. However this does not mean everyone who believes a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy theorist is generally defined as someone who believes that our entire society is covering up massively important, and multiple, secrets. What causes a person to believe a conspiracy theory? There are multiple reasons why a person will fall for a conspiracy theory (with there being multiple reasons it being that much harder to point out individual traits that lead to person taking such extreme believes). 1) Paranoia, schizophrenia, or other mental illness. For obvious reasons a schizophrenic or person afflicted with a similar mental illness is far more likely to fall for a conspiracy theory. 2) Exaggeration of facts. Many of the things John has sited do in fact have some basis in fact. Yes governments around the world have done research in some crazy things (which goes more to prove the foolishness of world leaders than outlandish technology in my opinion). It is easy to, for example, have a somewhat skeptical interest in ESP, and then hear that the US government did research in ESP (which I think they did in the 80s and when it came to the light they were deservedly embarrassed about wasting money), for the skeptical interest to suddenly become a believer that it is a fact. After all, in world with nuclear weapons, many of these 'technologies' don't seem so outlandish. 3)Anti-social/superior believes. Most people think they are smarter than the average person, some think they are considerably smarter. What better way to prove that you are more intelligent and independent than the average person if you 'discover' that a commonly held belief is total fiction. 4) Hate. Hate is probably the most common reason why an otherwise sane person will fall for a conspiracy theory. It is much easier to believe the absolute worst in someone you dislike (especially in politics). A good example of this would be 9/11 conspiracies and hatred of President George W. Bush. Many people hate Bush and think he is one of the worst Presidents ever (perhaps justifiably, perhaps not, that isn't the point). As they already hate this individual it becomes far easier for them to believe that he would do something like orchestrate the destruction of buildings and deaths of many people within his own country, facts to the contrary. In a similar vein is the people Steve mentioned who believed Clinton was willing to sell out America. A combination of the latter three points can generally be attributed to why a person falls for a conspiracy theory.

This thead was started off by John on the idea that Syria possessed some form of super weapon that could easily blow through tanks and that Syrians should subsequently be considered much more of a threat in the game. Here is my question John, based off all your information (I am in the not believing you camp) shouldn't the USA and UN forces be significantly stronger? I mean sure the Syrians got that plasma firing anti-tank weapon, but the USA has anti-grav technology and flying saucers (and that is just to start)? Shouldn't this make the game easier for the American forces?

If I understand what Peter is getting at here is that if you were to play a 300 point battle (or whatever the equivalent is in Shock Force) you would control every indiviual guy (one unit = one guy). However if you played a 1000 point battle the game would scale so that the smallest unit you could select would be a squad (one unit equals approximatly 10 guys). And around a 3000 point battle the smallest you could select would be a platoon (one unit = 30 guys). I suppose depending on how detailed the control was it would also increase the detail of unit actions (in a small game you might be able to order your guys to blow down a certain wall to move from building to building, in a larger game that would probably be abstracted). Personally I think it would be amazing to have a game like that but don't really expect to see it. One it seems like BFC would be packing too much into a game, it would be like asking them to put in WWII, the Korean War, and modern warfare. It would be a huge project that could be split across multiple games. Secondly even if they were so inclined to do so, from the way I have read their posts they haven't done the work for a 1 to 1 game, or anything with greater then squad level control. Just that it is in the engine and they can do so at a later time. The way it stands, I think, is that the engine is scalable, but games will not be. Maybe when they get around to the fourth or fifth game in the series they will have done enough with different scales that we can see soemething along these lines. I imagine it would make the game more sellable on the campaign aspect if they could say you went from controling a platoon to a full batalion.

I may be reading this thread wrong, and it has been a few weeks since I have looked at what was going on, but aren't units selected by the creator of the scenario (there are no quick battles as the maps must be made). Thus they are not purchased at all to my understanding.

24 here. I have introduced the CM series to two friends and one uncle over the past couple years. First they all found the game very intutive so I don't no why they some think it has a high learning curve. Once someone explains the different movement orders you are set (or take the time to read quickly through the manual). The game is so realistic that if you have a basic grasp of tactics you can start playing. CM is a tactical game and some people just won't like that. I have one friend who picked up CM very well, gave me a tough challenge his first time playing, but didn't really like the game. He is much more into big startegy games, he wants to do everything, even if it has very little depth. On the other hand the other friend I introduced it too loves it and hates strategy games. He wants to get in there and command the units with as much detail as possible, not worry about base building or new units. So I don't think it really has anything to do with age, some people just prefer one over the other. Or you have people like me who will gladly play both types.

Interesting topic. I know very little about European generals pre-WWI (Alexander, Hannibal, Napolean) so my pick comes off the base that I can't really consider them (well aside from the very informative information in this thread). Oda Nobunaga.

You have the steak medium rare, but hamburger well done? I am sure Steve tried to get them to you but was confused by what your meat cooking preference was. Does it depend on the meat, or the time of day? BTW, how long have you been waiting to use that list. One thing you forgot to mention, what about suppression? CMx2 is suppose to have serprate tracking of moral and suppression it should be super easy to port that in to the code for CM:BB for the CM:CC release. In fact as they are released at the same CM:CC and CM:SF are going to be released at somewhat near the same time, I see no reason CM:SFs graphics can not be ported over to CM:BB. Honestly though, ever since they mentioned the new suppression/moral feature when I play CM:BB I think about how much better there new features can make the game. Much like how every time I play now I think 'this will be so much better when it has the scope of CM:CC'. So thanks Battlefront, after years of listening to people complain on this forum about flaws in the game, I chuckle as I happily play CM thinking about how it is the most amazing game ever, yet it was you who finally got me to see some flaws in it by making me want the next game(s) even more.