C'Rogers

Yes the suggestion make a big predicition on the part of the scenario creator, but he is already making a big predicition when he sets how long the battle will be. The suggestion was meant more as a possible way to speed up early turns then an option to make battles more realistic. Perhaps a simpler and more doable idea would be if turns are variable then the variable could be changed by both players during the game. If nothing is really happening both players could agree to lengten the turns (or if the action is heavy they could agree to shorten it). I once had a similair discussion about something like that being implement for operations. That the operation would end when the action toned down and go into longer turns. Ideally that would be great, though I doubt the feasibility a bit. As a side note: Will operations be around at all in the CMx2 engine or have they been done away with? I haven't really seen any mention of them. Thanks for the replies on what mouseholing is (even if the exact answer is debated).

24, not yet old enough to have a witty comment about my age.

The following is a battlefront quote from a little while back. Firstly the more I have thought about it the more the above sounds like a good idea and hope it is implemented. If it is though would be possible to have different turns in the game be different lengths? By this I mean say there would be a 30 minute battle, the first three turns would be two minutes, with the next 24 turns being a standard one minute. The reason this came to mind was tonight I was trying my first PBEM game with a friend. The one thing that came to mind that all we were doing the first couple turns was just open file, watch and see nothing happen, keep the same orders, resend. Now fortunatly we were going pretty fast because we were both active and doing this more as a test run, but I have a feeling if we were going at a "normal" pace it might take a couple days before we actually got around to serious turns. If the scenario designer could make the first turns longer this could speed the process up (with the latter turns being shorter this would speed it up without really changing the game). And if the scenario designer wanted he could make the last few minutes say 30 second turns if he expected a lot of heavy action. So you could have (as just a random example) a thirty minute battle with the first six minutes in three turns, the next twenty minutes as twenty turns, and the last four minutes as eight turns. A minor point at best I realize, certainly wouldn't be a dramatic improvement, but one I thought to be worth mentioning. Now a question. The following quote is from Winecape's synopsis thread. What's mouseholing? My educated guess would be making little holes in walls to shoot/look out of via the term.

This is taken from the second thead. Ok that is the post I missed which I was searching for. My previous mistaken conception of the design was that the title was going to be a fairly centered but big event (ie Battle of Gettysburg) and that the modules would add similair but broader materials (Vicksburg, Antietam) thus leading to a whole overall picture after many modules (the whole Civil War). Judging from the above quote I had it a bit backwards. As an off topic note, because I am sure BFC's main problem is that they don't have enough people telling them what game(s) they should be making, would really enjoy seeing an Civil War game.

I thought, though I may have misread or missed correct post, that they had a top five list, not that there would be only 5 CMx games. On a second thing that I may be wrong on, I thought they hadn't "officially" announced what the third game would be. Just would like to clarify those two points from someone who follows the forums more closely than I.

I understand the basic concept of the CMx2 will be more depth less volume. And that modules are meant to add volume to the scenario chosen by the main title. What occurred to me though, and what I don't think has been mentioned in depth, was how much volume will be added by the modules? To use an example let's take the the WWII game that will be out after SF, which I will presume will be Eastern Front (just to make my example easier). Suppose the game is widely successful and it is a few years later after many, many modules. Would this game now have the volume of CM:BB, or even with many add on's will the game not approach that level of scope?

I wonder whether BFC will get CM:CC released before CM:SF. If CMx2 engine is as good as I believe it will be then I wonder if I will be able to play CM:BB even with the CM:CC addition. However if CM:CC is out first there isn't a problem.

I think in many ways the CM series ruined Silent Storm for me. I go/you go just seemed so outdated. If it was simulataneous or real time I would of really enjoyed it. But the fully destructible enviroement was very cool (and in my opinion the next big 'leap' in FPS to be made).

I think Fallout Tactics gets a bad rap many times because of what it is being compared to. Fallout Tactics was never meant to be something of a great RPG experience like Fallout, but a tactical game (and one that I would consider very good, if not for its buggy nature). But your general point is solid and that games are much more straight forward than before (I believe the common term used is linear). Nowadays with lots of video and voice incoprated it seems difficult to justify "side quests" in games. Why waste putting stuff in that players would never see (I am guessing at what the logic must be)? RPG games are becoming much more like movies sadly, with the players having less and less control.

As some people seemed to have mentioned above, the flaw with many games today is that they don't seem to offer anything new. Most games are, at best, just updated versions of old proven designs. Even Dawn of War, which I found very enjoyable for a short time, is only really a much updated version of the Warcraft model from long ago. The problem with these games is they wear off quickly. Steve has mentioned before how a company is lucky to keep customers for two to three months, much less years. I think the main problem is that strategy games don't (can't) really take risks anymore. It seems safer to just bang out the same old formula with just some improvements. As an example I will use the Civilization series. When I got Civ II (never played Civ I sadly) I played it pretty steadily for months, and off and on for probably another year. I picked up Civilization IV a little over a week ago and while it was great fun at first I have already grown bored with it and stopped playing. And the problem for strategy games is that they need to be different. FPS' can repeat the same game play over and over, especially if they are going to be online, as just pumping up the graphics is the major requirement. If they re released the first Rainbow Six (or remade the original Doom) with just modern graphics I'd quickly get it. RPG games are also in a little bit of a rut, but by there nature they are forced to change more than strategy games, you can't repeat the same story (though some certainly try). And while I can't think of any classics like Fallout, there have been a much better offering of notable RPG games as of late compared to strategy (Knights of the Old Republic, Neverwind, a ton of console games). Strategy games seem to be in a slump. A couple years ago I sat down with a strategy gaming friend and we discussed what games on the horizon were the most to look forward to. We came up with three, Kohan II, Ground Control II, and CMxII. The first version of each of these games blew me away. Well Kohan II was a let down, didn't pack nearly the 'feel' and intensity I had found in Kohan I. Ground Control was a downright shame, abandoning many of its tactical elements for a 3D Starcraft approach (which made many people happy, but not I), and CMxII yet to come (which if by some tragedy I was disappointed in I would probably give up gaming all together). I don't think making great games is impossible anymore, just in the 'major' genres repetition of past classic designs seems to have taken over. The last games that really impressed me was probably Railroad Tycoon III, and before that Hardwar. Both in somewhat established genres, but not so much that there was some set formula for making a game. That's my general rant on computer gaming today, sorry if I didn't reply to anything specifically.

The games fans need to start pulling out the big guns. We need to start saying pretty please:). What makes gunships their own category? I will admit to being pretty fuzzy on how they are different. If someone could give an explanation of their use/strengths it would be much appreciated.

My first thought upon seeing this was picturing a 30 minute battle and setting the turns to thirty minutes (which I guess would be way outside the definition of reasonable). I then thought, with how much has been said about the great waypoint system that this may be a viable option. Who could lay out a better battle plan from the start. I then remembered this one game of CMBB my friend and I played once where we set everything to random (force selection and map). We were pretty sure it would be horrible, but we thought it just might be wonderful as we were forced to use whatever units we got. It turned out horrible. The computer gave him a force of tanks against my conscripted infantry on a pretty flat field. Many a German soldier died that day, most fleeing. We concluded never to do that again. Which my mind now realizes would be how a full game turn would play out. Still, we would probably be foolish enough again to try. Really though, I hope to see adjustable turn times and think they are a good idea. In a small battle would probably set less time per turn, more time for large battles.

Was his other statement any more reasonable? Abbot: Personally I disagree with both, but wouldn't be shocked to find that either of them are true. He sure has a lot of posts on varied subjects for a troll. One of those deep cover trolls? Waiting for just the right moment to strike? Well the 'are' at the moment seems pretty definitive. As for 'were' polls in the past have been mixed. And as for 'will' it is near impossible to predict how history will judge the invasion of Iraq, and it will probably have a lot to do with unrelated events that people don't really consider at the moment. Battlefront.com: That is still being tried? Well then my thoughts on that. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that CM:SF turns out to be an all to realistic scenario, though perhaps exaggerated. One thing I am wondering, BFC has made it fairly clear they will change the plot line based upon events that happen up until close to the release. What about for the modules after the game? You release it when things are looking relatively calm, and come the time you are planning your first module there is a bombing campaign of Syria?

I think, though I may be wrong, that he is asking if they are counted for the same as if they were dead. Does the game mark captured troops no longer availble, or does it track them differently than soldiers killed. My first thought on this that the game's timeframe seems a little too short to incorporate POWs. For a soldier to be captured, rescued, and put back on the front lines seems too rare in a span of a couple of weeks (which, from what I have read seems the most the game is meant to duplicate, and that would be a huge span of time to play). As I thought about it more though, POWs could be put in as part of the operation. Part of one players goal might be rescuing POWs. Not sure if that would add much more value though. Good question though, I'm interested what the answer will be on captured troops.

Personally I would like to see something in the far future. BFC is excellent at historical games, I would be curious to see how good of imagination they have in coming up with a world. Wouldn't really care if it was high-tech, post-apocalypse, or whatever. I would expect it to be something with tanks as they talk about how much they have done with penetration, so would seem strange to let it sit idly by. Of course the sci-fi game will be the fourth release, American Civil War or something will be third so that they have they the code worked out for horses, so they can put the cybernetic horse army in. The Space Lobsters are a mere red herring. They heard the cry's for horses and fully intend to drown us in them.

If an idiot realized he was idiot, would he thus know what to do and no longer be an idiot? Well technically there are four possibilities (using Abbott and Sergei as examples). Abbott is right, Sergei is an idiot. Sergei is right, Abbott is an idiot. Both Sergei and Abbott are wrong, neither of them is an idiot. Both Sergei and Abbott are correct, they are both idiots. The main problem isn't that you should never assume a person you are discussing things with is stupid, there are plenty of people who are. The problem is that posted messages on a forum don't really do a good job of information conveyance, especially on a political subject. And when two people are treating each other like idiots it just becomes a shouting match. Which, while occasionally fun to watch the from the sidelines, is ultimatly unproductive. I know there have been plenty of times I have gone off on someone on a forum (not here) because I thought they were spewing garbage. However when I met these people face to face their opinions seemed much more rational. It's harder to think someone a brain dead idiot when they are a living person in front of you and not just a message on your computer screen.

And a pretty close to a perfect example of what I was saying. Everyone believes the other person is the idiot. I suppose it is easier to assume the other person is idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about, versus is actually well informed but still disagrees with you.

My name was mentioned by Battlefront in a post? Tis a happy and glorious day for me. The main problem with the masses = sheep argument is that pretty much everybody believes it, yet no one believes that they (and those who agree with them) are the ones who are part of the masses. A someone related quote (on the people being stupid issue) I heard once that always stuck with me. "Do you believe that the average person is really intelligent enough to make such important decisions?" "Intelligent enough, absolutely. Able to become informed enough, no." I think the concept of the game is that the normal, somewhat sensible, government has been overthrown. While I think your post brought up a lot of good points, I think you are making the rational actor assumption (which a lot of people who find the game to be impossible make as well, in my opinion). What I mean is you assume the Syrian government will continue to act by what we consider to be rational standards. If overthrown by an extremist group, who by almost very definition aren't acting rationally, then the scenario becomes much more possible.

I think it is safe to say, given the setting of this game, that this forum will have many political posts (or threads that sidetrack into political posts). To my understanding this is against the forum rules, but unless threads are locked up left and right it seems inevitable.

There does seem to two different thoughts on this. Either the back story must be awesome and unquestionably realistic (thus historical) or it really doesn't matter at all. A lot of people have pointed out over the years that a campaign would make BFC much more marketable (usually with the example of 'I have 8 gazillion friends who would buy this if it had campaign mode'). While I don't really care for the campaign, I imagine it will make the game more marketable. And as for those of who don't care about storyline we now have Blue vs. Blue (and hopefully with more modules you can pit USA vs. British, etc.).

There does seem to two different thoughts on this. Either the back story must be awesome and unquestionably realistic (thus historical) or it really doesn't matter at all. A lot of people have pointed out over the years that a campaign would make BFC much more marketable (usually with the example of 'I have 8 gazillion friends who would buy this if it had campaign mode'). While I don't really care for the campaign, I imagine it will make the game more marketable. And as for those of who don't care about storyline we now have Blue vs. Blue (and hopefully with more modules you can pit USA vs. British, etc.).

There does seem to two different thoughts on this. Either the back story must be awesome and unquestionably realistic (thus historical) or it really doesn't matter at all. A lot of people have pointed out over the years that a campaign would make BFC much more marketable (usually with the example of 'I have 8 gazillion friends who would buy this if it had campaign mode'). While I don't really care for the campaign, I imagine it will make the game more marketable. And as for those of who don't care about storyline we now have Blue vs. Blue (and hopefully with more modules you can pit USA vs. British, etc.).

I have been wondering the same thing, what happens when a something like a battlion runs into a recon platoon. Perhaps the game has a built in auto-battle. If one force is vastly superior to the other then it is automatically decided. That would be my hope at least.

This is a very good idea and would make the back story not only much more reasonable but potentially more balanced (in a realism sense). My problem with the back story hasn't been that of military action in Syria, more so of the entire world jumping on. I can imagine Syria giving a hard fight to any major power, but if the whole world (including the surrounding Arab states as the intro suggests) helped out than it should be decimating. Now let's bring nukes or another WMD into the backstory as you suggest. After overthrowing the Assad regime it is found that the new government has/is building a nuke and fully intends to do as much damage as possible (if they really wanted to have the whole world jump on as they have suggested, than an attack could already have taken place). So you still have a vast power differential, but now time is much more of an issue. Even in a situation where all nations wanted to take a military action against Syria, if they only had a few days to set it up, how effective would it be. So if it is thought about this way the US has a far more challenging time. After the coop in Syria, and potentially a devastating terrorist attack, the UN quickly authorizes military action. The USA has the most troops in the region, but even they could probably only mobilize a small force on such short notice. With how long the USA took to mobilize troops for the Gulf wars, they probably could not get more than some special forces and maybe close by troops to combat that quickly (if someone knows more about mobilization times and what could be thrown against Syria given like a week I would love to hear it). So a few, fairly lightly armored and supported but highly trained, troops are sent in. One company (you) is given the task of cutting right through the middle. So while you have superior equipment/training, you would be going at a dangerous rushed pace with minimal back up. Of course that is in all likelihood that isn't how the BFC story will go, just how I think it could go. But personally if the game plays well, which I almost undoubtedly think it will, it could be the USA vs Sri Lanka and I would gladly get it. A good back story is a nice bonus though.

This is a very good idea and would make the back story not only much more reasonable but potentially more balanced (in a realism sense). My problem with the back story hasn't been that of military action in Syria, more so of the entire world jumping on. I can imagine Syria giving a hard fight to any major power, but if the whole world (including the surrounding Arab states as the intro suggests) helped out than it should be decimating. Now let's bring nukes or another WMD into the backstory as you suggest. After overthrowing the Assad regime it is found that the new government has/is building a nuke and fully intends to do as much damage as possible (if they really wanted to have the whole world jump on as they have suggested, than an attack could already have taken place). So you still have a vast power differential, but now time is much more of an issue. Even in a situation where all nations wanted to take a military action against Syria, if they only had a few days to set it up, how effective would it be. So if it is thought about this way the US has a far more challenging time. After the coop in Syria, and potentially a devastating terrorist attack, the UN quickly authorizes military action. The USA has the most troops in the region, but even they could probably only mobilize a small force on such short notice. With how long the USA took to mobilize troops for the Gulf wars, they probably could not get more than some special forces and maybe close by troops to combat that quickly (if someone knows more about mobilization times and what could be thrown against Syria given like a week I would love to hear it). So a few, fairly lightly armored and supported but highly trained, troops are sent in. One company (you) is given the task of cutting right through the middle. So while you have superior equipment/training, you would be going at a dangerous rushed pace with minimal back up. Of course that is in all likelihood that isn't how the BFC story will go, just how I think it could go. But personally if the game plays well, which I almost undoubtedly think it will, it could be the USA vs Sri Lanka and I would gladly get it. A good back story is a nice bonus though.