noob

I think strict is good in this case, any repositioning other than correcting a unit that the game has repositioned (a quirk of operations) is a reposition too far I want it as realistic as possible in that respect.

I dont know if this idea has been touted before so i will posit it anyway. Me and one of my opponents have been playing Operations with a major restriction. Deployment is only allowed at the start of the first battle, there is no re-deployment allowed at the start of the remaining battles. All units at the start of the new battle must remain in the same positions they finished the previous battle. The only exception to this rule is where units that lose their position due to nuances of the game at the start of a new battle can be moved into their correct positions. Reinforcements that come on can be placed anywhere on the map edge in a tactically relevant place to the on board friendly forces. This is allowable as any reinforcements theoretically should have some warning about the enemies positions as a result of the fighting done by the friendly units that have fought before the reinforcements arrived. (This eliminates an opponent camping on road exits to ambush what should be a forewarned reinforce unit) This rule significantly changes the way operations are played for the better and in my mind removes the unrealistic "teleportation" of units around the map that an un restricted re-deployment system allows. Consequently, especially in large operations, safe withdrawal procedures will be needed and terrain features like hills will play a more significant role if they overlook possible enemy reinforcement roads for example. It also impinges on the positioning of MGs and field guns, especially if there is limited or no transport vehicles available. Try it and post your comments be they fair or foul.

After reading most of the relevant posts it seems that the CMx2 that BFC envisage is definately worth the increase in game file sizes. Therefore the problem lies in the ability to transfer the files to an opponent other than TCP/IP. If this means, as already mentioned, an alternative to PBEM that demands a better connection, etc, so be it. As long as there is a website that files can be sent to and downloaded from there shouldnt be a problem other than each players connectivity rate. I wouldnt mind waiting half an hour to download a game file if it meant that the game was better and still retained the more relaxed and convenient method PBEM offered over TCP/IP play. So i say "reach for the stars BFC" as long as there is "some" way of using a data file transfer format that does not demand "too" much of an upgrade in connectivity. As from July my ISP is going to be offering a 2 MG download service at fractionally more the price of my current 0.5 MG connection speed. Other ISP companies are offering the same deal give or take some price and restriction nuances so i would create a game to force an upgrade amongst the players as opposed to hobbling the game to fit the present connectivity and data transfer limitations.

In the next version of Combat Mission please give us a strategic layer similar to Close Combat 2 or 5.....i want to fight battles with long term consequences and stress out over supply lines.

All this nit picking......give us a strategic layer similar to Close Combat 2 or 5 so we can fight battles with consequences and get stressed out over supply lines.