London Calling

That'll see if steve can put his "CMx2 can do anything" money where his mouth is. And if scotty giving out diagrams, why not just a pershing, make things a lot easier than a sherman. </font>

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the possibility of a game based on the 'Nazi Planet' episode of old 'Star Trek'... Perhaps the back-story could involve Scotty providing the rebels with engineering diagrams of Shermans etc?

Renaud - Apologies for not making my post clearer. I was referring to the determination of victory at the conclusion of a campaign. Will it be a simple totalling of points or are there going to be be 'special' victory conditions associated with a campaign.

Excellent points Runyan99. I'm one of those strange breed of CM players who actually care about the lives of my little pixel men and try at all costs to minimise casualties whether possible, even in a Quick Battle, so hopefully I'm going to prosper in CMC... There again my own reading demonstrates that even a well-handled battalion/company at the 'tip' of the spearhead is eventually going to be bled white by the gradual, unavoidable accumulation of casualties here and there during combat operations. And I'm sure there are going to be times when even a 'casualty conscious' commander is going to turn to a battered, fatigued company and order them "over the top, one last time" in order to take an 'important' strongpoint! [ October 20, 2005, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: London Calling ]

[snip]I think it's essential that we see a version of CM that includes both mobile bath units and divisional sausage-making companies (using the division's pigs to recce for minefields will be regarded as gamey). All the best, John. [/QB]

How will these be handled at the conclusion of the game? In other words, will there be specific 'victory conditions' associated with the various campaigns - Capture the city of 'X' at all costs!; Secure the bridge at 'Y' before a certain date etc etc. OR Will the game simply add up the points from Flags 'held', casualties inflicted, POWs taken, vehicles destroyed etc., which, whilst important, might seem a bit 'unsatisfying'. To use a Real World example, what about Operation 'Market-Garden'? I believe Montgomery declared the operation "90 per cent sucessful" - in pure CM terms it may well have been true (!), but in terms of its strategic objectives it was clearly a failure. Any comments/thoughts?

39. Today!!!

Good points! The only game that I can recall that even attempted to tackle supply in a 'realistic' way was the old 'V for Victory'/'World at War' series. IIRC, the player would receive a variable tonnage of supplies each day, which could be allocated to the various Divisional HQs and their attatched sub-units. Each HQ could be set at either an 'Attack', 'Normal', 'Defensive' or 'Minimal' supply posture with a corresponding increase/decrease in Attack/Defence/Movement values for the attatched sub-units. Obviously there was never enough 'supply tonnage' to go round so compromises had to be made. Whilst still an extremely abstacted system, it at least meant you had to take account of logistics in your planning. Like you Philippe, I don't want to be a 'bean counter' but as you and Ike point out these things are vey important, and very occasionally decisive, in the Real World.

LOL!! But can you get a medal for this...?? </font>

LOL!! But can you get a medal for this...??

Taken from the 'Features' section: • Supply Availability and the gradual depletion of resources, including Ammunition; Petrol, Oil and Lubricants; and Basic Supplies such as food, water, medical supplies. It seems these things will be taken account of, but the actual modelling of these units *might* be going a bit too far (Hey, it's gonna be a bit crazy just handling the 'teeth' elements of your average Division rather than wondering where the Sanitation Unit has got to...!! )

Slightly too deterministic for me, I'm afraid. If it's implemented properly, the idea of 2-3 leadership characteristics/psychological states appeals to me. For instance, if you give orders to take a position to a 'Bold' commander, they may go ahead (in an operational sense) and advance, whereas a 'Cautious' commander might delay or do nothing; conversly, in a tactical battle, under heavy attack, a 'Bold' commander might 'hang on' (troops become fanatical) and see their command wiped out rather than retreat.

Cheers for the link, Sergei. It would seem to suggest that the Unit Commanders 'ratings' will influence both the operational and tactical battle. Any thoughts on how a "Despicable" rating might affect things (summary executions perhaps...?)

True! It would be interesting to see if these ratings have, in some cases, both an operational and tactical effect. 'Disorganised' at an operational level might translate into a longer period of time before the unit 'saddles up'; at the tactical level you may suddenly discover your mortar platoon has only bought along smoke rounds...

...And in addition to 'counter battery fire' could my artillery engage in interdiction missions? Will I be able to bombard a 'known' enemy position behind the front lines before an assault?