[Scenario Organization in CM:N]

Vergeltungswaffe,

I agree with you if you mean by the date the scenario occurs and not the date it was created by a player. I tried to re-write all the scenario titles and description in CMBB to get an idea of the points and the date of each scenario. Turned out to be a nightmare.

I would also like to see a return of the type of units fighting. In CMBB you had symbols for SS/guards as well as reg forces. It was nice to see what type of units were playing against each other.

And use the whole screen. Do not just trap the information in a little box as long as it fits into your minimum sized screen (1024 x 768). If it is a parameter, it should be displayed as long it ius something that is needed (e.g. who is fighting whom) or both players should know (e.g. weather) . It does not have to be fancy, just informative.

[Battlefront... is it lonely at the TOP?]

We appreciate that you do not want to opensource your code. Understandable. You are still making money from your efforts and you do not want to dry up that revenue stream.

What about licensing your efforts to a game company that would take your previous code and revamp it for the next operating systems and fix some bugs along the way? Maybe even expand it in directions that you do not have the staff for (Can anyone say 1940 Winter War? or Manila 1944?)

I can say that I do not understand your company model but would this not give you access to immediate cash (and possibly future residuals) while also allowing people that may have some free time to work on the code?

Just curious.

[Battlefront... is it lonely at the TOP?]

I can understand you not wanting to give up what revenue you still generate for CMBB and CMAK.

That being said, what about rethinking your stance once Windows 7 arrives? If CMBB/CMAK will not work with that environment (and therefore a further reduction in revenue as time goes on and more people switch to W7), making CMBB/CMAK open source available might make sense in a strictly altruistic sense (and yes, I understand that you are not in the business to be altruistic - I see more of a masochistic streak for all the abuse you have suffered through these last few years).

It is possible that CMBB/CMAK may continue to work in W7 through the Windows 7 Virtual XP mode?

http://windows7news.com/2009/04/25/windows-xp-compatibility-mode/

If this is the case, why would you want to give away your code for free when you worked so hard on it and you could still generate sales into the future.

Altruistically though, if for no other reason, think of all the gamers that want to play Romanians vs Bulgarians and have no recourse other then CMBB. In a few years, it may be impossible to get our fix.

[More Pie in the sky questions about CM2:Normandy]

I am not sure if this will fall under the same heading as using enemy weapons but what about a side re-occupying (for want of a better word) their own sides equipment.

e.g. a German AT gun is knocked out because of casualties. If I were leading German units, I would want some men no matter what they were currently doing to get that AT gun up and running again. Especially if an enemy tank existed, it would be better for the Germans (or insert any unit) to destroy/suppress that tank than a few more rifles firing at the infantry.

-------

Another simple question - will CM:N still have red vs blue? Since Germans are always Blue will the US/Commonwealth be red? Will this not get equally confusing for the Russian front where you could have the Germans in Red and the Soviets in Blue? I would prefer US/Commonwealth in Green, Germans in Blue and Russians in Red. Very small question, but it would be interesting to hear the answer.

[FYI: CMSF is $4.99 for the week on Gamersgate]

Will BF follow the same path that they used for CM:SF?

Create the main game and release it through retailers and market the modules only through BF? Or will the entire game family now only be available through BF?

Yes, CM:SF is now selling for $5 at the local Giant Tiger but it could possibly generate greater sales of the modules which is probably where the money for this game is at the moment. A game that is 2 years old probably does not sell as well as a brand new game but having fresh content will continue to generate sales that will go directly to BF. Is this not how many stores work (including many grocery stores). Give the first product away at little to no mark up and then sell them add-ons which generate greater profit.

I am not denegratig the practice I am just curious. I guess it would all boil down to how great the uptake is for add-ons. At 1:1 it might make sense. At 10:1 it might not.

[Command Delay In CM:N?]

I stand corrected and I agree somewhat. Yes, it is true that following a road does involve many multiple waypoints just to follow the curve in the road and no mater what (be it elite or conscript) it should be easy to say "Follow that road"!"

The other side of the coin though is that a player would create unrealistic waypoints for inferior troops (for a x second delay, shoot here, move here then shoot here and then orientate to here). This could also be alleviated by following some of the CMx1 design (e.g. no assault for conscript troops) or you get a command delay and this applies for 5 waypoints (as an example).

so

1. Include a command delay (maybe configurable/optional) that would factor in experience level, suppression level, in command or out of command, leadership bonus etc. but do not factor in the number of waypoints or only factor them in slightly.

2. Include the red/black lines for in command or out of command (but make this configurable/optional) so old farts of 40 can see at a glance where the sub-units are without having to hunt and peck until it shows up.

[Command Delay In CM:N?]

I liked the command delays as well as the red/black lines to indicate in/out of command. It gave me a better sense of working with conscript vs elite troops and the UI was more immediate and not hunt and peck as I do now with CMSF.

I am wondering how else you would distinguish between using elite and conscript troops. The command delay made me realize that I could not just order my conscript KV-1 into battle and have it battle veteran PzIIIs without taking my lack of being able to maneuver into account. If conscript and elite both follow their orders as soon as they are given why would I not just purchase many conscripts instead of one elite unit? I know there are other factors but lack of immediate action was most telling on your tactics for use of conscript troops.

The more complicated the orders though the longer the command delay. We are talking about illiterate peasants many times vs literate and battle educated troops that have been trained to follow military tactics. A man given a gun and told to shoot at the woods or troops that have been trained in suppressive fire tactics will have different results and this effect is reflected in a long command delay.

So bring back

1. command delay and the more complicated the longer the delay taking into account experience levels (conscript/green units vs crack/elite)

2. the red/black lines so that we have an easily identified way to see if we are in/out of command range

3. the morale/combat/stealth ratings so that we know what to use each commander for (as the command range benefit would already be factored into the game as seen in CMSF). And befre anyone jumps all over me, yes, I know some of these are already in but I have a harder time distinguishing them in CMSF then I did for CMx1 (maybe I am just getting older).

[Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2]

Is there a possibility of creating FOW for the terrain itself. If my units do not see what is over that ridge, the area is blacked out. An example would be the "Command & Conquer" games where you do not see the terrain until a unit sees the terrain. It would solve the problems of the trenches/foxholes being seen as nothing that was not in a LOS of a unit would be blacked out.

I am sure that this has also been discussed ad naseum and there are problems that this also would introduce but would it be hard to add to the game engine?

Problems like would your units only see the set up area for unit placement? Would the defender see the entire map but the attacker would only see his set up area or perhaps 50 meters past the set-up area.

It would make purchasing intel units much more pressing though as you would want to know as much as possible of an area before you attacked it.

[Could this be the first pic of CMx2 WWII ? [Edit] Yes!]

I would have to go with Ali-baba on that. Hanomags and PzV are my favs.

What about the Davidson-Duryea gun carriage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidson-Duryea_gun_carriage

When will this be modeled? It does not look that much different than a Bren.

On a more serious question, and one that I am NOT asking you to model in CM: Normandy is - was any captured Russian equipment every used by German forces fighting the western allies?

[Could this be the first pic of CMx2 WWII ? [Edit] Yes!]

Thanks for the screenshot. I, for one, appreciated it immensely. I saw the Brit vehicles for CMSF and was happy when you released that and it is coming out a heck of a lot sooner than CM: Normandy (Which I like to call CM: Bocage to Bastogne).

Do not let one person be a wet blanket on your efforts. I, along with many others, could care less what you release to us or in what order. I am just happy to see some progress. Thanks for all the hard work and please keep giving us hints/clues as I always enjoy them.

[Vista/XP 181.22]

Astrocat, Could you elaborate?

Does this mean that you have an Nvidia card running DX10 under Vista and you have been able to play CMx1?

I have been putting off upgrading my computer or buying a laptop since I keep hearing that Vista + DX10 Graphics cards will not work well together for CMx1. I know that this is a silly excuse not to buy a laptop/upgrade but . . .

[Latest Generation laptop processors,video cards and CMSF?]

Computers have changed a lot during the intervening time of the last post.

I am looking at purchasing a laptop and was wondering if CMx2 (and CMx1 if possible) is playable on any of the laptops that use integrated graphics.

The 2 that I am looking for have either

Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator X3100

or

Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500M

Usually with a Intel Pentium Dual-Core T3200 2.0GHz, and about 3G RAM but they all come with Vista.

Since I know next to nothing about laptops and integrated graphics are any of these playable for CM?

[Buying Shock Force digital download]

Bergerbitz,

I bought the Paradox version when it first came out (I think from EB games) and actually saw a copy in Giant Tiger last week for $5. That is a steal and a half.

I did buy the Marines Module through BF and it was seamless. I also ordered the hard copy in case something ever happens to the website or my order expires etc. I have played CMBB/CMAK for a few years now and plan to play it in the future. A hard copy gives me some reasurance that I do not have to rely upon outsite sites to continue playing.

I do have to give BF credit as the whole process was very nice and easy, with the hard copy arriving soon after. I defintely plan on buying the Brits module when it comes out next month.

[Buying Shock Force digital download]

Bergerbitz ,

I noticed that your profile says you are not allowed to have interests so I am assuming that you are married but if you are ever up for having a beer and talking shop (military history or politics) I would be happy to oblige. I am allowed to leave the house for a non-work related outing once every few months. I sent you a private message with my email address.

[Buying Shock Force digital download]

Steve,

What kind of beer are you drinking for $15 a bottle?

I think atmosphere has a lot to do with it. When I lived in Japan, I loved the country and fell in love with the local beer "Asahi Super Dry". Still buy it on occasion. Then when I was in Halifax a few years ago, had a great time and loved the city and tried their local brew called "Alexander Keiths". Now that is all I drink.

The worst beer I ever tasted was "Maudite" from Quebec. Way to yeasty. Felt and tasted like I was eating uncooked bread.

A great site to see what you may want to try is http://www.tobp.com/

[CMSF for only CDN$5]

Why only $5 though. It would seem at that price, it cannot be making anyone any money. Not even the original publishers (or is Paradox a distributor?). For $5 it is the best deal out there and it may lead to people ordering the Marines expansion.

I recently joined a military book club and I will pass this copy of CMSF around and see if anyone is interested in it. My book selection will be "Arabs at War 1948-1991". This is just the type of group that is not necessarily interested in FPS games and may go for a more complex game like CM.

[CMSF for only CDN$5]

I found a copy of CMSF in a discount store (Giant Tiger) for CDN$5 (US$4) this weekend. I was astounded but I did end up buying it. This is my 3rd copy of CMSF and I keep buying them and passing them on.

In the past I have purchased 4 copies of CMBB and 4 of CMAK and out of the 5 people that I gave these to, 2 people now play CMSF and have purchased the marine module. I should be getting a commission for this.

Is there any rhyme or reason to this?

[CM Normandy screenshot 2: French Resistance]

OK, I have to throw this one out.

Q: Why is the Champs-Elysees lined with trees?

A: So the German army can march in the shade.

All joking aside, now the French Foreign Legion has got to be one of the best trained units in the world. Not only do they start as regular or veterans but the training they go through is pure hell. I watched a show on Discovery on their training in French Guiana and it puts others to shame.

[Help, information of kill stats, cowering etc.?]

Don't get me wrong. I understand that just because I find it difficult does not mean that BF does not have to change the paradigm (and do not shoot me for using that word ) for its game engine.

I said in another thread that just an indication that what I am doing was great, good, OK or bad (maybe with stars or colours or some other indication) instead of straight percentages might also work if that makes it easier but I have a feeling that if the game engine can do that, it can just as easily show the percentage.

It would be harder if the unit is armed with different weapons but it was done in some ways in CMx1 (e.g. units armed with Panzerfausts or grenade bundles and rifles) so I think it is doable again. There may then have to be different sorts of firing but they have already modeled this to some degree.

I also hope to see something in Normandy. But even though I am bad, I am still a sucker for this game. I will buy the Brits and the 3rd module and Normandy, and Bagaration. While I do not like everything about the game, it is evolving into something that I will enjoy and it is still one of the best games out there. We complain because we care. Apathy would be worse.

[Help, information of kill stats, cowering etc.?]

Other Means & MikeyD,

I understand that it is WYSIWYG but for some of us that have never been in the military (cadets does not count), we need a little more information than those that have been in the military would just take for granted. I also understand that everything is situationally dependent so someone in trees could have 50% cover from one direction but 0% from another in CMx2.

This is one of the problems for someone that is just looking for a game has with CMx2. In CMx1 if my men were in trees, I realised that this was an abstraction but I could assume that my men were making the best of the terrain that they were in to carry out the instructions they were given based upon the tactical training that they had received. I did not have to worry if Larry, Moe or Curly was each in the terrain, they would use the training to carry out the instructions. It was an abstraction but it allowed me to act as a commander and relieved me of the responsibility of having to instruct each individual soldier with the duties that they were to perform. I was not the squad leader but the commander of a company or battalion. The abstraction worked well (not great) for me to take on this role.

In CMx2, I do not have that layer of abstraction any more. It does make it more realistic but it also makes me have to try to micro-manage each individual unit and in some cases each individual soldier. What CMx1 did with abstraction, CMx2 has attempted to do with realism and then create computer code that each individual computer soldier uses to act as a real soldier.

In many ways the abstraction created more of a realistic feel for what it was like to be company/Battalion commander. They do not have to worry that one individual soldier refuses to get behind cover even though that was the order. In real life, that one soldier would want to get into cover. Using computer code, this folly is allowed to happen because you can never create enough computer code to handle all situations. So in some ways CMx2 is less realistic that CMx1. The CMx1 abstraction created realistic results for a commander even though it did not create realistic tactics. But the results were what mattered.

This is not the fault of Steve/Charles et al., it is based upon the assumption that computer code can be written that can create realistic results as well as realistic tactics (though I am using tactics in a more non-traditional sense of movement and placement of individual soldiers). One man no matter how talented cannot create computer code to take into account all situations, therefore abstractions are needed to compensate for the unobtainable. These abstractions therefore create a more realistic result due to lack of resources that it would take to get 1to1 representation and also accurate results.

What does this all have to do with having a screen hint for when we are targeting? Due to many peoples lack of knowledge of what a true battlefield would be like, we need abstractions so that I can act as a true company commander and not as a guy that was given responsibility of directing units into combat but whose real full-time job is running a university dept or working at 7-11. This person, my true self, would never be given this kind of responsibility because I have no intimate knowledge of what it all entails. But I am not seeking to simulate an office jockey directing combat units, I want to simulate being a company commander directing units into combat. Abstraction that yields correct results (or close to correct) is better for me so that I do not have to keep trying to get that one soldier into cover no matter how hard I try. I want that unit to take over (and use training that should be inherent to the unit) the responsibility of this from me so that I can enjoy the experience.

I will never play this game with much skill. I realise this even after playing CMBB/CMAK for the last 6 years. My PBEM score against random people is about 1-6-4. Not great. I also realise that many of you are very good at this and having served in the military has given you the insight of what is all needed to play this game. I will never have this and never will. I just want an enjoyable experience that I can play for a few hours on a weekend and come away feeling that I have had some fun. A little bit more abstraction for me = more fun.

So after all that, can I just have a little mouse-over telling me how much firepower I can direct against a unit and how effective it will be, even if it is not 100% realistic?

[Help, information of kill stats, cowering etc.?]

The complexity of the terrain is probably one of the reasons we do not get a picture in the UI anymore of what type of terrain the unit is occupying. It would be nice though as I never know what type of terrain my unit (or the enemy) is in or what type of cover/concealment bonuses the troops are receiving.

It would also be nice if I used my target command and could see what type of terrain I was firing into and have some sort of visual identification to show if it is truly worth firing or not. I liked the CMx1 visual of 62 firepower and 32% effectiveness due to terrain etc

If BF does not want to show the exact numbers, what about a hint. E,g, I use my targeting command and the visual identification shows “firepower-3 stars, enemy concealment-1 star, enemy cover-1 star, my effectiveness (morale, status, training) – 3 stars, overall effectiveness-2 stars” or what ever have you. It does not even have to be exact percentages but a way for some of us less able commanders to determine if it is a good thing to fire or not. Sometimes I have no idea what I am doing and do things I thing should be effective and are not.

An example of this was in Hammertime v2 - Syrian rifle squad in a 2nd floor firing at a US squad advancing towards the building at about 50 meters in what looked like open terrain. 2 minutes later all Syrians dead or wounded, only 1 US troop wounded. I thought this would be a good thing to fire on the US troops what they were advancing while in the open but apparently it was not. I had no visual clue to tell me that this was going to be all one sided.

[The road ahead... a recap]

dpabrams,

While you would like to see Fulda Gap, I would love to see 1950-53 Korea and we would each be willing to pay $100 for the pleasure.

That is the problem. Limited resources and time and who knows what the market is like for either. I am still hoping though that since there has been a derth of games based upon The Korean War that this will be considered. (And I am hoping that the possibility of expansion modules based upon additional countries will be a draw). I will not hold my breath though.

[The Blue Bar Returns!]

I think Steve and Charles should have ticked everyone off and made the bar green or red instead of blue. The hue and cry would have been loud and you would have had at least 5 people ask if they could somehow mod it to blue.

[The Blue Bar Returns!]

I would not go so far GSX in his thinking but I am very pleased with the update. It installed like a charm and so far everything seems to be working fine (I installed the Marine patch).I love the return of the blue bar. It makes it feel more familiar and friendly. I know this is all psychological but one works with the brain cells one is given (or lack there of). I think you put tremendous effort into this game and it shows and it is much appreciated. The game play is solid.

Now that we have a good stable engine, do you think we could start a thread of little things we would like to see added (and I do not mean a new QB module) with your thoughts of their feasibility? You could then shoot us down or tell us to wait until the next module to start looking for some goodies.

E.g. The UI to indicate the starting number of soldiers in a unit and a how many are incapacitated (now if dead they disappear)

[Version 1.11 information]

For those of us that initially bought the Paradox version and the subsequently bought the Marines module, will we have to wait for the Paradox version or can we just use the 1.11 for the Marine module.

I am assuming the latter.

150 changes, that is impressive.