[82]11Bravo1P

This will be my last reply for this particular post so you can have the last word. I like your points but your use of words that you percieve to be fancy in order to get your point across gets annoying. I read your other posts and you only do it to reenforce your points and your ego, but that's o.k. free country. Valley forge reinforces my original point and post, of resolve for troops to express themselves for their cause, no matter what that might be. And for the game to include the battle against not only the enemy but circumstance in its function. I happen to respect someone that would sacrifice for themselves and others. The Alamo defenders, regardless of their nationality, could have surrendered and then been summarily tortured by the Mexicans. My point is the sacrifice not the nationality. If your going to nitpick details stay to the subject. Dunkirk victim numbers are not known. It is estimated that 338,226 Frence, Belgian, and British men were saved on the shallow shore of Dunkirk. It is unkown how many sacrificed themselves against overwhelming odds and fear and ended up half buryed in the sand. What is known is that it was a devistating loss during a time of panic, regarless of what British propeganda reported. The planes still bombed the snot out of them and infantry still held as long as possible against tanks. As per my original subject matter for this post. Twist it however you like. I used my quote exactly how you took it. My point here is not to dispute or try to sound intelligent about history. I have a degree and a job to do that. (As my profile says.) I am sure your gaming skill are as stellar as your scrable vocabulary. I only play with close friends and the computer. But if your pogrom didn't work against my troops I would definately use a classic purge. Why waste time on the battlefield when you can eliminate the head in the middle of the night in secret. All in fun of course.

Of course your right. Suffering and fighting beyond all hope for a cause is stupid. Just like Valley Forge, the Alamo, Dunkirk...so that this nation shall not perish from the earth. Be right back I need to get my drum and flowers and I will join you on the corner.

I like your reply but obviously you have never been in a combat arms unit or even recognize the brutality of the subject in which this game engages. I saw combat in Somalia and Iraq and if you think fighting injured, no gore, and innocents are not part of war then I think your either extremely niave or a democrat. The idea of making war a game is to challenge the thought process of killing your enemy without engaging in a dangerous activity. It is what is left out of most games that creates a false image that war is an honorable, heroic campaign ever time. It is not. It is the dirtiest, do whatever you need to do to save yourself and your buddy activity on the planet. The tone of your reply would suggest I am a warmonger but I recognize, through experience, the difference between war and a game unlike these kids you see shooting people and blaming it on video games. Shoot me in the leg with your buddy's 9mm and I would still walk to the end of the earth until my leg fell off to save my buddies (that is what the infantry is all about), but I have a feeling my squad, platoon, hell anybody in uniform would take care of you shooting me before I even hit the ground. Not Bears, go Steelers!

This may sound strange but I do this to get better tactically and I learn more from losing most of the time than stomping my enemy into the ground every time. Many of the battles planned, especially by the allies after 1944, were specifically designed for the axis to have no chance of winning and as few casualties as possible (European front) via overwhelming troops, supplies, etc. I would like to see a few scenarios specifically designed for the player to lose by attrition and not by better or more stuff. The ability to give your enemy a 200% advantage in men and equipment doesn't start them out in a strategically better position and can be overcome. The honor would be to see how long a player could last and how well he could get his troops to perform until killed or captured. Weather (mud, cloud cover, cold) directly affecting the troops would be great in scenarios like this. Stalingrad, or the fortress town of Metz would be the perfect example of futility for maps. I know there are a few maps from CMBO, BB, AK that give big advantages but not really the attrition and struggle over a time frame that make heroic action really heroic. Imagine starvation, frostbite, and constant pounding from the air affecting your troops as much as the attacks. Make the scenario impossible to win, but find the small victory in holding to the last man. I know gamers hate to lose, especially to the A.I., but I like the idea of bad weather, no food, supply, and hope. Only then do you find out what your leaders and troops are really capable of.

Howdy all!! I might be a relatively moderate CM player but I love the game so I thought I might drop my measly opinion at the paws of the rabid dogs of the forums. (I am sure you have all heard it before but ah well.) I am ex-paratrooper infantry and rarely play human opponents so this is what I would like to see in an all ready great sounding next generation Combat Mission game. 1. The ability for individual units (or larger) to carry over with experience or rank to the next campaign or mission. At the end of some battles I hate to lose that infantry squad that held the line at all costs. Throw in the ability to name units and for them to keep medals and decorations would endear me even moreso to my brothers in arms. Keep the heroes alive. 2. The ability for Russian units to shoot deserters, a.k.a. broken units. Or, SS squads for Germans on the Eastern front and Berlin. Hey, Russians have the equally inhumane "humane wall" so why not? One shot to the head and that solves panic for the rest of the squad. 3. I read this and I just wanted to confirm. Be the first game that has justifiable civilians/partisans/innocents in the field of battle. Too-cool. 4. Co-op, with mixed national forces. Such as german led Italians, or British led Canadians. The Huge maps with full Battallians are too large for me to play but if I could have a friend take the armor and I was in charge of the infantry it would make it alot more manageable. 5. Perhaps too much to ask for but Navy, off shore bombardments, hood vs. bizmark, etc. Ah, just an idea. 6. Gore. C'mon somebody had to say it. 7. Medic units. You are either alive or dead, which seems horribly inacurate, but where is the injured? Medics could scour the battlefield reviving the wounded that are so desperately needed back in the fight. Ever send that squad through the woods on the flank that just barley didn't make it. With a medic along they might have. Set up a field hospital for those long engagements with squads being able to retreat for a while then re-engage. 8. Keep the WWII theme for the next generation!!!!!!!! Well, that's my initial thought process. Hopefully it wasnt reduntant from previous posts. See you on the battlefield. Not that one, combat mission.