GrognardFortyPlus

That may be true, but it seems pretty clear the projectiles get all their kinetic energy during the explosive (or whatever) firing process. I can accept the futuristic weapons being internally capable of supplying the necessary combustion (or whatever) to achieve the acceleration of the shell. Firing in a fluid environment is not a problem. The problem involves fluid dynamics interaction between projectile and environment. If changes in atmospheric pressure can affect the projectile, then the introduction of a fluid environment will have signicant effects on the projectile. If shells are travelling through a fluid it begs the question, what model is being used in the fluid environment and how does it reconcile against vapor environments?

A couple of items: 1. Recommend the default setting for cross hair positioning remain wherever they are at the time the fire mission is requested (ctrl f). I have found myself setting the crosshairs on my target BEFORE calling the mission. Once the mission is called, the crosshairs reset to source. If you don't notice, and click....you just fragged yourself. 2. On heavy mortar if you switch ammo while one round is in flight I've noticed sometimes I blow up. Teamkill myself.

It also gave the green American troops some experience.

I liked the way COS handled it. Instead of stength point losses during bombardment (and even air attacks), units would take a temporary hit on morale. Remember, morale is more than just "morale". It represents unit cohesivness and what not. That way you use bombardment and air in a manner more realistic for the time. Bombard and Bomb to soften up the defenses (lower morale equates to lower defense value). Then the ground forces move in and do the real damage. In COS, as best I can remember, you could never bombard or bomb a unit to destruction.

FYI for everyone who keeps wondering why no one knows ship dates. There are lots of factors that are simply unknowable when things go to production like this. Germany may have been faster because the designated "lot" was smaller (quicker run) or larger (high priority run). There can be glitches in production (that's why fulfillment centers pad their guarantees). The approach here is "ship when ready", which maximizes the time received, but does not get it to everyone at the same time due to production variances. Battlefront could adopt a "Release day", but that would entail holding "ready to ship" product until all production centers finish their builds. Would you rather have a drop dead CERTAIN ship date of 1 May, or a "sometime the first two weeks in April"?

Thanks Hubert! Ike, no loaded question. I do not do C (or any of its incarnations). I've toyed with Delphi, VB (pre .Net), RealBasic and a few others, but none have impressed me to the point of jumping in full bore and running up the learning curve. I noticed Eiffel a while back, but the price tag was outside my budget. They recently announced a "dual licensing" approach which allows the little guy (like me) full run of their platform for personal (non commercial) or open source use, FREE of charge! I checked out their presentations and am very impressed with the product. It's always good to get an independent view from a developer. I noticed the Eiffel logo on the SC2 credits and thought I would get some feedback. The point about DirectX was very informative too. Lastly, given the design philosophy embedded in the Eiffel product, it bodes well for the stability of SC2 as a software product in general. Thanks, Hubert. Hope this isn't too much off topic.

Just wondering if Hubert might share a few words on his experience with the Eiffle development environment as it relates to the development of SC2?

Morale is more than just "morale". It also represents unit cohesivness. This is very similar to the way Clash of Steel operated, which I have said on many occassions is a very good model. COS even had the morale hit when dumping a unit using strategic movement. Again a nice model reflecting the loss of combat effectivness following strategic positioning. It's nice to see SC2 implementing those concepts. Not becasue COS had them, but simply because the concept is a solid model representing what happens at the strategic level.

So, how did it go? England basically out, but now faced against France, USA, and USSR?

This is so classic. I couldn't have made it up if I tried. Oh how the Inmate can take and twist his insanity into reality. The inmate uses what he or she likes as the definition of sane? This isn't about what the Inmate likes, it's about understanding why sane people have different expectations than insane people. Of course, if you are an inmate, you will have a very difficult time understanding this. The user interface isn't about pushing a particular interface on the end user, it's about developing a user interface that meets the user's needs. For those who haven't caught on, Inmate and Insane or metaphors for those people (often highly educated and technically oriented) who have a drastically different expectations of how technical gizmos (to include software programs) should work. I can't describe it here, but if you read the book, "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" you will understand. Well, you will understand if you aren't an Inmate. Inmates are problematic. Try telling someone that is insane that they are insane. We're talking about brain wiring that is different. I can say this with a certain level of authority because I was an Inmate for thirty some years. I have escaped, and I now see it from the perspective of the other "sane" users. I also know that no matter how much I try and explain the insanity to those who remain inmates, a large percentage will never become sane. Take me back 15 years, and I would be tearing this post apart. Just RTFM dammit. It's not that difficult...yada yada yada. Been there. Done that. As my metaphor suggests, if the drug (i.e., gameplay) is worth it, the Inmate is willing to bang his head against the the padded interface wall until he gets the desired drug (i.e., gameplay). In fact, some Inmates not only find the drug worth it, but may actually find joy in banging their head against the interface wall as well. Seriously! I don't think I will find joy banging my head against the wall, but I suspect the hit I get from the drug will make it worth it. At end of day, my point is we should not be blasting folk like Sandy for finding the interface lacking. It is a good assessment for sane gamers. Now, we inmates....well.....we don't find it that bad now.

There are those who demand better user interfaces and there are apologists. Sandy, don't get discouraged by the apologists. You are dead on in your interface assessment. Everyone defending the interface...well...they are apologists...and perhaps a wee bit insane (read more) Now, to be fair to Hubert, he is not in the minority when it comes to these things. This is par for the course for development efforts such as this. As for the apologists, they are par for the course as well. They can't see it, and it will take years (if ever) to bring them to the light. The more technical background a person has have, the more they are blinded by it. Two good books to read will pretty much sum it up, both by Alan Cooper. "The Inmates are Running the Asylum" "About Face: The Essentials of User Interface Design". If you are not technically inclinded, read the Inmate book. It will all make sense. Those who do programming, read the Interface book. Sandy, I have an MSEE and have written my share of computer programs. I am now 42 years old. I was an inmate most of my life...and yes, I was running the asylum. RTFM was my mantra. I had little patience with those who would not "scale the interface mountain" to the nirvana of enlightenment. Keep in mind, geeky types actually LIKE the gizmos, and cannot fathom why there are those who would find fault with such a masterpiece. I finally escaped that asylym in my late 30s, thanks to Mr. Cooper. But I live with them everyday. Read the books, everyone. Sandy, you will be vindicated. Everyone else....you will either see the light and escape...or, as the saying goes, in order for an insane person to become sane they must be sane. Having said all that, I will regress into my insanity for a moment and note that given the target audience includes a good share of the technically inclined grognard elite, I suspect there will be a fair share of apoligists playing this game. If that's the target audience, then at end of day, perhaps the interface is fine. Inmates don't mind banging their head on the padded cell of the interface. Even this escaped inmate may sneak back into the asylum, and subject myself to the self-inflict interface pain....because if I bang my head really really hard....I'll eventually get the drugs (get into the game) that makes the pain all the worth while....yea....maybe even enjoyable. -Signed- GrognardFortyPlus Escaped Inmate

Assuming the program is "installed" by an Administrator on a particular PC, can a user with Restricted Rights on the same PC run the program? If not, can a specific user install it as Adminstrator and then play it as Restricted User?

Clash of Steel had (has) the best strategic level supply model I've ever seen in a strategic game. Period. I was dissapointed SC1's model didn't measure up to it. I hope SC2's model at least makes it in the ballpark.

Companies put out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) all the time detailing the services they need. Companies reply with a proposal that states how they will meet the request, along with production and labor rates. Fullfillment is a competitive market. If you can do for $2.00 what everyone else does for $8.00, then you pretty much can corner the market and become a millionare in a few years....or less. You bid $7.00 while the competition bids $8.00. Assuming you can actually deliver on what you promise, you can clear $5.00 of profit on every sale. On a run of 10,000 units you could net $50K. Get a couple of contracts like that a year, and rake in a few $100K a year. You will be a millionare in a few years! From sports, to card games, to business...the world is loaded with people who say they can do it better than those out there actually doing it. 99.99% of the time it's just a bunch of hot air being blown by armchair know-it-alls who talk big but don't know squat...about the sport...or the game.....or the business. I'm not saying you are one of the 99.99%. You could be part of the 0.01% of people who actually have a better idea, and can actually change the business (Fred Smith-Federal Express......Bill Gates-Microsoft). In fact, I hope you are one of the 0.01% who know what they're talking about. It would be neat to see the fullfillment industry get turned upside down by the rambo wonder. You would do a great service to this community....Wow....only $2.00 for shipping (makes Battlefront and their customers happy). There are not many folks who pass up the opportunity to make a million bucks. So do it! I'll take my hat off to you for actually backing up what you say. But if all you can do is sit back and say you can do it better and cheaper than everyone else, while doing nothing. Well, you're just one of a million other wanabees who are either too stupid in their genius to take advantage of it, or just plain stupid.

Yeah, and while you're at it, price out a server setup, complete with order tracking and labeling software, and offsite backup or even RAID type capability. It should also include a highly reliable database, for order tracking and follow-up. And it must be able ot handle issues related to fees and what not for overseas sales. Throw in insurance and bonding, along with a GUARANTEEED service level. Oh, and you'll need X number of phone lines to be able to handle multiple customer calls. And you will need an email heiarchy to handle customer emails. And did I mention the need to staff the phones, and read/reply to the emails and/or correspond about mistyped credit card numbers, both with the customer and the credit card company. You have to be able to handle "return to senders", lost packages, challenges to billing, etc. Now throw in the overhead and salaries. You get the picture. You can "Mom and Pop" a certain volume of sales at a relatively low duty cycle. Once you reach a certain volume at a high duty, the Mom and PoP approach just falls apart.