Kineas

I can really recommend you the book from Ungvary. I think that's the best book on the topic (in any language).

thanks

+1 for more info on wego mode.

VASSAL is a software engine for tabletop games. http://www.vassalengine.org/

If you worried about dirty bombs, check this . Or wikipedia. In essence, dirty bombs aren't that dangerous as you read in the media.

The thing to keep in mind here is that BF2 doesn't really simulate anything. It's an arcade shooter, through and through. A good one, to be sure, but that's irrelevant for our purposes. Battlefront could slap on a hardcoded 'if stryker hits T-72, stryker = destroyed, T-72 = gun damage' collision model, but that'd make the game less realistic, not more. </font>

This is doable in the 3d world, e.g. Battlefield 2 can simulate 'ramming' damage, against vehicles and against soldiers. But I can understand if it's not at the top of their todo list. T34s running over AT guns were so common that it's simulated even in CMx1. I guess for the WWII version we will see some solution.

You might want to take a look at this . I think such an effect exists physically, but practically has no use and I'm sure it won't be modeled. I suspect steel would behave like plastic in that situation, but nobody knows about moder armor alloys.

I'll probably give the realtime mode a try, but wego is the final choice. The two are fundamentally different. Wargames and (non-pausable)realtime games engage totally different sections in your brain. I'm still sceptical about the realtime gameplay. Just because the engagement ranges are longer and the pace is slower it doesn't mean the whole thing won't revolve around action per minutes. This is not a simulator, there is no such a role in the battlefield what the player would take, as pointed out earlier. But realtime mode will be fine to conduct smaller battles and to learn the game mechanics. What really interests me is that where's the balance in the design and in the gui between the two game modes.

"For small arms, each bullet is tracked, including physics effects such as ricochets off of walls and penetration capabilities." Great, I never heard this mentioned before. "First of all, most of what I just described is happening under the hood. The player is not confronted with this myriad of details during gameplay unless he chooses to." Can we hear about the concept on how to get the myriad of details? This sounds very promising to me.

No they don't. That's why we will have the good old wego. 2 games in 1.

Well, you made me realize such a feature is a must in a realistic, 3d wargame. Maybe you will make me realize it's not that inevitable in a 3d mesh world...

erm...does this mean the Shift-C functionality no longer works? Or you just meant the 1:1 representation of units?

My post was just overtaken. There's already a "Horizon range" feature in CMx1, you could play on big maps like that with a small (1000 or 500m) visibility range. Just a guess. And when you zoom in, it's possible to increase the range, so you can see and select the target etc.

Ok, what's the truth then? I almost believed the 16km^2 version, which is enough for a decent blue vs blue game.

that's a cool game actually, now it's available on the net for free

Thanks, I knew that the design is oriented to the lower levels, but I didn't know the price for the 1:1 representation was such a setback in scope. Anyway, we will see how scalable it is.

Is it sure? Maybe the scenarios will cover only company sized operations, but the new generation engine itself can handle the multi-battalion battles I suppose...

It's well worth reading.

Because the manual that comes with the game won't be a bunch of colored bars We actually WANT people to look at CM and not be hit over the head, punched in the gut, and kicked in the ass by the true complexity and realism of the game. We had that philosophy in CMx1, but erred more on the Grog side than we probably should have. We scared away people for sure with all that stuff. This is not something we wish to repeat. Steve </font>

I have no problem with the Syrian scenario. If well researched (and it is) and well presented it will be a good basis for a game. Asymmetric, nonlinear warfare. Hopefully the Syrian side will attract enough players too. It's just that I'd want sooner a Cold War scenario than Space Lobsters. But I want Space Lobsters too /what's the chance of pinning down a Hydralisk?/ As for the wargamer niche vs mass market question...I trust in you that you can keep this product line alive (and make nice profit of it) and we'll keep getting quality wargames in 3D. But don't really count on the casual players, even Armed Assault is on the verge.

Thanks for the bone, it looks pretty.

I already pointed this out in another topic. If something is quantitative it should have a corresponding number on the UI too. It's easier to compare numbers (or refer to them in AARs). The color of the font can carry another piece of info, like it was in CMx1. But the decision probably has been made about it. Btw, if we are at the subject, I saw on the beta screenshots ammo quantities like this '.50 cal mg >1k'. This is a space sparing form, it's even nice. But doesn't provide all the information it could. E.g. if the ammo count changed to 1460 from 1480 I know my tank fired during the turn. It's just an example. Bars, colors and charts can't substitue numbers, there's a tradeoff involved.

...maybe in CMx2:WWII