Childress

Ha,ha. A classic!

So what are we gaining?

The reason I posed those questions is that, to the best of my knowledge, CM is unlike the extant games that use SOPs. TacOps and the Panther Games use 'counters' and very coarse grained maps. They lack the granularity characteristic of CM terrain and the 1:1 format. Instructing, for example, a unit to 'retreat' in CM requires greater specificity than in those two sims; there's much less abstraction. You'd need another level of instructions. So the implementation of SOP routines would pose more of a challenge, requiring a lot of additional coding and a comprehensive UI re-design.

With ANY enemy unit? And retreat where?

That's almost certainly true.

If the net effect is greater simplicity, transparency and realism then I'm for it. But user friendliness is essential if we don't want to confine the game to the hardest of the hardcore. I don't argue that in the realm of unit reactions finer tuning could be achieved. We can be certain that there have been internal debates on the subject.

Panzer Command from Matirx? The CM wannabe with the moribund forum? And I don't believe going open source would be in to Battlefront's long term financial interest. And we do want them to prosper. Right?

And TacOps was a smash hit? Have you ever tried to interest a friend in CM? Even a friend with some WW2 knowledge? I have. We're accustomed to the density; for an outsider it can be damn intimidating. Even CM1x. So I question the wisdom of adding another layer of user options on to an already complex game however useful they seem. I could think of another half dozen movement commands for that matter. And they'd be practical. Or formations. Doubtlessly so has BF. Doesn't make them desirable.

You have 1.10 installed? Haven't suffered a visit from the OOM alien since then.

Are you serious or kidding? At any rate, this downsizing issue and consequent trauma is BF's fault. They potty trained their customers in the past to expect games of massive scope (viz. CMBB) followed by diligent patching. It's like the All-You-Can-Eat joint which has been demolished and replaced by a haute cuisine French affair. Great for most of us. But some long for the joy of piling up their plates with Swedish meatballs for 5.99. I find it odd that wargames that feature *a single battle* don't seem to attract the same kind of flak.

Because they feel the game is complicated enough as is? This is an enhancement they seem to prefer to implement by refining the TacAI. They've learned when to say 'no'.

Yes! But maybe without FOW properties.

Everyone was so stoked about the screenshots they neglected to check out the list of new vehicles and formations. Like the Blackshirt Battalion. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=298&Itemid=511

It can still work, but that's mostly right. There's a chance the enemy will penetrate deep into the arc before reaction is triggered. I wish there were two states: 1- Hiding (kissing the ground hidden, virtually invisible) 2- Hiding with a Cover Arc (a bit less less hidden, slightly higher risk of detection) In both states the members of a unit will 'peek'. But in state#2 the unit would always open fire if the Arc is violated. I seem to recall that CMAK and CMBB functioned this way.

OK, here's my bugaboo: Low Bocage tiles with no or rare gaps. Some map makers are *still* doing this. Also how painful is it to plop down a Dirt tile to distinguish openings in either High or Low Bocage?

Modders and scenario makers will need to pay close attention to their nomenclature when the upgrades come out. Will confusion reign? "'Montgomery Attacks!' Version 2.1 for CMBN 2.0, MG Module only, *NOT* for CMFI/CW 1.0" Just noticed: I have 800 posts! 1000 more and I'll be closing in on Steve, Emrys and Dorosh.

He's not listening to us, Erwin.

The HQ effect in my little test was NOT subtle. Remember a player is often obligated on defense to deploy widely separated teams, well out of command. Isolated units need some ability to withstand pressure.from the attacker. If the HQ effect is too extreme this strategy would be useless.

Kind of hellish to code such behavior, don't you think? Maybe the upcoming Armor Arc will alleviate these issues.

The squads were identical, Regulars. Although the one with the functioning HQ no doubt benefited from that unit being Veteran.

I re-ran my old test but changing the parameter to Allied vs Allied. One side had an HQ, with a short cover arc, the other side no HQ, or rather a HQ hidden behind a building. The 3 squads faced off against 3 squads over a low stone wall at 500m. Equal morale. Ran it five times. The non-HQ side got creamed each time; more casualties, more broken squads. Never mind!

Yes, but. If I understand the new enhanced spotting system correctly we should be seeing three levels of identification: the actual unit, a grayed out symbol (as in CMBN 1.1), and a symbol + question mark. No? I see two levels in the screenshot.

I think you may be on to something. Sometimes during play I wonder if HQ units have *any* influence on fire, ambushing or morale. Spotting, yes- I think. I ran some desultory, non-scientific tests a while back and found zero effect on those three states. This subject is worthy of investigation by an energetic poster.

That TRP looks like it's sitting in the ideal spot for a smoke screen.

Depending on distance, it was doctrine to fire on tanks with small arms to make them button up. So this problem, if indeed it's a problem, could be problematical to 'fix'. BF has adjusted this behavior already but Steve is on record as refusing to eliminate it all completely.