ClarkWGriswold

I wasn't sure if that was really possible or practical given the way CMx2 handles terrain, all the different terrain types, and the grass/flowers/etc that gets overlaid. I always liked grids in CMx1 though. It made seeing dips and undulations SO much easier.

Is there any way to un-bind the mouse buttons? Or to change the default behavior of the mouse to behave more as I describe above? I'd like to try out "moving" the camera with the keys and "looking" the camera with the mouse (no buttons pressed). edit: It would also be awesome if I could bind the spacebar's behavior to the right mouse button.

If I may offer a suggestion for CMx3: Don't rely on mouse buttons to determine the behavior of the camera. In pretty much every RTS or 3D strategy game I've ever played, and also in most sims that have an external camera, the mouse controls the pitch and yaw of the camera while four keys control forward, backward, and strafing left/right. This allows you to fly along, turning this way and that to see what you need to see. It's easy to strafe back and forth across the battlefield and you can change how much you're looking up/down just by moving the mouse while you strafe. This kind of control is fairly standard in a lot of games, and it's very easy and intuitive to control. But beyond being easier to control, it offers a big, big advantage over the current system: The mouse buttons aren't always in use! The current control system requires you to press the mouse buttons in order to orient the camera. Which means you can't use it for issuing orders. You have to move the camera to where you want, stop, then issue the order. You can't pre-select an order, then fly across the map and click it where you want, because as soon as you click a mouse button to orient the camera you've either de-selected the order you were going to give or you've given the order where you didn't mean to. Taking the mouse buttons out of the equation frees up the user to get more things done with less effort. Also, if you make the default behavior of the mouse to change the pitch/yaw, you no longer need two sets of mouse controls (move and "look"). You can easily move either using the screen edges or four keys. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. It would probably be fairly trivial to implement something like this before moving on from the CMx2 engine, I'd imagine. Just make the default behavior of the mouse act like the right button is pressed and allow the arrow keys to move forward/back and strafe left/right. If you can implement this and make the controls even reasonably smooth, I think it would be a huge, huge improvement to the control scheme (and would free up at least two keys *and* both mouse buttons).

Not sure how much work it would be, but I think this is a great suggestion for the first .1 patch. It's obvious that a lot of us would find it useful, and it would keep the interface clean and uncluttered (though I plan on using those colored firearm icons for sure).

Not only can you have random map selection and random weather, but there's also a "No preview" option for viewing the map prior to unit purchase. So, you can get randomly chosen forces (or hand picked) on a randomly chosen map (or hand picked) with randomly chosen weather (or specified). Lots and lots of options. The details about these options are on Pg. 51-53 of the CMBN manual.

Would CMx2 be better with auto-generated maps? Of course. But only if the auto-generated maps were of decent quality. They weren't great quality in CMx1, and CMx2 is vastly more complex. The number of terrain types, building types, etc. is much, much higher in CMx2. Not to mention the addition of flavor objects, the much higher resolution terrain, the need for AI plans, etc. It's a huge undertaking. So, yes, it would be GREAT if CMx2 had a way to auto-generate good quality, playable maps. If you can somehow find a way to fund the programming talent required to make this happen, I'm sure BFC would be open to your proposal.

They said the game wouldn't be out this Friday, but the demo might be. Doubtful, but possible.

Google Maps also has topo maps, and they seem to work quite well and are quicker for me than Google Earth's. There's also the "shaded polygon" method that's been discussed for use in Google Earth. If you do that, you probably don't need to worry about topo maps at all.

Sounds like they work for S.H.I.E.L.D. No wonder it's taken so long for CMBN. They're so busy saving the world, there's no time left to do game design. I wonder if Tony Stark might be of some help here?

There's an idea I can get behind. Seriously.

No. It's really not. Frankly, most generated maps in CMBO and CMBB, uh... suck. They look and play nothing like a real world location. Everyone I know who plays CMx1 finds user made maps far, far more realistic and enjoyable. Force selection for quick battles has been completely revamped for CMBN, which should address those gripes. You can now pick your own forces and/or enemy forces, just like CMx1. Sure, it's easy to make a new map in CMx1 with just a few clicks. It won't be a good map, but it'll be one you haven't seen before. Yes, making AI plans for the maps is more time consuming, but it pays off because the AI behaves much better and more realistically. Making an AI that can attack and defend well, without some sort of human intervention, is extremely difficult. CMx1 suffered for it. From what I've seen so far, CMx2 doesn't have the same issues, thanks mostly to AI plans. If you play against a human you don't even have to worry about all of this stuff, and can make a map almost as easily as in CMx1 (a good map, not the random generated crap). We've been told that the game ships with 300+ maps that can be used for quick battles. You can play as both sides, and most scenarios will probably have multiple AI plans to make them more replayable. That should keep you busy for quite a long time. It's pretty much a guarantee that the community will be cranking out even more quality maps shortly after release, and you'll get even MORE maps with each expansion module. I don't think you're going to have to look too hard or spend much time to find quality scenarios to play. In fact, you'll probably have to try fairly hard to avoid seeing them!

I have Friday off from work. Release the demo by Friday or the dog gets it!

Speaking as a fellow firearm enthusiast, I'd love to see a comparison picture. I keep a bunch of different pistol and rifle rounds for guns I don't even own just so I can ogle them and compare. But most of what I have is American or Russian. Other than 9mm Parabellum and 9mm Kurz I don't have anything German as a comparison.

So, if they're 30 minutes behind we all have to wait an extra 23 hours and 30 minutes? That's gotta be the worst idea I've ever heard. I'd rather refresh every 5 minutes than wait an extra day! Perhaps it's time to unleash my secret weapon:

That's what I did for the CMSF demo. I remapped all of the move, target, etc. keys - the ones that are used constantly - to be more like CMx1. Then I just left commands to split squads, dismount, etc., unmapped. This system work work quite well if the arrows could be better used for navigation and if I could move seldom used commands like "bail out" and "dismount" onto a single menu. That way I'd have keyboard and mouse control for movement, hotkeys for all of the commands I use most, and one clickable menu for everything else. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be a big step up.

I've already complained about this issue twice. So, I'll hold my tongue this time and just say: +1

Because most people feel it simply doesn't make for a fun game. The Pacific theater was mostly hopping from island to island, removing well dug-in defenders like ticks on a hound. There's little variation in climate, terrain, tactics, etc. Every mission would be taking a bunch of Marine infantry and flamethrowers, along with the occasional tank, and taking out pillbox after fortified pillbox. No matter how much you like the Pacific theater, it would get old after about the fifth try.

I agree with a lot of what yllamana has said. A lot of the gripes I have with CMSF (I've only bothered with the demo) and CMBN (judging from AARs and facts iterated on this forum) are the same ones he has. The keyboard movement controls are more than awkward and the change to "relative hotkeys" adds confusion and unnecessary keystrokes. The UI is also cluttered and confusing. Additionally, there's no guided walkthrough or tutorial in the CMSF demo, which turns off a lot of people. Despite those fairly significant issues, I'm very much looking forward to CMBN. But probably only because I know how good CMBO/CMBB are. I know that despite it's shortcomings, it is likely to be the best game of its kind on the market. Probably for several years to come, in fact. I also agree that CMBN can appeal to a lot more people than many give it credit for. I'm definitely not a "wargamer". I own flight and sub sims and first person shooters, but no other tactical or strategic war games outside of CMBO/CMBB. My friends that play CMBB are the same. They don't own any other war "board games" (computer based or otherwise). Despite not being "war gamers", the CM titles appeal to us. But the steep learning curve and control idiosyncrasies of the CMx1 games drove me away for a long time. It took me several tries and two years of sitting on the shelf before I came to grips with CMBB. If it weren't for my extreme stubbornness, I probably would have just filed it away in a box somewhere, and my friends certainly never would have bothered to give it a try. In fact, they probably would not have even heard of it. I'm just rambling now, but I guess my point is: This game could appeal to a lot more mainstream audience with just a few changes. Nothing that would water down the "simulation" experience, and nothing that would compromise what the game is. Just a little more hand holding at first, and a more standardized control scheme would go a long way. A company could come out with the best first-person shooter ever created, but if there's no training level (one that guides you; not one that requires following along in the manual) and if the control scheme is totally different from Halo, CoD, etc., it's going to be an uphill fight to get players to accept it.

Pg. 120: Tip: Too avoid jagged riverbanks, set the riverbank tiles.... "Too" should read "To".

In CMBO/CMBB you can setup an artillery barrage on the first command turn and delay the time to arrive using the Q key. This gives you the advantage of having rounds fall on-target, while also giving some flexibility in timing. I was just reading the pre-planned artillery section of the CMBN manual and it doesn't mention the ability to delay the barrage at all. Is it possible in CMBN to delay artillery for several turns, or does artillery that's directed on the very first turn always arrive immediately?

Even the CMx1 games let you play with more than one person per side. You just can't play against the AI this way. But it's relatively trivial to setup a PBEM game with 2-on-1 or 2-on-2 play.

The Germans were shooting both regular HE artillery and smoke shells. The former made big brown dust clouds that dissipated rather quickly. The latter made large white smoke screens that hung around and blew according to wind direction and strength. edit: Here's a picture that clearly shows the difference. A minute or two after this the dust is more or less gone (it was raining in the VAAR) but the white smoke persists and drifts with the wind.

This is the part that's really getting me. You're basically saying that hiding behind a truck (or tank) offers no concealment at all, correct? It may offer cover, but no concealment. Is that correct? I'm not concerned with gamey-ness. I just want to know under what circumstances vehicles block LOS and/or LOF. Since it doesn't really work like reality, I want to make sure I understand so that I can effectively use my units. This is what I've gathered so far: 1) Friendly vehicles never block LOS/LOF for other friendly vehicles. 2) Operable enemy vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from friendly vehicles. 3) Non-smoking KO'd vehicles do not block LOS/LOF for friendly or enemy vehicles. 4) Non-smoking KO'd vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from any unit as long as the targeted unit is not a vehicle (ie: tank shooting at infantry or infantry shooting at infantry) 5) Smoking vehicles block LOS and LOF. 6) "Vehicles" means tanks, SP guns, and AT/Anti-personnel guns. Does that about sum it up?

I don't think that is correct. It seems to me that vehicles are treated as an obstruction (both visually and physically) unless one vehicle is targeting another. Of course, if I were certain I wouldn't have asked more questions. Yes, that part is clear LOF or LOS? That part is NOT so clear. I believe that the entire reason for this whole conundrum stems from the way that vehicles (tanks and SP guns, specifically) target other vehicles. Since they aim for center of mass, they seem to be unable to compensate for only being able to see a small portion of an enemy vehicle (a live tank poking out partially from behind a dead one, for example). The TacAI would simply shoot for "center of mass" over and over, always hitting the dead vehicle instead of the intended target. Infantry seemingly don't pose this problem, so you can treat a dead vehicle as a physical object which blocks both LOS and LOF between a vehicle and any non-vehicle unit, with neither one being able to see through the tank. Even then, it would seem that a round of sufficient energy could go through the dead vehicle and hit the infantry behind in at least two circumstances: 1) The unit doing the shooting can see guys who aren't totally concealed behind the dead vehicle, and their shot just happens to hit the dead vehicle, and 2) A unit is shooting at something completely different, but a stray shot hits the dead vehicle and penetrates clear through. Again, this is totally supposition on my part because I'm really not sure how it works. I'm just guessing based on the available info.

Thanks for the clarification, Steve. That helps clear things up. Just one more thing, if you could please: How does this apply to infantry, tank guns, and non-vehicle units? Let's say I've got a dead Sherman (not smoking) and I sneak a squad of infantry up behind it. Will an enemy Panzer be able to see my troops through the Sherman? Will an enemy Panzer be able to shoot small arms fire through the Sherman at my troops (even if he's aiming at something else)? Will an enemy Panzer be able to shoot AT/HE rounds through the Sherman at my troops, since they are not a vehicle target? Will the Sherman block the effects of a mortar landing on the opposite side? It seems as though dead vehicles ONLY allow shots to go through them if the intended target of those shots is another vehicle, but I want to make sure I understand completely.