Glubokii Boy

Looks good with thoose add-on plates... Are they for looks only or will they help protect against hand-held nasties...?

The forum as a whole is VERY inactive right now...close to nothing being posted by anyone unfortunatelly... If that was not them case i'm sure you would get far more support for your suggestion... Probably alot of guys who would like a WW1 game...

Atleast this could be added by a scenario designer...

Yepp... But what i would like even more...a toggle-state to get ridd of the intact windows... Looks really out of place in a bombed out city...

It would require quite the effort on the part of BFC to give you all that though...If they could do it fairly easy...then by all means...go ahead and do it...and I would buy it ! ... But how long has it taken them to complete ONE year of the WESTERN front during WW2 ? 10 years or something like that (CMBN to the final modul of CMFB) ... Granted...a WW1 game would probably be faster to develop due to less complicated TOEs if nothing else...far fewer vehichles to design etc...but how much faster ? 3 times ? 4 times ? To include the early year fluid battles, the other fronts appart from the western, the later years to allow for some armour...etc, etc... It would mean lots and lots of work...taking MANY years to complete....or should they perhaps only do a 1918 game and forgett about the rest ? Or do you see WW1 as a CM3 game CM2 has been around for a long time now and Imo they still have a lot of things left in WW2 to complete before CM3 comes around To namne one...the eastern front ... I agree with you though that it would be nice to try something different... The current WW2 games are pretty simular A Sherman tank is still a Sherman tank regardless of if it has a red or a white star painted on it...and a Tiger is still a Tiger regardless of if its fighting in France, Italy or Russia... Therefore i think it would be a good idea if BFC could skip staight to Barbarossa and go forward from there...instead of taking small steps backwards from 44 to 43 to 42... The change of equipment will be to small this way to feel completally fresh...and something new... A skip straight to 41 though would allow us to try something new... As would north africa... Not doing a WW1 game is obviously a personal prefrence....i would much more prefer that they concentrated on WW2 compared to devoting time to a completally new multi year, multi front game that would souk up precious resorces... Their current releaserate is simply to slow to embark on such a project imo...

Eastern front WW2....sure But WW1 ? Imo...NO ! A WW1 game would be pretty much limited to artillery and infantry i fear... Sure...late war there where a few tanks around but not a great variation of those...germany for example only had one i belive...fielded at the very end of the war...and these machines where not exactelly fast...perhaps not superfun gameplay... Same thing goes for support weapons...would we have all that many to chose from that could be brought forward to join the infantry in an advance ? A WW1 game would probably be fun for a while but imo it would soon become quite repetative and boring compared to the other CM titles If we ever are to experience early tank warfare i would very much prefer to do it in 1939, 40 Poland, France or north Afrika

Where these decission not made outside/above the scope of a normal CM scenario..? That is...something like a battalion sizrd force.. Would a standard battalioncommander have any say in those matters at that time ?

That would be kind of nice ... The forum is/ has been (for quite some time) very quiet...the majority of threads seems to be some kind of bug/tweaking threads... I guess we are running out of things to discuss...most things seems to have been brought up at one time or more before...including this topic. I like the initiativ though... A few more tips: - don"t forgett about smoke - recon is a good thing...get- and try to maintain good Intel on the enemy - try to maintain C2 - "shooting without moving is a waste of ammo...moving without shooting is a waste of lives"

I missed that guy...seen it now Thanks... Thinking about it Elvis also managed to take out atleast 1 armored car with his AT-rifles... Good stuff !

Yeah...i hope these new tweaks will find a nice balance....

Yepp...the maps where a dissapointment in the 'derailed' books...very difficult to read...i guess i can expect the same here... There is a 4th volume in the 'derailed' series with better, colour maps i belive...i might buy it some day...having good maps would be nice...

I belive i have ...

I think that ones these mastermaps gets slized up and used in scenarios...to include far more debree and piles of rubble...to provide cover and limit LOF as well as restrict vehichle modemet... Infantry will play a larger part in the 'tankhunting task'...the life of a tanker will be more difficult .. On this map LOS/LOF seems to be pretty far...making it a bit hard for the infantry to get to the tanks

I think Ithikial has done very well so far considdering he only has green troops... His initial agressive moves have been vital i belive...getting into possition first. But can he hold it ? Non of the players have been able to employ hand-held AT-weapons so far i belive... The germans do not seem to have any schrecks...only fausts. It would have been kind of cool to have seen the odd flamethrower (besides the russian tanks) included in the force mix...

Good point !

Yepp

If you are playing on the lowest difficulty leverl, wich i belive is BASIC TRAINING, i don't think it will be easier to destroy the enemy but it will help you by limiting the fog of war on the enemy units...giving your units instant information-sharing...give you shorter delaytimes on things like artillery- and airsupport...improve your troops moral and supression recovery i belive...and a few other things... It will not make it easier for friendly vehichles to be destroyed... I would recomend that you study the manual and 'get out of' basis training as fast as possible...change to atleast VETERAN difficulty.. Othervise you're missing out on some of the gameplay features that are toned down on basic training... Primarely fog of war and informationshantering The game get's even better with those things in play ...

Ok...thanks

I actually belive that the demand on the scenariodesigner to know about ALL the 'tools' avaliable to him is higher if we only have a few tools (as of now)...compared to having a lager toolbox ... With a limited number of options avaliable it might be more important to take advantage of all of them when designing a scenario in order to produce good result... The benefit with a lager toolbox is that you...use whar you need...you use what you need to solve the current problem...what you don't need you don't use... The intention is not that you HAVE TO USE every option avaliable in every scenario... You simply use what you need How goes that old saying ? "Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it"

I guess we all would like to see that....but is it realistic ? Remember BFC have struggled bigtime with such 'simple' things as geting the AI to chose the right door when entering and exiting buildings...the hedgerow-bug etc... It would require a massive amount of work to improve the situational awareness and tactical skill of the AI i belive. Compare this with what would be required to add some of the suggestions mentioned in this (and other threads).... Suggestions that pretty much only would require some redesign of the editor UI and have pretty much no impact on game performance or put any higher demand on the current AI.... With the added benefit of actually making scenariodesign EASIER !

This makes sence but hopefully he agrees with the fact that things like... - more AI groups - more objective/trigger slots - reinforcements by trigger - timed objectives - a new trigger option for AI group casualtylevel higher then XXX - A new timing option for waypoints that is based on tlme on location rather then the game clock... - A remake of the dreadful/very unintuetive AI artillery program interface... - A way to set some kind of value in zone limitation on triggers and objectives... And a number of other suggestions that have been mentioned with regnard to the AI and objectives, triggers and reinforcement options Would not require the scenario designer to 'write code'...but rather be pretty signifikant quality of lite improvements that would simplyfy scenariodesign and make them better... A lot of frustration could be avoided imo

That was not an official statement from Battlefront i guess... If it was...that would be a strange thing to say... After all...the areafire, face and withdraw commands are fairly new...

This is something i want also ... Being able to set some kind of treashold would be useful not only for triggers but also for objectives... As of now...a single sniper is all that is needed to hold an objective (if no enemy is present).. Many times it would be kind of cool if those requirements could be somewhat higher... Lets say...a platoon-sized force is needed (atleast) holding a certain objective to considder the requirement met...and score points for it... We already have a nice unit-value/cost system in the game...the QB-battle purchase costs... Perhaps those values could be used to calculate the appropriate treashold-values for triggers and objectives ..

To have something to read during my holiday i just ordered the entire Stalingrad series last week...they should arrive any day now ... Are they simular in style to his Barbarossa derailed series ?

If you are not lucky enough to have a decent amount of playtesters (willing to provide feedback)...getting the difficulty level 'right' is one of the more difficult tasks when it comes to designing a scenario... Unfortunatelly many scenario designers do not have these helping hands i belive...they are on their own...making difficultylevel somewhat tricky to get right... That should not be a problem with a stock scenario though...