Couple of thoughts...

[Michael Emrys]

I just feel that having estimates down to the second is too much information, while having a rough estimate doesn't tell me anything I don't already know from experience (just as experienced soldiers would).

There's no need for a change.

That's how I feel about the question.

Michael

[SlowMotion]

SlowMotion: - What fow features for CM2 do you suggest WOULD make the game more realistic!!

this one for sure:

I think we know too much about spotted enemy units. If you see some enemy infantry let's say 200m away, how can you know that it's a scout and not a rifle squad? What about platoon HQ instead of some other officer? All different Sherman/PzIV/etc types - did normal enemy soldiers (not some intelligence headquarters) know what kinds there were - so they could check details like gun caliber? From distance most of them look very similar to me.

I would like to have such "detail blurring" at highest difficulty levels. Now it's much easier to make decisions for example when you know whether it's a 75mm or 76mm Sherman.

[StkNRdr]

It all comes down to whether the game should give feedback to the player based on what would have been known to the boots on the ground. The main question is whether a WWII soldier could ESTIMATE distances or ESTIMATE the time to traverse a given distance of terrain? I am not, nor have I ever stated, that I am looking for exact distances or times. I also said this would apply to waypoints. I never mentioned estimates for deploying weapons, etc.

If soldiers could estimate these, then these should be available info. There are various ways this could be implemented. Each player would have the ability to use them or not to use them.

If soldiers couldn't estimate these, then these should not be available.

IMHO, I believe the average soldier was well aware of both and his life depended on his ability to assess them. It is possible that crack troops would be better at estimating these than green troops. This could be included by applying variances that depend on their level of experience. I believe the information is critical to planning. It would allow you to adjust your approach based on the soldier's estimate.

So why don't I just estimate it myself? Yes, I could time how long it takes for soldiers to crawl, walk or run over 50 meters and then measure each waypoint I lay down for ever unit and calculate it out. But then again, why do that when, low and behold, I have a computer that would do them immediately. Frankly the time is better spent on the tactics themselves versus all the math I used to do on board games. Maybe many have all the time in the world to make these calculation, I don't. If you still wish to do it the old way, have at it, as you could toggle the estimates OFF.

Time and distance is critical to every soldier in battle. They are trained in these aspects. To reiterate, I am not looking for any information that would not have been known to the soldier on the field.

As far as the full battle replay capability, it sounds like a dead horse. I just thought it would be nice to archive the H2H games that take a while to unfold.

[A Canadian Cat]

It all comes down to whether the game should give feedback to the player based on what would have been known to the boots on the ground. The main question is whether a WWII soldier could ESTIMATE distances or ESTIMATE the time to traverse a given distance of terrain? I am not, nor have I ever stated, that I am looking for exact distances or times. I also said this would apply to waypoints. I never mentioned estimates for deploying weapons, etc.

I think after a while you get a feel for how long it takes for your men to move around. As a foot soldier I do not ever remember thinking about the time it would take me and my mates to traverse a field or get to the top of the hill. Estimating distances sure we *could* do that but frankly when we were just moving around why bother. It never occurred to me to care - in that context.

I personally would love the whole battle replay but I agree that it should be pretty low on the priority list.

[Bradley]

i agree. BFC should get rid of the pause button from RT.

That's just wrong. RT/pause is handier than a pocket on a shirt:)

[The Steppenwulf]

this one for sure:

I think we know too much about spotted enemy units. If you see some enemy infantry let's say 200m away, how can you know that it's a scout and not a rifle squad? What about platoon HQ instead of some other officer? All different Sherman/PzIV/etc types - did normal enemy soldiers (not some intelligence headquarters) know what kinds there were - so they could check details like gun caliber? From distance most of them look very similar to me.

I would like to have such "detail blurring" at highest difficulty levels. Now it's much easier to make decisions for example when you know whether it's a 75mm or 76mm Sherman.

The FOW symbols provide no differentiations of the kind you are claiming.

Infantry - the FOW symbol is a generic infantry symbol. The only differentiation in infantry types is an MG team (poss mortars too). That doesn't seem unreasonable when one considers that an infantry squad carrying, deploying or firing a MG or mortar could quite likely be distinguished from a standard rifle squad. There are no other infantry differentiations that can be gleaned from FOW. Only the fully ID acquired icon can yield the specific role type and possible size.

Tanks - FOW will only notify the spotter of the category of tank; light or heavy. The player cannot deduce from FOW the specific make or model, less what the "specific calibre" of the weapon is. Again, I find this within perfectly reasonable expectations since the sound of a vehicle or the obscured sight of one in trees is enough only to tell its size and probable role; light support, or heavy or SP, tank hunter etc..

In summary there are only 6 FOW types:

1) Generic Infantry

2) MG (poss mortars)

3) Generic Gun

4) Light Tank

5) Heavy tank

6) Truck

Contrast that with version 1.0, there was only the single FOW type which was a contact.

Now this is merely a matter of opinon, but in my view version 2.0's FOW is both more realistic and more tactically engaging.

[Pak40]

Did soldiers have to use binoculars, etc. to always estimate distance. No. Why should I have to go to another mode to do the same when I am only moving?

I don't understand your point. I'm not suggesting going to 'another mode'. I'm saying estimate the time yourself like any real soldier IRL would do.

And as far as knowing how long it will take to get from A to B? No, I usually don't have a clue, I just watch the time tick away whereas they would have had an idea.

You will learn in time like all of us CMBN veterans. It's not that hard. I've now played enough to know how long it takes a squad to cross a 100m field at Quick movement order. Sometimes dead right but sometimes I'm off, that's why it's called an estimate.

So what is wrong with letting me in on their estimation?

For one, I think it's a terrible waste of programming resources. I'd rather they develop the game than implement an "estimate time of arrival" that doesn't really tell you much more than what you can estimate yourself.

Second, it something that will hog resources. The computer would have to keep estimates on every moving unit CONSTANTLY. Any time a unit comes under fire, the estimates would be thrown out the window and recomputed.

Third, CMBN is a game know for it's historical accuracy and it's non-gameyness. Other than the ability to view the entire battlefield, you don't really have anything extra that the real life soldiers had. So why give the computer player something that is "gamey" and that the real life soldiers didn't have?

[SlowMotion]

The FOW symbols provide no differentiations of the kind you are claiming.

Infantry - the FOW symbol is a generic infantry symbol. The only differentiation in infantry types is an MG team (poss mortars too). That doesn't seem unreasonable when one considers that an infantry squad carrying, deploying or firing a MG or mortar could quite likely be distinguished from a standard rifle squad. There are no other infantry differentiations that can be gleaned from FOW. Only the fully ID acquired icon can yield the specific role type and possible size.

Tanks - FOW will only notify the spotter of the category of tank; light or heavy. The player cannot deduce from FOW the specific make or model, less what the "specific calibre" of the weapon is. Again, I find this within perfectly reasonable expectations since the sound of a vehicle or the obscured sight of one in trees is enough only to tell its size and probable role; light support, or heavy or SP, tank hunter etc..

In summary there are only 6 FOW types:

1) Generic Infantry

2) MG (poss mortars)

3) Generic Gun

4) Light Tank

5) Heavy tank

6) Truck

Contrast that with version 1.0, there was only the single FOW type which was a contact.

Now this is merely a matter of opinon, but in my view version 2.0's FOW is both more realistic and more tactically engaging.

I do agree that FOW was improved in 2.0 - I like the new system better. But I didn't mean those symbols. I meant the info that is available when you *click* a spotted unit. Then it tells me things like whether it's rifle squad or scout. Or the detailed tank type which I doubt most soldiers could tell even from short distance. In the game tanks of one type look the same, but in real battles they often used bushes and other such camo which should make identification even harder. If most unit details were hidden (you'd have to look at the 3d model and try to memorize details) it would definitely make things more difficult. But would it make playing more fun, I don't know.

But I do use this detailed info all the time when deciding what to do during next turn. Does some infantry unit have AT weapons or not? Is the AT gun 57mm or 76mm?

[womble]

I do agree that FOW was improved in 2.0 - I like the new system better. But I didn't mean those symbols. I meant the info that is available when you *click* a spotted unit. Then it tells me things like whether it's rifle squad or scout. Or the detailed tank type which I doubt most soldiers could tell even from short distance. In the game tanks of one type look the same, but in real battles they often used bushes and other such camo which should make identification even harder. If most unit details were hidden (you'd have to look at the 3d model and try to memorize details) it would definitely make things more difficult. But would it make playing more fun, I don't know.

But I do use this detailed info all the time when deciding what to do during next turn. Does some infantry unit have AT weapons or not? Is the AT gun 57mm or 76mm?

Ideally the FOW level would tell us some of that info. QF6pdr is much smaller than the 76, for example, and fairly easy to tell apart. I think one of the biggest problems that BFC face in letting us have more graduated FOW is in defining what info becomes available when, to whom. I wonder if they're concerned about the "knowledge gap advantage" that having personal detailed knowledge of things like cupola shapes and gun sizes would give a player who had it over one who didn't, if the only info was the on-screen model (even without all the extra gubbins you mention, I couldn't tell you whether a given sherman was M4, M4A1, or M4A3, most of the time).

[SlowMotion]

That got me an idea: the unit info might also depend on unit experience. A veteran unit might know that some tank is a PzIV whereas a green unit might think it's just a tank. I think it could be cool if units spotted by less experienced units might show less TEXT info.

I have no idea whether unit experience has any effect on spotting accuracy or speed currently, but I think it might be a nice effect.

[womble]

That got me an idea: the unit info might also depend on unit experience. A veteran unit might know that some tank is a PzIV whereas a green unit might think it's just a tank. I think it could be cool if units spotted by less experienced units might show less TEXT info.

I have no idea whether unit experience has any effect on spotting accuracy or speed currently, but I think it might be a nice effect.

Experience certainly helps units spot other units, and I suspect helps them stay hidden too, but haven't seen any incontrovertible evidence for that. But yeah, in an ideal world once one of us here wins the lottery and bungs BFC a few million to enlarge their programming resource, experience should mean more information displayed to the player, possibly absolutely, and certainly sooner.