What do we "actually" want from CX2

[Pete Wenman]

Guys hi

Don't post too often, but do lurk.

Cards on table; after thinking this over overnight I like whats being offered.

Why - because it offers what I like CMBO/CMBB for, or have wanted them to do.

1.Traditional turn based wargame (not FPS or RTS)but with good graphical representation of the action.

2. The need to plan and organise available forces

to achieve a mission with limited knowledge.

3. Missions where ones sides forces are not the

perfect counter for the other sides forces, or the mission required of them.

4. The need to use good tactics

Still with me ?

Well my point is, I see a Syrian setting providing this as much as anywhere else. If you don't like the fact it is Syria - just call it somewhere in the Middle East. Think the mighty USofA is just going to flatten everything, and no enemy is worthy of th effort? Think again. At Company level in close terrain you are starting to see the defender having the edge over the attacker. You'll have to play a very different game to achieve objectives while keeping your force relativly intact.

Fire and manoeuvre, appreciation of key terrain,

resupply, command delays, intense firefights with no appreciable result, difficult decisions, and the inability to treat your force as cannon fodder. Thats what I want from the game, and I think I'm going to get more of it from CM-SF than any game thats gone before.

Do I want to see WWII? you bet, but this looks to be cool, and I want it, not for the setting rather for the game experiance.

Looking at the length of this you can see why I don't post too often

Pete

[flamingknives]

Length of post doesn't seem to stop JasonC.

You make good points. I play CM for the tactical challenge too, so space lobsters, WWI, WWII, Cold War, Modern, it's all good. The setting is really of secondary importance.