Where we're headed from here... a quick glance

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[gibsonm]

Yes, I pretty sure T-90 and BMP3 have been mentioned more than once in terms of the USMC module.

[Battlefront.com]

We will release a vehicle list pretty soon. Just waiting to tidy up a couple of loose ends so the list can be comprehensive and pretty much "final".

Steve

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This would add some dynamic and a pinch of operational level to the CMx2 campaign, without really adding an additional layer to the tactical level.

You pretty much described CMx1 Operations with the addition of being able to real select forces. And so down the slippery slope into oblivion we would go

...

Steve </font>

[Mishga]

Gunz,

I am working on a very complex planned Blue assault. It sucks as a QB map as the units get randomly assigned to groups but it's cool as a scenario from both sides of the battle.

It's a bit rough around the edges with no briefings as to be honest, I cannot figure out how to do them. If anyone else wants to try it out email me and I will gladly post out the scenario. Be warned though it is rough and ready in it's presentation but in the email I will detail the objectives.

Huntarr,

Meach likes his whisky and says he would run the place for free if he got a dram of the good stuff now and again but he might have difficulty putting down his hooch in such a small place

As for Meach, well, he has his issues but he's coming round. When he's unbanned he will apologise to Gibson on the forum.

He was out of order and he knows it. The big dumb lump is his own worst enemy.

[handihoc]

Hello Mishga. Good to see you back.

Have you noticed how everything changes round here when a girl turns up?

[Mishga]

Hi, Handihoc. I guess we of the fairer sex have a calming effect on all the big tough guys

[Peter Cairns]

handihoc,

Turns up what.....

Peter.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Mishga:

As for Meach, well, he has his issues but he's coming round. When he's unbanned he will apologise to Gibson on the forum.

He was out of order and he knows it. The big dumb lump is his own worst enemy.

No need, I've already done my bridge building.

[Scipio]

*giggle* I though 'Mishga' is a boy, too.

What a strange world where women are interested into wargaming...

[GSX]

Originally posted by Scipio:

*giggle* I though 'Mishga' is a boy, too.

What a strange world where women are interested into wargaming...

Theylll be wanting to drive cars next! Where will it all end.

[Mishga]

Originally posted by GSX:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio:

*giggle* I though 'Mishga' is a boy, too.

What a strange world where women are interested into wargaming...

Theylll be wanting to drive cars next! Where will it all end. </font>

[TOG]

Will unit data and chances to hit and to destroy appear at some point in CMSF?

I would be also happy to see some between battle unit info in campaign. Usually I don't even know which units are the core ones. A kind of simple list: number of men before and after the battle, some basic info.

Will kill tracking finally make it or was it abandoned?

[Huntarr]

Steve said a kill tally is on his list of wants. He has not said it's a no go. (yet) *keeps fingers crossed*

[Canada Guy]

Went to a conference in LA and do not have the hours to read all the posts in depth but I will ask a stupid question.

Will we have the ability in CM:WW2 of creating a QB that does last a number of scenarios? I would love to have the operationhal component back as I am playing "33rd in Berlin" in a PBEM game and am loving it. Pushing the line forward, worrying about supply, creating enemy pockets is great fun.

Being able to replicate this to some degree would be great.

Also, the victory conditions seem to lack something. I do not think I have ever played CMSF without a total victory for one side or the other. Will we get (or do we already have) a sliding scale of victory? I liked the 44% to 56% creating a minor victory.

[DrD]

Well I'll give it a try (the WW2 that is).

[Combatintman]

TOG,

The fact that you don't know which are the core units is a deliberate design decision to stop players husbanding them which is a gamey tactic so I guess that it is unlikely that you'll ever know which those are - its in the manual (page 27 paragraph 2 refers).

As to knowing the number of men you started with and have finished with - I'm not sure what you're getting at. The end screen tells you exactly how many men are ok at the end of the mission and how many you've lost.

[Battlefront.com]

The "Kill Score" is something we're trying to work into the UI. What we call "Hit Text" should happen as well, however it's a lot trickier for us to do than in CMx1 due to the increased complexity of the game so it is doubtful that it will be identical to CMx1. However, the idea is to get the player the same sort of feeling from the text.

Canada Guy,

The short answer is "no". The last couple of pages have more details as to why.

Combatintman is correct about the Core Units being anonymous on purpose. In games like Steel Panthers and Panzer General the player definitely, without question, treated the "auxiliary" (non-Core) units differently. Need a unit to suicide into something? Need a unit to absorb the blow of an enemy onslaught? Well... don't use a Core Unit for that, use one of the disposable ones instead

Having said that, we're trying to come up with something that gives the player a better sense of a unit's past accomplishments within the context of the campaign. This is, I think, what people really want.

Steve

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Combatintman is correct about the Core Units being anonymous on purpose. In games like Steel Panthers and Panzer General the player definitely, without question, treated the "auxiliary" (non-Core) units differently. Need a unit to suicide into something? Need a unit to absorb the blow of an enemy onslaught? Well... don't use a Core Unit for that, use one of the disposable ones instead

The flip side of that is that in those games, if you didn't know which units were which, you still needed to suicide units sometimes (because there was no other way of unlodging a well-entrenched defender: it was guaranteed to win the first few fights and you didn't have time to faf around and be careful). If you didn't know which ones the 'core' units were, then there was a fairly big difference in outcome based on luck. You could be penalised or rewarded for guessing wrong.

Arguably the same thing could happen in CM:SF, but I don't think I've seen a situation yet that required suiciding units, although you do sometimes need to take more of a risk with some than others.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Combatintman is correct about the Core Units being anonymous on purpose. In games like Steel Panthers and Panzer General the player definitely, without question, treated the "auxiliary" (non-Core) units differently.

I thought that was a big mistake. A big part of a campaign is identifying with your core units. Of course that can be abused, but to throw out a core component of campaigns to avoid some people doing that is a poor design choice, IMHO.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Combatintman is correct about the Core Units being anonymous on purpose. In games like Steel Panthers and Panzer General the player definitely, without question, treated the "auxiliary" (non-Core) units differently. Need a unit to suicide into something? Need a unit to absorb the blow of an enemy onslaught? Well... don't use a Core Unit for that, use one of the disposable ones instead

I made a suggestion about this a while back but it didn't get an official response as far as I remember. Basically, my suggestion was to assign "preserve" objectives to auxiliary units in certain scenarios. If no preserve objective exists, then High Command has basically approved the use of the auxiliary units to blunt an attack or lead an assault. If a preserve objective has been assigned, then High Command is basically telling you to use your core units as the primary force, supported by the auxiliary units. This could be made clearer in the briefing. I think this would allow us to know what the core units are, feel some attachment to them, and still not use gamey tactics such as suicide attacks with auxiliary units.

[ChrisND]

As a work around, the campaign designer can always put an "*" next to the names of core units, if desired.

[Omenowl]

I hope we will have anti air or SAMs. It is nice that sometimes your forces have air protection from planes.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

As a work around, the campaign designer can always put an "*" next to the names of core units, if desired.

Good point. This, coupled with the campaign and scenario briefing, give plenty of options to future campaign designers to indicate to the player which are their core units. I don't think this really needs any input from BFC, although it would have been nice to have a formal "roster" screen to show core unit losses and replacements, and maybe perform inter-unit transfers.

[Combatintman]

I disagree with this whole core units concept - it is a wargaming construct - you're all screaming for them because you've seen them elsewhere. In real life I doubt any battalion or company commander would be thrilled to know that his command is an auxilliary unit. The concept doesn't exist in real life western armies so why should it be represented in CMSF?