Formations we might see in the initial Normandy release

[Sequoia]

IIRC there was a Luftwaffe Airlanding division in the Normandy area as well that would certainly require a new TO&E. Maybe that's something that would be in a third module (after the Market-Garden one) that would include all sorts of stuff that wasn't in the prior modules. A campaign centering around the US 3rd Army in the Moselle area in Sept '44 is one good possibility.

[TheVulture]

Talk of the campaigns in CMx2 Normandy has got me thinking. I bet they are going to be pretty tough to construct as people will expect, indeed demand, total historical accuracy.

I'm not sure that accuracy is all that feasible, since reality followed one course, while campaigns naturally feature the ability for the player to do more or less well, so what happens after battle A depends on how the player did in battle A. Only one possible outcome corresponds to 'reality'. All others steadily diverge into semi-historicity.

[dan/california]

Google earth is going to be so confused about the sudden interest in northern France.

[Cpl Steiner]

Google earth is going to be so confused about the sudden interest in northern France.

I'm sure I must be on some CIA or MI5 list of potential terrorists for the number of Syria related searches and downloads I've done over the last couple of years!

[Battlefront.com]

I think this is a practical approach if I ever heard one. Concentrating on what was actually there in the main. Although the US did face the FJ, they didnt face very much SS and if you design your campaign right you can easily avoid battles which included any of them I think.

Thanks and yes. This has always been our philosophy, in fact. Think way back to CMBO when people asked for a plethora of really rare stuff. Some requests were made for things which never actually entered service even! And of course there were those who wanted to fight detailed engineer engagements, handle logistics, and other stuff. These very "narrow" and rare things would have come at the expense of the far more prevalent and common elements. Even airborne and amphibious assault requests fell into the category of "narrow" and rare, considering how many such engagements there were compared to regular ground combat.

If time and costs weren't an issue we would, of course, like to have everything under the sun. Needless to say time and costs are huge factors we have to consider.

Its also a shrewd tactic by BF as those US punters that wont be interested in a CW Module are going to want the FJ and SS units to play with.

Well, if we really wanted to be shrewd we would have the FJ and SS units be their own Module, with the Commonwealth Forces be in its own too. Heck, put the Airborne Forces for Normandy in a different one. It's not like we'd be the first to do this But that's not what we're doing.

We basically say any one release will have X amount of units in it with Y diversity. Diversity is what costs us exponentially. Having 20 more variations of Wehrmacht units is a lot easier than having 5 different types of SS or FJ units because variations of Whermacht forces does not require new models, new artwork, new weapons, etc.

Mmm...no. We've discussed this before. Scenario editors need some limited ability to create formations within a scenario in that don't suffer command penalties just because they don't fit the "templates."

But that's a different thing. TO&E = Tables of Organization and Equipment. This is the lowest level stuff which, when assembled, creates higher level formations. To do correct TO&E requires research, artwork, models, attribute data, and even new game code sometimes. This is the sort of thing we can not throw open to the players to create themselves. Many, in fact, would be pissed off if we just gave them a bunch of weapons and vehicles and said "make your own TO&E". Most people want to purchase TO&E that already exists, even though they may wish to modify it.

An Order of Battle editor is something entirely different. Your clarification shows that's what you were asking for, which (eventually) you guys will get. An Order of Battle editor allows you to take existing TO&E and reorganize it to create Battle Groups. You won't be able to manipulate things below the unit level, but within certain limits you will be able to combine units hierarchically and have Command & Control work correctly.

So again, TO&E editor will never happen... OB editor will.

My entire point was that the FJ would be an odd exclusion given a narrow and in depth focus on the US hedgerow battles in Normandy. There is nothing "special case" or "one-off" about FJ given that focus. Purely a historical comment, not a criticism of your business approach.

The focus is on the usual combat between US and German forces in a particular slice of Normandy. FJ might be less of a "special case" there than compared to a slice of the Eastern Front, but they are still not the norm and therefore can be put aside for Module 1 without any conceptual problems. Or I guess no more conceptual problems than not having Funnies, 21st Pz craziness, or other things which aren't of a routine nature.

I'm sure BFC will be able to come up with a solution that will please most people, if not, I'm sure there will be a long line of people ready to point this out.

They'll be a long line of people ready to point SOMETHING no matter what Our all time favorites are the guys that squeal... "this game totally blows. A complete waste of my money. And I should know, I've put in 1000 hours into this piece of crap and even called in sick to work occasionally to finish a PBEM game. Therefore, I can tell you with great authority that this game is a complete waste of time". It's definitely entertaining from our perspective

It is my understanding that CMx2 WWII will be more comprehensive in depth than CMx1 was once all of the titles and modules are done. You won't have the minor nations, but you will get more for the major participants.

Yes. We think the DEPTH part will be there in the first release when compared to CMBO. It will take several Modules to get it to be more comprehensive than CMBO. Will everything that is in CMBO be in CM: Normandy? No. But there will be so much more in CM: Normandy than CMBO that on balance there will be no comparison. Well, none that we will give any credit too By the time CM: Bulge is done the sum of those two games will dwarf the content in CMBO. And yes, you will have to pay more for that comprehensive experience, but as we said it's time people start paying for what they get instead of expecting what they aren't paying for.

Paying $25 for the first module would give you not only SS and FJ, but British and Canadian formations and equipment, plus a new campaign, plus new scenarios using these forces. I can not see how anyone could see that as a steep price for what you get. Immensely fair if you ask me.

Of course we agree!

Steve

[Sequoia]

Steve, do you think there's a good chance we will see a third module for "Normandy" after the Commonwealth and Market-Garden?

[Götz von Berlichingen]

Well there were only a handfull of SS in the US sector so they're better in the Commonwealth modual where the SS units were concentrated. The FJ will be missed but it's better to have a more complete Whermacht to launch the family.

I agree.

As much as I would have liked to have at least FJ's in the initial release I do understand their grand plan with regards to selling their product. Heck I would do the same.

And as you say, if it is done more thoroughly this way then I for one will have no qualms in parting with $100's for all the great stuff they are going to make.

Just great to be talking about Normandy again after so many years...

A bone or two would be nice!

[Wengart]

I have a question about modules.

Will we ever see, I hate always using this as an example, Company of Heroes style interplayability between different module owners. For example, if I am playing a multiplayer game I can use all the units that I have "unlocked" by purchasing the module. Even if my opponent does not own the module that corresponds with the formation I use?

So like me being able to use Marines in a PBEM even if my opponent only has the CMSF base game.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, do you think there's a good chance we will see a third module for "Normandy" after the Commonwealth and Market-Garden?

Yes. It will likely be a "catchall" Module which includes a bunch of things which people will find cool, but don't necessarily all fit into a nice, neat conceptual package. That's because we plan on having all the major stuff taken care of by the 2nd Module. This will be the first of its kind for us, if that's what we wind up doing, but could be one of the most popular.

A bone or two would be nice!

Here's a bone... I hate having to figure out what obscure and poorly laid out TO&E means in terms CM can understand When something says "18 enlisted with x Rifles, y SMGs, z Carbines" I have to try and figure out a realistic mix of ranks, who gets which weapon, and which unit gets which. Fortunately, there's a ton more resources available for me now thanks to the Internet. Back in 1990s I had to find obscure publications and purchase them in the hopes that they would have the info I need. I've got about 1000 pages printed out on a dotmatrix printer which are still pretty useful! The hours I spent separating those pages and stapling them together... ah.. fond memories

I have a question about modules.

Will we ever see, I hate always using this as an example, Company of Heroes style interplayability between different module owners. For example, if I am playing a multiplayer game I can use all the units that I have "unlocked" by purchasing the module. Even if my opponent does not own the module that corresponds with the formation I use?

No, never. The code isn't setup to work that way and we don't want to recode it. That's partly for technical reasons, partly for marketing reasons. We don't see why someone should get to play with stuff they didn't purchase. Sure, someone could play with a friend and find he really likes the stuff he doesn't have, then buy the Module, but we think that would likely be the minority outcome.

Obviously this is a point where we do see a reasonable, valid opposing point of view. But we still think we're doing it in the way that's best for us and so we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Steve

[silverstars]

wait...will Polish/Free French units be put in? Since they are almost indentical to CW/US units in equipment.....

[akd]

But that's a different thing. TO&E = Tables of Organization and Equipment. This is the lowest level stuff which, when assembled, creates higher level formations. To do correct TO&E requires research, artwork, models, attribute data, and even new game code sometimes. This is the sort of thing we can not throw open to the players to create themselves. Many, in fact, would be pissed off if we just gave them a bunch of weapons and vehicles and said "make your own TO&E". Most people want to purchase TO&E that already exists, even though they may wish to modify it.

An Order of Battle editor is something entirely different. Your clarification shows that's what you were asking for, which (eventually) you guys will get. An Order of Battle editor allows you to take existing TO&E and reorganize it to create Battle Groups. You won't be able to manipulate things below the unit level, but within certain limits you will be able to combine units hierarchically and have Command & Control work correctly.

So again, TO&E editor will never happen... OB editor will.

That's why there needs to be an OOB editor.

Glad to hear this.

[Götz von Berlichingen]

Yes. It will likely be a "catchall" Module which includes a bunch of things which people will find cool, but don't necessarily all fit into a nice, neat conceptual package. That's because we plan on having all the major stuff taken care of by the 2nd Module. This will be the first of its kind for us, if that's what we wind up doing, but could be one of the most popular.

Here's a bone... I hate having to figure out what obscure and poorly laid out TO&E means in terms CM can understand When something says "18 enlisted with x Rifles, y SMGs, z Carbines" I have to try and figure out a realistic mix of ranks, who gets which weapon, and which unit gets which. Fortunately, there's a ton more resources available for me now thanks to the Internet. Back in 1990s I had to find obscure publications and purchase them in the hopes that they would have the info I need. I've got about 1000 pages printed out on a dotmatrix printer which are still pretty useful! The hours I spent separating those pages and stapling them together... ah.. fond memories

No, never. The code isn't setup to work that way and we don't want to recode it. That's partly for technical reasons, partly for marketing reasons. We don't see why someone should get to play with stuff they didn't purchase. Sure, someone could play with a friend and find he really likes the stuff he doesn't have, then buy the Module, but we think that would likely be the minority outcome.

Obviously this is a point where we do see a reasonable, valid opposing point of view. But we still think we're doing it in the way that's best for us and so we will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Steve

Not the sort of bone I was hinting at...

I am very interested to see how the new buildings and foliage looks, if this looks tip-top then the immersion factor is going to be that much greater!

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

Glad to hear this.

However, the context of your response made it seem like you were asking for a TO&E editor even though you said OOB editor in your post. I say that because the stuff I was talking about at the time was the amount of energy needed to make TO&E, which you then said "That's why there needs to be an OOB editor." But an OOB editor wouldn't address the issues I was talking about, though in theory a TO&E editor would (I say "theory" because in reality we would still have to do the TO&E work and therefore it doesn't help us out any).

To be clear... the thing that takes us a lot of time is figuring out how units are assembled, what equipment they need, how they are depicted graphically (2D and 3D), etc., etc. Adding variants like IBCT is much easier than adding something like British. Waffen SS are more akin to British than they are IBCT in development terms. TO&E is the reason why, not Order of Battle. Therefore, having an OOB editor doesn't make it any easier for us to get Waffen SS into the game.

Steve

[akd]

AKD,

However, the context of your response made it seem like you were asking for a TO&E editor even though you said OOB editor in your post. I say that because the stuff I was talking about at the time was the amount of energy needed to make TO&E, which you then said "That's why there needs to be an OOB editor." But an OOB editor wouldn't address the issues I was talking about, though in theory a TO&E editor would (I say "theory" because in reality we would still have to do the TO&E work and therefore it doesn't help us out any).

To be clear... the thing that takes us a lot of time is figuring out how units are assembled, what equipment they need, how they are depicted graphically (2D and 3D), etc., etc. Adding variants like IBCT is much easier than adding something like British. Waffen SS are more akin to British than they are IBCT in development terms. TO&E is the reason why, not Order of Battle. Therefore, having an OOB editor doesn't make it any easier for us to get Waffen SS into the game.

Steve

That is certainly true, but wouldn't an OOB editor free-up resources for TO&E work? Taking the CMSF approach, you'd either have to spend hours creating new OOBs for every possible KG/TF organization or create "cookie-cutter" unit organizations like the MEU (which is fine for a hypothetical battle, but no good for historical scenarios). I don't really want to see KG Heintz as an OOB choice in the editor. I want to be able to make KG Heintz, or KG Kentner, or KG Brandt, etc. so that hedgerow battles can be portrayed in depth and detail to the fullest.

Anyways, I've been giving some more thought to OOBs in general and what should be considered "special" or "one-off." Really this has nothing to do with what is or is not included in the first module (or any module) but more an interesting historical question given the near complete absence of "typical" or "common" on the Normandy battlefield. So far we have defined FJ units in Normandy as falling into the "special" category along with uniquely organized and equipped units like 21. Panzer, but can this standard really be applied rationally? The following FJ units participated in the Normandy battles, with the majority facing US units for significant portions of the campaign:

Fallschirm Jäger Regiment 6 - 2. FJD

3. Fallschirm Jäger Division

5. Fallschirm Jäger Division (committed in elements)

KG - 6. Fallschirm Jäger Division

Fallschirm Aufklärungs Abteilung 12

12. Fallschirm Sturmgeschütz Brigade

That's at least two divisions worth of units, providing some of the most effective resistance the US Army faced. If we define these as "one-off," wouldn't the following be as well?

US 101st and 82nd ABDs

US 2nd and 3rd ADs

German 2. and 116. PDs (and even these two had some unique organizational elements)

Panzer Lehr

In fact, it would seem the only units that would not be considered "special" would be standard German and US infantry divisions (and maybe there is some logic to that).

And speaking of unit organization research, I just picked up Pier Paolo Battistelli's Osprey title Panzer Divisions 1944-45 (Battle Orders). Very nice book with some up-to-date research incorporated.

http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Divisions-1944-45-Battle-Orders/dp/184603406X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251570161&sr=1-1

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

That is certainly true, but wouldn't an OOB editor free-up resources for TO&E work? Taking the CMSF approach, you'd either have to spend hours creating new OOBs for every possible KG/TF organization or create "cookie-cutter" unit organizations like the MEU (which is fine for a hypothetical battle, but no good for historical scenarios).

No, it wouldn't free up any resources because we've never, for a second, thought of doing something like that The MEU organization, and a lot of minor things for all forces, reflects the "typical" way the forces go into battle. In reality there are thousands of different combinations, which we made no attempts to present "pre-packaged". The same is true for Normandy. So no, the development time to make an OOB editor won't save us any time. In fact, it will come at the expense of other features...

I don't really want to see KG Heintz as an OOB choice in the editor. I want to be able to make KG Heintz, or KG Kentner, or KG Brandt, etc. so that hedgerow battles can be portrayed in depth and detail to the fullest.

I agree. An OOB editor was planned for CM:SF, but we simply haven't had the time to make it. Which gets us back to the problem of development sacrifices. Currently people can task organized forces even in CM:SF, but of course it isn't optimized for doing that. Currently people can't drive tanks across bridges over rivers because the game lacks both bridges and rivers (well, at least it DID lack this capability ).

In fact, it would seem the only units that would not be considered "special" would be standard German and US infantry divisions (and maybe there is some logic to that).

Remember to look at the entire scope of the battles we're simulating with Normandy. Look at all the battles where US troops and Germans clashed from June 6th through the end of August. How many of those battles were against FJ, how many were against vanilla flavored WH? So no, it's not correct to say that the WH is "special" and the FJ were "common as mud".

Internal differences, such as having 3 Platoons of X instead of 4 Platoons of X, are Order of Battle issues since they are actually in violate of standard TO&E. Therefore, as long as the basic "plain Jane" building blocks are in the game, people can simulate all kinds of oddball variations within that particular nation's branch of service. Just like different Army Task Forces, Marines MEUs, and British Battle Groups can be simulated now. Of course a proper OOB editor would be even better.

Again, it's not like we're saying that the FJ and SS are so unimportant that we can leave them out completely. We're not saying that at all. We're simply saying that a Normandy game can survive without them more than it can survive without basic WH units. Plus, we're not saying that CM: Normandy will not have these units present. We're just saying they won't be in the initial release. That's not the same thing at all.

Back to an earlier point:

So far we have defined FJ units in Normandy as falling into the "special" category along with uniquely organized and equipped units like 21. Panzer, but can this standard really be applied rationally?

If you look at the TO&E, yup... sure can. To do the FJ we need unique 3D soldier models, unique textures, unique 2D artwork (for things like ranks, profile pictures, etc.), a couple of unique weapons/vehicles, some customized animations, and of course a whole new set of TO&E that has to be researched, entered, and debugged. The Waffen SS requires even more effort on the development end.

From a TO&E standpoint it's a lot easier to simulate 21st Panzer Division's TO&E in almost all ways but one -> oddball vehicles not used by anybody else and generally only used for a very short period of time. Therefore, 21st PzD fits into the "special" category because of a single unique need.

We could easily justify keeping US Airborne out of the initial release along the same lines as FJ or SS, despite there being two divisions at stake. But we're not going to do that because we have made a place for them in the development schedule. That's because Normandy's initial release is US focused, not German focused. The Commonwealth Module will be focused on the Commonwealth forces, not on German forces. In total, however, more resources will have gone into the Germans than the Allies, so it really doesn't matter where our marketing focus is on a particular release because the Germans are certainly not being under developed proportionally.

Our decision to keep the FJ and SS out of the first release is, therefore, extremely logical/rational/defensible. Not simulating them at all would be as well, since it's up to us to define how narrow a scope we want to have or not. But obviously excluding these two force types would be wildly unpopular, so we're definitely putting them in. Just not with the first release.

Steve

[JonS]

German 2. and 116. PDs (and even these two had some unique organizational elements)

Every single German pz div - and IIRC there were ten or eleven (1 SS, 2, 2SS, 9, 9SS, 10SS, 12 SS, 17 SS, 21, 116, Lehr) - was unique in terms of OoB and TOE. The situation in their infantry-type divs was just as bad.

Then again, the five "British" armd divs were all unique too, although that was in terms of different mixes of a couple of different bn-sized standard building blocks, rather than radical differences at all levels. US and UK inf divs were cookie cutter (except the assault divs for the first couple of weeks).

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, when looking at the OOBs everything was a mess on the German side even on paper, not to mention in reality. Especially as losses mounted and small battle groups were formed with whatever happened to be in the area. At some points and places in the battle for Normandy formal unit affiliations had almost no meaning.

To have correct OOBs we would need the player to specify a unit to focus on, a date, and a time of day so CM could generate a custom tailored OOB/TO&E for that exact snapshot in time. This, of course, would me we'd have to document this info for all major units in Normandy over the course of 3 months of fighting. Or we can simply provide the standard building blocks and let everybody else sort it out. The former is completely insanely impractical (obviously , the latter is difficult but doable.

The point is simply to demonstrate that we should be unconcerned with OOBs in and of themselves. What we need to be concerned about is getting the correct TO&E into the game so that players can have something to use to recreate as many different OOBs as they want.

Steve

[akd]

Every single German pz div - and IIRC there were ten or eleven (1 SS, 2, 2SS, 9, 9SS, 10SS, 12 SS, 17 SS, 21, 116, Lehr) - was unique in terms of OoB and TOE. The situation in their infantry-type divs was just as bad.

Then again, the five "British" armd divs were all unique too, although that was in terms of different mixes of a couple of different bn-sized standard building blocks, rather than radical differences at all levels. US and UK inf divs were cookie cutter (except the assault divs for the first couple of weeks).

Yes, of course. That was the point. 21. Panzer and Panzer Lehr had already been acknowledged as "oddballs," and the SS already excluded. That left just 2. Panzer and 116. Panzer as the "standard" Heer armor units, but from a historical perspective they are no more "common" or standard than any other unit, including the FJ present in Normandy.

As Steve has already pointed out, the relative historical importance of FJ units is irrelevant (and certainly a unit like 3rd FJD and attachments played a more important role than the vast majority of regular army infantry divisions). There is a perfectly valid business/development resources argument against their inclusion in the first module. (Even if it wrecks my petty schemes for a St. Lo campaign. )

To have correct OOBs we would need the player to specify a unit to focus on, a date, and a time of day so CM could generate a custom tailored OOB/TO&E for that exact snapshot in time. This, of course, would me we'd have to document this info for all major units in Normandy over the course of 3 months of fighting. Or we can simply provide the standard building blocks and let everybody else sort it out. The former is completely insanely impractical (obviously , the latter is difficult but doable.

And to be clear that I'm not just being an obstinate hardhead, I fully acknowledge this as being of a hundred times greater importance than the invididual inclusion of fliegermice, hamstertruppen, or finely-aged bordeaux tanks.

Best online resource I've found for German OOBs from Normandy: http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/gerob/gerob.html

[JonS]

That left just 2. Panzer and 116. Panzer as the "standard" Heer armor units

And 9th Pz Div (NOT 9th SS Pz Div)

That must be, oooh, about the 150th time - at least - that Zet's site has been referenced here

[akd]

And 9th Pz Div (NOT 9th SS Pz Div)

JonS, I am talking specifically about units that played a significant role opposing US forces in Normandy. That is the whole context of the discussion.

[JonS]

Yeah, I know. The 9th (and the 116th, for that matter) faced the US.

No?

Edit: oh, wait - significant. Well, the 9th and 116th only got into things in Aug, and a significant portion of their respective time in Normandy was against the US, but granted that neither had a significant overall role.

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

(Even if it wrecks my petty schemes for a St. Lo campaign. )

Not at all... it just requires you to be a little more patient

And to be clear that I'm not just being an obstinate hardhead, I fully acknowledge this as being of a hundred times greater importance than the invididual inclusion of fliegermice, hamstertruppen, or finely-aged bordeaux tanks.

heh... yeah.

Over the years I've seen people constantly confuse, and misuse, the concepts of TO&E and OOB as if they are one in the same thing. I think this discussion has been good because it has shown why these two concepts are completely different from a practical standpoint. No two divisions of the same type of the same side may have been absolutely identically organized on any one day in terms of how many battalions of this, companies, of that, platoons of one or another thing... but it is highly probable that Rifle Squads, Tank Platoons, Engineer Platoons, etc. within each were identical (baring losses and loss related consolidation, of course). When differences can be found it's likely attributed to X division not having had a chance to reorganize to the same standard as Y division.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Long ago there was a Normandy wargame, Across the Rhine, which was billed as being the "best wargame ever" as it was being developed. Then people started to find out that the game didn't have Waffen SS in it. They said they didn't include it for political sensitivity reasons as well as the Waffen SS not being necessary for the simulation of US combat from Normandy until the collapse of the Reich. Boy didn't that get the grogs a grumbling

As it turned out the game was over ambitious for the hardware of the day, not to mention their development budget, and IIRC the resulting product just didn't have a good reception. Not glitzy enough for the casual crowd, not good enough for the serious wargamer.

While I don't see why any one particular major force type has to be in the initial release of a CM game, they do have to be in the game at some point if we want to be taken seriously as a simulation of a given theater. Since we do want to be taken seriously, obviously the major forces will all (eventually) find their way into a CM game.

Steve

[JonS]

Out of interest, and bearing that last post in mind, do you have an intention of including Luftwaffe Feld Divs at some point? They weren't really a 'major' force, and they (it) was really only in action for one month out of an 11 month campaign. From that POV there isn't a lot to argue for it's inclusion.

OTOH, it was involved in couple of fairly high profile operations. Also the generic TOE/OoB 'pieces' of that div would be useful for battles set in Belgium in Sept/Oct. There was also at least one other such div that was involved in later stages of the campaign.

[Götz von Berlichingen]

Long ago there was a Normandy wargame, Across the Rhine, which was billed as being the "best wargame ever" as it was being developed. Then people started to find out that the game didn't have Waffen SS in it. They said they didn't include it for political sensitivity reasons as well as the Waffen SS not being necessary for the simulation of US combat from Normandy until the collapse of the Reich. Boy didn't that get the grogs a grumbling

As it turned out the game was over ambitious for the hardware of the day, not to mention their development budget, and IIRC the resulting product just didn't have a good reception. Not glitzy enough for the casual crowd, not good enough for the serious wargamer.

While I don't see why any one particular major force type has to be in the initial release of a CM game, they do have to be in the game at some point if we want to be taken seriously as a simulation of a given theater. Since we do want to be taken seriously, obviously the major forces will all (eventually) find their way into a CM game.

Steve

Haha, I had that game... Frankly the only memories I have of it were playing for hours and yet still feeling like I hadnt done a thing... Probably due to the fact that it took a good hour or so to load a single battle...!!! Had a fair sized manual though if I remember correctly - probably on par with CMx1 Beyond Overlord's.