Section Leaders:
Fionn Kelly & Madmatt

Chat Transcript from November 9

Edited for content....BTS comments are all Noted in Blue...
The session begins with Guest asking questions in alphabetical order:

<Doug> When I try to use the LOS tool over long distances, it gets really jumpy and lots of angles pop up. Any idea why, and if there's a fix?

<Steve_BTS> Yeah, already fixed. We also have the LOS line hugging the terrain instead of drawing through it. Works great!

Griffin> Yep, will there be a movie view so that I can view all the turns in 1 time?

Steve_BTS> We are still working on that. All we can promise at this point is that we want it in as much as you do. At the *very* least it will be patched in, even if this is not the ideal solution.

MarkEzra> will I be able to blow bridges

<Steve_BTS> On "The List" is the ability for engineers to use satchel charges, but it certainly isn't going to make the first release.

<MartinM> What do you see as the main features of CM that will make its replay value good (looking for repeated play on the LE ladders)?

<Steve_BTS> The number of scenarios will be the #1 thing. But also the fact that "gamey" victories are not likely, so we feel the rush of playing will be a bit more intense than the average strategy game out there

<Mattias> Appr. what will minimum visibility be when restricted by darkness and weather. In short, how bad can it get?

 <Steve_BTS> Don't forget about the full editor and DYO features ;-)

<Fionn_TGN> Martin, It's VERY easy to put together a company sized scenario and map in under 1 hour.

 <Mattias> living up in the north with snow and night.. all my scenarios will be black... and cold:)

<Steve_BTS> Yes. VERY BAD :-) Fog and night should make things really, really short in terms of fighting. Close and deadly!

<Fionn_TGN> Mattias, I've seen 30 metres visibility ;). Short enough for you? ;)

<neil> Steve hi - Neil from Le - security on pbem play and or online play how’s it work

<Steve_BTS> Do you mean against cheating during a game?

<neil> affirmative

<Steve_BTS> The file swapping is such that you can't redo a turn if you don't like the results as data has to be processed by the other guy's machine. more...

<Steve_BTS> On top of that we have encrypted passwords and the file itself is not editable in a hex editor.

<NottheCharles> Thanks, will both AP and AA mines be modeled?

<Steve_BTS> Yes. We already have both in and working. We also have hasty mines that are easy to spot, but hopefully will ruin someone's plans.

<Steve_BTS> Yes, there was too great a chance of mortars knocking out open topped vehicles. It has since been tweaked downward significantly.

<risc> what campaigns are planned for the first CM release and will the editor support making new campaigns

<Steve_BTS> The shipping editor is the same one we used, so a BIG yes :-) Specific scenarios/campaigns aren't determined yet. But we have a HECK of a lot to look through ;-)

Rob> Thank all for the great conversations on the board over the past couple of weeks. You guys impress me with your attention to comments made. What changes, if any, to the target selection routine have been made?

<Steve_BTS> Thanks ;-) The TacAI is now less likely to override a human order for one. There have also been minor tweaks here and there in regards to specific units. More...

<Steve_BTS> We are still looking at various options for ambushes and stuff. We have also changed the default interface so that when you target a hidden unit it will automatically become unhidden.

<Rom> the abandoning of StuGs and the halftracks are a little annoying is it going to be fixed?

<Steve_BTS> They are only abandoned if they take certain damage. They are not bailed out of if functional. So we will be making no changes since this is the correct way it should work. More...

<Steve_BTS> Basically if the vehicle takes too many casualties, or suffers too much serious, but non fatal, damage the crew will bail. Example... a tank' main gun KO'd as well as immobile. Would *you* sit in there waiting for another hit to finish you off? :-)

<RonM> I just finished a game with a friend where he kicked my a$$, but we had even losses; he felt that he lost because of this; which I tend to agree; Could you address how the loss or lack of loss of troops will translate in the campaign games?

<Rom> but they don't say they are damaged

<Steve_BTS> Rom, abandoned is the same thing.

<Steve_BTS> it is just a label, but it is damaged

<Steve_BTS> RonM... working on this one... hold on...

<NottheCharles> Makes sense, if abandoned, assume damaged

<Fionn_TGN> Yes, Abandoned means it isn't a total write-off and may be salvageable in a campaign. (that's how I understand it anyways).

<Steve_BTS> The demo's ratios for determining victory in the demo were far too favorable for the one who was ahead (either defender or attacker). More...

<Steve_BTS> Basically the guy who loses more stuff will be at a very big disadvantage, even if flags are captured and held

<Scott> You mentioned you haven't decided which specific campaigns are going in, but do you have an estimate of how many scenarios and campaigns will be included?

<Steve_BTS> Oh boy :-) We are just starting the process of finalizing them now. Charles asked me last night if I thought we had enough. I told him to look at the scenario folder our testers have been posting too and decide for himself. His answer... "never mind" :-) We have more than enough to keep most SigOthers very unhappy with us.

<SS_PanzerLeader> Fantastic job guys! Will we be able to place buildings and such where we want them, using the scenario editor. Also are there a maximum amount of units allowable in a scenario?

<Steve_BTS> The terrain system works with 20x20m tiles. Each tile can have one main form of terrain, like a house or a wall or a road or... So you can't put them where you want meter by meter. There are no limits on units

 <SS_PanzerLeader> wow kool :-)

<Steve_BTS> Er, no limits by us. But there are practical limitations :-)

<Sterling> How robust will the networking section of the game be? Will there be a chat function for tcp/ip games? Any other snazzy features?

<Steve_BTS> We are shooting for chat, yes. We are not likely to have any "snazzy" features though ;-) I'll talk about this more in a bit... 

<AndyBrown> This may have been covered elsewhere but how do the leaders' bonus values (combat+2 etc) affect the game's routines ie plus 2 what?

<Steve_BTS> It is just a relative bonus, so it is hard to say. For example, a +2 increases range for C&C, ability to rally, etc. There is no "+2 = x"

<Steve_BTS> More is better :-)

<ASLgrump> a couple easy ones sorry if asked before, will we have an opportunity to tweak the AI for different difficulty levels? for your scenarios will we be able to modify the OOBs at all?

<Steve_BTS> All we can do for the AI is offer "not as smart as the other" options. We discussed this but aren't sure if this will happen. Instead we do have 3 levels of FoW that basically make the game much easier to play. More

Steve_BTS> You can not change the OOBs of a scenario made by others on-the-fly. But you can edit it yourself using the editor. For custom games there is the DYO (Design Your Own) feature that allows you to play with custom forces on a map generated by the computer or hand made by someone else. You can edit OOBs by deleting units, but you can't edit the units themselves (i.e. making a squad of all MG42s for example).

<ASLgrump> thanx, you need to toughen up the AI some :)

<Steve_BTS> Tweaks are in the works. Really, that is all that is needed ;-)

Bullethead> Great game, jonesing for more :) Is there a unit buying system in set-up phase and if so, how does it work? And how many can play in TCP/IP games? 

<Bullethead> sorry if that's too many questions ;)

<Steve_BTS> Most of your answer is above with DYO. You get the ability to buy forces from difference categories (armor, artillery, infantry, etc.) depending on the settings you go with (armor, mixed, infantry). More...

<Steve_BTS> Combat Mission is a 2 player game, no matter how it is played.

Bullethead> you can do PBEM with more than 2

<Bullethead> by saving the game

<Fionn_TGN> In mid-plot right?

<Bullethead> so was wondering if could have divided command in TCP/IP

<Fionn_TGN> ChrisC, do you have a question?

<ChrisC1009> will you make going up and down floors less abstract in future versions? Great game btw

 <Bullethead> right, in mid-plot, save as .CMB file instead of .TXT

Steve_BTS> You are still only playing one player vs. one player. The two games are not linked. SO no, you can’t have divided command in any form, TCP or otherwise.

Steve_BTS> Probably not, but we might. Removing the abstraction is not easy to do and yeilds little increase in realism. Still, one of our top priorities for future versions is making the buildings more detailed, though specifics aren't determined at this point.

<Fionn_TGN> Citizen, your question please?

<citizen> It has been said that bottom floors are assumed to be 1st and 2nd stories. Is this true only for bldgs w/ Top & Bottom floors? Can a bldg be a true single floor? 

Steve_BTS> Yes, the 1 floor buildings are indeed only one floor. Right now we don't have more than just the two forms of buildings. One floor and 2/4 floor combo. Again, this is something we wish to work on in the future.

Craig> You guys are better at teasing than a girl I knew in high school. Anyway, is there any chance of posting what has been changed (fixed) since the demo release, so we won't have to worry about problems we are seeing now? It seems that you end up addressing all of the concerns personally (you or Fionn) anyways.

Steve_BTS> Oh boy :-) Pretty much everything you guys have found in need of change has been changed. I really can't think of one problem area we haven't fixed. We have also put in lots of UI suggestions and some other things as well.

 <Fionn_TGN> e.g Remember the targeting key that lots of people asked for?

 <Fionn_TGN> (a carryover from SP IIRC). Well that was just put in.

 <Fionn_TGN> The way the mouse moves the view etc has been changed per feedback.

 <Steve_BTS> Yes, we added even that as well. There is now a targeting key that will cycle through all possible targets for the given unit.

 <Fionn_TGN> etc etc etc.. Pretty much everything OF MERIT that was mentioned went in.

 <declanmac> I have had good conditioned units in the same building as enemy and not had them fire at the nearly dead enemy...bug?it happens more times than not ...incredible game by the way...great job..it's the game I’ve always wanted

<Steve_BTS> Low ammo and good morale will do that. Your unit can't really shoot, but isn't ready to run. Move in closer to the enemy unit, or vice versa, and they will go hand to hand. The enemy must be in rough shape too, especially with ammo

<Fionn_TGN> Doug, your question please?

<Doug> (Long question) When you get a vehicle moving too close to impassable terrain, the AI causes your vehicle to jink and weave, often exposing the vehicle overmuch. Is there a way for the player to be forewarned during Orders that a desired movement path will cause the AI to screw up your movement? The reason I ask is that sometimes it's hard to tell if your vehicle IS, in fact, going to get close enough to impassable terrain to cause the AI to screw up

<Steve_BTS> We hope to be able to give some warning, but this isn't easy for us to do. It is on The List. But for now what you should do is plot with LOTS of waypoints if you are going to try "risky" moves, especially around the edges of woods for example. There is no penalty for using waypoints, and the problem you are having is basically using too few.

<fatherof4> Steve, IIRC, you are writing the manual. How is that coming? Can you give us some more details on it?

Moon> When you issue a move order, move the mouse cursor close to "tricky" terrain - the order line will go red if it is impassable (ie. too close)

<Steve_BTS> I have passed that off to some sucker <g> so that I can do other things of equal importance. I just got the outline last weekend and we are busy fleshing it out. Some sections are more done than others. But the outline itself is really long :-) More...

<Steve_BTS> Combat Mission is so very detailed and complex (at the engine level) that we really *must* do a good job on the manual or all my time will be spent answering good questions for the next year ;-)

<Griffin> There are a number of questions but I'll pick the most important 1 : Can we blow buildings/structure up, using er rockets, mortars, artillery, etc? I remember reading "A Bridge Too Far" and German clear houses by using Tiger to fire at the base floor.

<Steve_BTS> BTW, Doug, Martin is correct. If you plot short moves you will see the red line more often. Long ones tend to not give you good feedback in this sense. That is what we would like to work on

<Steve_BTS> Yeah, buildings can be leveled already. In fact, I heard of one game of Riesberg where the Americans basically leveled every house in the front row and that gave them LOS all the way to the rear :-)

<Steve_BTS> Buildings will collapses on their own after they have been hit enough. Tiger and Sherman 75 HE is pretty damned good at it

<jagger> Will there be an increased command and control role for infantry company and tank platoon commanders in future CM modules? Will changes like this in future modules be retroactive to the original CM?

<Fionn_TGN> Sorry Steve, cause we have an IRC link IRC people can pop in :-(

<Steve_BTS> First, there will be no "modules" per se. The next version is due out in a year for the Eastern Front. It will be stand alone, but we very much hope to make the advances in the engine retro active. But this might not be technically possible. It is the plan though :-) More...

<Steve_BTS> At this level there is really no more C&C role for tanks or CO/BN HQs to have. There have been several long debates about this on the BBS and in our Beta group, but there haven't been good reasons to change the system we have. It is as realistic as it can be considering that the human has overall control over everything at the level higher than CO/BN any ways

<Larry> Steve, CM is "revolutionary" with its use of a 3d engine in a wargame. Will other companies now scramble to follow you? What are your thoughts?

<Steve_BTS> Oh, I am sure they will try :-) But I can tell you one thing... if Charles and I were working for a traditional publisher, CM would have been kicked out the door about 6 months ago, incomplete, buggy, and watered down without much say in it. We have been working on this for over 2 years, and this is unacceptable to publishers with stockholders :)

<Lee> Oh, and are the amounts of protective armor a close support aircraft has taken into account when calculating if the aircraft is damaged from AA hits (some aircraft are known for their toughness, some are much more vulnerable, which might lead to them running if only fairly minor hits are taken)?

<hnh3> I. M. Weasel?

<Griffin> I think "copycats" will show up 6 months or 1 year to show up. Anyway, wargame is not such a *big* industry

<Steve_BTS> Most publishers shy away from wargames in general, so 3D isn't going to change that

<MartinM> What do you have planned for CM that hasn't been addressed yet? Do you have any surprises for players between the beta demo and the release?

<Steve_BTS> Yeah, we have a few, but then they wouldn't be surprises :-)

<Steve_BTS> Lee, never mind Fionn. What is your question :)

Fionn_TGN> Is armour for CAS planes modeled?

<Fionn_TGN> E.g. Do the various CAS planes have different disabilities etc?

<Fionn_TGN> that was the gist of it.

<Lee> Oh, and are the amounts of protective armor a close support aircraft has taken into account when calculating if the aircraft is damaged from AA hits (some aircraft are known for their toughness, some are much more vulnerable, which might lead to them running if only fairly minor hits are taken)?

Steve_BTS> Lee, as usual, the answer is "aircraft are modeled generically". This is a land warfare game, so everything that has to do with aircraft is abstracted. The differences between x plane and y aren't really as big as might be imagined for an individual battle. The differences were more long term, larger ones.

Mattias> I have seen slope and wooded slope, is there any such thing as a cliff? Is there some kind of "hilly" terrain that is or can be made impassable for infantry? Will "steepness" of a hillside be modeled by a decrease in movement speed that gradually decreases to "impassable"?

Steve_BTS> Cliffs are made by just having very different terrain heights next to each other. Say a height 3 next to 20. That is going to be SOME cliff ;-) Yes, steepness is factored into movement and can block it altogether if too steep.

<mike_in_texas> I know it's probably too early, but have you given any thought to the CM3 North Africa campaign? If so, could you please elaborate?

<Fionn_TGN> BTW I've seen a hill so steep even Shermans couldn't climb it ;)..

 <Mattias> tx

<Fionn_TGN> (I tried ;) )

<Steve_BTS> None :-)

<NottheCharles> The current #1 view is slightly behind and above the selected unit. Will we be able to see "from the eyes" of the selected unit in the released version?

<Griffin> humm, I 2nd that

<Steve_BTS> No. I suppose we might be able to do this, but we have no plans to do so.

Paul_TGN> The C2 rules seem pretty liberal, leading to a "do what you can possibly do in 1 minute- every minute" sort of thing. Is there any thought for future versions to a C2 system that requires more than "plot this turn" planning and more "Friction of war" to go with the excellent "FOW?

<Paul_TGN> No more like more variation in how long it takes a unit to respond and "objective sorts of things so you have to plan a bit ahead

<Steve_BTS> Well, you are penalized pretty heavily for not planning ahead. A Conscript unit can spend 2/3rds of the turn on its butt if you keep trying to change its orders. Also, most people have found that the largest reason they are losing, and taking huge casualties, is because they are rushing things. So there is a natural game balance that works in here to. More...

<Paul_TGN> It does some of this - but in the demo it doesn't seem much.

<Steve_BTS> I'm not sure how much more of a delay an individual unit should take. I think 20 seconds for a normal unit is pretty reasonable, and a bad one (which you guys haven't seen *yet*) can take the bulk of a turn.

<Steve_BTS> Remember, units shouldn't have to be commanded to simply move from a to be. No HQ has *that* much control of its men

RonM> Campaign games using PBEM.. Can it happen or is it scenarios only for PBEM

<Paul_TGN> Thats my point - the player can pretty much replan on the fly - something that took awhile on the battlefield once things deviated from the original plan

<Steve_BTS> Yes Ron. All games can be played multiplayer or single.

<Fionn_TGN> Paul, I think you'll see some movement times on the order of 2 minutes or more. soon

<SS_PanzerLeader> is there any way of having a entire force window to toggle -like in the closecombat series, allowing you to double click and go to that unit, as well as view certain stats on the actual gui? also will there be provisions to resupply your ammo?

<Steve_BTS> Paul, I think you are confusing good tactics (i.e. waiting for a good moment) with ability to move. What I am saying is it would be totally artificial to tell a unit that it can't move for x minutes just because :-)

<Steve_BTS> Nope. There are many reasons for that, some UI and some gameplay. Big, long, and somewhat nasty discussions <g> about this on the BBS. No, within a scenario there is no resupply. In a campaign this can happen to some degree, depending on the circumstances of the unit (i.e. surrounded is SOL).

<Fionn_TGN> Tom, got a broadside?

<Thomas_Davie> Are the AI's initial fire decisions at the start of a turn governed by the TacAI or the Strategic AI. Reason I ask is if the initial fire decisions for the computer are governed by the Strategic AI, then it's initial choices are subject to retargeting, much as we human players sometimes seem to have happen to us. I guess what I'm asking is 'Are there separate criteria for the initiation of fire as opposed to retargeting of fire; or is there no distribution?

<Steve_BTS> The StratAI does decide who should shoot at who at the beginning of the turn, like a human player, but then the rest is all TacAI just like it is for humans.

Yes, we have a question for you guys. There will be more about this on the BBS for sure, but this is the first time we have asked this one :-)

OK, reality here. We have found that our networking code from previous games isn't reliable with the changes in both the Mac and Windows OSes over the last 2 years. Therefore we are faced with a decision to make...

<Steve_BTS> Delay an otherwise complete game for TCP/IP play or ship without TCP and the release it as a free patch within a reasonable timeframe (4-8 weeks) fully funcational and not buggy. Obviously in a perfect world we wouldn't have to make this choice, but name me one world that *is* perfect? (no, make believe ones don't count <g>)

<Steve_BTS> Late December to get into production. It will take about 2-4 weeks to actually get it out the door, depending on how much the Holidays get in the way of things.

<Fionn_TGN> All we're talking about is missing out TCP/IP for 6 weeks right?

<Steve_BTS> OK, I know that some of you guys have been burned by other companies. But you have to keep in mind two VERY big differences...

The first is that we want this to be an up front, majority opinion kind of thing. There is no bait and switch going on here. That is so very different than the others out there...

If it is a matter of not believing that we are going to deliver... well, that would be VERY short sighted of us.

We are a small company. If we screw you guys over, we are dead meat.

We don't have billions of dollars backing us like the other guys

They can screw you over as much as you like, and funny enough most are still foolish enough to buy.

<Steve_BTS> But if we go out on a limb and make the promise to you UP FRONT AND IN ADVANCE we would be the biggest idiots in game developer history (OK, maybe not the BIGGEST <G>) if we backed out and didn't do it.

<Steve_BTS> As far as the technical aspects go, we have done so much already so it should be clear we can handle it. Also, we have done TCP/IP before, so this is just a matter of time, not know how. The game is basically all set up to take the networking code, but it is NOT something we can slap in there in a week.

<Steve_BTS> So the choice is really... do you want to play a 100% functional game (less ONE MP option) now or wait 4-8 weeks to play?

<Steve_BTS> IT seems the majority say to go for it.

<Steve_BTS> But if someone wants to hang out and wait, that is cool to. But personally I think it is somewhat silly ;-)

Steve_BTS> We will be emailing every customer with a preorder in and if someone wants to have us put their order on hold, we would do that no problem. We aren't out to screw folks. We can't or we are dead :-)

<Steve_BTS> Then they can just wait. It is their choice.

<SS_PanzerLeader> Steve is it possible to make a limited release for those that want it an then a second and post info on both?

<Steve_BTS> So basically...

<Steve_BTS> Those that want to wait can wait. That is their choice. So if they choose to pass on a 100% fully functional game, less one particular option, then we deserve NO heat for that. It is a choice they are making, as we are not pulling a fast one on them.

<Steve_BTS> OK, I've said my piece :-) We will have many thread on this topic very soon I am sure ;-) There will be a more formal vote next week sometime. We can only make one choice here, so majority rules. And I think we know what that will be, but we should go through the formal process all the same.

<SS_PanzerLeader> tcp turn s are not going to be simultaneous?

<Steve_BTS> That is the only real advantage of TCP, yes

<Steve_BTS> You can have two people plotting at one time with TCP.

<Sterling> well and chatting too hopefully :)

<SS_PanzerLeader> yah that too

<Steve_BTS> Ah! Yes, chatting too. Good point ;-)

<Bullethead> you mean taunting ;)

<Steve_BTS> HAHA!!

<Steve_BTS> OK... Want some more news?

...and Steve then goes on to talk about the impending release (at that time) of the Chance Encounter Scenario and the Chat just become one big Love fest for the next 2 hours! :-)