[NeonSamurai]

Well i would still prefer a dynamic campaign to dynamic or canned missions. As a tank sim the method falcon 4 used would probably work better, basicly a bubble or zone where the mission is played out involving the player is fully rendered, and the rest of the action happening across the war be completely simplified to unit dice rolls and group movement across the map. I do not know though how sophisticated the AI in SBP is, if it needs to be heavily scripted, with full pathing, or if it is capable of deciding objectives, picking its own paths etc. Mainly though i want something that is replayable, where i dont have to create missions myself (a self contained mission generator would be nice) to play the game. I would even be happy with a dynamic random mission generator campaign, where the action happens on the mission level, and the results of the campaign are based on how successfull i am overall for each mission.

EECH may not be the best example of a campaign, and its ground units do have problems. Also its easier to move around air units then ground units (air units cant fall off a cliff, or get stuck on the terain, at a river, etc).

All i know is i do not want static or semi dynamic campaigns for any game. Sub command, and dangerouns waters are collecting dust. Both lack real replayability in their "campaigns". ARMA has one of the worst campaigns ive ever seen (way too short, bug ridden, broken, no replayability). Games that do not have some form of dynamic campaign or mission generation system dont last very long compared to those games that do (like falcon 4, EECH, SH3, etc) have some sort of open campaign. It is key to a game's long term survivability.

OFP and ARMA are not tank sims, no question (infact they are pretty unrealistic/simplified on all levels including infantry), i just mentioned them to illustrate that they are the only games i have that are even remotely close to a modern tank sim, in almost a decade now.

Well i still dont think they will go with it for a commercial in store release. Dongle's work best where only 1 or 2 programs are on a system that use dongles. They are perfectly fine for a graphic arts program at an office, or a computer that runs simulations for the military. Ordinary gamers wont tollerate it though. Could you imagine if every game you have used dongles, it would be a nightmare of keeping track of the key, switching the keys out all the darn time. You would need a key rack to keep track of them all, not to mention how easy it would be to loose them.

Also dongles are not the super copy protection you may think they are. The only reason why SB hasnt been "broken" yet is because the company and game are so obscure and unheard of that the people who do this sort of thing dont even know of its existence. Most proffessional software that uses dongles has had that protection broken (and btw you would be shocked how many otherwise upstanding companies who legitimatly own the software use illegaly broken code to bypass the pesky dongles).

Anyhow i digress on the above subject, not something we should realy be getting into. If the company does a commercial game release to the stores, they probably wont go with dongles if they are wise, as the dongle will raise the price of the game (which will affect how it sells), dongles will get lost, broken, or be a pain (and people will complain). But mainly the dynamic of the type of people playing this game will shift from dedicated simmers (who are usualy well above 25) who can afford a 125$ game, to everyone we see in the sh3/sh4 section. So though the hardcore simmers and miltary will put up with dongles, i can assure you the rest (which will definatly out number the hardcore people) will most definatly not.