Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Tanaka

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • Location
    Lisboa, Portugal
  • Interests
    CM and TT
  • Occupation
  1. Maybe it's my English, but if at and in game it ,all is ok... You are attacking from S (into North).
  2. The dream of any crew ! BTW, TRL, don't you own me a turn ?
  3. Just because the average Italian soldier wasn’t stupid to the point of dying (with a 1st ww rifle on his hands) for his general’s big “villa” in Benghazi, it is my believe, we shouldn’t go rampart with pertinent but dubious jokes about a full nation “performance” at war. This “so common” (not in this forum thankfully) ignorant perception of the Italian ww 2 effort, just goes to shows us how we shouldn’t relay only on Hollywood excellent entertainment for personal education
  4. Yes, especially when for instances the fire that is “upsetting” them is being aimed into the “void” 30m away and incoming in a 45º-degree angle. Its very disturbing to see the squad in question just deciding, from all 360º options, to sneak right into from where the fire is coming. In this scenario, I’ve had a MG42 “under” (read 30m away) area fire for over 6 turns… Every start of the turn, the MG would do a TacAI 5 sec sneak forward and then setup the MG (30sec+) , next turn all was repeated again… It fired once and it lost 2 man for the “lost bullet syndrome” I know this TacAI behavior is a compromise resulting from dealing with CM infantry engine limitations… It happens in these extreme situations where there are no “good” cover terrains (TacAI point of “view”) and the TacAI can’t assert a path to a “good” terrain. Besides of the “sneak” forward, also observed many times was the “dance of death”… A panicked squad, without casualties would run into the march then after fire, back into the river, then again after fire back into the march and would repeat this process until complete exhaustion or annihilation. When a player sees this “dance” can’t stop laughing/crying in desperation trying to imagine the situation in “real live” Obviously this last situation is a result of poor cover (TacAI point of “view”) mixed with the TacAi inability to deal with the river “block”. That is why, in my point of view, a scenario designer, although knowing the terrain/scenario in “real live” was very marshy, lots of short shallow brushes (brush terrain) and so on, should “supply” the player and above all the TacAI with more “good” terrains covers. Yes, for sure it would diminish the “real” factor of the scenario, but would no doubt increase the playability and with it, considerably reduce the “TacAI luck factor”. [ August 14, 2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]
  5. I find it hard no one mentions this, well... it does prove variety is the spice of live. In my view, the scenario was “fair” but I strongly disliked it. First of, it was a ME with its "flag fights" wish comes far from my usual attack/defense game type. However, its biggest handicap was that it enhanced a number of well-known CMBB infantry engine short comes ; does sneak forward “into” the enemy fire rings any bell? Don’t get me wrong, I know that probably the scenario designer spent his good time producing this “different” and “interesting” scenario, I just think that game engine limitations have to be taken well into account when doing it/them (Carefully choosing the terrain types to use and under what weather conditions the battle will be fought). All in all, it was a “different” scenario, the last turns were a true “pain” to do and it really felt like saying/asking “please can some one shoot this sick horse?” Btw one of the games went as far as turn 55 !!! Wish was around 20% more turns then the other… :eek:
  6. Thanks for the link. Interesting and "different" pictures As for the ammo... strange things those, I'm sure a 2nd ww Soviet arms expert will show up here in a minute
  7. Yes, keep them... they count has double points to the victory calculations. Btw, you can order them to move, hide, but never to do some offensive action.
  8. It was captured and "unarmed" by the enemy… after that, it escaped back to its forces...
  9. Better AI... hmmm, but I don't use it First let me clear that I only play with human opponents, for me CM should be "all" "TacAI and a good game engine". Because of this, I see time invested in "improving" AI as completely useless. CM series are by far the best games I had/have, principally if we go by the $/use ratio, 50$ every 2 or 3 years, not much "entertainment" come cheaper then that AI I'm sorry to inform you that in our game universe, all AIs are "dumb", also remember that normally for any AI to be "challenging", it has to "cheat". (CM AI doesn’t) On all current best selling strategic games out there, AIs "work", is based in "cheating", "scripting" and plain old "dual logic". You typed about SM Gettysburg AI; don't compare it with CM AI, they just aren't comparable, it’s like apples and oranges, they are both fruits, but… The problems/options CM AI has to deal with in its 3d environment are for sure different and more complex. Is it fair I go and compare any Panther AA AI with a BTS CM AI. ? No… EU AI and CM AI? No... I must say there was at least one "grand public" game I remember that used the highest form (in my view) of AI, the "learning" AI… This tactical combat game, developed it self in a small confined 2D environment (to be more precise in a "fake" 3d environment and I’m not talking about the CC games), it collected statistical data to produce “optional matrices” in order to learn how to “defeat” the human player. On this 2d game, these matrices were already very big and the end result, although more challenging was many times “unreal” and “gamey”. So, to do something similar for CM, might prove insanely time consuming/hard and the results would most likely be unsatisfactory. Where my vote goes… :cool: In the age of the global network, I personally think, “solo” players and AI are a thing of the past… So, I would say, invest a big “chunk” of the new game engine development in “borg spotting” and “Infantry fight model” and as for the “solo play”… It must be there, as it has been shown that exclusively “on-line” games can have an hard time to get them going, but from there to invest greatly in it, goes a big difference. Just to finish this already long post, I want to ask you a favor… If by any chance you are better informed then me, and know about the existence of any tactical game with a challenging & “non cheating” AI, please do tell me, I might consider in some occasions, changing my pbem mates by it
  10. Just a small thing, The picture is not reverse... See side of the road in wish the trucks are moving, as well how the bike is overtaking the valentine.
  11. TCPIP --> http://www.combatmission.com:8000/ PBEM --> http://www.rugged-defense.nl/ & http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=24
  12. Notice, that even if you are right, the exactly word doesn’t look well due to the inexact nature of the squad position "A squad in CM is sufficiently apart to be shoot at by out of LOS enemies, but at same time, it is sufficiently close to be completely decimated by a canister round." sic "A day in the quantum live of a CM squad"
  13. Nicely done, very good...Schrodinger's Cat What we have here is a “quantic” CM :cool:
  14. :eek: LOL, This put me laughing for 1 full minute... CM is no longer a tactical game, it is an "approach" game
  • Create New...