Jump to content

markshot

Members
  • Posts

    861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by markshot

  1. Well, the subject is clear. My questions: (1) I've seen the current CM WWII series compared to GTOS on their forums and STEAM. Are there any interesting comparison threads here? (I am interested in peoples opinions.) (2) Is this a legal discussion for these forums? As these forums are not a public unaffiliated Web site, but that of the developer of one of the two games? Thanks.
  2. I guess if I was to summarize what you are saying; proper use of plans by the designer results in an incremental improvement in the "appearance" of an attack as opposed to a quantum leap. Yes, I remember CMBO/CMBB/CMAK attacks. They were typically piecemeal affairs that me feel pity for the poor AI as I shot it up. A good scenario designer could simulate probes and main thrusts by terrain, objectives, and timely arrival of reinforcements. Another problem I had with attacks is that most maps were too small to be any more than static defenses. There was little opportunity for truly multi-layered defenses with interior lines of movement. Still I have enjoyed this game series for years. The CMBO/CMBB/CMAK community was an incredibly prolific group of modders and scenario designers. I ended up with about 6000 scenarios. Once upon a time there was the Scenario Depot. The ISP went bust, but I had a friend that had a zip DB of all scenarios/ops and cataloged via an Excel spreadsheet.
  3. An interesting suggestion. Actually, when I started with CM in 2000; not having any ground combat experience, I did play the intro scenario 20 times. I much better now. I had a collection of 6000 CMBO/CMBB/CMAK scenarios of which I would cycle through every few years. At my age, three years totally restores the FOW. I am actually doing something like you suggested with GTOS to learn the game. So, as you long as you bring it up: (1) How is this scripted AI? Can the AI actually play the attacker? (2) Are the scenarios replayable with up to 5 random plans? (3) How are QBs are they worth anything beyond set ups for PBEMS? Thanks.
  4. I see your point. It's a touch choice. Do you want to die of a tetanus infection or German bullets in the back?
  5. The stock mission: CW 18 Platoon.btt I have played CMBO/CMBB/CMAK since 2000. I just got a new PC and picked up the CMBN bundle. I've done the 6 tutorials and am starting with tiny missions to get up to speed. Thanks!
  6. So then, this is not the same thing as a breaching charge? Thanks!
  7. I have blown the entire side off this building. But no matter what orders I give, my squads want to enter through the doors. Of course, the doors are covered by German arcs of fire! What's going on here? Why won't they just go in? Thanks!
  8. Well, I am not talking about the aiming, but where the fire goes. Now, of course, I am making an assumption that WYSIWIG and that tracers are not simply an abstraction. HMG tracers will cover a much wider area than in the previous generation where they pretty much impacted in a tight pattern. So, there are a number of questions here: * Are the tracers an abstraction or a representation? * If they are representation is area fire now intended to be more diffuse? * Or is area diffuse, because the prior modeling was too accurate for such fire? Ha ha ... once you ask one question ... it leads to a series of questions. Well, I know what to do. Just play the game. Because in the end, the only question which counts is: Is it fun?
  9. It gets more interesting. I later tried to reproduce the situation without smoke. Just stacking a targeting order on top of a way point, and I could not repeat it. I don't know how or why it worked the first time. It is a somewhat reasonable thing to want to do, since you want to know if where you stop a tank will have LOS to point X. (as there is no general point-to-point LOS tool) Furthermore, this generation of CM does behave different. As it seems that as long as the area fire order is in prior to the smoke, the unit shoots. I believe in the previous generation (CMBB/CMAK) lose of LOS meant cancellation of the target. As a side note: (as I just switched) previously area fire was accurate, but just not aimed at a unit/tracking. In this generation, area fire is much more diffuse.
  10. You can set an area target (like an ATG) location on way point. You can then fire smoke shells in front of the way point before arriving. Upon arriving at the way point LOS is blocked, but the area fire is on target and continuous. Seems a little gamey.
  11. So, when superior commanders are not on the map, the C2 links under the HQ portrait shows they are present. Does this mean that when such HQ are not in the scenario (not defined) or arriving later as reinforcements that they are implicitly part of the radio network? Thanks.
  12. Well, I have just finished the 6 tutorial missions, but played CMBO/CMBB/CMAK for years. So, I don't have any house rules yet for play. I am probably going to be playing on Warrior. I don't know if my memory is still good enough to keep track of every contact as just a generic marker.
  13. Thank you for a very succinct explanation as to why this matters. It would seem for small arms fire fights this matters greatly. But for other things as Weapon2010 said ... playing WEGO, one tank may have IDed an ATG, but I as the commander will area fire with quite a few turrets upon that piece ground, since I know what cannot be seen can still be killed. So, both perspectives would seem to have some validity.
  14. I am finding lots of interesting things with various units and the scenario editor. Examples: 50M is the magic distance for voice comms without LOS. Visual close is good enough to spot. Visual far is not. Voice comms can be used to request from a non-organic mortar unit, but the unit will not show a command link or a voice icon. The radio command net is not multi-point (aka peer to peer). The net is a hiearchical structure where peer communications require a superior node. I wonder if C2 with platoons in 50M (voice) or LOS of each other still require the CO HQ in order to exchange information? I am learning a lot by doing this.
  15. Oh that one looks really interesting! Thanks! Yes, "spotting" for contacts is really good. I remember, in the old games 200M was the magic number for infantry engagements. The sneaky thing to do was have a couple of HMGs back from your main line which would stop or delay the enemy from getting into ID range. Also, I have noticed that they fixed a feature of the old game. If you killed an ATG, even if you did not see it die, you would see an unknown team pop out (knowing it was killed). Now, it seems to remain as a possible contact even when killed.
  16. I started with Big Time Software now Battlefront in 2000. I've played CMBO/CMBB/CMAK. I just got a new PC. So, I got the CMBN full bundle. I've read the manual; especially the C2 and arty/air sections a few time. I've played the 6 tutorial missions. But I must admit, I don't fully grasp C2. In the old games: Any HQ could spot for on map mortars. Only an FO could call in off map indirect fire. Any HQ could give command+bonuses to support units: ATGs, shartshooters, LMG, HMG, mortars, ... Any CO/BN HQ could command squads. --- Well, I am not in Kansas anymore. I don't really get the new system. I am trying to play at VETERAN and WARRIOR difficulty. At the moment, I am off to make a map and put some units on and run some experiments. Perhaps, the CM lab approach will help. Any explanations or links to good threads would be appreciated! Thanks.
  17. Jason, I fully understand what your statement means, but I just do not agree. In my case, I played the game, RDOA, heavily for 3-9 months and lost quite consistently (yes, even after being invited to beta test). Of course, I had only just got the hang of CM and hadn't a clue about larger scale ground combat (former flight simmer). So, I can say without a doubt that poor ill conceived plans result in defeat in most scenarios. Well conceived plans that exploit terrain features, timing, strength of various weapons systems, differential LOS, and day/night visibility, ... are much more likely to produce victories. Having authored two gaming guides for the series, I am satisfied that there is a causal relationship between strategy and outcome. Immersion is a very subjective aspect of gaming as is enjoyment. One can well argue about modeling results of tactical engagements or if the results of operational engagements reflect likely realistic or historic outcomes. But debating immersion and enjoyment is a waste of time. I accept that you do not find the series or immersive and find nothing to enjoy in it ... I wouldn't even consider disputing your position. PS: However, I do hope you don't feel the need to be insulting or degrade me for liking the game or disagreeing with you. As far as I can tell, I accorded you as much respect in this thread as I can. As I have stated previously, I've learned much from you and CM was so much more enjoyable for me due to what you taught me. Thanks.
  18. Well, admittedly, there aren't many user developed scenarios for the series. On the other hand, I have been a beta tester since 2001 and I have yet to personally play and exhaust all the possibilities in the included set of scenarios. One of the main differences between replayability between AA and CM is CM's vast respository of scenarios (I have something like a collection of 4,000). Each scenario is a brand new problem. With AA, the set of maps is smaller than the set of scenarios. After a while, you do get familiar with the maps. This can be either positive or negative. Positive if you just want to dive in and play; negative if you would like to study a new terrain situation and find new opportunities. For those with ground combat concepts, the series is fairly approachable. You can be playing pretty quickly without having to master the full depth of the game. In fact, despite the many rich orders available, 80% of the game can be played by just using ATTACK and DEFEND. It is much more important to have a good plan for your battle than a lot of finess with the complete set of orders and parameters.
  19. Martin, I am not sure what the story is, but I have QX6700 (which is almost the latest technology publicly available). However, I did need to use the one CPU only option to get decent FPS.
  20. I had looked at the demos from Prosim of BCT, ATF, and AATF, but they didn't grab me. However, I have to admit that I did not give them much time. That's the problem with demos in general. You are much more inclined to devote serious time to learning something when you pay for it. A free download often only gets a cursory look.
  21. Myself I am a software developer. I have always found the discussion of systems design, games, and real world modeling via software a fascinating topic. I enjoy such discussions, but have no interest having one of these Internet flame wars. JasonC, I may dissaggree with you, but I continue to hold you in the highest regard for all that I have learned over the years and how that has helped me get more out of CM. Thanks.
  22. There is no denying that sales of RDOA/HTTR/COTA have not been stellar. It is a niche (war games) in a niche (hardcore) in a niche (no turns/hex/order delays/AI chain of command). Yet, it does have a following. I will say that there a distinction that can be made between realism and entertainment. The AA engine does deliver on realistically modeling the challenges of command. The artificially artifacts which result from turns and hexes are eliminated while control through the use of the chain of command and order delays well simulates the challenges of time, communication, and coordination that actually manifest themselves in all human endeavors; not just battlefields. However, just because the AA engine is highly realistic doesn't necessarily make it fun. Fun is very much a subjective quality. I cannot say the AA engine must be fun. No, fun is whatever one enjoys when they play a game. However, realistic modeling is a much less subjective matter. However, my opinion on the subject is meaningless, since I neither have military service or am a scholar. On the other hand, we do have team members who have served and others who work/consult at the Army General Staff College. They are familiar with some system currently in use by the name of Janus. I have it from those who are qualified to make the assesment that the AA engine well captures the real flavor and issues of command. Fun ... that's up to you. Realism ... sorry, but I will ultimately have to defer to those who have served, studied military operations, consult to the military, and/or familiar with current military training aids. Please forgive me if I said I would not debate, but the AA engine is not a cartoon produced by programmers. It was created by folks with who have the prerequisite qualifications and have solicited technical guidance of others who have also have the right punches on their tickets.
  23. JasonC, Thanks for the detailed response. I'll have to reread it when I am not having a sleepless night. Some of it made sense to me, and some of it went over my heard. As I said, unlike most of you folks I only started wargaming in 2001 with just a very small set of PC games. From 1992 to 2001, it was almost exclusively flight sims. So, my background is quite limited. On the other hand, I tend to regard these products as games and ultimately whether I am having fun is my most important criteria. Although I do like games that strive to accurately model real world systems, primarily because if it is well done then I believe the end result should be more logical, less likely to contain loopholes and exploits, provide a better intellectual exercise, and deliver a superior educational vehicle. I do find that people are constantly screaming for realism, but few will chose dry realism over fun and good game play. I think when designing a historic game, it is more important to convey the spirit of the major concepts than to strive for total accuracy in all things modeled. Well, it's been interesting. Thanks.
  24. JasonC, I'm back! So, you are looking for the perfect operational game and you find WEGO to be the right balance of eliminating turn oriented artifacts while still allowing you the ability to fully intellectualize the contest. Well, let me ask you your impressions of the AGE engine (WEGO and operational) used to power Birth of America and an upcomming game on the American Civil War. I realize that some might say that AGE is beyond operational and actually strategic, but for me I would say that the engine is less than strategic (compared to the attempts by Paradox), since it is mainly focused on depicting warfare and not nation management. Phil Thibaut the lead designer on these projects does, in fact, have his first entry into game design in board games. You'll see some of that legacy in some of the game concepts such as hit points/strength versus PC games using personel and casualty figures. Full disclosure: Surprise, surprise ... I am a member of the beta team for this developer too. Once again, not looking to score points here, but just to get feedback and impressions. However, I promise you, this is the last query and the only other organization which I test for. {Well, I did involve with MMG for a while, but let's not go there.} Thanks again for your time.
  25. JasonC, Thanks for your thoughts. In addition to your comments about board game (of which I have no knowledge) designers being real game designers, I do feel that additional CPU cycles and polygons has not necessarily improved PC gaming over the years. There were more than adequate CPU cycles for good game play design 12 years ago, but not for much else. So, a larger portion of projects went into game play. These days less goes into game play and more goes into the sizzle factors. {Of course, based on your point, it might be that the early PC game designers were in fact simply prior board game designers.} Possibly a bit OT ... but I have recently been playing a PC port of a highly acclaimed board game, 1830. Focuses mainly on railroad stock trading - but is nothing like any other RR games out there. It's one of the best PC strategy games I have ever played; solid AI, no holes, and very meticuously balanced. If you are interested: 1830 Board Game by Avalon Hill (Francis Tresham, Bruce Shelly) in 1989; 1830 PC Port by Simtex (Bruce Shelly, Russ Williams) in 1993. References en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18XX en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1830_(board_game) [ March 14, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: markshot ]
×
×
  • Create New...