Jump to content

willbell

Members
  • Posts

    229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by willbell

  1. willbell

    PBEM for CMBN

    Looking for an intermediate level opponent for CMBN email games. Looking for smaller scenarios to begin with. Thank you, Will
  2. I know, just wanted to throw my two cents in.
  3. PBEM question: A But I would be crying, beating my fists on the screen, nashing my teeth. I couldn't read all the posts for the same reason I have to play PBEM so this might be repetitive. If you could just include being able to save the turn as an email type file I would play by posting it on an ftp site. Man, I can't wait for this game!
  4. An operational level multi-player is not impossible. But it is a whole "nuther" game, with CM as its base. Along the line of Sag2's suggestion. I have confabed with some programmers and the idea is imminently doable (unfotunately, they are all working on other blue sky projects that they find more interesting). The toughest part is setting it up taking into consideration that you can't get a bunch of players to be all playing at once. But that can be dealt with using a GM type campaign AI. Notice that I never used the word easy.
  5. As if all there is to CM is waiting for the next iteration! The last six months have been the greatest CM experience I have ever had. It's about playing the game, and who you play against. Guess what, I haven't played all the scenarios, or levels yet. Where is the last one? When looking at the volume of messages on this board I sometimes wonder what the focus of this group is, talking? Nothing I've seen out there comes even close to CM when it comes to the gaming experience. It's all just dressed up Unreal Tournament! Or even worse, a hex and counter game. When I watch the Band of Brothers game movie clips with infantry fighting at ten paces and blood gouting from shoulder wounds I realize that what we have here is FPS tournament designers that have decided to put on fatigues. I have given Steve some of my thoughts on what CM2 might have that would be cool, as have others. Now it's time to let the cooks do their magic. My bet is this, it will knock your socks off. And I'm ready for it, when it comes.
  6. A proceedural, or algorythm (snicker) texture is one where the program uses fractal algorithms to create textures. The simplest is where you fill a certain space with one color, say green. But by using fractal algorthms you can generate cool, kind of psychadelic, patterns. By experimenting with various variables they have hit upon certain patterns that look like grass, rock, cloth, etc., textures. Then you apply these to specific places on your model. The advantage is that you don't have to have a library of model specific pixel art, which takes a lot of memory. You just have to run the algorithm on a certain spot on a particular area when needed. Not to throw a damper on your enthusiasm, but graphics like this don't impress me relative to CMAK. When they can do it on an entire battalion in motion in real time, on the fly, then I will be impressed. But as far as FPSs go, it's pretty cool.
  7. Well then, it's aonther vote in support. Unfortunately, although I am an avid CM player, love the game and like to contribute ideas, I don't have the time to read all these posts. I'm just lucky to be able to keep some games going.
  8. This has probably already been mentioned, so I'll throw in another vote for it. An expanded briefing where you can put in images and maps, make the whole briefing experience richer and more creative. After all, if it CM was just about the technical aspects of battle tactics they wouldn't worry about the cool graphics. But those details do matter, and I think a richer briefing would add to the CM experience.
  9. This has probably already been mentioned, so I'll throw in another vote for it. An expanded briefing where you can put in images and maps, make the whole briefing experience richer and more creative. After all, if it CM was just about the technical aspects of battle tactics they wouldn't worry about the cool graphics. But those details do matter, and I think a richer briefing would add to the CM experience.
  10. I would also like to repeat here a suggestion I had in another similar thread, just to make sure it gets out there. I would like to see a larger group game available, perhaps on a web site. It would be a larger campaign or theatre, there would be divisions etc, and some players could even be generals and such. But each player is involved in just a smaller battle, the CM battle, that is just a small part of the larger campaign. But the outcome of your battle effects the larger campaign. This would create a wider variety of situations, you wouldn't always have a balanced battle. You may even be confronted with a situation where the wisest decision would be to withdraw. I know that one problem to solve is that players are not going to always make muster? Well what you can do is have an AI that constantly keeps the larger campaign moving. If a CM player wants to play a battle they can log in and play it. If they are not available then another player could jump in and play it. But if there are no palyers to play it then the AI plays it. There would often be battles where the AI would be playing a CM battle against itself and the results of that battle would effect the overall campaign. It's kind of like the Sim City concept, when you stop actively playing the game it keeps going on it's own. Think of it as a whole bunch of CM battle maps that all fit together, and the larger campaign flows across these. Success at a division level is due to the collective success of all the smaller CM battles being fought. The overall commander would allocate division level resources to various battalions and that would ultimately effect what all your particular company has to fight with in a particular battle. So that's my idea. It is actually an additonal, larger game, but the capabilities woudl have to be programed into CMx2 in order to work.
  11. Please don't misunderstand me on this point. I am not talking about an on line RPG where you develop a character. But, if you did have some kind of over arching war game going on where a lot of different palyers could participate in a larger battle or campaign, you could also command a company, or battalion, that changes in character over time. Some squads that start out as green would become vetran. Some leaders would grow in skill. The main focus would not be growing a battalion or company into some kind of uber force. There would be too many casualties and it should be modeled to avoid this. But you would begin to get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of certain units and the personalities of certain officers, and you could incorporate this into your tactical descisions. Is this a crazy idea? Hey, you asked for blue sky ideas.
  12. I absolutely love the pre-mini-scenario idea for shaping the goals of the battle or campaign. I would also like a toggle so that you could lock the game onto ground level POV only. It would be challenging, and kind of realistic. It would be fun to play a game where your opponent was under the same restriction. I would like to be able to record turn movies. Maybe create a method for setting up a camera POV at a few places during the turn. Or it could record what you see on the screen as you navigate around during the game turn play. I would like to have a refined LOS so that if I get down at the ground level view and look around I will see only the stuff that is actually visible from that point. Sometimes you get down a tanks level, and you can see a tank through the trees, but only because some other unit sees it. I would like a choice of a view that shows only what that unit sees. Forgive any idea repeats here, I just don't have the time to read every single post thoroughly.
  13. I absolutely love the pre-mini-scenario idea for shaping the goals of the battle or campaign. I would also like a toggle so that you could lock the game onto ground level POV only. It would be challenging, and kind of realistic. It would be fun to play a game where your opponent was under the same restriction. I would like to be able to record turn movies. Maybe create a method for setting up a camera POV at a few places during the turn. Or it could record what you see on the screen as you navigate around during the game turn play. I would like to have a refined LOS so that if I get down at the ground level view and look around I will see only the stuff that is actually visible from that point. Sometimes you get down a tanks level, and you can see a tank through the trees, but only because some other unit sees it. I would like a choice of a view that shows only what that unit sees. Forgive any idea repeats here, I just don't have the time to read every single post thoroughly.
  14. Thanks for the suggestions. I'm running them past my opponent now to make sure he hasn't played them before.
  15. Steve, Answer me this. When you refer to not changing the old game. You don't mean to make CMx2 into a larger strategy game, right? Some kind of Tac Ops/European Command/CM blend? When you say think in terms of sky is the limit my reaction is to try to think of the ultimate tactical level/ battalion level game, modeled on the philosophy of CMAK etc. Am I getting this right? William
  16. Steve, OK, here we go, CMx2 is a basic engine that can be adapted to any historical period. (well, maybe with some special coding ad ons for each one) William
  17. There is no getting your tactics down, just jump in with both feet. Having started playing humans I can't get through two turns with the AI without getting bored out of my skull. Try shopping the Peng Challenge thread, it's a bunch of blowhards that aren't too dangerous. Hone your skills on them.
  18. More bites. First what not to do. Don't expand the scale of the game, then it becomes a different game. Keep it at this battalion level where we can play with squads and companies. I want better, more flexible town modeling where the streets are not restricted to 45 degree angles. Wide streets, narrow alleys, dirt paths. Have the terrain in layers so that you don't have to have a particular type of tile for each combination of road, building, and foliage. We should be able to lay down the terrain, then lay road down on that (with trees and brush automatically clearing away), then set down the buidlings at any angle we want. When selecting a route (or in the case of the advanced orders AI capabilities pointing to an objective) we should be able to see imediately if the route is unpassable. Or at the very least, if an obstacle is unpassable the AI will stop the unit, rather than have it make a huge ciruitous route around it right through the enemy field of fire. There should be a highly advanced AI for the officers which allows them to operate independently on immediate tactical situations when given an objective, but which can be over-ridden if we feel like micromanaging their moves. I like the idea of being able to start the game either jumping out of an airplane, or off of a landing craft. There definitely needs to be a larger, multiplayer component that lets several players play a small part of a larger operation. This will allow for more variation in goals. Currently most games are balanced for each player which means you don't ever have to figure out if you should just retreat to fight anther day, you always know the approximate size of the opposing force and that it is roughly comparable to yours. HERE'S A BIG ONE - A quick battle editor that gives you a whole lot more variety in both terrain building and type of battle. It should offer air attacks, rivers and bridges, town fights, bad weather, just everything. How about this, what if BF has a web site, and there is always this ongoing WWII war going on with various campaigns, and a player can jump in at any time and play some current piece of it? There could be slots available to players at all levels, from overall command to battalion leader, etc. The game would just keep moving forward, even if there weren't players to fill each slot, by using AI leaders. But players could log in and fill the shoes of any particular leader for one battle, or a series of battles. Some players might play a general and just keep playing it if they have time. When they finally do stop the AI just keeps the overall war going. So there is no such thing as a player quiting and messing up the whole multiplayer game. leaders could even email other players and ask them to personally lead certain key battles. But there would always be AI leaders to keep the overall game/war moving forward. There could be several times in a day where the battles are available to be played via TCP/IP, and that is when each player would have to jump in and play if they wanted to. It's kind of like letting a SimCity continue to grow, even when you weren't there.
  19. I have played defense in the last two games against a regular opponent who took heavy casualties. So I promised to find a PBEM operation where I was attacking an easily defended position and had to take a lot of casulaties to win. There should be plenty of nasty mines, trenches, air attacks, the whole nine yards. Can you suggest a CMAK operation like this? Someone got the time to make one for us to test?
  20. OK, I'm biting. First, I want every single soldier to be rendered in full motion and graphics, so that the game isn't similar to being in the Finding Private Ryan, it would be exactly like it! Second, each soldier is different looking, no droid pods. The leaders (including sergeants) are modeled with character features that fit their characteristics, ie. grizzled vetran, wet behind the ears, etc. The individuals in the squads move in relation to their environment, following expected tacticle moves, ie, covering, rushing forward etc. But this is all run by the AI because I don't want to greatly increase the number of paths I have to take. Instead of creating paths, I can point to locations on the map and the unit will take the most logical approach to that point. I can order them to work their way to a point, or to rush it like fools. But, If I want I can click on a single soldier to get them to do some specific, or unusual task. But as a rule the squad AI does the work for me most of the time. Terrain types have even more flexiblility, and the variety is much greater. I mean specifically, as in all the wrecked buildings are different. Some of them can hide a tank, other's can't. Soldiers can climb up to the roof, up into the bell tower of the church etc. Trenches get filled in with dirt when bombed and are less effective. Trees get stripped of leaves after coninuous shelling and provide less cover. The vehicles are graphically detailed, just like the infantry. Crews are separate units and they can be moved in and out of different tanks, so if I have two partial crews I can put them in one tank. The tanks, and vehicles of all sorts have a wider range of damage. Broken windshield slows down the driver, the reverse goes out so the tank can only go forward. A flat tire slows, but doesn't stop a vehicle to a certain degree. The radio goes on the fritz. View circles. A toggled colored circle around each unit that shows where it can and can't see so you don't have to do the million clicks of the sight line thing. It's like IRL, you turn your head from one side to the other and you know instantly what you can see and can't see. Infantry can hid behind vehicles. Vehicles can push stuff around for the infantry to hide behind, like trees. There are just a wider variety a manipulatable items. When infantry goes into a house they can increase it's defensive capabilities by being there for a while, such as digging trenches and slits in the walls, pushing stuff in front of the windows. So a building has a different defense effect for someone who has just walked in and someone who has been there for a while. Don't change the scale, or make it more work to move everything, just give us more special instances options. Make it so that a bunch of people can play a huge scenario all at the same time over the internet. Like there is just a huge model of terrain, and each player is somewhere on it with their battlion, or company. But from the perspective of their individual computers they can see only the ammount of terrain that would be usable in the span of the moves in that battle, they wouldn't see the whole terrain. There could be a command structure where one of the players is also an overall commander and could allocate resources to different players from turn to turn. And the resources might, or might now all get to them. A campaign line of resistance AI that makes sense so we can play several connected battles, but have the line of resistance end up in a logical point, not just based on a main line closer or farther away from a certain side of the board, but based on positions and strength of each unit. An editor that gives a designer more flexibility on the victory conditions. So you can probing missions, cover withdrawls, hold to the last man, etc. These are some that come directly to mind. William
  21. Chiavarm, David I is misleading you a little bit. Don't even play the AI, start playing humans. Then let us know how handily you whip their butts. PS Dont' get your panties in a bunch over my panties being in a bunch. Wow Larry, this editing function is really cool, never knew about it. How many years back can I go to erase embarassing typos and comments? Will
  22. Mostly hps and hpc Sometimes as and rarely ac I've been lucky, nobody has droped me on a PBEM. I've had them disappear after a game though.
  23. Hey, I just realized that I drifted into the wrong thread. Sorry guys. Sure wish I had time to both play CM and read more of these threads.
  24. I couldn't care less about 1:1 control, I've got enough to handle as it is in CMAK. It would be cool if there was a model of each man in the squad that you could watch moving around during the movie, but think of the overhead. The smoke graphics already bog down my computer. I wouldn't mind more subtle controls of each squad, but then the command list might get too unwieldly. I would like to be able to reman certain weapons when their crew gets killed, as long as it isn't damaged. Or maybe surviving crew members from a two tanks could get into one that is knocked out but still workable.
×
×
  • Create New...