Kellysheroes

Padded Cells for everyone!!!

So does this mean YOU aren't going to post anymore Michael?....GOOD!

Thank you all that answered my questions, and then those that just answered their opinions. Now I can get CMAK with a calm heart and an open wallet. Next question where would one go to get a "player review/vote" that isn't biased, other than Game Rankings.com? Gamespot isn't a very good source because they require you to PAY to vote, what democratic society requires one to PAY to vote? I don't even think CUBA does that!!! lol And I haven't seen a socalled professional review yet, but, I guess it's because they are still playing it, which is good. The quicker professional reviews come out after a game is released, usually means bad news for that game. Poor "Victoria".

If I recall WWIIOL was the suxors when released, people actually play that now?

Dorsch you really should read posts more indepth before posting. What I said was I saw CMAK and CMBB were in a package deal, I didn't say I bought the dang thing. I want a $10 off coupon to compensate for buying CMBB in October, CMAK wasn't out in October you ninny!

LOL because nobody ever posts in THEIR forums. I have CMBO and CMBB and like both, I just wanted to hear from the main site that mainly the game isn't buggy or something horrible is wrong with the game before I go buy it. Usually Combat Mission games get pretty good player scores on Gamerankings, so I was a little surprised when I saw a 5.5 avg. Thas all.

Ahhh Arggggah, #@$^#^@# Battlefront!! <sigh> Ok why am I pissed? I just bought CMBB in OCTOBER and now I see they have CMAK and CMBB in a BUNDLE DEAL!!!!! I am soooooooo pissed!!!!! I would like Battlefront to send me a $10 off coupon for CMAK now. Then I will no longer be pissed. If you don't, then I will buy it "used" off EBAY or Amazon and you won't make ANY profit, now, wouldn't that PISS you off then? heh

I said PLAYER scores not reviewers scores, look down in the bottom right of the page, the players vote on the game, the top of the page score is reserved for professional reviews if you can call it that. Players have voted the game avg at 5.5 as of my last peek.

I just checked out Gamerankings.com http://gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914581.asp Does the game suk as bad as the player review scores show? I have CMBO and CMBB, tell me what's NEW in CMAK other than the Location and the graphics?

I downloaded a Pacific Theater mod off of wargamer.com for the CMBO game. The graphics of the units were excellent, but, I have no clue about the combat calibrations for the tanks. It's fun to play I know that. Nothing more fun than killing JAPS! heh (in the game folks in the game, not in real life of course) I also have THREE CMBO folders, one is for the European war and mods, another is for the Desert Rats mod/exe I downloaded as well from wargamer.com and then the third is for the Pacific War. So I don't get any mod conflicts or weird graphics or have to change things in and out by having three sets of execution folders. Personally I'm not a fan of the russian front, never was, even in the board wargaming days, but, I bought CMBB for the new way it plays and the extra options one has for the units. Now I'm hoping someone converts this engine over to the West Front and Pacific side of the war as well, like they did Desert Rats and the Pacific War mod. I like playing the Americans and British and French, playing the russians is boring and well I usually just play the Germans when I play CMBB. The ultimate CM game would be ALL of the fronts in one game with ALL of the units from every nation that are in all the games right now. That way everyone can play their favorite nation/units in their favorite setting. And the ultimate ULTIMATE game would be a strategy map where the player makes strategic/operational moves on it, then resolves the conflicts with the CM tactical game.

Thanks Steve, you've really been helpful. I don't get to play as often as I'd like, but, CMBO and CMBB and soon CMAK are at the top of my top 10 gaming library. The marriage of turn based strategy to real time combat has been one of the best things to happen to computer wargaming and I look forward to what you have instore for CMx2. Now instead of asking repetitive questions about CMx2, where can I go to read about what's up in the coming version of the Combat Mission series? I'm also thinking about purchasing STRATEGIC COMMAND, is it complicated to play like "Hearts of Iron"? That game takes too long, how many hours would you say on average it takes to play out a campaign of STRATEGIC COMMAND? Not counting being a new player to it, but, someone that understands the interface and the rules. Also you may laugh at this, but, do you guys ever intend to make any other era of wargames like the CM series? Like the Civil War and Napoleanic and especially the Ancient Period times like in the BC time period? Kellysheroes

To Battlefront: Thanks for the reply. Now another question. During the purchase phase when setting up a Quick Battle, and I set the computer to automatically purchase it's units, does it take into consideration the units I purchase? If not, wouldn't this make it more of a challenge as well. Once again I have no idea what type of coding this would require, so I'm not going to say this would be "easy" to implement! heh I must say though I got thwacked yesterday by the computer AI, gave it +25% units and +3 bonus and I was the attacker with a 2000pt buy. I let it make up a completely random map and man did it screw me, my side of the playing field was practically all open and FLAT terrain with a small patch of trees and brush here and there and it's side of the map was covered with cover from buildings to heavy pines, ever try charging a line with over a mile of open terrain? LOL I felt like I was playing the battle of Gettysburg in WW2! Something I didn't understand though, I set the computer to get HIGH level units and it had green and conscript and I set my units to be MEDIUM and I also got green and conscript...is this suppose to happen this way? Was a quick battle made for the Southern portion of Russia, June 1941 mid-day battle. I lost, damn AI suks! lol And here I am asking to make the AI more challenging! But, mainly I hope to get better with time so I'm just asking for the "future" actually. I don't know if it's the units or there actually was an improvement over the AI from CMBO, because I usually smoke the CMBO AI even with 25% more units and +3 with HIGH level units and it does get veteran and crack units. Also one more question, any chance of getting the CMBO updated with the options of CMBB? I like the covered arcs and the advance and contact and shoot and scoot a lot. Would really enjoy an upgrade to CMBO with these features!! TO MICHEAL: Yes that was what I was saying, but, to futher that example the computer AI would get DOUBLE the victory points per turn or some range higher than 1 to 1 to give it a higher chance of winning the scenario vs a driving human player that might push it out very early. Also whoever controls the flag on the last turn gets more like 250 to 500pts for having possession at end of the scenario. This was done in many of the Battles of Napoleans and SSI Civil War games, thus even a strong human opponent to the AI had a tough time of it due to the victory point squares/flags being held by the computer AI for so long. [ November 02, 2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Kellysheroes ]

To BFC: Many older games used objective "hexes"/"Sqares" as a means of increasing the AI's chances of winning a scenario vs a human counterpart by giving them victory points "every turn" and then a grand victory point awarded for whoever controlled the victory hex/square at the end of the scenario. Is this what is done in CM series of games? I may be wrong but it appears to me that the victory points for flag points on the map have a set amount of victory points for controlling them and nothing per turn, I think that if the objective flags gave victory points every turn (more to the computer AI than the human of course) this would lead to some very interesting outcomes and less exploitive maneuvers by the human player. To me then some of us could play more normal/normal setting games and still find a very challenging game without doubling the amount of units the AI gets. Since the victory locations and TIME taking them would become more of a factor. Blitzkreiging more important than "exploiting" the AI with slow calculated moves. If the AI were getting 100vp's per turn per flag, it would definitely cause some changes in the way many play/exploit the AI. 100vp's is just and example. And I have no idea how easy or hard this would be to program into the game. It's just a thought to give another type of advantage to the AI and eliminate some exploits.

I'd really like to see a poll on how many people that play the CM series find the AI unchallenging with all the settings they are given to make it challenging. How about inputing a "card" in your next version asking the customer after say 30 days of play to evaluate the AI. Hopefully everyone will send the card in and then you can tell us what the moral majority feel about the AI. I for one find the AI a pretty good challenge, but, I don't put hundreds of hours into playing this game either. It's one of those every once in awhile type of games, since it is just a game and not a lifestyle. I've been happy with the series so far and look forward to the Africa Korp version soon. Many people talk about "multiplayer" and all this, but, I've been trying for almost a week to get an online multiplayer game going and nothing yet. I don't think multiplayer is as popular as many people make it out to be. Games like Everquest and Ultima and the rest do not clearly represent the total market of multiplayer "types", while there might be a large market for fantasy multiplayer, the wargaming market has never been what one would call "massive". I go back to the mid/late 60's in wargaming and even then finding four people to play EtoE was an accomplishment. Keep up the good work, at least you have "one" happy customer! heh

I'd go on the side of getting out of harms way, especially if my side armor were the target vs frontal armor. Not to mention the type of tank vs the type of anti-tank weapon. If I knew the anti-tank weapon shells were just gonna bounce offa my tank, I'd probably turn and fire for effect at that anti-tank gun. Stain their underwear so to speak! heh

Some things I do or don't do when playing against the AI. I don't use the initial setup phase on a QB scenario. (Except for making sure vehicles that cannot move in heavy terrain are not in heavy terrain on the maps edge). I always give the computer AI at least +25% more units. I also set the AI up with the "highest" units it can have. I also give it a +3 bonus. I never take "highest" units, will either be medium or green. Heh try a game like this vs a computer "assault" and see how well you do. Also minimum of 30 turns, gives the computer time to smash you up pretty good. It's really the only way to have challenging games vs the computer AI, while the human has more strength in "intelligence", we must give the computer AI more strength in "numbers". It's a fair balance. Then one can ask, how strong is YOUR intelligence? heh We might see someday computer AI FORUMS discussing the qualities of human intelligence! lol Some examples of computer AI forum talk: "Man that human intelligence I play with suxors!!" "They play so unfair, you should see how they "cheat"! (lol) "I beat the human intelligence so badly, he broke my CD" and erased me from his hard-drive". "Talk about "cheating" everytime I'm beating him, he just reloads a previously saved game"! "Heh, when I'm losing, I just crash to desktop" (lol) kellysheroes(wanna play a game?) chuckie cheesy smile [ October 30, 2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Kellysheroes ]