Jump to content

Sim1943

Members
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from IICptMillerII in Exciting news about Battlefront and Slitherine   
    Just wanted to throw in my congratulations as well. Been around here with you guys since 2000 - what a ride it has been. Hope this opens up a nice new wave of CM players!
    Plan on buying a new Steam key just to support BFC on the new platform. Will leave a nice detailed review for those new to the system as well - as good, detailed reviews are key for wargrames.
    Again, congrats to all the old hands at BFC.
    Chad
  2. Like
    Sim1943 got a reaction from Bil Hardenberger in Exciting news about Battlefront and Slitherine   
    Just wanted to throw in my congratulations as well. Been around here with you guys since 2000 - what a ride it has been. Hope this opens up a nice new wave of CM players!
    Plan on buying a new Steam key just to support BFC on the new platform. Will leave a nice detailed review for those new to the system as well - as good, detailed reviews are key for wargrames.
    Again, congrats to all the old hands at BFC.
    Chad
  3. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from Lacroix in AKD sound mod (all inclusive)   
    Mentioned this in the other thread, but thanks again for putting this out today AKD. Went to immediate use!
     
    By the way, does this include WWII Soviet sounds?
  4. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from animalshadow in QB Squad Points Need to be Revisited: Affecting Balance of QB's   
    Vanir
     
    Your solution, of giving the US a point bonus, works fine against the AI in QB's. The bigger problem is the *QB PBEM* scene. To replicate some kind of 'COMBINED ARMS' from CMx1 you are already going to need a butt load of rules. To replicate a modern version of 'SHORT 75' you are going to need another butt load of rules. Then to have the US player have to have another butt load of rules to cover how to spend that 40% adjustment.
     
    Balancing point values is a bear, but it can be done. For instance, if you pulled the hood back a bit and we could see some of the values being used ingame we could better estimate how much 'better' a soldier really is.
     
    For instance, your baseline soldier has no NVG, no armor, an average accuracy weapon and no weapon optics. Lets say he costs 10 points. Then if we could see under the hood, and knew a soldier with weapon thermals was 50% more likely to spot infantry at say 50 meters, and a soldier with NVG *and* thermals was 67% more likely to spot at that same range, now we have something to work with. Then if we say that 'normal' body armor defeats 30% of incoming rounds, but 'good' body armor defeats 40%, theres more data. Then if his weapon accuracy is say 40%, but another had weapon accuracy of 55% with optics - thats even more data.
     
    If we were able to pull back the hood, you can see that everything that happens ingame is values like this: A Veteran solider, who is tired, and firing from a prone position at a point target behind a window in a wood building at a range of 56 meters is going, while under light suppression, is going to have a 14% chance of hitting on his first shot. Like any 'game' system, each one of those elements is factoring into the overall equation, and ultimatley, you roll the dice and see if you hit - no different than say taking a shot at a moving tank, from a moving tank, in ASL.
     
    So if we, which we wont, have that data we could come to some concrete values about how much better any soldier in CM is than another soldier. Not this 'it feels about the same', but actual values that can help in making these balancing decisions. Again, taking ASL as an example, if you compare the American 1st line 6/6/6 squad against the German 1st line 4/6/7 squad, you can draw absolute, concrete conclusions about their relative strengths and weaknesses, by which you can start to base points off of - which is exactly what they did all those years ago.
     
    My gut feeling, is that if those values were posted here we would see that the American solider is way, way overpriced for not that much more capability than his RUS counterpart - the value was a number that someone chose, and it got inflated and never rechecked. Which is fine, thats part of development, but now that the issue has been raised, lets revisit those values. 75% more points is huge - and you would expect that soldier to be that much better. In CM:BS, the average GI Joe is *not*, not even close, 75% more capable than his Ivan counterpart.
     
    Just my continued thoughts - its out of balance.
     
    Thanks
    Chad
  5. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from animalshadow in QB Squad Points Need to be Revisited: Affecting Balance of QB's   
    Howdy all
     
    I know in years past BFC has said that they dont want to *ever* get into point discussions on the QB purchases. If I recall correctly, there was some lengthy debate about the point value of the StuG III compared to the Sherman when CM:BN came out. I stayed out of that discussion because I didnt really see a problem with it - the much bigger problem was the AI purchases for me (a force of all AT guns, all mortars, all FO's or all MG's)
     
    The great news is that with CM:BS, the problem with AI purchases seems to be a thing of the past - whether because the actual logic and coding was changed, or because the AI has fewer odd formations to choose from, in all the QB's I have run the AI purchased force has been pretty good. Not great, but pretty good. Certainly enough for an interesting fight. So whether intentional or not, much appreciated!
     
    That all being said, when the game first came out, after snooping around in the editor first, I was curious to see the point values that were being used for modern equipment in the QB's. First, as everyone has noticed, the point values have gone way up from the WWII titles. Taking a fully patched and expanded CM:BN as my WWII example, in a SMALL ATTACK QB the attacker has 1908 points and the defender has 1185 points: a ratio of about 1.6 to 1. In CM:BS, in a SMALL ATTACK QB the attacker has 6662 points and the defender has 4037 points: a ratio of about 1.65 to 1. So while the ratio has remained the same, the points have obviously gone way up: there are about 3.5 times as many points as before. Which is fine and expected since the point values of everything has gone up.
     
    I started this thread - http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117752-bug-with-american-squad-point-cost-or-intended/#entry1576371 - after release when I saw the points for American, Russian and Ukrainian squads. I was very surprised, and still am, at the point differences between them. To the point that I think the current squad point values are making AI QB's unbalanced, and destroying the option of competitive QB PBEM games.
     
    Lets be specific. All point values from both CM:BS and CM:BN will be for REGULAR experience, NORMAL motivation, FIT and 0 leadership troops. A US rifle squad costs 229 points (9 man), a Russian one 88 points (6 man) and a Ukrainian one 95 points (6 man). So points per man are: US 25.4, RUS 14.6 and UKR 15.8. So that means that your average GI Joe costs 75% more than your average Ivan.
     
    In my previous thread, everyone pointed out all the advantages that the US soldier has and justified the cost increase with this. So since release I have tried to look very close at those advantages and see if they justify this point increase and are **CONSISTENT** for all the squads.
     
    So lets break down the advantages/disadvantages for each National squad:
    PERSONAL ARMOR: As far as I can tell, everyone has personal body armor. I know for sure US and RUS soldiers do, and I have not read or heard anything that states that UKR soldiers do not. While there may be a slight advantage coded into the system for US armor, I can not tell a big difference between their protection and RUS protection - small arms seems to have a 50/50 chance of wounding as opposed to killing/incapacitating. So no clear cut advantage here. SQUAD SMALL ARMS: In the vanilla squads under consideration, US squads have M4's, SAW's, one M320, one M25 and one M110. RUS squads have AK-74's, a PKP and two GP30's. UKR squads have AK-74's, two GP25's, one RPK-74 and one PKM. US squads tend to have better optics, but I have seem no significant difference between these small arms and their RUS counterparts. As many have noted, I have not been impressed with the M25 - it sounded super cool, but its blast is just so weak that it tends to suppress more than kill. I do like having the M110 on the squad level and think its a great weapon. But, neither weapon makes any real difference to the cost of the squad - the M320 actually costs 1 point more than the M25. No again, no clear cut advantage here. SQAUD AT ASSETS: Here is where the US squads are actually at a *significant DISADVANTAGE*. The normal US squad has two AT4's - thats it. Yet, both the UKR and RUS squads have the RPG-7. In playing CM:SF and in CM:BS, the vast majority of my losses to US squads from enemy squads is the RPG-7. It is simply devastating against infantry in hard cover - one well placed shot and you lose half your squad. Not to mention the tandem warhead for actually shooting at enemy vehicles. Dont get me wrong - this is modelled correctly, thats exactly what a well placed RPG will do, and exactly what the tandem warhead will do. While the US squads have *access* to the wonderful and deadly Javelin, its not in the squad, so its points are elsewhere (ie. Javelin teams, Strykers, Bradleys, ect.). So this is an area where RUS and UKR squads have a clear ADVANTAGE over their US counterparts. SQUAD NIGHT VISION: This is where I am the most confused and this is the biggest reason that I feel like the current point system needs to be revisited. The US have night vision assets coming out their ears: both on their heads and on their weapons. The RUS soldiers have thermals on their sights, but the UKR soldiers have no night vision elements at all on the squad level. This is interesting, because the UKR soldiers cost *more* than their RUS counterparts, even though they have no NVG! Even still, I can not notice a significant difference between the squad NVG's on the US and RUS soldiers. Once the shooting starts, everyone sees fine, but before the shooting starts, the RUS soldiers seem to have no problem picking US ones out at night. There may be a small difference coded, but in practice, on the *squad* level, I see no advantage. But again, if NVG's are contributing to point cost, why are UKR soldiers, who have *no* NVG's, more expensive than RUS ones who do? SQUAD COMMUNICATION: Everyone has radios, so thats common across the board - its very nice to always be in command! But the US squad have an advantage here in that they have PDA's on the squad level. This is an advantage, but I would say not a huge one. Sure they can call in artillery strikes, but for a squad, this tends to take nearly 10 minutes to get rounds on target. During development people were debating the strengths and weaknesses of the Javelin, and one of the devs or beta testers commented on the Javelin taking 30 seconds to lock and fire - then made the comment that on the modern battlefield, 30 seconds is a long time. Well if 30 seconds to fire a Javelin is a long time, what about ten minutes! If an enemy asset is willing to sit still for 10 minutes while I walk artillery fire onto them, my squad is the last thing they need to worry about. So while the PDA does help with communication and calling in other assets, it takes so long to do so its not a big advantage. MISCELLANEOUS SQUAD ASSETS: Everyone has binoculars. US squads have two breaching (note, not demo) charges, which helps with flexibility in urban environments. So nothing huge here. So all in all, the US squads have a potential advantage in body armor, an advantage in communication thanks to the PDA, and a potential advantage at night, but again, I cant notice a difference: in playing at night, I tend to find the enemy with my US *squads* when they start shooting at me - Sniper teams with the M107 and vehicles are a much different story, but their points are elsewhere. But the SOV and UKR squads have a significant advantage in the RPG-7. Again, NVG/Thermals are clearly not a point contributor because the UKR squads, which are blind at night, have neither but yet cost *more* than their RUS counterparts.
     
    So overall, I see no clear cut advantage. But instead I see the strengths and weaknesses of both balancing out. Similar to the age old question: would you rather have 10 Garands, 1 BAR and 1 Thompson, or 1 MG42, 1 MP40 and 7 Mausers?
     
    So looking back to the balance of CM:BN, the vanilla US Rifle Squad cost 47 points and got you 1 Thompson, 1 or 2 BAR's, usually one sniper 1903, one AT rifle grenade and the rest Garands. So for that 12 man squad, you were paying 3.9 points per man. Compare to the Fallschrimjager rifle squad that cost 57 points, has 2 or 3 automatic weapons (MP40, MP44 or FG42), 2 MG42's, 2 rifle grenadiers, rest mausers, *plus* 2 demo charges, 1 or 2 Panzerfausts and 4 AT grenades. All that for 5.7 points per man, or a 46% increase in cost. So this squad has a significant and real advantage in firepower, and AT assets, plus the demo charges - I would expect it to be more expensive, and 50% more expensive sounds about right. Compare this against the CM:BS balance, where the US square are 75% more expensive for no significant advantages.
     
    So how is this affecting QB's? Simply put, the US player is facing the red horde. When attacking if 30% of the points are set aside for artillery, support and/or vehicles assets, on a SMALL, ATTACK QB the attacker would be left with approximately 4660 points and the defender with 2825 points for infantry purchases. So if US infantry costs 25.4 points a man, they would have approximately 180 guys attacking against a SOV infantry force of about 190 guys. Carefully playing against the AI, youll win just fine depending on what assets you purchase beyond your infantry and how you use it. However, defending as the US, you would have approximately 110 US infantry against *320 RUS Infantry*. Against the AI, depending on how you use your artillery, sure you can still win, but it feels more like a zombie game than a CM game.
     
    In both of these situations though, playing against a human opponent, the US player is at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage because of the cost differences in infantry while not really gaining any clear cut advantage.
     
    I have been waiting since the days of CM:BO to get back into PBEM play. The days of "1500 ME SHORT 75" bring back very fond memories. Playing on Rugged Defense, I thought the balance in purchasing points was great and had a blast playing. I was really looking forward to CM:BS to see if the SHORT 75 rules could be duplicated and a similar experience could be had. But given these current squad points, I would never play as a US force. UKR versus RUS could still work, but the US player is severly handicap because the US soldier is way too many points for no clear advantage.
     
    So I ask the same question my original thread did: Are the current point values for US/RUS/UKR squads balanced? If NVG/Thermals are not contributing to points, why are the US Squads 75% more than their RUS counterparts?
     
    I am really enjoying CM:BS in particular, and CMx2 in general, but this issue is leaving a bad QB taste in my mouth, which is especially bad considering the long standing AI purchasing seems to be much better.
     
    Thanks in advance
     
    Chad
  6. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from Apocal in "Target Heavy" command   
    I just want to second this. While I do agree with the original post, to me, I would use this command much, much more frequently.
  7. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from mvp7 in More (Official) Small Scenarios   
    Topic pretty much says it all. Since the original release of CM:BN I have noticed that there are fewer and fewer 'small' scenarios in the CM releases.
     
    By 'small' I don't mean literally the label that BFC uses in CM for scenario sizes - I mean a scenario that is both small enough in OOB and map size, and short enough in length, that I can sit down and, start to finish, be done in about 30 minutes. It seems there has been a gradual shift in average scenario size to get bigger, and bigger and bigger with each release of the CMx2 games. CM:RT is a prefect example: out of about 20 scenarios, only 3 of them were "small" or "tiny" (one was listed as small, but was a Bn sized engagement  ) ChrisND saying in one of his streams that the Morning Coffee was one of the 'small' scenarios in CM:BS only added to this impression: it was a big map, though to be fair, I didn't see the OOB.
     
    I know there are tons of folks here who *love* Bn sized engagements that cover a 5km square map and last 2 hours of gametime, let alone how long it takes to actually play it. But, I would like to raise the voice of those of us who don't have that much time to invest into our games. Yes, I am well aware of the scenario editor and QB's, but until we get (if ever) the return of the CMx1 'Combined Arms' selection for QB's, I cant find much enjoyment in playing the AI because of its purchases.
     
    I have never played a CMx2 campaign for this very reason. Though I hope to have time to play Paper Tigers campaigns some day!
     
    So all in all, BFC and those who are officially designing scenarios, please include a nice helping of scenarios that are on the smaller size, both in OOB, map size and actual game time.
     
    Thanks
     
    Chad
  8. Upvote
    Sim1943 reacted to John Kettler in An update on the update!   
    Scase, russwg1970, QuiGon, alaskanbiker56, Blyskawica
    Welcome aboard!
     
    I've been reading these pre-release CM discussions, including the one for the CMBO Gold Demo scenario, for 15 years now, and I must say the quality of the discourse has improved dramatically. Never did I think I'd be encountering cogent analyses of software development pros and cons, let alone waterfall marketing. Even the quality of the fulminations against BFC and its overseas shipping practices has gotten better! That said, I'd be mightily perturbed to be stuck with an additional 75% just to get the game across the Pond and into my hot little hands. Historically, the typical post in a thread like this was rather akin to...
     



    Bravo Zulu, people. Repeat. Bravo Zulu.  
    Regards,
     
    John Kettler
  9. Upvote
    Sim1943 reacted to akd in AKD - Sound Mod at Launch?   
    Hi Chad,

    I do have a combined version of my CMSF mod and more recent WWII title mod that I have been using. I'm not 100% happy with some of the overlaps, but I will probably release it as a beta when the game launches.
  10. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from Cuddles the Warmonger in Age Range of Players   
    We ran one of these back in the hay days of CM:BO and the median and average age was late 30's. I ran it (no polling features back then!) and we had quite a few responses. They were very, very few teenagers back then - I think one under 20. Lots of late 20's, lots of 30's, lots of 40's and then down the hill from there - no pun intended. Even with the limited responses, looks like things have changed as far as the crowd.
  11. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from DavidFields in More (Official) Small Scenarios   
    Thanks for the replies everyone.
     
    I *have* played in the editor, quite a bit. But, heres the problems with creating my own scenarios:
     
    1. Foremost, I know the OOB. Not knowing the exact OOB is, for me, half the fun of scenarios. Even if I use random reinforcements to the point where certain forces will appear in one go of the scenario and not in another, I still know the entire potential OOB and this affects my choices ingame.
    2. Second, I know all potential setup and reinforcement areas. There goes the other half of scenario enjoyment. Even if it is all random and varied, I still know that potentially such and such unit could setup or arrive in a certain area.
    3. Finally, the entire point of this thread, I don't have the consistent time to play big scenarios, let alone make scenarios. While I appreciate the encouragement to create my own scenarios, anyone who has spent five minutes in the editor knows that creating a *good* scenario is a serious investment of time. Sure, I could throw some trees in, a platoon of Shermans and a platoon of Panthers and watch lead fly, but to me, that's not why I own CM. I own CM for the best tactical simulation available, not for a beer and pretzel game.
     
    I am a firm believer of the best experience playing any scenario is your first time playing it. You don't know the OOB, you don't know the enemy setup areas. I have been re-playing the CM:SF scenarios while waiting for CM:BS to get back in the modern mindframe. And even after, what, 6 or 7 years, I *still* remembered where things were going to be, that a platoon of T-72's was going to materialize and so on. It took a huge amount of enjoyment out of the, otherwise, great scenarios. There was still enjoyment in playing the game itself because CM is a great game, but it was a much, much less enjoyable experience.
     
    As for the suggestion to play QB's, theres the huge limitation of solo QB play to fight against (bad AI purchases forcing me to purchase the AI's forces, see above for how much I enjoy knowing the enemy OOB). The end result is I find myself all excited for the new CM games, but not really having a lot of content that I personally have the time to enjoy. I have yet to play any of the CMx2 campaigns because each time I try, after one or two missions I just don't have the time available to play. The 'large' and 'huge' scenarios never get played because I open them up, see a reinforced battalion of troops, a 2km square map and realize that playing this scenario is going to be a 6 hour investment.
     
    Again, there are room for both - big scenarios and small ones. However, as I mentioned in my original post, I have noticed a shift in each release to bigger, and bigger scenarios. As I pointed out with CM:RT, this shift has come to the point where *small scenarios are not even being provided in any significant number anymore*. Where there was once a nice balance between scenario sizes, there are now almost exclusively very big scenarios that take hours on end to play. This is a real shame because its limiting many players enjoyment of the CM series.
     
    ASL Veteran, I realize the challenges in making a good, platoon/company sized scenario because I have tried, and failed, to do so. However, the best CMx2 experiences I have had so far have been exactly those scenarios that have been created in that size range. I can keep track of my OOB, I can take in the map without feeling overwhelmed, and more important in CMx2 with the change to 1:1, I feel each loss.
     
    So again, I humbly ask those who are developing the official scenarios for each CM release, to please keep in mind that there are those who never play the big scenarios due to lack of time. Please include more smaller sized scenarios.
     
    Thanks
     
    Chad
  12. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from PSY in Will there be the traditional BFC Christmas 'bone' this year?   
    Title says it all - will there be a Christmas 'bone' this year? Obviously we know the status on the release of CM:BS, but maybe another 'Road Ahead' bone?
     
    Thanks for all the hard work BFC
     
    Chad
  13. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from Moon in More (Official) Small Scenarios   
    Topic pretty much says it all. Since the original release of CM:BN I have noticed that there are fewer and fewer 'small' scenarios in the CM releases.
     
    By 'small' I don't mean literally the label that BFC uses in CM for scenario sizes - I mean a scenario that is both small enough in OOB and map size, and short enough in length, that I can sit down and, start to finish, be done in about 30 minutes. It seems there has been a gradual shift in average scenario size to get bigger, and bigger and bigger with each release of the CMx2 games. CM:RT is a prefect example: out of about 20 scenarios, only 3 of them were "small" or "tiny" (one was listed as small, but was a Bn sized engagement  ) ChrisND saying in one of his streams that the Morning Coffee was one of the 'small' scenarios in CM:BS only added to this impression: it was a big map, though to be fair, I didn't see the OOB.
     
    I know there are tons of folks here who *love* Bn sized engagements that cover a 5km square map and last 2 hours of gametime, let alone how long it takes to actually play it. But, I would like to raise the voice of those of us who don't have that much time to invest into our games. Yes, I am well aware of the scenario editor and QB's, but until we get (if ever) the return of the CMx1 'Combined Arms' selection for QB's, I cant find much enjoyment in playing the AI because of its purchases.
     
    I have never played a CMx2 campaign for this very reason. Though I hope to have time to play Paper Tigers campaigns some day!
     
    So all in all, BFC and those who are officially designing scenarios, please include a nice helping of scenarios that are on the smaller size, both in OOB, map size and actual game time.
     
    Thanks
     
    Chad
  14. Upvote
    Sim1943 got a reaction from waclaw in More (Official) Small Scenarios   
    Topic pretty much says it all. Since the original release of CM:BN I have noticed that there are fewer and fewer 'small' scenarios in the CM releases.
     
    By 'small' I don't mean literally the label that BFC uses in CM for scenario sizes - I mean a scenario that is both small enough in OOB and map size, and short enough in length, that I can sit down and, start to finish, be done in about 30 minutes. It seems there has been a gradual shift in average scenario size to get bigger, and bigger and bigger with each release of the CMx2 games. CM:RT is a prefect example: out of about 20 scenarios, only 3 of them were "small" or "tiny" (one was listed as small, but was a Bn sized engagement  ) ChrisND saying in one of his streams that the Morning Coffee was one of the 'small' scenarios in CM:BS only added to this impression: it was a big map, though to be fair, I didn't see the OOB.
     
    I know there are tons of folks here who *love* Bn sized engagements that cover a 5km square map and last 2 hours of gametime, let alone how long it takes to actually play it. But, I would like to raise the voice of those of us who don't have that much time to invest into our games. Yes, I am well aware of the scenario editor and QB's, but until we get (if ever) the return of the CMx1 'Combined Arms' selection for QB's, I cant find much enjoyment in playing the AI because of its purchases.
     
    I have never played a CMx2 campaign for this very reason. Though I hope to have time to play Paper Tigers campaigns some day!
     
    So all in all, BFC and those who are officially designing scenarios, please include a nice helping of scenarios that are on the smaller size, both in OOB, map size and actual game time.
     
    Thanks
     
    Chad
×
×
  • Create New...