Jump to content

Pelican Pal

Members
  • Content Count

    446
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Pelican Pal last won the day on September 30

Pelican Pal had the most liked content!

About Pelican Pal

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

594 profile views
  1. Why is this astonishing to you? Basic operating procedure commands exist in a variety of games and they are great for turning a relatively static command into a dynamic one that can work in many situations. If you are confused by the usefulness of SOPs well.... - Hunt (triggers on spotting an enemy) - SOP upon trigger *Fallback* - Movement type *slow* And suddenly a movement type that will see men lay in an open field for ~45 seconds waiting to be killed turns into a command that sees them returning to cover. All without cluttering up the action selection menu. I'm actually flabbergasted that you can't see the benefits of SOPs in a 1:1 tactical game. Yea for sure. I think the best solution is to just buy a second weaker gun that has an extended firing arc to nail trash vehicles and then a real AT gun with a closer in arc for armor. But that can be expensive and difficult in many situations. Part of the overall issue is that we have a set group of commands and then rely on the tacai throughout the action minute to handle things. Yet the tacai is completely incapable of understanding context and acts passively. Which given the dynamic nature of the battlefield isn't great.
  2. Did they fix that in CMx2? I recall an issue with CM:BN(?) where MG positions could be reliably taken by frontal assault.
  3. Yea this is a frustrating one, especially when dealing with any sort of mechanized force that can easily throw trash at your line. Having your well placed AT gun reveal itself when dealing with a HT is a pain. The only real solution is to set a covered arc that prevents the gun from firing at all and remove that once you've spotted armor. Although in WEGO that isn't really doable. This is a great example of how a SOP system to allow commands to be edited would be very useful. - Set armor arc - set "only fire at AFVs" for the arc The tacai lacks any sort of context awareness and this would be a good way of giving them that awareness.
  4. Part of the issue is that BF does a fair amount of research, but for most players it doesn't actually matter. CM:FI is almost certainly better researched content than CM:AK. However, for 90% of players directly using the pre-existing CMAK TO&Es would be more than enough. Because BFC is apparently going through hoops to track down the correct information - so most players definitely aren't going to care. They lack the means and the time to do so and that creates a saminess to the proceedings. (Clarifying the above) If BFC has to go through pains to track down the correct information for a time period then the player base isn't really going to care because they: 1. Can't verify or gain new information from the work that BFC has done. 2. Actually be able to tell when something is wrong or right Once info is tracked down that information needs to be shared in some sort of consumable fashion with the audience for them to also become a stakeholder in that level of detail. Right now if the audience wants to be a shared stakeholder they have to go through the selfsame hoops that BFC did to find the info. I was recently playing Graviteam's North Africa game and they have a section of the game that details some basic stats for each unit and also a few paragraphs of relevant info. So when I started a battle and found the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_Gun_Motor_Carriage I was able to say "what the hell is that" and then quickly become acquainted some history. All without leaving the match I was in. That connection between the game and research can be content, but CM doesn't really do that. You select the year and month and a rifle squad appears from on high with an STG-44 why? We don't know. To an extant it makes me pine for the in-game information tabs of stuff like the original Rome Total War. Even stuff as simple as terrain differences aren't really known to anyone. If you made a CM:FI style map in CM:BS are there any differences? I get the impression that a lot of people here exclusively, are almost exclusively, play CM. For folks who play other games those other games will offer different experiences and obviously we have limited time. The other day I was the Sherman crewmen who suppressed a German trenchline in Hell Let Loose. Its not CM, but many of the thrills that happen in CM happen in other games. Other than that the tendency for PBEM games to become abandoned by people for various reasons, occasional annoyances setting them up, and the balkanization of the series all can make it a bit of a pain with various engine and module combinations now existing. PBEMs being abandoned or slowing to a painful crawl is my single biggest issue followed by engine and module upgrades. I don't want to come back to a match and wonder "what was I doing".
  5. IIRC their tank sims didn't sell well enough so they started building it out into the Graviteam Tactics series. Steel Armor: Blaze of War is one of my favorites and its a pity we won't be seeing more.
  6. IIRC - at least in the older titles - weather had much more impact than the terrain. Re: Forums I'm sure some damage has been done by the balkanization of the titles. In an absolute sense there is less to talk about and when you are talking about content its going to be limited. Generally though the online presence of CM has been in decline for years. A few years back there were some long threads about the lack of feedback/lack of use of user-designed scenarios which is part and parcel of that decline.
  7. Personally I like the H flag for the South and the G, I flags for the North. Since they share a similar style it matches the Civil War aspect with both forces flags coming from a shared heritage. Since the buildings are converted from CM:SF do they retain the stability of modern concrete and those mud brick structures? I haven't actually done any testing, but I figure the material each building is "made from" has some effect on its protective abilities? RE: CM modding - a lot could be done if a single game could read data from multiple families. From what I can tell a BMP-1 is data in a table of some variety and the game then grabs the visuals from the respective BRZ. There is likely another table with ORBATS that is linked to the respective kit. If that data file wasn't locked down it would probably be trivial combine. It is in some ways ironic that BFC's design of CM makes it perfect for user created content yet we are limited in what we can do. The well done Command and Control modelling makes whipping up new formations that act correctly a breeze and since CM is design for cause (as far as I can tell) there wouldn't be any inherent problems to mix and matching forces. E.G. having a Panzer II and a Leopard 2 on the map wouldn't break anything.
  8. Unless I'm mistaken there is no mission editor outside of a simple QB system. Most of the gameplay variety is thanks to the excellent campaign system which is the one area where Graviteam emphatically leaves CM in the dust.
  9. Graviteam real-time has more in common with CM WEGO than CM Real Time. Order delays, the independence of the tacAI, size of the maps, lack of exact precision, etc... all preclude you from doing heavy micro that you would in CM given the same situation. Overall approaching Graviteam games as if they are Combat Mission is a recipe for failure. Stepping back and approaching the Graviteam games as their own beast will give you the best success. My recommendation is to focus a lot on the high level of the battle. Who is providing fire support, who is assaulting and from what direction (What cover/concealment will they have), who is the follow on force, etc.... Whereas CM Real-Time has much more to do with the exact movement of a fireteam down an alley.
  10. RE: Scenario design overall What building your own scenarios does, at least for me, is point out the limitation more than just sticking with QBs and premade scenarios. Once you start opening the system up and you realize that there is a lot you can';t do with the limited amount provided. Sure you can do jeeps and artillery if you want, but that isn't particularly interesting. Take 37mm's Heaven and Earth... That is a dramatic change that is only possible because CM:SF has a relatively broad stable of units. CM:SF, in fact, can do a decent job of representing various conflicts outside of its actual ~3 month time period thanks to the existence of so much Cold War Soviet kit. Some of my favorite CM scenarios were African and Middle-East civil war scenarios. These are scenarios which are well outside of the scope of the game as made, but there is sufficent breadth to make possible. And really what you are doing is using basic building blocks (infantry with Warsaw Pact weaponry, T-55s, BMP-1s, etc...) to create interesting engagements that only broadly resemble the TO&E of any actual Nation that would be fighting with these weapons. In fact you can do a modern battle with "Kurdish" forces using American equipment fighting "Isis" troops with stolen American equipment and various Soviet era vehicles even though there isn't anything close to a well researched layout of these forces in the game. You are ignoring the obvious solution here and imagining that you'd have to release some absurd "uber game". DCS, for example, has a Core Launcher and numerous modules which in the end create a single mega game. The layout of CM, as it stands, would be adaptable to that selfsame system. Rather than having ~6 families each with separate launchers and separate modules. You would have: CORE LAUNCHER Which hosted each family Family Module Which would be the base game for each time period. Child Module Which would be individual modules that are financially attached to a family module. This layout is far from ironic and would actual be a pretty rational system if BFC wasn't as far into the separation system that they currently have. Since with a single "parent" you wouldn't have ~6 different engine upgrades and patches but instead just a single. While you could still have CM:BN, CM:FB, CM:FI as they exist. I get the feeling that 76mm is talking more about some of the complete formations. Within the editor there are quite a few formations that you can pick which essentially aren't ever used as a whole within CM, but are instead already being broken up by the scenario designer/QB player.
  11. I don't have any articles off hand but from my experience: Graviteam tactics series: - Tactical battles require less micro from the player Troops are more spread out and you have less control over them. Preventing you from microing units a ton. You tend towards giving sweeping orders and then watching the platoons carry it out. There isn't a ton for you to do during an assault - most of your focus is on getting people in the right place. Once your infantry are moving across the map its largely too late to do much. For example, in Graviteam its on you to get the assault platoons in position, setup the artillery, postion reserves, and support by fire positions. but once you hit the "go" button you aren't going to be telling squad 1 to break off an anti-tank team to move ~50 meters through a field to engage an enemy tank. - Battles feel more authentic If you read any number of AAR or personal accounts from veteran you'll read a lot of stuff that Graviteam seems to get right. The biggest one for me is that you will repeatedly read about armor advancing even after their infantry support has been pinned down. This rarely happens in CM (to the player) but in Graviteam you'll see stuff like this all the time. In CM the player has a ton of control, this can be good, but can also create instances where battles feel too put together. Graviteam does a better job of making battles messy. - Good campaign system The campaign system is a strategic map of the battle area where tactical fights are generated by the movements of units on the strategic map. Its fantastic and adds a lot of replaybility to the series. This is the one area where it beats Combat Mission hands down. You are dealing with postioning of units over a period of hours, resupply, recovery of damaged vehicles, etc... I recently had a very interesting Graviteam Tactics game where I managed to win by sacrificing a tank platoon to draw the German Heavy tank unit (Tigers) into a strategic trap. - You can get more breadth at a lower price Graviteam mostly focuses on the Eastern front, but you can find Afghan War, Iran-Iraq, Chinese/Soviet Border War, and various African conflicts. These are all relatively inexpensive. This is something I like a lot as they are conflicts that you rarely (essentially never) see simmed and Graviteam does them. CM: - More Micro In CM you can find yourself microing a platoon of infantry and 3 Bradleys to surround a compound that holds 7 Insurgents. And that will be interesting. This makes CM a much better small unit and urban combat game. I just played a battle in CM where I knocked down a section of wall to give a T-72 a keyhole position to kill an Abrams. That isn't something you could do in Graviteam at all. - User designed scenarios While the campaign system in Graviteam is better, the standalone scenarios and the few "story" campaigns in CM are excellent and Graviteam doesn't have anything like it. There are a ton of them and there are quite a few fantastic ones that really let peoples imagination shine. - More WW2 and modern content if you want to spend the money CM covers more ground both in WW2 and in Modern. ----- Generally I play them both. I play Combat Mission when I;'m interested in heavy micro or a good standalone battle. While I play Graviteam when I'm looking for a week long campaign or some weird mid-century conflict. They both play very differently and its hard to compare them directly. josey Wales has a decent video:
  12. To nitpick here that is exactly what we've been able to do for nearly a decade. You can cook up a scenario with Elite Insurgent infantry riding Bradleys into battle against a horde of conscripted German infantry manning technical if you wanted. The well done Command and Control system of CM makes it a piece of cake too. The real limit is the launcher Regardless its good to hear that brought some new weapons with them. I was under the presumption that they were fully armed from existing U.S. and British stock. My broader point was the standalone scenarios, campaigns, and master maps are of little interest to me after the base game in a series is released. At which point I would much rather just have access to new weapons and vehicles with which to make scenarios of my own or play in multiplayer. To the point that I would purchase an "early version" with just a basic availability of new stuff and be fine waiting however many years/months it was to get a patch with the campaign/scenarios/more obscure TO&E. Because when it comes down to it I'm going to use the baked in scenarios and campaign system relatively rarely compared to the usefulness of having Panzer IIIs in CM:RT.
  13. Ah yea, although none of those forces add any actual content to the game do they? The Brazilians and French just use American kit and the others are equipped with British kit.
  14. If there was one thing I would appreciate is BFC taking a more "early access" approach to the modules. I generally don't touch the campaigns or really even the pre-made scenarios. So having quicker access to just the units in a module would be great. I'm sure the portion of Berlin being modeled is probably eating a ton of time for the CM:RT module but I couldn't care less about it. Essentially the unit pack from CM:BN but writ large. What game has the most content in it anyway? I'm guessing Fortress Italy '43 to '45 with the Brits, Italians, Americans, and Germans. A full year worth of weather. Its too bad the Soviets didn't make it to the Italian front.
  15. IIRC leadership has an effect on their morale, but not their ability to aim? Generally I lean towards differing morale/experience levels based on the scale of the battle. Low-intensity fighting having higher experience and morale bonuses and hotter battles having lower stats across the board. Reading a number of veteran's accounts what I repeatedly got was that once a battle got to a certain size nearly everyone was physically exhausted, confused, and mentally overwhelmed.
×
×
  • Create New...