Jump to content

kinophile

Members
  • Content Count

    1,579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by kinophile

  1. Damn tootin'! Personally, and I know there will be dissenters, but I PERSONALLY absolutely love the AI reactions to incoming fire (esp no that its been adjusted [I think?] ) I'm playtesting a complex scenario, with many different firefights and situations. I've just watched a squad of men run towards a building, across a previously shelled yard. The enemy inside opened up, yet missed. My guys did exactly what they should - run back to their cover. They then turned and fired back. It was just so cool to see. NO WHINING, SARCASM or IRONIC comments about Oh I LOOOVE how my APCs don't spot 10m in broad daylight, etc. Just positivity, please
  2. I dunno if thats been tweaked for CMBS, but if I get a unit broken it takes a loooong time to come back to even being able to move. Also, a broken unit is almost always down to its last guys, so it becomes gamey (for me) to, e.g., take a broken unit and try to claw a VP or two. I prefer to leave the shell shocked pixels alone. This time issue (and it most certainly is one) seems to have several facets: It's driven by the Scenario Designer BFC "could" tweak it/improve it/expand it... but given their long, long, long list of TBDs I'd say it would end up on a sticky note stuck to the sole of Charles' shoe... So, it comes down to best practice by Designers in general Which means ...umm suck it up or design a Scenario ourselves It could be useful to have a more explanatory and exploratory section in the Designer's manual about Time, as a specific Scenario Design concept - scenario length, rationales, historical precedents, comparisons of RL events v. correlated in-game Scenarios. Essentially, some pointers/suggestions from BFC (via experienced SDs) as a PDF. Other than that, I think we're always going to be rolling the dice each time we open a new, user made scenario...
  3. Thus is very true. I personally rarely put the full battalion in play right from the top (in a scenario). The maps just don't fit them properly, especially given CMBS spotting ranges. MOUT battles are another deal if course. @Sgt.Squarehead I don't have CMSF, still on the fence ref #2. Your Mosul scenario/map is fascinating though. What starting force arrangements do you have (roughly)?
  4. Actually..... I'm building campaign spread over 24 hours, along a 10/15km AO, with map edge to map edge. Each scebario has ****LOADS of time because the pressure in battle is from: 1. The nature of the campaign (escaping encirclement 2. The crossing of multiple force axis, at various angles. No need for time ****ery, just the terror of know the enemy are nearby and actively hunting you with hea y forces, yet you must keep pushing into them. I consider this ana organic difficulty increase, rather than artificially forced due to not enough time to cross the map and realistically gave a force at t hr e end. I'm being very strict with myself with this, for all the good reason s noted above. Modern war already speeds everything and is WAY to lethal to charge through. The bad time constrains I feel sometimes reflect the pace of the WW2 pace, but without referencing just how dangerous CMBS is to rushers.
  5. Calm down. This forum doesn't need this kind of acidic negativity. It's the the interwebs, lad. Nothing is real, nothing matters. Give the emotional outrage a rest.
  6. I particularly dislike the time frames aspect. I'd prefer to Lose points exponentially as I go over the target, but still have that ability - to go past the alotted timespan by whatever I need (not just the 15mins generally allowed). I find far too many scenarios are rushing me, and I'm not an overly cautious player by any stretch. I enjoy cracking the tactical problem, not the artificial rush to do so.Most scenarios seem to almost be timed training exercises. By contrast I'm fighting a large scenario separately with 3 different players and I've deliberately given us 2.5 hours. It's a complex fight and adding a timed finish gate to it is irrelevant to the story. It might add more "tension" but it's a hell of a hard fight already. My personal preference, is all.
  7. I feel I've finally started to build an intuitive tactical library for CMBS. I've always played chess, on/off and while I'm. Not reactionary per se, I'm definitely limited in how far ahead AI think. I found CM was like that, each battle was a whole New OMG WTF HALP HALP FIRE EVERYTHING NEEOOWWWWW GO GO GO waitwherethe****iseveryone ARGH Nowadays there's less OMG and more Dammit My Pixeltrupoen farted and the Bradley 3km away smelled them, drop the 152s hard, boys. I find the best thing, as intuited above, is to pick a force and stick with them. So, (because I'm ever so slightly retarded) , I choose UKR - hardest to play and utterly helpless if you have a crappy plan. US/RUS forces can still get you out of a scrape but UKR forces are DOOOMMMED if you don't plan properly. So they're my training school, and a brutal one it is too. But I've built a little set if tactics for various events, with my actions triggered by that same note above - pattern recognition. Reading the enemy movements = survival. In CMBS if you're alive you're winning.
  8. kinophile

    Targeting

    Dunno about override. Time as Nd again I've seen AFVs targeting (set by me) a building or etc who get nailed by a very visible (ie dotted and fully id's by the AFV). It's maddening. The hostile AFB is more dangerous than the building but I've never seen the AFV break manual targeting.
  9. No, really. I'm burning "opsec" to post these, but Its a fairly dangerous AI bug to fire ATGMs into a hedge, on AF, with no sightings of hostile armor even available, and plenty of autocannon ammo, GL ammo available. And this asswipe fired off BOTH Barriers. Repeats on every play thorough. Never seen this before. Turn available on request. https://imgur.com/a/En70IYV
  10. kinophile

    Bradley's fire TOWs?

    I justed posted a free days ago about my BTR4E firing both Barriers when on area fire. First it fired the autocannon, then switched to the damn ATGMs, to blow up some shrubbery. Sounds suspiciously like the TOW/Building event above.
  11. Hah! Red won by sheer weight of fire and numbers.
  12. My total, above all favourite is all these good things mentioned - plus REAL Time mode. I played a QB v AI once (Brutal, as RUS) and instead of controlling/adjusting as the game went on, I instead laid out about 30 mins worth of orders. The idea was to take a truer, rear echelon approach - send the men with a plan and see what my troops TAC AI would do when the faeces met the rotating cooling device. It was fairly...brutal...but fascinating to watch the TAC AI react as it tried to achieve its orders. I gave orders for the reinforcement units, adapting to the local situation, and re-ordered any units that had fled fire, but other than t bc at I just sat back and watched the slaughter unfold. Man, modern war can cut a company apart in literally a minute. Took FOR EVER to set all the initial orders but it was worth it.
  13. I wonder is it that the AI doesnt recognise the external, freestanding walls as providing cover? ie that the courtyard effect is actually a really great place to be, as you're protected from 2+ directions AND hidden from view. Each time, the AI ignores the cover provided by the walls and runs out. Is it treating the walls as hedges? That would explain the reluctance to stay near them (ive seen inf ignore hedges and run past to buildings to escape arty fire).
  14. Very good point re Fulda Gap being way more analysed and detail planned (in RL) than BS.
  15. What was the rationale for not doing Arab Israeli wars? Danger of rapant politicization?
  16. Iron on all the way. Going God's Eye view and having 152mm whizzing past your view, down down down down SLAM! SLAM! SLAMSLAMSLAM! SLAM! SLAM! SLAMSLAM! SLAM!
  17. kinophile

    Looking for PBEM player

    I actually have a crowded plate now, sorry.
  18. https://tnsr.org/2018/08/restraining-an-ally-israel-the-united-states-and-irans-nuclear-program-2011-2012/ Now, bear with me... In the CMBS narrative, at its most basic, UKR modernizes its forces with NATO/US/Western INFLUENCE. Russia perceives this as a threat, states its opposition to NATO membership by UKR, a very clear red line. UKR pushes ahead and applies for membership. I *think* it is accepted, so then Russia invades. Personally, I think Russia would have invaded upon even just UKR's application. Either way, it's a very unusual geopolitical situation, and to me only possible/plausibile if there is already an extremely antagonistic, borderline violent state of affairs between Russia and the West. It suggests some possible situations - NATO/US sees UKR as existential threat of Russia assumes defacto control. They counter RUS influence and pull UKR steadily West. OR UKR itself sees Russia as a threat, pivots hard to NATO at just the right time (eg Russia is distracted internally) and managers to maneuver US Ito allowing it to even apply. This suggests a Russia with some form of serious internal issue (eg an extended, messy succession crisis) that the UKR application to NATO actually helps clear up, providing an external, unifying issue. A question here, circling back to the article above, is how much control would UKR have over the whole NATO-fication process? How much pull could it have with the US? Could a unified, determinedly West oriented UKR actually manage to pull this off - without tearing itself apart from the inside? This would suggest the expected CMBS module could be predicated on internal uprisings within UKR and RUS held territory, on the one hand driven by RUS infiltrators and inherent local support (a la Donbass) and on the other as a guerilla/insurgent war against RUS rear forces.
  19. kinophile

    Hypotheticals of the CMBS game narrative

    Is there not an equivalent (offensive) RUS version? 2 - 3 MRBs staged close to UKR border, ready to assault at 24 hrs notice? Even such a small advance guard, properly supported by cross-border fires, could achieve a lot. They've proved dangerous in RL with such a format.
  20. AFV/IFV combat. Multiple ATGMs whipping across a dark valley into an approaching convoy. MG fire slicing amongst the burning vehicles, picking off survivors. Autocannon slamming into BMPS desperately trying to maneuver past the burning HQ vehicle. Artillery strikes grinding a lovely tree-lined street to a shell holed, ruined mess, for blocks and blocks... Infantry advancing down a lane, ambushed by reverse-facing enemy units. Man, I've been caught by that one so often... ... This is just a ****ing great game!
  21. Boy, you just had to, huh. Now, just like those ridiculous political candidate debates, describe something POSITIVE.
  22. https://warontherocks.com/2018/10/just-let-them-compete-raising-the-next-generation-of-wargamers/ Interesting, especially the steam/tabletop UA idea. CM would be a perfect fit. @Battlefront.com what do you think of his brief look at the current state of US military wargaming? Any BRIT/CAN folks who can relate?
  23. Eh, yes there is. Wargaming as specific, grade-able, ranked specialist path within the military's career "universe". I'm not suggesting wargaming is new. I'm fully aware of its age. Hell, apparently the Byzantines would wargame/plan things sometimes. The angle here is to professionalize it as a distinct technical Specialty. The danger of course, is of an army training its warganers, keeping them too close. It might be best that they are trained externally, or in a Coop approach (4 months Military in-house training/experience, 8 months external, industry/civilian study). Currently it seems very Ad-hoc, with little to no career structuring.
  24. kinophile

    New features curiosity

    Scalable UI and Front end graphics. The front end stuff especially might require the least effort, to allow/render 1080+ size images. Speaking of which - enable rendering of JPG/PNG.... good lord, STILL on BMP's?
×