noxnoctum Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 If I try to skip a night battle in say a 5 battle static operation, am I essentially turning it into a 4 day operation (with 4 20 minute turns for instance) or am I just "delaying" the whole thing and making it 5 day battles instead? Thanks I hope that makes sense what I'm asking 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z-warfare Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think, but am not sure, that if both sides opt to skip night combat, that night battle is skipped and you do NOT have to 'make up' the battle at the end of the operation. In your case, it would become a 4-battle operation. Whether the individual battles are day or night depends on how many day battles go by before a night battle, which is a setting chosen by the operation's creator. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 That is what I understand as well... Need to check if the system makes changes if you skip a night battle. Not sure what the AI does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranky Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I've messed around with the Operations parameters a lot, and played through a few, and AFAIK there are no consequences to skipping a Night battle, other than missing the chance to kill or be killed in the dark. One cool feature of the Night battle thing is that it enables an exploit for using the largest sizes of maps (restricted to multi-battle Ops) for just one battle: make your Operation only 2 battles, with Night set to Every 2nd Battle. Set Night Combat to 'No Night Combat', and your Op effectively ends after the first (daytime) battle is fought.... Get me? And to clarify the original point, Skipping a battle means you fight one less battle in that particular Op - AFAIK, it changes nothing at all - you've still 'fought' that Battle, by choosing to Skip it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I never knew that the largest maps were restricted to Operations only... I think it's 8K x 4K. So, one can't get that size in regular battles? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranky Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 That's right. IIRC maximum Battle map size for CMBB is about 4000m x 2200m, and for CMAK 5000m x 4000m. Only Operations allow the biggest size of maps, and then only if you use 'Advance' or Assault' to denote Operation Type - 'Static'-type Ops can have a bigger map than stand-alone Battles, but not the maximum, which is 8000m x 4000m - at least in CMAK; IIRC CMBB's maximum map size is smaller than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 I remember the 8Kx4K as I designed an operation that sorta simulated the battles in N. Africa between Rommel and Eighth Army from El Agheila to almost El Alamein. The 8Kx4K map looked like that part of N. Africa (at greater reduced scale of course). But, I couldn't find anyone with a powerful enuff computer to test it lol. So, shelved it... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranky Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 That's a shame - the biggest Op map sizes would be ideal for some kind of desert battle across the wide open spaces of Libya. My own computer is fairly limited - otherwise I would say 'Let's Test That Op! :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranky Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 "The 8Kx4K map looked like that part of N. Africa (at greater reduced scale of course)" > I actually just thought about that - you mean you replicated the area TO SCALE? LOL - I've had a few thoughts in that direction myself - e.g. a complete Map of the World (Mercator Projection) or a map of Normandy for CM:ETO, to scale, that could be fought over..... Sigh...so many ideas, so little time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 I used maps from various N. Africa boardgames for roads and topography. In a dynamic campaign one plays in a portion of the whole map which moves depending on your success/failure in moving the front line. I think I tried it with a 3K window so as to have LOS that would enable the 88mm's to shine as they did historically. But, I used RL unit numbers divided by 3 or 4 but that was still too many units for most computers. Would love to redo it with maybe 1/6 RL units, but time is so short these days. There are just too many CM games to play now! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranky Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I haven't yet properly got into any of the CM2 games - in part because I'm still finding fun things to do with CM1. Lots of great gaming possibilities still relatively unexplored there - when you involve a third person as umpire/hand of god, a bunch of cool things can be done. Also, I make Scenarios for play against the AI - because it's a challenge to make that dumb guy a fun & frightening opponent. Shameless Plug: 'Chemin-de-Fer 1940' - for CMAK - depicts French heavy tanks of 4th DCR in action against invading Germans, 1940. Difficulty: extreme. Find it at The Proving Grounds. Currently WeBoB's Monthly Challenge for June. <ADVERTISEMENT ENDS> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I enjoy playing CM2, but it is more demanding and tiring than CM1. CM2 is also more "unstable" in the way that a modern fighter jet needs a computer to fly cos things are so sensitive and can wrong so quickly vs older piston aircraft (CM1) that you can handle more easily. CMBN is designed more for infantry battles rather than the combined arms style of CM1 and CMSF. But, they are all excellent games especially since no one else is producing anything comparable. CM1 is just more of a fun game and "feels right", while CM2 attempts to be more of an accurate simulation -and hence the glitches are far more glaring. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazing 88's Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I enjoy playing CM2, but it is more demanding and tiring than CM1. CM2 is also more "unstable" in the way that a modern fighter jet needs a computer to fly cos things are so sensitive and can wrong so quickly vs older piston aircraft (CM1) that you can handle more easily. CMBN is designed more for infantry battles rather than the combined arms style of CM1 and CMSF. But, they are all excellent games especially since no one else is producing anything comparable. CM1 is just more of a fun game and "feels right", while CM2 attempts to be more of an accurate simulation -and hence the glitches are far more glaring. Very good post and totally agree. For me as well, I am not a very big fan of 44-45 period as well. Early war 40-43 for me is what I enjoy the most, as well as armor / combined arms... and lots of it. Mind you I don't mind CMAK modded to CMETO for some reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.