Disappointed

[Artkin]

19 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Speak for yourself. If I were to play on a 5x5 map, my computer would melt.
I'm currently playtesting a Company+ sized scenario on a 4x4 map, and I'm very much enjoying the single digit FPS I get to deal with.
Oh, wait, no I'm not.

I've found overclocking your cpu gives you tremendous gains in fps. I have an i5 2500k @ 4.6Ghz - 2012 hardware. 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Artkin

[General Jack Ripper]

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

What vile incantation hath awakened me from my non-Euclidean slumber in the nameless deeps?

You know what?

You're alright.

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Superimpose that red square over Objective 'Peter', and abstract the approach maneuver in the scenario editor, and you would have a CM Scenario.

Create one battle around Objective 'Parker', and another one around Objective 'Peter', and you have a CM Campaign.

Get it? The scenarios and campaigns present in the game provide for everything you would need to simulate this operation, with the exception of the approach march, and maneuver between objectives, which if you really wanted them, could also be added (in sections) into a CM Campaign.

Thanks for that.  I was going to make a similar post!

For 20 years of CM development we've always had people disagreeing with our choice of scale for one reason or another.  There is a group that feels tactical battles without the player directing things strategically are pointless.  There is a group that feels they should be able to control individual soldiers to the same degree as any other unit.  And there's a group that believes that they should be able to drive around a large map and choose where and when to engage the enemy.  Others think Combat Mission has hit the sweet spot more or less correctly.  Nobody is wrong, but nobody is right either.  That doesn't stop people from believing that their vision of what makes a perfect game is, itself, perfect.  Decades of debates here prove that.

I get it that some people want to make a choice as to where and how they engage on a scale that is up one level from what Combat Mission portrays.  There's nothing wrong that in theory, though I can point to many things wrong with it in practical terms.  What is wrong is to think that sort of thing is mandatory for the game to hold together.  It might be mandatory for someone to find joy in playing it, but that's a matter of personal tastes and nothing more.

Steve

[General Jack Ripper]

2 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I've found overclocking your cpu gives you tremendous gains in fps. I have an i5 2500k @ 4.6Ghz - 2012 hardware. 

I've got an AMD FX 8350 with 4 physical cores at 4.0 GHZ each.

Still... Single digits are where it's at.

[General Jack Ripper]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Thanks for that.  I was going to make a similar post!

I'm happy to provide. It's not often I get to hang out here anymore.

[Artkin]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

There is no doubting that Combat Mission's overall game performance is very different from computer to computer, despite specs seeming to be relatively the same.  There's a lot of reasons for that and we've had many discussions about it in many threads.  It boils down to a combination of three things:

Very interesting. Thank you for the explanation, although it completely nullifies my previous post. 

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

2.  The number of units and the real world physics tracking is HELL on most computers for the size of battles CMers seem to be most interested in (battalion + in total for both sides).  Other games either severely restrict the number of "actors" or the level of detail or both to free up resources to keep the graphics smooth.  Whenever we have a choice between graphics or gameplay, we err on the side of gameplay.

Battalion+ ?!? My Rad Full scenario is based on the 70th Motor Rifle regiment+ defending against the 1st SBCT- attacker 

8 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

I've got an AMD FX 8350 with 4 physical cores at 4.0 GHZ each.

Still... Single digits are where it's at.

Yeah I struggle on some maps. When I start losing frames I drop shadows (Huge boost) and as a last resort model settings/trees. Looking down and minding my own business seems to keep my fps manageable. Also, placing your move orders right away keeps fps up. For some reason when I go to assign one my fps drop significantly until it's placed. 

[General Jack Ripper]

2 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Yeah I struggle on some maps. When I start losing frames I drop shadows (Huge boost) and as a last resort model settings/trees. Looking down and minding my own business seems to keep my fps manageable. Also, placing your move orders right away keeps fps up. For some reason when I go to assign one my fps drop significantly until it's placed. 

I've had shadows toggled off since my very first day since CMx2 games were even a thing.
They aren't necessary, and you get at least 5 FPS for switching them off.

I've noticed the same thing with the move orders. When you're dragging the order out, FPS goes down, but after you place it, FPS goes back up.
Meh. OpenGL is an eccentric thing. I'm certainly not starting a thread to complain about my issues.

I'm a bit too old for that. "Back in my day, we didn't have these fancy polygons! What?"

[MOS:96B2P]

2 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Superimpose that red square over Objective 'Peter', and abstract the approach maneuver in the scenario editor, and you would have a CM Scenario.

Create one battle around Objective 'Parker', and another one around Objective 'Peter', and you have a CM Campaign.   

+1.  Good point.  

 

1 hour ago, General Jack Ripper said:

I've had shadows toggled off since my very first day since CMx2 games were even a thing.
They aren't necessary, and you get at least 5 FPS for switching them off.

Interesting.  I may try this. 

[Artkin]

Why don't we all get together and try to recreate that map? ;o)

[Splinty]

22 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

And it holds true in the military as well...

Infantrymen carry a 1:10,000 map, Tankers carry a 1:250,000 map.

This former Infantry NCO calls BS. We all carry 1:50000 scale maps. That includes those maps displayed on Blue Force Trackers and FBCB2s.

 

[Mord]

We all know damn well we'd hear nothing but b****ing about any recon vehicles BF decided to leave out of the games. We'd have thread upon thread upon thread arguing their merits until Steve broke and they were finally put into the game. It's a non-issue as far as I am concerned. They are there, use them or don't. But BE thankful they exist because having them and not using them is a 1000X better than wanting them and not having the option because they were never put into the game to begin with.

 

 

Mord.

[MOS:96B2P]

3 hours ago, Mord said:

BE thankful they exist because having them and not using them is a 1000X better than wanting them and not having the option because they were never put into the game to begin with.  

Words of wisdom.  +1   

[Erwin]

Totally agree.  The point I was trying to make is that one needs larger maps to use recon vehicles as they were intended.  MOS's 7.5 Sq Km map for his TOC scenario is a good example.

[sburke]

44 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Totally agree.  The point I was trying to make is that one needs larger maps to use recon vehicles as they were intended.  MOS's 7.5 Sq Km map for his TOC scenario is a good example.

No not really.  Recon vehicles are vehicles because they are intended to cover distance, however they don't have to go 10 feet if the position they are doing recon of is just beyond the hill 10' ahead.  So now you have a tactical situation where the recon vehicles has covered the approach to get to the town they were ordered to reconnoiter or the bridge they were ordered to seize and now have a combat situation.  You are far too strict in how you define the situations a recon force would find itself in based on the objective it was assigned.  For example the article below was based on some research that was initiated for the granddaughter of a sergeant in the 2nd cavalry reconnaissance group.  Any portion of the battles below could be done on a far smaller map. There are combat situations described for both this unit and the German Recon Bn 115.

For a more modern setting- watch Generation Kill.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/luneville.aspx

The First Battle for Luneville: 15-16 September 1944 At this time, XII Corps’s attention was focused on liberating the city of Nancy, securing its positions across the Moselle River and preparing for a drive to the Rhine. The town of Luneville was not at first a priority for XII Corps. Yet in the coming days, Luneville would come to play a pivotal role in XII Corps operations. Luneville was located to the south-east of Nancy on the confluence of the Muerthe and Vezouze Rivers. To the east were two large forests: the Foret de Parroy and the Foret de Mondom. Also in the vicinity were a number of smaller villages, including Jolivet to the north and Deuxville to the north-west.[10] In its drive to encircle and isolate Nancy, the 4th Armored Division had sent its Combat Command B near Luneville but at first had not made any efforts to liberate the town. Instead it fell upon the 2nd Cavalry Group to secure the town. As part of its efforts to screen XII Corps’s right flank, the 2nd Cavalry Group had its 42nd Squadron attack Luneville. Elements of the 15th PanzerGrenadier Division’s Reconnaissance Battalion 115 were then holding the town.[11] On 15 September, two troops of the 42nd Squadron attacked from the south. T/4 Eugene Fehr was the radio operator in one of the M8 armored cars. During the fighting, his armored car was struck by an 88mm anti-tank shell which knocked off the right front wheel. Fehr and his crewmates dismounted to survey the damage, then immediately sought cover. Seconds later another 88mm shell struck the center of the M8 and destroyed it. Unable to overcome the German resistance, the 2nd Cavalry troopers pulled back and re-grouped.[12] 42nd Squadron was reinforced by elements of Colonel Wendell Blanchard’s Reserve Command (CCR), 4th Armored Division. Blanchard had with him the 696th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, part of the 489th Anti-aircraft Artillery (Automatic Weapons) Battalion, part of the 35th Tank Battalion, part of the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion and Headquarters and B Companies of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion. The next day, the combined force launched a three-prong attack on Luneville. The Squadron’s C Troop attacked from the west while B Troop attacked from the south-east and CCR attacked from the northwest. B Company of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion covered CCR’s left flank north-west of the city.[13] In this fight for Luneville, the 35th Tank Battalion was operating without its B and C Companies which had been detached for service elsewhere. The battalion was positioned initially in the village of Deuxville then moved to occupy some high ground northwest of the city. Though the 35th Tank Battalion force did not participate in the liberation of the city, it did repel a German counter-attack. They destroyed two German half-tracks and three anti-tank guns at a cost of one M4 Sherman medium tank, two men killed and fifteen wounded.[14] While most of B Troop, 42nd Squadron was engaged in the Luneville fight, Sgt James Hart’s section of 1st Platoon was sent to the west side of the Muerthe River to set up an outpost on a road leading to Luneville. At one point, a column of German panzers and infantry advanced up the road. Sgt Hart’s men opened fired at close range, killing a number of Germans and a tank commander. The Germans withdrew. But it would be another four days before his section were reunited with their parent troop.[15] The Americans pushed the Germans out of Luneville by late afternoon and Reserve Command assumed responsibility for the city. The Germans had 75 men killed and another 18 taken prisoner. The following day, the 2nd Cavalry Group assembled in the vicinity of the Foret de Mondon, with its A Troop, 42nd Squadron screening in the forest to the south-east and B Troop covering the southern approaches to Luneville.[16] Also on 17 September 1944, the 35th Tank Battalion endeavoured to clear German forces from the vicinity of Jolivet and the Foret de Parroy. One platoon of A Company attacked Jolivet and knocked out two anti-tank guns at a cost of one medium tank. Meanwhile, D Company conducted a sweep which accounted for one anti-tank gun and a half-track. They also captured fifteen prisoners from the Reconnaissance Battalion 115. Altogether, German casualties in this sector were three anti-tank guns and one half-track destroyed, 75 killed and 81 prisoners taken with another half-track probably knocked out. In return, the Americans suffered two killed, fifteen wounded and a M4 tank knocked out.[17] But the Germans were not done with Luneville yet. Over the next day or so, they managed to infiltrate a large number of troops back into the city. By the night of 17 September, there were enough Germans in Luneville to create the mistaken impression amongst the German commanders that they had in fact recaptured the city.[18]

 

Edited June 23, 2018 by sburke

[MikeyD]

Here's an interesting quote:

Quote

During the recent Iraq campaign, US Marine riflemen were interviewed about their experiences by after-action interviewers.

Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only.

That is basically CM scenario combat ranges. Those ranges aren't much different than infantry actions in WWII.

CM is not a dedicated tank company sim, its a combined arms sim optimized for playing one or two infantry companies. Walking pace for a normal person is about 5 km per hour. That means infantry on huge maps would eat up significant amounts of time just getting up to the forward line of contact. I recall playing a huge CMBO map back-in-the-day. My men did nothing but walk-walk-walk and I never did manage to locate the enemy. That was not a fun battle.

Edited June 23, 2018 by MikeyD

[Erwin]

Thought we were talking about modern recon vehicles which have sophisticated systems - not much good if they need to look only 10 meters ahead.   Not much point in having systems that are designed to look 1+Km distance in such close ranges as described above.  Am simply remarking that there are good reasons to have larger maps in which the systems that are featured in CM2 can be used effectively... whether for recon or transport.

[sburke]

1 minute ago, Erwin said:

Thought we were talking about modern recon vehicles which have sophisticated systems - not much good if they need to look only 10 meters ahead.   Not much point in having systems that are designed to look 1+Km distance in such close ranges as described above.  Am simply remarking that there are good reasons to have larger maps in which the systems that are featured in CM2 can be used effectively... whether for recon or transport.

who is we?  This is a long thread and very little of it has anything about the actual subsystems - I assume you are referring to the optics on a recon vehicle.  The OP never said a word about recon per se but more the scope of maneuver and scale of combat.  You keep very narrowly defining a specific item and then submit that because I can't have a recon vehicle sneaking around the backroads and occasionally peeking over a hill in what would likely be one of the most boring scenarios ever created that CM can 't properly represent recon.  I did suggest watching Generation Kill and I don't think there is a single combat situation in that movie that can't be replicated in CM.

In fact you can create a map that is 3 x 6 km in CM and do exactly what you are suggesting but I simply don't think you will find anyone willing to create a scenario like that.  CM even has a point value system for it (spot).  If someone wanted to create a scenario that had a recon section maneuvering to see if it could obtain information on enemy units while not being observed over a very large map they most certainly can.  That those scenarios do not exist is not because the engine can't create them.

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

one of the most boring scenarios ever created

IIRC there have been some wonderful scenarios or missions within a campaign which start with just such a recon mission - and some of us at least, find that very entertaining.  They are a nice chance from the average assault, assault, assault missions that abound.  The point again that I was attempting to make is that to use recon vehicles effectively, the way they were designed to work, one needs fairly large maps so they have a use for their sophisticated optics and/or electronic sensors.  Not sure why that is such a controversial concept.  

[Artkin]

I dont see any disagreements here. 

I wonder how long of a range this equipment is designed for. My Btr artillery observation vehicles are no better than bmps... walking betty bombs

Edited June 24, 2018 by Artkin

[sburke]

43 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Not sure why that is such a controversial concept.  

Controversial may be a strong term.  I think overall because we are all so invested in the game/tactics and these discussions we tend to get a little wrapped up in them.  Yes there have been campaigns that have a recon portion - Kampfgruppe Engle if my fading memory is accurate starts with a recon mission that has implications for the next battle.  However it is not a long range spot em type mission - it is short range night time infantry oriented and includes combat.  I know you really enjoy campaigns, can you point out one specifically that matches what you are suggesting?  It would likely help focus this a little more than hypothetical ideas.  Doesn't matter if it is WW2 or more current though obviously for the specific point of modern vehicles it would help if it were in either CMSF or CMBS.  I am one of those people who does enjoy uniquely designed scenarios and doesn't have to have constant action however I don't off hand know any that fit what I think you are suggesting.

[Peregrine]

38 minutes ago, sburke said:

Yes there have been campaigns that have a recon portion - Kampfgruppe Engle if my fading memory is accurate starts with a recon mission that has implications for the next battle.  However it is not a long range spot em type mission - it is short range night time infantry oriented and includes combat.

This was Panzer Marsch. Accumulated points but spotting enemy infantry. If you spot enough to get victory conditions I think the next scenario you start with many enemy as spotting icons for easier artying.

Don't have it on my hard drive so I can't double check but the packaged campaign for CMSF Marines Module also had a similar mission to start with. Small group of marines moving through an urban area on the right and farmland on the left.

CMSF also had a few other scenarios where you only had a small contingent to creep forward for spotting and arty purposes for about 30 minutes before the main force arrived. These for me were always better than the stand alone recon missions.

The problem with the outright recon scenarios is that they are really hard to do well and have virtually no replay value. If the map is large enough that you can't really guess where you hit the opposition then you need to move really slowly for a long distance. This can give the mission an excruciatingly slow feel. And when you eventually find them you aren't expected to do anything else other the withdraw.

Alternatively if the distance isn't that big then it feels more like you basically already know where the enemy is so why not be pounding that area with something more potent than a couple of infantry squads / light vehicles.

[Glubokii Boy]

6 hours ago, Erwin said:

Thought we were talking about modern recon vehicles which have sophisticated systems - not much good if they need to look only 10 meters ahead.   Not much point in having systems that are designed to look 1+Km distance in such close ranges as described above.  Am simply remarking that there are good reasons to have larger maps in which the systems that are featured in CM2 can be used effectively... whether for recon or transport.

I seem to recall that it has been mentioned before that the actuall recon-equipment of these vehicles does not work....That function is not implemented yet...kind of like the german ww2 enginer- halftrack. It is in the game and looks cool but has no functionallety...

 

[LongLeftFlank]

Surprise! any scenario in open terrain like the Western Desert or Iraq is going to tax any game engine that also allows tactical control of hundreds of individual troops.

At the other end of the spectrum, I did a Tiny recon scenario set in the Normandy bocage; limited visibility, even more limited movement choices.

But with minor variations, the requirement is the same:  locate enemy MLR, preferably without getting your unit mauled and rendered useless for the next mission. If you happen to find a gap in that MLR, call in help to secure it then crack on!

Striking the right balance of daring and caution is the essence of recon work since time immemorial. Those are also very fun scenarios to play.

 

[stikkypixie]

1 hour ago, RepsolCBR said:

I seem to recall that it has been mentioned before that the actuall recon-equipment of these vehicles does not work....That function is not implemented yet...kind of like the german ww2 enginer- halftrack. It is in the game and looks cool but has no functionallety...

 

The only that did not work on the recon vehicles were the radar mast on on type of British IFV. All other equipment work, although for some optics to be used you need to unbutton.

[Glubokii Boy]

7 hours ago, stikkypixie said:

The only that did not work on the recon vehicles were the radar mast on on type of British IFV. All other equipment work, although for some optics to be used you need to unbutton.

Ok, good ! 

Thanks for the info...