Combat Mission future

[ncc1701e]

20 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

This is already in game. The morale system is very robust and does an excellent job of simulating combat psychology. In fact, the morale and experience system in CM is one of the primary systems (among many) that I think make CM so exceptional. 

More to your point, there are plenty of times where the TacAI "takes over" due to circumstances. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes it's not. A scout team taking heavy machinegun fire displacing on its own is an example of the former. A conscript squad breaking cover and running after a few shots fly overhead, just to be gunned down in the open is an example of the latter. I have seen both happen plenty of times in all CM titles. 

I did not express myself correctly. When under fire, pixeltruppens are often reacting correctly.

This is usually when everything is silent and when I am starting to fear an enemy contact that I wish my units to be cautious. I am a poor player and still doing stupid / risky moves in this very moment when you know there is something that will happen but you do not know from where. My units are executing my orders risky or not risky even if I am careless about them. This is when I am feeling them as fearless.

A veteran unit may say politely to its leader: do what? are you crazy?

(but you know I am losing less people than when I have started playing this game thanks to all tactics manuals that everybody have shared here)

(and the worst situation for me is clean up this city but don't touch the buildings in the ROE, I have no idea how to do that properly. I prefer to lose points and explode everything)

 

[JoMac]

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 4:39 AM, LongLeftFlank said:

(Oh Gawd, not another bloody Korea/Fulda/Vietnam/PTO thread!)

Hey, I don't mind seeing a CMx2 PTO :-)

[JoMac]

47 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

I am a poor player and still doing stupid / risky moves

 GOOD AFTERNOON, NCC1701E..."DO YOU WANT TO PLAY A GAME" :-)

[Mord]

49 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

This is usually when everything is silent and when I am starting to fear an enemy contact that I wish my units to be cautious.

That is the point where I'd suggest you use hunt for the movement order. Whenever I use it I've always envisioned it as my troops being on full alert, cautious, and ready for any surprises. That is as close to what you want as you will get and it fulfills what you are asking for fairly decently, I think. The minute they make contact they drop. There is no other way to simulate caution nor a way to keep you from doing anything stupid/bad until the guys are taking fire and they start to refuse obvious suicide runs.  See if that works better for you.

 

Mord.

[Lethaface]

36 minutes ago, Mord said:

That is the point where I'd suggest you use hunt for the movement order. Whenever I use it I've always envisioned it as my troops being on full alert, cautious, and ready for any surprises. That is as close to what you want as you will get and it fulfills what you are asking for fairly decently, I think. The minute they make contact they drop. There is no other way to simulate caution nor a way to keep you from doing anything stupid/bad until the guys are taking fire and they start to refuse obvious suicide runs.  See if that works better for you.

 

Mord.

Good one. Hunt is indeed a great tool. When I get the feeling described by @ncc1701e I try to use it as a reminder for security. Are my flanks and rear secured? Are my moving elements under friendly overwatch? Am I advancing to contact with the smallest element possible? Did I do any recon or do I have any clue about what to expect? Are the big guns pointing at the enemy? Should I deploy smoke or arty? etc.
The point where I am usually caught of guard is when I should regroup and reorganize but don't. For example after capturing objective A and going on to objective B. I usually sort of spearhead right out of my previous fighting positions and forget everything until I start to take casualties.

I hope for CMx3 they'll be able to smoother the  transition between the map and the background. I would also welcome more fidelity on the graphics and audio side of things. And last but not least further improved tacAI. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by Lethaface

[Erwin]

A tactic that can work well in the game is area firing at sound contacts (assuming you have the spare ammo).  In CM1 sound contacts were vague and it was generally not worth the ammo to shoot at sound contacts.  However, in CM2, the sound contact is an accurate direction and if you shoot at a sound contact in CM2 you should get a result - either killing or suppressing the enemy.

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

much larger maps

That's B.S., Erwin. The maps in CM2 are just as large or even larger than what is available in CM1 - a horribly old, outdated, inefficient game engine. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by LukeFF

[Mord]

On 9/29/2018 at 4:49 PM, Mord said:

for 3:12 isn't the same on a 1:1 scale.

OOPS! I should've wrote 3:4.

 

Mord.

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

That's B.S., Erwin. The maps in CM2 are just as large or even larger than what is available in CM1 - a horribly old, outdated, inefficient game engine. 

That's great news! 

The maps in CMAK could only be 8Km x 4Km = 32 sq Kms.

How large are they in CM2? 

[ncc1701e]

23 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

 GOOD AFTERNOON, NCC1701E..."DO YOU WANT TO PLAY A GAME" 

Depends, do you want an easy win ? 

 

[ncc1701e]

23 hours ago, Mord said:

That is the point where I'd suggest you use hunt for the movement order

I am using it like crazy at the beginning. Then, the clock is ticking and I am doing a trade off. This is usually when things go wrong. 

[Mord]

19 hours ago, Mord said:

OOPS! I should've wrote 3:4

OOPS again! I should've wrote 3:1.

 

Mord.

[Combatintman]

19 hours ago, Erwin said:

That's great news! 

The maps in CMAK could only be 8Km x 4Km = 32 sq Kms.

How large are they in CM2? 

The figure you are quoting is for operation maps in CMAK. Page 145 of the manual states 'Maximum area for a Battle map is 20 square kilometres (roughly 4km by 5km), though neither dimension may exceed 5 km.'

CMX2 maps on the other hand are admittedly smaller but not by a huge degree Page 96 of the manual states 'Maps can have a maximum total surface area of 18 kilometers squared (4248m x 4248m if shaped as a perfect square). No side can be longer than 8,000 meters. The ratio of the length and width of the map must be 10:1 or less.'

As somebody demonstrated somewhere recently (probably @IanL), you can actually squeeze slightly more than 18km2 with maps of 8000m x 2320m achievable in CMX2.

Or put another way, the simple fact of the matter is that maps close to CM proportions are achievable in CMX2 and, as @LukeFFstated, the CMX1 engine is old and outdated. Maps in CMX2 offer so much more.

So you like scenarios with big maps … trust me we get it … but to say that large maps in CMX2 are not possible is factually incorrect.

[Mord]

Didn't you just tell him this same exact thing a month or so ago?

 

Mord.

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

Or put another way, the simple fact of the matter is that maps close to CM proportions are achievable in CMX2 and, as @LukeFFstated, the CMX1 engine is old and outdated. Maps in CMX2 offer so much more.

Nobody is saying we should all go back to CM1.  But for some reason there seems to be this kneejerk reaction to pretend that CM1 was made by a hated competitor or somesuch.  CM2 exists because of the brilliance of the concepts pioneered in CM1 and its success. 

While in theory, CM2 maps can be what 5Km x 5Km??  How many CM2 scenarios exist with those dimensions?  How many systems could run that?   

In CM1, 8Km x 4Km is a very playable size with more than a regimental Task Force on each side.  So, if one wants to play on a huge map with a huge number of units, CM1 is still the only way to go.  If you don't want to play on a huge map, that is fine.  No problem.  Why the need to denigrate the game as well as the players who find that an attractive option?

CM1 is a different game than CM2.  It is more of a fun, and easier to play, game than CM2.  CM2 is more of a complex simulation .  Which is why CM1 is still being played over 10 years after CMSF was released.  That should be something to celebrate and not get one's knickers in a twist about.  When I burn out on CM2, I go back to CM1 (amongst other games) for R&R.  Maybe those who get upset every time CM1 is mentioned never actually played it.

The comments on this subject will be very familiar to those who follow the Star Citizen controversy.  Why the heated reactions to someone simply saying that they enjoyed another of BF's products - and in fact a product that had features that are missed in CM2?

 

[sburke]

48 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The comments on this subject will be very familiar to those who follow the Star Citizen controversy.  Why the heated reactions to someone simply saying that they enjoyed another of BF's products - and in fact a product that had features that are missed in CM2?

I would hardly call it a "heated reaction", but this also isn't what you said.  It was simply a correction (again) to something you keep saying about map sizes that is misinformation.  

49 minutes ago, Erwin said:

While in theory, CM2 maps can be what 5Km x 5Km??  How many CM2 scenarios exist with those dimensions?  How many systems could run that?   

In CM1, 8Km x 4Km is a very playable size with more than a regimental Task Force on each side.  So, if one wants to play on a huge map with a huge number of units, CM1 is still the only way to go.  If you don't want to play on a huge map, that is fine.  No problem.  Why the need to denigrate the game as well as the players who find that an attractive option?

CM1 is a different game than CM2.  It is more of a fun, and easier to play, game than CM2.  CM2 is more of a complex simulation .  Which is why CM1 is still being played over 10 years after CMSF was released.

On the other hand all of the above is absolutely valid (except maybe the bit about CMx1 being more fun. I personally don't enjoy it as much because I am addicted to the 1:1 of CMx2 - but that is just my personal opinion).  However none of it is a valid response to the correction about map sizes.  I actually have created a number of maps that push the limits of CMx2 in several titles.  I don't see them getting much use and there are likely 2 reasons for that.  As you noted they take more "oomph" in computing power and CM battles on that scale take longer than CMx1.  That does not however invalidate that CMx2 maps can be pretty much the same size.

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

While in theory, CM2 maps can be what 5Km x 5Km??  How many CM2 scenarios exist with those dimensions?  How many systems could run that?   

In CM1, 8Km x 4Km is a very playable size with more than a regimental Task Force on each side. 

But the same question applies to CM1. How many CM1 scenarios were really that large? None of the official scenarios were anywhere near that. The map for the BB13 tourney at We Band of Brothers is 3.2 km x 2.8 km, which is smaller than some CM2 maps on my hard drive.

[Combatintman]

9 hours ago, Mord said:

Didn't you just tell him this same exact thing a month or so ago?

 

Mord.

Close but no cigar … 

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 9:27 AM, Combatintman said:

'Width, Height – sets the size of the map. Maximum area for a Battle map is 20 square kilometres (roughly 4km by 5km) though neither dimension may exceed 5 km'

CMAK manual page 145 refers.

'Maps can have a maximum total surface area of 18 kilometers squared (4248m x 4248m if shaped as a perfect square). No side can be longer than 8,000 meters. The ratio of the length and width of the map must be 10:1 or less'.

Combat Mission Engine Manual Version 3.01 Page 92 refers.

So tell me about the much larger maps thing …

 

[Michael Emrys]

14 hours ago, Erwin said:

In CM1, 8Km x 4Km is a very playable size with more than a regimental Task Force on each side.

Not on my computer you couldn't. I was able to run CMBO just fine, but with BB and AK I had a lot of trouble getting framerates faster than about 10-15 FPS with anything over a company on each side and sometimes I couldn't get that much with even a company.

Michael

[Mord]

5 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Close but no cigar … 

 

Ahh, I was pretty sure you'd said something but man, I can't believe it's been a year already. I knew someone had just explained this. Seems, I confused you with @IanL.

 

"I keep wondering about this so I fired up the game. If you want 8km on one side you can make it 2.3km wide. And you cannot get to 4.5km squared you can get 4km by 4.5km. I made this table setting one side to 8km (maxes out) and then getting the max width. Then I reduced the depth by 500m ish at a time and maxed out the width again. If you continue you get the opposite numbers until you get to a width of 8000m and a depth of 2320.

So the longest you can get is 8km with a width of 2.3km and the max area you can get is 18.6km^2 at 2.6km by 7km. That's 1860 hectares BTW.

OK, OK what the heck is a hectare - in acres that would be 4596 acres."

 

 

Mord.

 

[ZackTactical34]

13 minutes ago, Mord said:

So the longest you can get is 8km with a width of 2.3km and the max area you can get is 18.6km^2 at 2.6km by 7km. That's 1860 hectares BTW.

In all honesty, that is pretty decent in size. Obviously, it isn't the size of Chernarus or Altis, but you don't really need that capacity for a single mission. People more or less prefer those large maps because they can switch to various locations and such for differing campaigns.

[DerKommissar]

My computer doesn't like large busy maps in CM, even less so than in Arma.

Performance/technical optimization would be very much welcome.

[ZackTactical34]

13 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

My computer doesn't like large busy maps in CM, even less so than in Arma.

Performance/technical optimization would be very much welcome.

Though, if your PC can manage it, you can create pretty amazing large-scale invasions. Just yesterday, I set up an assault with M1 Abrams against enemy BRDM-2s guarding a city in Fayshkhabur. The Militia never stood a chance 

Edited October 2, 2018 by ZackTactical34

[DerKommissar]

2 hours ago, ZackTactical34 said:

Though, if your PC can manage it, you can create pretty amazing large-scale invasions. Just yesterday, I set up an assault with M1 Abrams against enemy BRDM-2s guarding a city in Fayshkhabur. The Militia never stood a chance 

Yeah, as of late, I am not happy with Bohemia Interactive. I'm much more interested in Virtual Battlespace then in more garbage survival shooters. The trend seems to be that they are going to be making kiddy games for the consumers and proper simulations for governments.

Thank the Nine that BFC is sticking to their niche. I can't wait until Rome to Victory, let alone the unnamed Red Thunder module. Hopefully CMSF 2 does really well and cash can expedite the development of these. I'm curious regarding BFC's opinion on crowdfunding. I'd be glad to be a backer of more content.

[ZackTactical34]

18 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Yeah, as of late, I am not happy with Bohemia Interactive. I'm much more interested in Virtual Battlespace then in more garbage survival shooters. The trend seems to be that they are going to be making kiddy games for the consumers and proper simulations for governments.

Thank the Nine that BFC is sticking to their niche. I can't wait until Rome to Victory, let alone the unnamed Red Thunder module. Hopefully CMSF 2 does really well and cash can expedite the development of these. I'm curious regarding BFC's opinion on crowdfunding. I'd be glad to be a backer of more content.

Hundred percent agree with ya! I'd take Arma 1 or Arma 2 any day of the week (with mods of course). Unfortunately, VBS doesn't offer Personal Editions anymore Titan IM may offer it in the future to gain more recognition and publicity. Thankfully, BFC hasn't gone with the masses but rather continues to offer high quality content.