Combat Mission Red Thunder Tanks and Vehicles Showcase

[A Canadian Cat]

Cleary @MOS:96B2P and I were doing the same thing. I setup a situation where many PzIVs were to the front and several soliders were to the rear and shot this. Frame rate is a bit off but hey first animated gif from in game video...

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

 Frame rate is a bit off but hey first animated gif from in game video...

Now that is cool.  I'll have to learn how to make gifs someday. 

[Erwin]

16 hours ago, IanL said:

He seems to be too happy with #1 and #3 so why bother with #2. I recommend don't feed his desires and place him on your ignore list. 

Yes.... If you don't like the points I am making please do so.  That is a win-win. 

[Erwin]

16 hours ago, IanL said:

please do not follow people like @Erwin's example. Set the bar higher for yourself - way higher.

And please don't irritate IanL any more.  Many of these relative newcomers to the hobby resent us old-timers.  What is confusing is why he doesn't simply put me on his "ignore" list so that the rest of us can carry on in peace. 

 

[DerKommissar]

17 hours ago, IanL said:

Cleary @MOS:96B2P and I were doing the same thing. I setup a situation where many PzIVs were to the front and several soliders were to the rear and shot this. Frame rate is a bit off but hey first animated gif from in game video...

Now, for the real challenge: 

Does the HULL MG function on an IS-2? I only recently learned that was a thing.

[LukeFF]

On 11/6/2018 at 4:19 AM, Erwin said:

As mentioned elsewhere many of us do not have the hundreds of hours it requires to create a decent scenario.  And we do not get any enjoyment from designing.  We enjoy playing, not designing.

Well, then as we would say in the Army, quit yer' bitchin, and be a bit more appreciative of what the scenario designers do put out. 

Or, like I said, learn the scenario editor and start making some scenarios that use all these vehicles you claim aren't being used. 

[Aragorn2002]

On 11/6/2018 at 9:07 PM, Mattis said:

I am better of by making my own picture of how I perceive and categorise people and do not need your questionable advice so don´t try to draw me onto your side.

I have been to these forums only for a couple of months but in this time I just saw legit comments and great activity by Erwin. Nothing that justify the aggression here. But let me guess, once in the past he dared to voice slightest critique about Battlefront, Combat Mission, or your job as self-appointed moderator and forum dictator, is that about right?

On the other hand in this short time this is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I´ve seen you suggesting everybody to put a guy onto the ignore list just for the sake of not agreeing with you. How often I´ve seen you going for such and other ad hominem attacks I´ve stopped counting. Is that the high bar your talking about?

Well said.

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Well, then as we would say in the Army, quit yer' bitchin, and be a bit more appreciative of what the scenario designers do put out. 

Or, like I said, learn the scenario editor and start making some scenarios that use all these vehicles you claim aren't being used. 

I also agree with that. I make my own scenarios and although they are not balanced or suited for sharing they give me lots of gaming joy. You don't need hundreds of hours to make a decent and interesting scenario. In fact my own scenarios are the only scenarios I'm playing nowadays. Apart from that it's also great fun to adjust other people's scenarios. A couple more tanks or a platoon more makes all the difference sometimes. Once you discover the world of  the editor you don't care about the lack of new campaigns or scenarios anymore. You just want more toys to play with like vehicles, troops, buildings, landscape etc. but you can bake your own bread and make it exactly as you like it.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Aragorn2002

[DMS]

On 11/6/2018 at 11:20 PM, DerKommissar said:

However, it always puzzled me why the designers felt a demand for a rear MG. That's so crazy.

In 1941 many KVs were lost being left without infantry, sometimes at night. Destroyed by pioners, 88 or 105 guns, set behind or in flank, while main forces were attacking from front.

Edited November 9, 2018 by DMS

[DerKommissar]

7 hours ago, DMS said:

In 1941 many KVs were lost being left without infantry, sometimes at night. Destroyed by pioners, 88 or 105 guns, set behind or in flank, while main forces were attacking from front.

Hope they don't attack from the sides, as well. I suppose many other nations shared the concern and loaded their WW2 tanks with pistol ports.  Part of the reason I find it strange is that I'd expect them to put a few pistol ports and issue an SMG in that case. That DT looks like it has very limited traverse and would be almost entirely useless against infantry that is trying to flank the tank. I'm guessing later on they learned that a .50 call for the commander can get that job done.

Still curious if anyone got to to kill some pixeltruppen with the hull MG of this tank. I'm guessing these features were deleted in later variants.

[Combatintman]

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 6:12 PM, Erwin said:

We buy this game to PLAY not spend countless hours WORKING (1) on it. 

I tried creating a huge campaign in CM1.  After about 3 months I gave myself a minor breakdown and vowed never to try that again.  And the CM2 editor is waaaay more complex for regular folks imo (2).

When a designer creates a scenario or campaign am fine with spending hundreds of hours playtesting it (1) and pointing out its problems and how it could be improved.  MOS's Tactical Ops Centre is an example of a truly brilliant design that has advanced the state of the art in scenario design.  If you haven't yet played TOC then shame on you (3).

However, some designers don't want to hear anything negative.  Al they want is reinforcement ie: "Wow, your design is so brilliant."  And then when you state otherwise (4), we hear the same old tired refrain "Why doncha do it yourself?"

Like why doncha repair your own car, and why doncha do all your own decorating or house building, or why doncha build your own computer, or why doncha grow your own food..?   If there is someone here who does do everything themselves and don't rely on specialized folks who can do the job better and faster, then my hat is off to you.  But, hopefully you (finally) get the point and we don't have to go over and over and over this same old tired issue.

(1). Make your mind up.

(2) It isn't complex for regular folks, the mechanics are as described in the manual in the same way that game play mechanics are described. If you can play the game to a reasonable standard (and I'm a pretty average player), then you are more than capable of using the editor competently.

(3). I provided input to this scenario as stated below:

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-black-sea/cm-black-sea-add-ons/tactical-operations-center/

(4). You have been complimentary and constructive about released scenarios. I certainly recall some feedback discussions that we have had regarding some of my work and while we disagreed about some aspects, I accepted some of the points that you made and admitted that I could have made improvements in accordance with your suggestions.

However, you repeatedly comment in threads about the absence of things that you would like to see in scenarios or what might be a great scenario idea. Sometimes you start such threads. In this case, you are bemoaning the absence of certain vehicles that are included in CMRT but are not well represented in scenarios/campaigns. In other cases your two most wanted seem to be map size and reconnaissance missions. Your comments are not feedback to individual scenarios or campaigns - they are, as you have put it 'why doncha?'

This is a reaction to a circumstance which you can control.

You have access to a scenario editor.

You want scenarios with … (insert desire).

Your solution to 'why doncha fix your own car?' I'm guessing is to take it to a garage and pay a mechanic to fix it. Likewise, the other 'doncha' stuff in your post I'm guessing requires paying specialist builders, gardeners, chefs or whatever. If I'm right then these are great solutions and, my response to the mechanic who asked me when I took my car in for repair 'so what's wrong with it then?' was 'I've no idea, you're the mechanic'. A couple of hundred quid later, the problem was solved and I have no idea to this day what the problem was.

Of course if your car broke down and you couldn't afford to chuck money at the problem then your solutions would be different:

Learn how to fix your car.

Walk/use public transport.

Move house.

I'm sure there are more potential solutions but whatever they are, they will only be solutions if you have the resources. In this case though, with the exception of Battlefront releases, you don't have the option of chucking a few quid/bucks at somebody to create the missions you desire so your options go back to those in my original post. 

As you quite correctly point out, good scenario design does involve effort to get right. Due to the effort required, most ,if not all, scenario designers are going to design scenarios that interest them. They are unlikely to devote time and effort into the editor just because Erwin or anyone else thinks it would make a great scenario idea. The upshot is that it is pretty pointless making general comments like 'designers tend to use only a few of the available vehicles - we see the same dozen or so, and that's all'. As we have been over this ground previously I will close with 'hopefully you (finally) get the point and we don't have to go over and over and over this same old tired issue'.

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, Combatintman said:

As we have been over this ground previously I will close with 'hopefully you (finally) get the point and we don't have to go over and over and over this same old tired issue'.

I appreciate your points, but we have to agree to disagree.  I have spend literally thousands of man-hours actually playing the CM2 games including hundreds of hours playtesting for designers, and know how the CM1 and CM2 games work as well as anyone.  That is what I enjoy and this is how I choose to spend my leisure time.  That's why I am often asked to playtest new designs.  Along the way I have discovered many bugs and phenomena that may require improvement - items that the average player may not even notice. 

On the other hand, one gets the impression that designers and modders do not spend nearly that amount of time actually playing.  They enjoy designing and modding as a part of their leisure activities.  I have attempted to design and I hate the process, and do not have talent or the hundreds of hours it takes to become proficient at design.  Am happy to pay BF for professionally produced content.

Just because a person loves doing one thing, it's incredibly self-centered to expect others to love the same thing.  It would be arrogant to expect everyone to play thousands of hours of CM2 like I do before they are allowed to make comments.  No one here should be told to keep their mouths shut about suggestions or improvements, just cos someone else doesn't like what is being said.  If anyone does not like my suggestions or comments then they are perfectly free to ignore them or simply put me on their IGNORE list.  No offence taken.  What should stop are personal attacks on people just cos you don't like what they say.

New members on these forums may not know that only a few months ago it was possible to mark people DOWN for the comments (as opposed to LIKE).  At that time, a gang of bullies (who AFAIK still infest these forums) marked down another member to something like MINUS 200!! in an effort to embarrass and humiliate that member and shut him up. 

These cowardly bullies never owned up to who they were.  However, the "mark down" feature was removed, and those childish schoolyard asswipes slunk back to whatever dank hole in the ground they slimed out of.  Meanwhile the rest of us marked up the bullied member with "Likes" so he is now back in positive territory and continues to be a contributing member. 

In summary, it's disappointing that we still have this lingering need for some to shut others up cos they don't like being what is being said.  One would have hoped that we could have confidence that the mature folks on these forums are able to make their own minds up re whether they agree or not with posted comments and not feel the need to make personal attacks on a members credibility in order to discredit what is being said. 

 

 

 

[DMS]

17 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

Hope they don't attack from the sides, as well. I suppose many other nations shared the concern and loaded their WW2 tanks with pistol ports.  Part of the reason I find it strange is that I'd expect them to put a few pistol ports and issue an SMG in that case. That DT looks like it has very limited traverse and would be almost entirely useless against infantry that is trying to flank the tank. I'm guessing later on they learned that a .50 call for the commander can get that job done. 

In Soviet tanks also were pistol ports. Firing from pistol ports in the game would be nice... For Barbarossa game it would be usefull feature. In 1944 Germans used fausts instead of getting close and throwing explosives on engine. Another example of firing from vehicles - Su-76. Crewmen took more SMGs and fired to sides.

[MikeyD]

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 9:45 AM, DerKommissar said:

Does the HULL MG function on an IS-2? I only recently learned that was a thing.

Something odd about the (real world) rigid mount MG on the IS-2. When the MG is fitted you should see the mg barrel poking out of the keyhole on the right side. But I've never seen an in-action IS-2 pict that had a barrel poking out of that hole. Well, perhaps one but it was a bad pict of a burnt-out vehicle so it was hard to tell. I don't know how often the mg was fitted.

[Thewood1]

I build a large number of scenarios for myself to play.  I putter around with the AI some, but most of them I play hotseat against myself.  I have used every vehicle in the game numerous times over doing this.  I build mostly recon and combat recon missions because I like those types of scenarios.  I do this in Steel Beasts and in CM.

The scenario designers do a great job and anyone coming in and complaining, not just providing specific constructive criticism, is an ungrateful and lazy lout.  Complaining vs criticism is a continuous loop over a long time frame of voicing displeasure with someone's work, versus providing specific and pointed feedback on a perceived mistake or design issue on a scenario. 

It is within the power of most the average person to build a scenario with any type of force on any map they like.  I can build a good recon scenario in a shorter time than it will take to play it.  If you are unimaginative enough or lazy enough to not want to help yourself, then BFC has wasted their time building a scenario editor.  I would also say you are most likely playing the wrong game.  

I like playing other people's designs.  But if its a map, OOB, battle, design, etc.  that doesn't fit my playing style, I move on without complaint.  I started building my own because no one else was building my type.  I don't continuously complain about it over multiple threads, I just do it.  I am a big believer that, in the end, you are responsible for helping yourself.

That said, the CM editor is its own worst enemy.  I play CMNAO, ARMA2/3, and Steel Beasts a lot.  Their editors are stellar.  Here is what they have that CM sure could use:

1) Integration of the editing and execution phases into one environment for testing

2) God's eye view to show Red and Blue simultaneously during execution

3) Saving parts of an AI plan/mission so it can be used in other plans like a library

4) Scripting...this is the big one.  While typically only for more advanced designers, it can open up an incredible world of AI capabilities.

The CM editor has gotten better, but it is still woefully short in supporting a large designer community.  To build a solid one player experience, it can take hundreds of hours of work.  But, again, for a little self satisfaction, it can take less than hour.