The Year Ahead Bone Post

[Sgt.Squarehead]

[MOS:96B2P]

46 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

+1   

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

?

[Bubba883XL]

i see this is about to be closed, and saw big guns mentioned. and not fully reading every post, i will just ask lol...

will we see the likes of the russian big beast 1931 210mm gun? usually seen on its own treads etc...?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Sadly not, I believe.....However there's always the possibility they could be added in a future vehicle pack.

[jtsjc1]

Too bad I was hoping to roll one of these up to a Berlin block and redecorate. Basically an 8" howitzer fired direct!  I believe its 203mm though I could be wrong.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

A variety of guns were mounted on that carriage, from the 152mm Br-2, through the 203mm B-4, to the truly monstrous 280mm Br-5 (although this latter was a rarity with only around 45 produced).  Fairly sure the gun above is the B-4, as discussed in detail here:

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[General Jack Ripper]

On 4/5/2020 at 10:44 PM, BluecherForward said:

More to follow.

Sometimes I forget you're new here. Let's all just simmah down.

[General Jack Ripper]

22 hours ago, jtsjc1 said:

Basically an 8" howitzer fired direct!  I believe its 203mm though I could be wrong.

Your math is basically correct. Can I give a +1 for some heavy artillery? The 105's we have these days feel like popguns.

 

[Bubba883XL]

its just these were widely seen in the assault on berlin. 

[Warts 'n' all]

@General Jack Ripper You're right about the 105's seeming a bit small. I did have a lot of fun with the M2 GMC's 155mm in the Aachen campaign, so I'd like to have a go at blasting Berlin with some big beasts. 

[532889]

All i want is 64-bit support to make big huge maps to play .How many years will i have to wait?Forever? update 5? New engine? 

[The_MonkeyKing]

On 4/28/2020 at 6:08 PM, 532889 said:

All i want is 64-bit support to make big huge maps to play .How many years will i have to wait?Forever? update 5? New engine? 

When you have good enough CPU (especially single core performance) you can do whatever on CM and it runs fine. I have Ryzen 7 3700X and RTX2080.

But I do agree it is ridiculous that one needs a +$1000 computer to ran a game that looks like this.

[Anson Pelmet]

On 3/4/2020 at 9:13 AM, Sublime said:

Well real life for one - if you... I got a lot going on.  CM requires a lot of thought because I prefer PBEM by a lot and I hate being a total pushover.  real life has been.. not good lately.

Further... where did I go... well I play early access UBoat by DWS... I know para who used to come here and maybe still does is on there.

I play DCS the F14 module... other wise not much  DCS

I was playing Hell Let Loose. My goddamned headset mike stopped working and I havent played HLL in  a little bit.  solid game though...

I do play a lot of IL2 BOS.  I played Il2 back in the day.  And  I got sucked right in because I hadnt played the BoS series.  So I entered when its reached maturity and there was a lot of content. some friendly faces as it were.  You have to understand Anson.. Ive been playing combat mission and following CM since Sept 99.  then all the CM 1 series except CMAK. I was gone for awhile.  Then around 2010 I was back for the last decade after a 5 or 6 year hiatus.  But Im just burnt out man on CM. Idk what to say except click on my profile and see my join date.  I frankly definitely got my moneys worth considering I have been playing since age 15 and Ill be 35 very soon...  There isnt anywhere to go really because nothing else really fills the same niche hole or they suck IMO. I refuse to play say company of heroes.

And no its not just venting about life man.  I  literally have been coming here 21 years. theres a lot of people Id like to see that I m still around and Im glad theyre still around.  I feel perfectly legit in voicing my opinion about the direction of the series - everyone is entitled to their opinion and theres few active accounts that can say theyve been around as long as I have.  And its not simple venting - for the series to go forward and be more 'interesting' to besides the hard core the graphics *will* have to improve.  basements, corners, built up houses and many many other features are really needed to make city fighting believeable.  Things *will* need to be upgraded.    currently its the weakest spot in the series. CMx2 originally - about 10 years ago had a roadmap.  We're totallly of the rails on that roadmap.  We originally were going to work our way backwards after finishing end of war RT.  RT came out six years ago..  At this rate we will have Barbarossa in about 20 years.  Do you seriously think the series is viable like that?? Its easy when youre new because the series is amazing and I value it quite a bit, but Im speaking as someone with not hours but years playing this game and over time you began to see how it works and it for what it is, 'warts n all'.  Im happy your still in your honeymoon period, but that very much is the place youre speaking to me from now. It may seem Im frustrated at life - when you have been playing these games 21 years come back and you can tell me to shutup and stop whining.  Until then I feel Im very very much qualified to speak on the series - Ive played every title in it, owned all except the latest patches and rome to victory and CMAK, and have played CMBO since open beta.

Thanks for the extensive and polite response, which I've just found.  I share the frustrations you list with the CM second generation games, but I don't see a viable competitor, perhaps because I don't play or investigate other games very much. Having said that, it was on an online games forum that I first heard about CM and its unique WEGO turn system, and I liked the concept so much I bought Beyond Normandy, more than 21 years ago, and I've been playing constantly since. So I'm not a newcomer to the game, I just don't post very often...

 

[532889]

10 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

When you have good enough CPU (especially single core performance) you can do whatever on CM and it runs fine. I have Ryzen 7 3700X and RTX2080.

But I do agree it is ridiculous that one needs a +$1000 computer to ran a game that looks like this.

I have cmbs and shock force.Currently we can only make 4x4 km maps.Those modern warfare games  need real big maps.

[The_MonkeyKing]

4 hours ago, 532889 said:

I have cmbs and shock force.Currently we can only make 4x4 km maps.Those modern warfare games  need real big maps.

Very true. The game can only represent knife fighting when it comes to modern equipment.

[George MC]

6 hours ago, 532889 said:

I have cmbs and shock force.Currently we can only make 4x4 km maps.Those modern warfare games  need real big maps.

Not correct. Maps can be made larger - 2km x 8km or 6km x 3km. LOS certainly in Europe is rarely that long. 

[Glubokii Boy]

Having larger maps might sound like a simple and good idea to implement...

But i'm not all that sure that it is that simple...it comes with some 'side-effects' ...

To name a few...

- TIME !!! Designing a detailed map at thoose sizes with the current mapeditor would be a mamuth task ...few would be willing to do it i fear.

- AI...Will the current AI be able to handle maps of even greater size ? I belive that atleast things like a MOUNT-order for the AI would often be needed for the AI to be able to re-possition its troops in a timely fashion. Also a higher number of avaliable AI groups might be needed.

Larger maps probably comes with a number of other requirements...but sure...If it can be easily implemented i'm all for  it ...

For H2H games on somewhat less derailed maps it will probably work well...

 

 

 

[Lethaface]

52 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

Having larger maps might sound like a simple and good idea to implement...

But i'm not all that sure that it is that simple...it comes with some 'side-effects' ...

To name a few...

- TIME !!! Designing a detailed map at thoose sizes with the current mapeditor would be a mamuth task ...few would be willing to do it i fear.

- AI...Will the current AI be able to handle maps of even greater size ? I belive that atleast things like a MOUNT-order for the AI would often be needed for the AI to be able to re-possition its troops in a timely fashion. Also a higher number of avaliable AI groups might be needed.

Larger maps probably comes with a number of other requirements...but sure...If it can be easily implemented i'm all for  it ...

For H2H games on somewhat less derailed maps it will probably work well...

@George MC has actually made some. For modern I do remember the Armour attacks! scenario  (iirc that was the name) for CMSF1. Back then (2010 orso) loading took ages, but I guess that will be less so now with optimizations and new CPU. Seems like a great H2H match for those that have the stomach to manage the appropriate forces over such a vast area.

I have wanted to try it out again in CMSF2, but it's on the rather long list of things I want to try.

Some other maps / scenario's people have been working on are also quite large. But indeed, the amount of work required is also 'quite large' I guess. From map work, AI plans, PC requirements and player workload; so I guess you are right that it isn't that simple

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Lethaface

[MikeyD]

Huge maps load and play very much faster these days than they did with original 1.0 CMSF1 and CMBN. Back-in-the-day I wouldn't even attempt a huge map. Still, everyone has their own preferences. I've opened up some very large maps, looked at my foot infantry, and groaned thinking it'll take 2/3rd the scenario runtime just to walk them to the objective zone! Also, I've found that scenarios on very big maps will soon subdivide the action into individual normal-CM-scenario-size engagements. So that additional 800m at the back of the map is superfluous.

Map making is as quick or as tedious as you make it, yourself. I could hop on the editor and produce a 1500x2500m map to play on in no time at all. It wouldn't be pretty but it would be serviceable. Not every map needs to be a photo-realistic representation of metro Antwerp.

[George MC]

4 hours ago, Lethaface said:

@George MC has actually made some. For modern I do remember the Armour attacks! scenario  (iirc that was the name) for CMSF1. Back then (2010 orso) loading took ages, but I guess that will be less so now with optimizations and new CPU. Seems like a great H2H match for those that have the stomach to manage the appropriate forces over such a vast area.

I have wanted to try it out again in CMSF2, but it's on the rather long list of things I want to try.

Some other maps / scenario's people have been working on are also quite large. But indeed, the amount of work required is also 'quite large' I guess. From map work, AI plans, PC requirements and player workload; so I guess you are right that it isn't that simple

 

Thank you  I did update it for CMSF2 but IIRC only for the Germans. Still the original CMSF1 file will work fine - it defo loads faster in the new game engine. If I mind you could have engagements out to 2km+ on this map.

Your spot on re mMap work - it is an enormous amount of work. I enjoy doing it (wouldn't otherwise) but the effort involved to do a large detailed map is considerable (and I've done a few...).

[Haiduk]

11 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I've opened up some very large maps, looked at my foot infantry, and groaned thinking it'll take 2/3rd the scenario runtime just to walk them to the objective zone! Also, I've found that scenarios on very big maps will soon subdivide the action into individual normal-CM-scenario-size engagements.

In Soviet army humor there was a proverb "war is a сrap - maneuvers are main!" Opportunity of maneuvering with own forces is important thing, especially in modern warfare. One side can suddenly outflank opponent and other side can detect this meneuver and hit them with artillery to prevent outflanking. Or unit on approach can be detected with UAV and wiped out before contact... Most of CM maps really allow only "knife range fighting". If for WWII such large density of forces per 1 km and narrow map space can be explained because of  operative and tactical conditions of that times, but modern warfare modelling should operate with much more space. For example, most Donbas war clashes demand about 4 x 4 km maps as minimum! And this is just about a scale of reinforced company size operations! 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Haiduk

[MikeyD]

Armies learned to spread out during the cold war when everyone was afraid of getting nuked. Before that divisions were practically shoulder-to-shoulder. Maneuvering a few hundred meters left or right meant intruding into the zone of operations of the adjacent battalion. Your battalion was the lucky one if you had decent ground conditions in front of you.

I'm reminded of warfighting in the time of Frederic The Great. Coming to blows with the enemy was the worst sort of calamity to be avoided at all costs. Ideally you would maneuver your army to cut off the invading enemy's supply column,  making it impossible for him to prosecute his campaign and forcing him to retire. That makes for a dull company+ scale tactical combat sim, though.

[MountainMike]

Interesting, MikeyD.  So how wide was a typical battalion "zone of operations" in WWII?

[Combatintman]

On 6/28/2020 at 9:17 PM, MountainMike said:

Interesting, MikeyD.  So how wide was a typical battalion "zone of operations" in WWII?

No such thing as typical - what sort of battalion - what type of operation?  In simple terms it all comes down to ground, weapons systems and movement rates.  A Brown Bess musket in Napoleonic times had a short effective range as did the artillery pieces and horses tended to get knackered out charging around all over the place, hence why Waterloo involved massive numbers of troops on a piece of ground that would probably be a battalion-sized AO in modern times.  So when you apply the principles of offensive or defensive operations to any given army, the numbers work themselves out.