Jump to content

to what extent will TOEs be able to be changed?


Recommended Posts

say you've got the regular Sturm platoon in CMBB

HQ has 1x MP-40 and 3x MP-44

squads have 2xk98 4x MP-44 1x MG-42 or something like that

looking at the real KSTNs you see that each Sturm squad has NO lmg but rather EVERYONE has an assault rifle.

would we be able switch between each depending on the situation, at differing cost or am i reading you wrong Battlefront.com?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... However, I am hoping that there is a *little bit* of flexibility off of the strick paper TO&Es.

Giving Sturm squads less than the full complement of MP44s was, IMHO a good choice in CMX1.

But there are other well documented departures from TO&Es. For example, US Army Units in the ETO borrowing SMGs & Carbines for extra close range firepower before heading into urban combat.

I certainly don't want to see player ability to monkey with TO&Es with impugnity, but a little bit of flexibility around the edges (or even just the inclusion of "unofficial" TO&Es when and where supported by the historical record) would be nice.

Cheers,

YD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we can certainly be more flexible with this, but the TO&E will still be hardcoded into the game and not user editable. Using your example of an urban reorg, we could simple create such a force and have it be purchasable for urban battles. That way you won't get gameybuggers using them in every other setting. People were pretty gamey with standard TO&E... just think about how many more miles they'll take if we give 'em another inch :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Works for me! Thanks for the response.

I brought it up because I believe the Germans have an advantage in CMX1 that I suspect was unintentional, and is certainly unrealistic - because there are so many different German TOEs, there's much more choice for the German player in terms of matching his TOE to the battle conditions. Of course, RL German commanders rarely had the opportunity to chose from a wide variety of Platoon and Company types for a specific assignment. . .

While it varies with the specific nation, time period and theatre, Allied TOEs tend to be much more "one size fits all", with fewer options to chosse from. In the RL big picture, I think this was actually a tremendous advantage -- it made logistics much easier. But on a tactical scale, smarter Allied commanders did show the perception to get more useful weapons, like SMGs, to front line troops when they were needed, and it would be great to see this reflected in the game.

But I agree, no player editable TOEs; it would be way to open to abuse. But it would be absolutely great to have a few "unofficial" TOEs available for certain terrain/time periods like you describe.

Thanks again!

YD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would certainly be nice to get the ability to edit individual vehicles and soldiers (and set the CoC) in the scenario editor. That way scenario design grogs and campaign GMs can get exactly what they need to reproduce a specific battle, but it wouldn't affect the hard-coded TO&E available to the quick battle players. Seems sort of silly NOT to allow the scenario designer this sort of flexibility, to correct TO&E errors (like in many of the US units in CMAK) and to create unit types that BFC doesn't choose to implement as hard coded TO&Es (US Cavalry Squadron, for example, or even 4 tube 105mm batteries).

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panzer76, I was simply continuing with the example of other games. In particular I had a specific WWII FPS game in mind when I made my last post.

No, we have no desire nor ability to make an open ended "wargame construction kit". They never work right and are a development project from Hell. We're as apt to do that as we are to put bullets in our heads :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steve McClaire:

It would certainly be nice to get the ability to edit individual vehicles and soldiers (and set the CoC) in the scenario editor. That way scenario design grogs and campaign GMs can get exactly what they need to reproduce a specific battle, but it wouldn't affect the hard-coded TO&E available to the quick battle players. Seems sort of silly NOT to allow the scenario designer this sort of flexibility, to correct TO&E errors (like in many of the US units in CMAK) and to create unit types that BFC doesn't choose to implement as hard coded TO&Es (US Cavalry Squadron, for example, or even 4 tube 105mm batteries).

Steve

You're apparently not a businessman. :D

So if I buy the St. Lo game, mod all the TO&E to replicate the Polish Armoured Division at Maczuga - will I really be likely to buy the Maczuga game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You're apparently not a businessman. :D

So if I buy the St. Lo game, mod all the TO&E to replicate the Polish Armoured Division at Maczuga - will I really be likely to buy the Maczuga game?

There's a slight difference between being able to accurately depict a unit that the game developer chose not to include and being able to change the entire force to use the weapons and organization of an entirely different army. I didn't ask for Brens and Stens in my US units. I only asked to be able to create a US unit that was TO&E and/or situationally accurate, rather then being locked into the 'stock' TO&E.

If I am given this ability in CMx2 I am much more likely to keep buying the various modules. I'm also much more likely to run / be involved in multi-player campaign games involving CMx2, which is a sales multiplier. Yes, give the customer a minor feature they want. What a poor business decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

It's a 'minor' feature when BFC says it is, since they do the coding. From what you are asking it looks not minor to me, but I would not presume to know better than Charles what qualifies as minor.

You are also presuming that BFC are going to repeat errors in TO&E that they made in the past. Maybe. But there are two things I would hope work against that happening. First, it has been rumoured that even Steve is capable of learning from mistakes (the jury is still out on Matt, but he is more skilled in the use of the BAN button, so let's not go there), and secondly, with a much reduced scope, there is more of an opportunity to get it right. So instead of having to research the Romanian Mountaineer organisation of early 1943, Steve and others can go to town on the exact organisation of US squads in the assault on St. Lo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If CMx2 has a 1:1 representation of each soldier the data on a per-soldier basis has to be present at some point. Unless there's some limitation of the design (like they don't generate the individual soldier data until you start to play the battle) it's not rocket science to let the user edit it. smile.gif

As Mr. Dorosch so brilliantly argues, I probably will buy CMx2 even without this feature. And I am sure people will still make campaigns using it (In fact I've been involved with the CMMC for years and am quite familiar with the limitations of the current CM/BB/AK scenario editor). But neither of these is a reason to NOT allow users to edit unit compositions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steve McClaire:

If CMx2 has a 1:1 representation of each soldier the data on a per-soldier basis has to be present at some point. Unless there's some limitation of the design (like they don't generate the individual soldier data until you start to play the battle) it's not rocket science to let the user edit it. smile.gif

But it maybe much more complicated to create a code that lets you edit it only for scenarios, and not for QBs. There is no point arguing about it here, since neither of us knows. It maybe dead easy, it may not be.

I was quite involved in CMMC as well until the point when the lack of non-user edited rules did it in for me with the development of CMMC2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, we can certainly be more flexible with this, but the TO&E will still be hardcoded into the game and not user editable. Using your example of an urban reorg, we could simple create such a force and have it be purchasable for urban battles. That way you won't get gameybuggers using them in every other setting. People were pretty gamey with standard TO&E... just think about how many more miles they'll take if we give 'em another inch :D

Steve

You know, Steve, it's a different thing to have gamey purchases in Quick Battles (God I detest QB's!) and having flexibility in scenario design. You don't need to allow Quick Battlers to go cherrypicking to give more freedom to scenario makers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steve McClaire:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

...It maybe dead easy, it may not be.

So either way, what's the harm in asking for it? Either they will do it or they won't. But if no one says they want it, it's a lot more likely they won't, neh? smile.gif </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...