Jump to content

Is this thing really playable?


Runyan99

Recommended Posts

I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but...

I have been playing a regular CMBB op "Kruglovka Railway" for about a year now I think. 6 battles at 25+ per battle, PBEM. It's my favorite CMBB experience BTW, and congrats to Moon, I think, for designing it. But it takes forever, and it's just one operation.

So, that makes me wonder about CMC.

Let's say I have a regimental campaign. After a while, I might have companies or even battalions in contact constantly. Hour after hour. Let's say the campaign lasts a week. How many battles is that, which might have to get resolved one by one in PBEM format? How long is that going to take?

A regiment is 9 companies, more or less (right?). Let's say 2/3 are in contact after the first day or so, and of those companies, we decide to manually PBEM half of the companies. That's 3 company level engagements, more or less, per hour, for how many hours or days? So that is a total of how many PBEM battles?

I mean, if we all lived for 1000 years, this would be the greatest thing. But, I'm not sure we really have the time to play out company engagements on an individual basis over an extende period of time, head to head.

Perhaps team play reduces some of these problems to a managable level. But even at the battalion level, where I think I might like to explore CMC, I wonder how many battles I am in for.

Now that we seem to have the thing, I just wonder if it is actually a good idea or not....

[ October 18, 2005, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this was always my biggest trouble with the CMx1 series: the large amount of time that the games consume. Time slots as large as 3 hours are very hard to come by ... and there are so many other things in life that have to be done or learned.

But that is my personal problem! With regard to your post I think the question is not well-posed: sure it will be playable for extra-devoted people, but is it really sellable to the wider public?!

I am really curious if there is still a market for such a demanding piece of software so long after CM:BBs release!

In any case, the world is a better place with CMC than without it!

Best regards,

Thomm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Runyan99, that's why we are stating on the website (I think), that probably a realistic limit for CMC will be division-size battles. Certainly for games with only 1 or 2 players (against each other or against the AI for example).

Recreating something like the entire Citadel campaign for example is way out of scope, even if perhaps technically possible... On the other hand, though, you can just as well create and play small campaigns (e.g. company and battalion sized) much quicker than you can play a 6 battle operation.

And you also have the auto-resolve feature which would allow you to "skip" insignificant battles, i.e. create results without having to play them out in CMBB.

So overall, CMC will not make playing out huge campaigns much quicker. It does save on manual labor to set up and maintain such huge campaigns (it can be player a lot quicker than CMMC for example), and perhaps plays a bit quicker in multiplayer since people get their battles handed to them much quicker and everything ties together more seamlessly, but if you'd hope to play a Division sized battle against the AI alone in a few days, that's probably not going to work.

On the other hand, smaller campaigns CAN be played fairly quickly. As you go down in scale, the "risk" of having back to back battles while in costant contact is reduced a lot. That is more likely when you have large MEs (like Battalions) which can sustain such continuuous combat, but with smaller formations, it's unlikely. One or both would "give" and retreat sooner or later after a couple of hours of constant fighting, and you'd see a no-man zone create in between them, I'm quite sure. In this sense, CMC seems to be quite realistic (my own current beta testing seems to indicate that)

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope to play both single and multi player. Probabaly have a large smuoldering Div type campaign on the go against the AI over a long duration. And hope to hook up with a regular group of reliable players for most other games.

I think that CMC could add so much quality to the experience it will be hard to play CMBB without aftewards. For one thing the true value of armour and mechanised formations will be better simulated with the inclusion of CMC operational level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget there is little to prevent a pair of opponents from PBEMing more than one battle simultaneously; many of us do it all the time.

I have been involved in one of the larger Meta campaigns for several years now, and from what I can see the delays are not so much the battles. Battles require little more than a pair of opponents willing to send turns regularly or find time to do TC/IP.

The real delays in a big campaign are trying to run a framework for the battles. This is things like like setting up the battles, keeping track of the casualties, figuring out which player gets what intelligence - and especially, getting that done when the doers are volunteer wargamers rather than professional staff officers with a tough exec breathing down their necks. It's a ton of paperwork to create the structure for a big campaign, and its more work to keep it running.

If CMC is even half of what it promises to be, it will be the greatest thing since CM itself. For me personally I find the prospects it offers more exciting than a prettier engine modeling modern combat in the Near East.

Will it sell? Well, strategy WW2 games sell, and Total War sells. It would seem to me there would be a market for a game allowing campaign games on the East Front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Runyan99:

I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but...

I have been playing a regular CMBB op "Kruglovka Railway" for about a year now I think. 6 battles at 25+ per battle, PBEM. It's my favorite CMBB experience BTW, and congrats to Moon, I think, for designing it. But it takes forever, and it's just one operation.

So, that makes me wonder about CMC.

Let's say I have a regimental campaign. After a while, I might have companies or even battalions in contact constantly. Hour after hour. Let's say the campaign lasts a week. How many battles is that, which might have to get resolved one by one in PBEM format? How long is that going to take?

A regiment is 9 companies, more or less (right?). Let's say 2/3 are in contact after the first day or so, and of those companies, we decide to manually PBEM half of the companies. That's 3 company level engagements, more or less, per hour, for how many hours or days? So that is a total of how many PBEM battles?

I mean, if we all lived for 1000 years, this would be the greatest thing. But, I'm not sure we really have the time to play out company engagements on an individual basis over an extende period of time, head to head.

Perhaps team play reduces some of these problems to a managable level. But even at the battalion level, where I think I might like to explore CMC, I wonder how many battles I am in for.

Now that we seem to have the thing, I just wonder if it is actually a good idea or not....

I have already bid farewell to my friends and family, and my will has been updated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it is one of the things I like about CM, the fact that I can take the time I want to play it.

A quiet long drawn out affair would suit me if it kept my interest up. Something to keep coming back to. It all depends of the design of the battle operation in question for me.

All thing have audience.

One question though about the maps used by CMBB. From what I think I understand of the system these will be auto generated by CMC, is that correct? Otherwise there would be a lot of map making needed.

If I am correct how is the transition from open ground to say urban or woods handled. If you are atacking a historical sized town will that town be generated about the same size as required?

Overall it probably would not matter for game play, but for historical engagements may be a problem.

Cheers MarkL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see players complaining about the amount of time campaigns take I do wonder how many have tried out PBEMHelper in Fast and Trusted mode.

A 32+ game in under 5 days without breaking sweat if both players are logged on doing other things, normal nights etc smile.gif

Anyway, as each e-mail is carrying two moves and two movies you can appreciate the huge difference in time compared to the current method.

If there was ever a time to explore the possibilities of faster play it must be now with the likelihood of many campaigns to be played : )

It is here, two user guides exist for CM games. Helper actually works for 20-30 different games

http://www.nic.fi/~fuerte/pbem.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As eny tru grog noe a huge campaign game is to be enjoyed - not played. Come on, we all are guilty of having bought a monster game, read the rules, set it up (maybe) and maybe played two turns until cats/ real life intervene.

It is the owning, the knowing that you could simulate Operation Mars, that warms the cockles of a grog's heart. Not the grubby playing.

I fully intend to spend years constructing a hypothetical early '44 campaign that will never ever actually get finished. And I'll enjoy doing it.

Has Eichenbaum posted yet about CMC? - looks to be just up his street

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something I posted at another site:

At first I was thinking you'd get some teams forming, it can go thru the full officer/units. A general gets a Div with 3 regs. There are 3 colonels at regiment level - etc down to a Capt with a company. So you get these 54 (27 each side) or so guys together. The two generals set up the game and mail it to all the players. Really Complex - way too many folks.

Then I thinks some more. 1 General talking to 9 battlion commanders sounds about right. Each Batt commander gets to break his units into the MEs as he sees fit. The general assigns areas of responsibility or attack plans. Not sure of the games mechanics at this point. The Majors move the MEs around. When the MEs meet the CMBB shooting starts. The majors then fight at the CMBB level. When the battles are done then the MEs move agian. The general then sends orders to the majors. He can ask a batt to wait in reserve, defend, run a speearhead or any of the above.

From how I explained it the general might be a little bored cause the majors are doing all the real fighting. So what would need to happen on a team is there would need to be 10 simultaneous CMC wars going on. Each member of the 10 man team would be a general in one battle and a major in the other nine.

Life as we know it has reached nirvana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by markl:

One question though about the maps used by CMBB. From what I think I understand of the system these will be auto generated by CMC, is that correct? Otherwise there would be a lot of map making needed.

Wrong. They've said elsewhere that you have to make the CMBB maps for a campaign by hand, and CMC converts those into the operational level map.

I've not seen anything on how continuous the maps have to be - do height contours along adjoining edges have to be the same in both maps (easy in Mapping Mission) - or can you just churn out say 16 2km x 2km auto-generated CMBB maps and stitch them into a fairly haphazard CMC map?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Bolt,

i don't believe, that the tactical players move their units around. Because they don't have enough knowledge about the overall situation.

I guess this will be done by the 'General'.

The tac-player either sees how his units move automatically or he sees the order, where to move it.

Playing the 'General' will be quite attractive, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Steiner14:

General Bolt,

i don't believe, that the tactical players move their units around. Because they don't have enough knowledge about the overall situation.

But they do know about the local situation enough, and what's best, they have smaller command delays than if everything was decided at the divisional level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMC is a gift from BF and HT software to the campaign community. Not something that joe-gamer will be playing for an hour here and there... How many companies would support something this great, but for such a relatively limited number of enthusiasts? I love it.

I do believe that subordinate commanders will be responsible for moving the units under their command on the CMC map. The overall commander will be able to send orders, threats, complaints (subject to existence of a communications link and associated delays), but that's it. Just as in reality.

I'm re-reading Manstein's 'Lost Victories' and it's interesting to see how he personally influenced regimental and even battalion level actions at the front during his tenure as commanding general of 38th Corp. He would show up with his driver and runner in a VW and offer to recon the route ahead for a timid local commander. That usually got them moving. ;) But of course, he couldn't be everywhere at once so this was the exception to the rule.

The way to play regimental and larger actions will be with larger number of players and/or AI players to fill in the gaps. The more players, the faster the tactical battles will be resolved and the operational game can move on to the next turn. I would think at least 4 per side for a regimental combat team divided into battalion size battlegroups. TCP/IP with 3 minute delay would be ideal I think, you could finish a typical battle in 3 hours with paused setup and assuming it only went to 30 turns or so.

See the Divisional TOE thread for more details:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=53;t=000072

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Let's not forget there is little to prevent a pair of opponents from PBEMing more than one battle simultaneously; many of us do it all the time.

I didn't think of that. That does help, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to play two or three battles of a campaign simultaneously.

I don't think I'll tackle any division sized campaigns on my own, but I'm looking forward to playing a few small battalion sized campaigns. I think I'll just use CMC as a kind of upgrade to the operations system from CMBB. I don't really want to play with bigger formations than CM was originally designed to handle. I just want to move around CM sized forces (battalion) for a longer period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Runyan99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Let's not forget there is little to prevent a pair of opponents from PBEMing more than one battle simultaneously; many of us do it all the time.

I didn't think of that. That does help, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to play two or three battles of a campaign simultaneously.

</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, Russophile. CMC is able to auto-resolve battles. So in theory, you don't need CMBB at all, if you look at CMC as an operational game all by itself (which it really is I guess).

*tongue in cheek* I am not sure though if the desirability of this will really depend on the skill of the OpAI, or rather on the ability of players to accept outcomes that aren't exactly what they had in mind... ;)

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, exactly, would be the point of running a CMC campaign and not playing at least the most critical engagements out on a CMBB map? I'm pretty sure that Hunting Tiger went through the trouble of so extensively integrating CMC with CM:BB with the purpose in mind of giving CM:BB engagements some meaning in a larger context than the standard operations allowed for in the original game.

(Besides, there are some quite excellent operational level games out there if one just wanted to run an operation -- not that this ever stopped someone from trying to design a better or different one.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MPK:

Sorry; off-topic but intriguing...

"As eny tru grog noe..."

Wisbech_lad, is that the ghost

of Ronald Searle speaking through?

I didn't think people read books

like that anymore...

It is indeed. I've got the first three of the Molesworth books - grate stuff. Up St Custards!

I've a soft spot for humour of that era - I've also got the "Upmanship" series and the "How to be an Alien" books.

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...