Other Means

I'm glad the puns are tailing off...

Yes, even if just for ebay. A friend of mine had 2 cats with bank accounts, as a tax dodge. If only he hadn't married the regional head tax inspector, or more to the point divorced her, he may not have had to sell his D type Jag, his Bentley his Formula 5000....

For the game, Falk has produced a superb site; http://cmbb.jemian.com/

Already been asked for

Arrr, he be Kittee Furry Oswald in t'book depositarrry. [ September 19, 2005, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Otheaarrr Means ]

I think the current "+" system works reasonably well. If the amount of flexability the "+" gave was a parameter, that would be good. i.e. if you both agree, the system could add up to, say, 70% extra time.

See: Op NEPTUNE, Boulougne(SP?), TOTALISE, Rhineland, etc. </font>

n/m [ September 18, 2005, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Other Means ]

Why do they have a right to remove part of a game because it may upset sensibilities in Germany?Historically Nazism was a fact(you would'nt be playing Combat Mission otherwise!)and is it right to remove that aspect of the Second World War from the game? </font>

Does anyone have an accounts of these things being used in their intended role? They seem a strange idea. Where they to be used DF?

Having an improved stratAI is I think a confirmed goal for BFC. The idea of having AI levels of difficulty sounds almost impossible to implement. How do you have an AI make bad decisions in a believable way? You could possibly limit information to it but actually having it scale the 'rightness' of its tactical response sounds un-doable.

Any chance you could publish the complete results? It looks interesting.

I've been thinking about this and I think it would work under one proviso; The WIA turns into a evac'ed icon from the POV of his own side whether or not he's captured - otherwise you're breaking FOW. I think maybe it also makes sense from the enemies POV is to turn him into a "POW" icon. Otherwise you've got situations where men are getting up with major wounds, being carried to the enemies rear etc. So you need abstraction there also. However this 2 level abstraction does come with benefits, the chief among them being controllable units are not being spawned from other units (squads etc). You've fighting over him by holding the ground for X mins.

Remember, unit advancing have 1/2 as much firepower as units still. Keep *at least* 20m between them and advance them one at a time. What you're aiming to do is have an enemy unit spotted by one of your then have local superiority in numbers*firepower to achive fire superiority. That way you win the firefight. Also, walls are great defense for guns from direct fire. The crews pin behind the wall, recover, and come back up. Saying that - I'm enjoying the AAR, cheers for doing it.

The major point for me is; what's fun? Battlefront could simulate the medics, the hospitals, the kitchens, the whatever. But would it add anything to the fun of the game? Steve - hope you don't mind the change of sig.

Look at those mountains. Where's the tank, Titan?

J Ruddy - it seems to have improved even in CMAK. I've not seen it do anything quite as daft as that.

If you could give the HQ orders such as "Move squads to contact", "assault", "move all at best speed" and then the squads would form the best, doctrinally correct formation, that would (IMHO) be the best solution. It would give the HQ's another level of menu "Squad commands" but I think it'd be an interesting dynamic and add to HQ's usefulness.

Also, it would seem to require no real feature creep. (Said with no knowledge of the code, yet a completely straight face)

I think the greatest help for n00bs with QB's would be a friendly AI setup. If you could have a look at the map, after choosing your units etc then if you have no idea how to start, click "Auto deploy" and the AI would deploy your own forces. This shows the proper tactical thinking to follow and as the player gets more adept, they can start to change the deployment to their advantage. Also, the Vet players would use it to get their troops into proper marching order. Just a thought.

Oooo I'm all a-flutter. I think the idea of a POW icon, which came up during this discussion could probably do with more investigation.

snip. No need to model SS etc as they would take them prisoner, if they do that by shooting them that's abstracted. Your soldiers wouldn't take enemies to the rear as they'd do it themselves or become a POW icon.

Can I add that when the WIA becomes captured by the enemy, the player still sees only the evac icon, thereby keeping FOW for hidden enemies. In the AAR the evac icon will show "captured".

Yup.

Steve, can I reiterate my suggestion, which is abstracted enough to be do-able (IMHO and ready to be corrected) while enough to add the WIA/POW dynamic people seem to want? State 1) When a soldier is wounded, they become immobile & broken. They are still targetable etc but cannot be moved or controlled by the player. They are in this state for X time, say 3 mins. If they are still within command radius after this they become an "evac'ed" icon and are treated as recovered. Recovered will mean they have Z chance of death vs WIA in the AAR/next battle. State 2) If after X time they are outside of command radius but within Y distance of enemies, they become captured and are treated as now, i.e. able to move to the enemies rear. Or possibly change them to a captured icon. State 3) If after X time they are out of command radius but are not within Y of enemies, they are treated as recovered, i.e. turn to an "evac'ed" icon, but now have a much greater chance of death vs recovery in the AAR/next battle. ISTM that that will simulate as closely as possible the correct behaviour without over complicating it. This does not take into account the possible state where a WIA and solider are trying to occupy the same space, but I was thinking the live soldier would automatically displace the wounded in the terrain feature.