Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

MarkEzra

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,770

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Posts posted by MarkEzra

    Stryker and M1 machinegun misbehavior

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

    The .50 on the Stryker is its only weapon, therefore it's a priority that it is kept supplied with ammo, hence it's done automatically when ever the need arises.

    The Abrams also has the coax and the 120mm and really isn't relying on the flexible .50 for its firepower so I reckon it is better if reloading it is user controlled to prevent automatic behaviour getting the TC killed.

    This makes more sense to me.
    0

    Victory conditions, cease fire, and exploits

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Field Marshal Blücher:

    I actually once did have a use for a cease-fire just as you describe against the AI. I had been driving into a city, taken all of my objectives, but there was still some enemy resistance left. However, they weren't bothering my troops holding the objectives, so I just ceased fire. It was actually, I felt, a pretty realistic thing to happen--the attacking side seized its immediate objectives, but got worn down in the process, so they just held their positions and waited for reinforcements while the bloodied defenders held out in their last positions.

    -FMB

    When playing against the AI...something I do for both testing and pleasure... I use the Ceasefire a large % of the time...I like that it's there, think it has a somewhat gamey Campaign problem and is, of course, an absolutely essential tool in H2H. But if we do not exam these functions from a gamer's view they cannot be improved. Scipios comments have lead to a good discussion on the merits and needs of the Ceasefire function. Normal Dude: Thanks for starting this thread...great food for thought.
    0

    Objectives and the After Action Screen

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Scipio:

    Today I played 'Ambush in Al Fubar' again in Version 1.08! BTW, I played CMSF very rarely before because I'm not a fan of RT, and the turn-based-mode had so many problems. But I'm very pleased about it now!!! smile.gif

    Anyway, after the battle I was confronted once again with an After Action screen that told me nearly nothing. Okay, I can see that I have won the battle as well as the casualties stats. Very important informations of course.

    But now to the objectives redface.gif .

    GROUND (blue side): Secured

    Objective #1 - 500 points

    Objective #2 - 300 points

    Okay, that's easy to understand, but could be much better. How about showing the objective name (if the scenario designer has entered one)? It would also be nice if the kind of the objective would be shown (Occupy, Preserve...)

    TARGETS (red side): Failed

    Objective #1 - 3 points

    Seriously, I first had to read the manual about scenario design to find out that a 'Target Objective' is an enemy unit that must be destroyed. As with the terrain objectives, it would be better if the AAR shows which unit is meant with 'Objective #1'. As player I have no idea about this without opening the scenario in the scenario editor, especially if the scenario designer shouldn't have pointed this out in the briefing.

    PARAMETER (red side): Failed

    Enemy casualties - 0

    Once again - the player has no idea about the numbers he has reached or should have reached. Wouldn't it be better if the stats says something like 'Enemy casualties 10% (30% necessary) - 100 points'.

    BTW - I'm not sure about this - is a partial result possible for Parameter & Target objectives?

    Naming the Objectives with their number and the point value is a very good idea. I have been doing just that with my scen. I am also trying to alert the player of casualties and their values as well. The game offers such a far superior and varied method of scoring compared to CMx1 but it is INTIRELY dependent on the designer to use these feature well and allow the player detailed info prior to starting the engagement.
    0

    Victory conditions, cease fire, and exploits

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Webwing:

    Is that cheating? I don't think so. People have fun in different ways. If the player wants to go through it as it was intended, great. If he just want to play it casually, skipping some missions it's fine by me too.

    Restraining the player too much is not desirable. Like Mark joked, it will only annoy some players! :D

    The good thing is that all this is up to the designer to decide.

    -

    I couldn't agree more. Designers generally have some idea for their scen or Campaign. Once it's published it really becomes the players. If players want to use "gamey" tactics, cease fire advances or edit the thing to suit their gaming desires or interest than I say knock yourself out.

    This after all is a GAME. I build 'em the way I like...You play 'em the way you like....Seems like a a good balance to me.

    0

    Victory conditions, cease fire, and exploits

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Scipio:

    Surely a stupid idea, but anyway: how about a penalty system if the player prematurly ceases fire?

    Not a stupid idea. But let me hitchhike on it: How about a cease fire lock in the editor for Campaigns...Simple and does not impact Vic margins. If the Campaign player wants to quit he can choose to save the game and continue later (after cursing the designer, swearing off war games completely, or drinking himself into a stupor ;) ) OR Surrender which should, of course, Always be a player loss.
    0

    Victory conditions, cease fire, and exploits

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    OK...let's talk about this a bit. First calling an immediate ceasefire is not really a way of testing Victory point status. Second: Real World dictates that Blue forces cannot sustain large number of casualties without being perceived as losing an engagement. Third: Red Forces can sustain any number of casualties with out penalty. I often use a penalty for high Blue force casualties because it reflects a Commanders reality. I do my best to make sure the player is aware that he can capture all his objectives but still lose the game if casualties raise above some %. This and other Victory conditions were not available in old CMx1 and allowed Victory to be claimed by the player with just enough live troops to occupy a Victory Flag...How many games were "won" by Mortar teams, empty arty FO's, or a forlorn jeep jockey?

    It is vitally important that scen designers Point out Friendly/enemy casualty impact on Victory so players are aware of WHATEVER force preservation needs must be met. Here is an example of how I attempt to do this.

    BCBOPWrk2a.jpg

    I hope that improved Victory conditions display will be considered in future CMx2 titles.

    0

    Why not...

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Loved CMBO because it was a 3D wargame for wargamers.. Like playing miniatures without the expense and work.

    Bought CMBB because it was a Battlefront product that improved the CMx1 engine...I even (yawn) played it...some.

    Loved CMAK...It offered BOTH desert and NWE. It allowed me to play US NA with Lee's, M3 GMC's and remains my favorite theatre of war.

    Stopped playing CMx1 CMAK, saved my completely modded version to CD in Sept 2007 and have never looked back.

    I don't expect my purchase of a wargame keeps the genre alive and well. But I do support Companies that produce wargames that appeal to me in hopes that my small contribution helps. So When CMx2 Ost comes out I'll buy it...Hell, I'll pre-order it direct from BFC (like always)...just don't think I'm gonna LOVE it just because Steve and a bunch East Front FanBoi's have finally gotten their T34's...LOL.. ;)

    0

    How to detect cliffs or impassable terrain in general ?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Hoolaman:

    Should infantry be able to scale that slope? (No not RuhrRiver's the ones in MarkE's post.)

    I think they could (slowly) get up there if their lives depended on it (which they might).

    There's no really sheer cliff at this height because there is always a slope from one map tile center to the next map tile center. So a 6m rise over a 8m run with a broken rocky face is not an insurmountable challenge. You would be useless for combat while you were doing it. Anyone know what doctrine would be about scaling slopes? The Taliban could probably haul 5 recoilless rifles and 4 donkeys up there to set up an ambush, but the US would be separated from their vehicles.

    I agree...troops should be able to move up say 7 or 8 meter differences, Vehicle stay at the current 5... It is important that terrain remaim impassable (a VERY necessarry scen design tool) I just think we can do this a little better.
    0

    Whats next after 1.08?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Exel:

    Something as simple as showing the minimum and maximum ranges for weapons is gravely missing from the game. Needs to be added. I don't want to read the manual in the heat of battle just to see what the engagement range of my missiles is.

    I just checked my V1.08 copy of the game. Heavy weapons like ATGM, RR, Javelins and MGs do have min and max ranges.
    0
×
×
  • Create New...