hoolaman

I must confess I do not exactly see Steve's point. Firstly, there have been pages and pages of CMX2 ideas threads around here over the last year or so. I have seen many excellent ideas which were thinking entirely out of the box. These ideas are not groggy nitpicks about CM1, but really hopeful ideas for the new engine. However it seems there has been no official response to these kinds of ideas. I don't know if it is some confidentiality thing, but most of the "bones" we have gotten are not any huge surprise. They seem to be only revealing the ideas which most closely correspond to the OLD CM engine. In summary, the bones we have gotten so far include: 1:1 representation (not 1:1 control) Much more complex environment Much more accurate simulation Aimed at a wider audience New more realistic C&C model Will be WEGO Will be CM scale Now it seems to me that the new game including all these features will still be Combat Mission. I can't see how you can do a 3D tactical combat sim in WEGO without it still being recognisable as Combat Mission. And I think I am pretty good at thinking outside the box. So as others have said, you can't keep the details hush-hush and expect people to place your bones in the proper context.

Might I suggest feeling out the game with a few hotseat games against yourself. This was one of the ways I got the hang of the mechanics of the game, as you can see your actions from both perspectives. Also, read up on the forums. The is a mind-numbing depth of knowledge around here. Try some of the Sticky/FAQ threads.

Hi all, I posted this in another thread, but I think it is cool enough to deserve its own! Link to excellent topograpic map of the area south and west of El Alamein. It has marked areas with types of terrain etc. Australian War Memorial El Alamein Map Not Sure of the scale, but looks small enough to help with scenarios.

To paraphrase aka_tom_w GREAT thinking There was discussion about map edge effects in on of the "what do we want in the new CM game" threads, but discussion of such an important issue has been lacking. Map edge effects and issues like unrealistically knowing where the setup zones are in a QB are high on my list of fixes for the current CM engine. BFC talks of increasing uncertainty, well uncertainty based on where you are on the map is most important. A ROUND map seems to have some advantages going for it. I agree, this is one of the most unrealistic parts of large and/or long battles. Fire discipline and ammo conservation was pretty tight in most WW2 armies, so units should fire less often for better effect if they are well trained. Also, I can't imagine an entire squad being out of ammo without some steps taken to requisition more as soon as possible, whether fighting was still going on or not.

Hello, This link should be of interest to you! Australian War Memorial El Alamein Map Not Sure of the scale, I think 1:25000 with types of terrain etc. edit: The scale is not 1:2500! [ February 10, 2005, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

HEHEHE After the reenactment, the guys meet at the pub for a few beers.

I am wondering whether Bullets or Larger Shells will be visible in the new game (assuming there are bullets not arrows or lobster claws!). I would think that keeping with the philosophy of "more uncertainty" it would be better to only make bullets etc. visible if they really had tracers in them.

Actually, you are correct, checking out some of the other regions, including *parts* of Arbruzzo region, there are modern maps amongst them. The true test is to bring up the satellite overview and compare. However *most* of the maps, including the Lazio region and even all of Rome, are old. The Leonardo daVinci international airport is not even on them, and I am pretty sure construction began for it began in 1958.

This is not correct. </font>

Dilema Greek meaning two Premises or alternatives: di·lem·ma P Pronunciation Key (d-lm) n. A situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive. Usage Problem. A problem that seems to defy a satisfactory solution. Logic. An argument that presents two alternatives, each of which has the same consequence. [Late Latin, from Greek dilmma, ambiguous proposition : di-, two; see di-1 + lmma, proposition; see lemma1.] dilem·matic (dl-mtk) adj. Usage Note: In its main sense dilemma refers to a situation in which a choice must be made between alternative courses of action or argument. Although citational evidence attests to widespread use of the term meaning simply “a problem” or “a predicament” and involving no issue of choice, 74 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the sentence Juvenile drug abuse is the great dilemma of the 1980s. ·It is sometimes claimed that because the di- in dilemma comes from a Greek prefix meaning “two,” the word should be used only when exactly two choices are involved. Nevertheless, 64 percent of the Usage Panel accepts its use for choices among three or more options. Sorry Couldn't help myself.... Don't forget to toss sand in the bull's eyes when faced with the impossible dilemma of either being impaled by the left horn or impaled by the right horn (and what famous book was that from?) -tom w </font>

The maps here are excellent for scenario makers. They are definately ww2 era maps, with the old town of san pietro up the top of the hill, and all it's buildings mapped out. And as stated above you can overlay a modern sattelite view perfectly to see the lay of the land a bit better.

Best of all the IGm 1:25000 seem to be WW2 era! Thanks so much for this excellent resource. A bit of clever screen capturing will enable you to save these maps. I am using screenprint32 v3.5 and it saves it pretty good.

*BUMP* I thought maybe a more multipurpose CMX2 thread would be nice.

Not to mention three-shots or three blasts on a whistle, or just yelling really loud! These "within earshot" effects would be incredibly hard to get right if attempted in the new C&C system. However they were integral to some of the small action C&C breakdowns I have read about. Will a particularly noisy environment prevent orders being followed??

Bumping this joke thread because I just wanted to get a 7th!!! thread with CMX2 in the title on the front page.

To help translate German, I initially use Altavista Babel Fish Which looks like what you used. Then with my (limited) knowledge of German (syntax and military terminology), I go through and rearrange/fix it with help from: LEO online dictionary Which is excellent for words with subtle shades of meaning, as it gives a few phrases and stuff (also pronunciation). Eg. zug, abteilung can be train, department or their military formation use. Also a good way of learning some more German!

The 8th Panzer-Regiment was formed on 1 October 1936 by deliveries from the tank regiments 3, 5 (previously motorized training command Zossen) and 6 in the camp Zossen. The regiment was subordinate to the 3. Panzer-Division and included for the time being with garrison in Zossen. From each regiment an closed(whole?) company was delivered. The 6./Pz.Rgt. 5 formed the 5. Company, the 3./Pz.Rgt. 6 became the 6. Company and the 6./Pz.Rgt. 6 formed the 7. Company of the 8th Panzer-Regiment. The regiment was arranged in two tank batallions, each consisting of four tank companies. In each company, by the organisation chart, were 8 Panzer I tanks (Krupp). The regiment staff had a staff company, a message squad, an reconnaissance squad and a dispatch rider (bicycle?) squad. Later, another tank platoon, in the form of a light tank platoon, was attached. Likewise in each batallion, was a staff company, integrated in same arrangement as the RgtStKp. Each batallion also had a workshop with civilian personnel. The regiment comprised approximately 2000 men. Heres the start looking a bit better, not sure about army formation names though. Couldn't be bothered doing the rest.

I would like to know, if it not too specific for Steve to answer, what role higher level HQs will have in the new game. It seems in the current CM engine company and above HQs are not really essential, but I have a hope of seeing them become important beyond giving a bonus to mortars. Is there any possibility of different levels of command? Could a company or higher HQ have the ability to influence planning and coordination of the "big-picture", but leaving the player in intimate control of small elements. Some form of planning tools with maps and phase lines etc. could form the HQ level of the game, while the lowest level engagements are fought out in the current CM style. I don't know how the HQ level would influence the lowest level in a realistic way, but I think it would be good to see, and not feature restrictions that are not based on reality. So each turn a player could have an option of skipping up to a "Command Screen " and making adjustments to the overall battle plan in meaningful ways. I think allowing different levels of HQ and therefore command delay would (somehow, and the trick is in the detail) make restrictions much more realistic. The current CM command delay model has a single unit stranded like an unprogrammed computer when command delay is in force. If only the unit could be free to move, but the formation as awhole be stuck in limbo instead.

Hi Tom, To my way of thinking I want to see none of #1. No groping blindly in the dark for me! Relative spotting is a different matter entirely. RS is based on realism, while obscuring recon from the player is totally arbitrary. As Steve repeatedly says, CM will not be a command game, and obscuring recon below a certain HQ level makes it a command game. However, as you probably notice, my idea for implementing #2 is pretty vague, although I have posted many ideas in the past. I expect that a realistic C&C system will be the BFC secret weapon. It will make it harder to put massive changes into place to deal with your jeep spotting armour on the left flank while all your AT is on the right flank. Really that is the heart of the matter. If you spot tanks with your gamey jeep, the information will be useless if your AT weapons are confined to the other side of the map where they realistically should be, unless word comes from an officer to reroute them. How to do it?? group select orders, command-zones, frontage assignments. I dunno. All I am sure about is there should be a way to simulate a higher HQ's job of coordinating the operation as a whole.

The way I see it, there are two ways to prevent an otherwise legitimate jeep recon from being gamey. 1. You obscure the vision/awareness of the player. This is not my preferred option. Either you have your jeep go MIA and become controlled by the AI or the recon gained by the jeep is obscured from you until a simulated "report" to a HQ about that info and enemy contacts. In either case you are prevented from playing with the jeep to its full capacity. You either don't control it at all, or you are playing "blind" because you can't see the enemy contacts in LOS to the jeep. How do you know what to run away from etc. And this system could not be restricted to just scouts. How would a platoon not in contact with higher HQ fight if the player was not allowed to see what it was spotting. 2. You restrict what the player can do about it. This seems the more realistic approach to me. All enemy units are shown on the map in their "best-spotted" form. The gods-eye game view of the player is maintained, and you can continue to control your jeep with full situational awareness. The trick in this scenario is to put command delays in the right places. Higher level HQs must be more integral to the game. I think being able to have a command delay on formations as a whole but not on the lowest level units would help solve much of this problem. That way there can be a overall plan that is difficult to change. Somehow a command delay could be used to simulate info going up AND down the chain of command, so that orders to respond to the "gamey" scout info are not unrealistic.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not sure if you lot are deing deliberately argumentative and monosyllabic (although it seems Mr. Dorosh is always deliberately argumentative). I should say I agree with most of dalem's concerns about how and where to draw the line with the whole 1:1 thing. It really could be a can of worms. I don't want medics or any of that rubbish, but as Steve said there must be a balance, and I expect there to be an animation for close melee combat. Even if it is a generic animation with a few wildly swinging rifle butts or fists. Even the current combat mission can stand having the camera zoomed in and watching those grenades fly without looking too bad. Just because you play it at a company level or higher doesn't mean you never want to get down in the dirt and watch that cool moment in one of the movies. For 1:1 representation to not look silly and incomplete, an important thing like close combat cannot just be ignored. So like I said, it will probably not have 300 different animations, but it should be in there. I don't see what the problem is with that.

While I'm sure it won't run to 300 different martial arts moves, depicting close combat will be important in a 1:1 situation. And like just about all other aspects of 1:1, I'm sure it won't be easy to get right, but thats why those guys get paid the big bucks. As for routed squad members, didn't close combat have a way to deal with this, where the man was left behind cowering, but was still part of the squad. I never played enough to see how it worked, but I'm sure a simple regroup command would be possible. You wouldn't always want the guy who just ran away screaming to come back, so it should just be optional.

I think we need to keep in mind that these guys already have 5 years or so of Combat Mission AI programming experience. The plan for the new game engine has been underway for at least a year or two, even if the actual programming is only now hitting full gear. So I don't think having one guy/brain programming is as detrimental as it would be if this was an entirely unique project. Remember we got CMBO in all it's imperfect glory when these guys first made a game, but every release since then has improved in leaps and bounds, and CMX2 will be an extension of that knowledge.

Well as much as I would like to endorse what Gpig has done, I much prefer Sergei's effort. I will print it out and stick it on my refrigerator. And after all Sergei has signed it as an original in his best letters.....

I said I would post my thoughts on the movement side of things, but as they are covered elsewhere (by me)I will keep it brief. Whether you are for or against letting the AI take over more of the targetting side of things, I am sure we can all agree that at least the AI could do a reasonable job of it. What it can't do well is tactics and movement. My basic idea is as many of you would already have seen, is based on some sort of command zone system. Think of those hex based games where the smallest unit is a company or a platoon represnted by a tile. What does this tile represent? It encompasses all the units of that formation, attached weapons and their zone of control. What if you could play CM as if your companies or platoons were "tiles". All the platoon "tiles" would be within a company "tile" and so on down the chain. You would have the best of all worlds I think. So to achieve that, each formation must have a zone-of control that they are confined to. For example, a battalion with 3 companies and support weapons. Each company would have a radius calculated around it which would allow free movement within. If you wanted to move the company you would have to move it as a whole. This would involve clicking on a batallion orders button, and plotting waypoints or zones for the whole company. To adjust any of these would involve a substantial command delay at the batallion level. This system would be extended down the chain of command with successively smaller command delays until finaly, at the squad level, you have almost no command delay on manouvres, but the squads are confined to a general zone. This is a way to put the command delay at the formation level rather than the squad level. It would make changing grand plans harder, but make movement at the coalface much quicker and simpler. Using phase lines and command zones would allow small units to become more autonomous and realistic. You could send out a single squad on patrol, and they would execute their last known orders without an officer nearby, and without going MIA or any such thing, and without a 40 second delay sitting in the middle of the road. Everything your units spot could then be shown on the map in real time, but responding on a higher tactical level to these threats would become harder. Of course this is also a little arbitrary, but I think it could be done well.