tinjaw

I recently picked up a bundle that included CMBO with all the various scenarios. I played 49th Recce about a half dozen times. As the British and I cannot do better than a decisive defeat. I was hoping you could provide me with some insight as to how the British can overcome the Germans. I have formed a few conclusions. The Bren gun carriers are useless. Their bow mounted machine guns cannot shoot over the walls or the hedgerows. They are thus almost always hull down, able to see who is shooting at them, but with no way to return fire. The British armored cars are inferior to the German tanks. When the armored cars are employed against the German armor they are lucky if they achieve mutual destruction, but mostly they just get lit up by the Lynx. The AT guns that arrive as reinforcements are also useless as the walls and hedgerows are such that there is no place to put the guns to take shots at the German armor. All that is left is the motorized infantry with their PIATs which need to get close to the German armor. I have slowly approached the German positions with the infantry, but the German infantry is too well supported and my infantry is shot down before I can close to the German armor. There is some hope with the Saxon and the other tank hunter that show with the mortars. But they are quickly outclassed by the Germans once again. And as for the mortars. I have not yet figured out how to use them since there is no where on the battlefield where they have any line of sight to do anything. Either with or without leaders acting as spotters. I'm starting to think this scenario is unwinnable as the British.

Chelco, I would love to continue the conversation with you, or anybody for that matter, that doesn't resort to flames. My email address is the same as it has been since 1996 chaim@chaim.com. I am working at the US Army Command and General Staff College as a Simulation Analyst these days. I am at OneSAF training this week so I am out of the office, so I may only get back to you in the evenings until next week. And again, the offer to chat via email is open to anybody. I am sorry it can't continue in an open forum. Put CM:SF in the subject so it gets through my spam filters. [To InvaderCanuck: That is not the behavior I am experiencing. I am uploading a screen capture movie to show you what I am seeing if you are interested. Email or PM me if you wish to have the URL.] </font>

Chelco, I would love to continue the conversation with you, or anybody for that matter, that doesn't resort to flames. My email address is the same as it has been since 1992 chaim@chaim.com. I am working at the US Army Command and General Staff College as a Simulation Analyst these days. I am at OneSAF training this week so I am out of the office, so I may only get back to you in the evenings until next week. And again, the offer to chat via email is open to anybody. I am sorry it can't continue in an open forum. Put CM:SF in the subject so it gets through my spam filters. [To InvaderCanuck: That is not the behavior I am experiencing. I am uploading a screen capture movie to show you what I am seeing if you are interested. Email or PM me if you wish to have the URL.]

Well, you have succeeded. I abandon this thread to the flamers. Just a few parting comments. >>You never could do all that in one turn before, either. It'd be nice to be able to, but if it's ruining TB for you... lay off the amphetamine. Ignoring the flame part, that is my point, if the time has been spent improving the existing engine instead of building a new one from scratch, those things could have been added years ago. >>What? Unable to opeate an e-mail client or sumfink? I can do so just fine. I can build and ISP from the ground up. But, excuse me, that is PBEM, not multiplayer. Not every LAN has an internet connection. Even setting up shared folders and pushing files around is not the same as the game sending the info over the wire itself. >> First you bitch about the UI sucking, now you want more commands bolted on to it. Make up your mind. First of all, I don't see the contradiction you apparently do. Second, a better UI could easily accommodate more options. But you flamers are right about one thing, I am ****ing insane. I keep trying to have intelligent discussion on game related forums and expect mature responses. I've had enough of this ****. I'll take my concerns off the forums and directly to Steve. Out.

First of all, RTS means Real Time Strategy. IOW a strategy game played in real time. Strategy as in not puzzle, not adventure, but strategy. The RTS genre may be dominated by clones with tech trees and resources, but that is only because the developers seem to be stuck in a rut and can't develop anything new. But it seems that some of you have missed the point in the rush to make juvenile flames. I am not claiming that CMSF is another clone of the current crop of RTS games. Nor am I saying it will become a clone of the current crop of RTS games. I never said it we start to have tech trees and resource points. What I did say is that the market has predefined stereotypes and gamers that fit into marketing buckets. One of them is RTS gamers, and it is a very large market. I only claimed that BFC seems to be catering to that market, changing the game to have more in common with RTS games with the hope of appealing to that market. So flame all you want, as the people I am addressing my concerns to understand what I am saying. [humor]And from the look of all the juvenile flames this posting has attracted in such a short time, it appears that Battlefront's dreams are coming true and the RTS fanbois are starting to attract like flies. Hopefully it will subside when they go back to school.[/humor]

I tried that as well, but with the turning radius of the Strykers being what they are, they start doing some S curves instead of facing the way I want.

Sure, here are some examples of the top of my head. </font> No WEGO multiplayer at all. Not even subpar or broken multiplayer WEGO.</font>The command queuing system is not adequate. I cannot do things like move a vehicle, dismount the troops, move the vehicle back to the rear, turn to face the enemy. And I can't even do parts of that, for example move to a location and change my facing once there.</font>The GUI has been changed, I believe, to focus on RT play. For example, no right-click menus, and an odd way of doing hotkeys using the 't' and 'y' keys.</font>Most, if not all, the new 'tasks' are only usable in RT mode. For example, running back to the vehicle, reloading, and returning to your former, or a new, position.</font>Old behaviors added for WEGO in CM:BB and CM:AK are disappearing. For example, hunt is now move to contact. You can't to LOS without targeting.</font>

I don't know how else to say this, but I am seeing that the focus of CM:SF has been on the RT aspects. I liked CMx1 because of the WEGO. I don't like RT. I occasionally try the latest and greatest RTS games, and play for a while, but they don't have anything in them that makes the clickfest go away. So if Battlefront is looking to make the Combat Mission franchise into a RTS because there is more money there, then OK, and I won't be buying another CM game. If WEGO is staying, then bygolly fix it. Start by making CMx2 do what CMx1 did, then we can talk about changes. As it stands now, I can't see playing CMSF any further after the newness wears off and will most likely go back to CMx1. And, since I am just throwing my opinions around, if CMx2 goes for the RTS crowd, IMNSHO it is going to die fast. As an realtime game, CMSF is just a kludge. Even though I dislike RTS games, I have played many, and Combat Mission Shock Force falls below well below the bar as a realtime game. I'm not going to ask for a refund, but I will be waiting to see if BFC realizes their mistake and makes version 1.5 what it should have been, namely the next version of CMx1 and not a whole new game. As I see it, the "new and improved" graphics engine is not worth the loss of all the goodness that was the CMx1 WEGO game. You have forgotten your roots.

It makes no difference to me whether or not I have the last waypoint selected. My units don't change their facing after they move. Edit: Well, this is weird. It seems that I only have a problem on the first minute. IOW if I am starting a scenario, I can't change the facing after a move. However, on the next turn, I can by selecting the waypoint. odd. Edit #2: Nope, still not working. I was thrown for a loop because it shows the facing line coming from the waypoint, but when the waypoint it reached the unit does not change its facing. So we are back to where we started. i.e. I don't work. [ July 29, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Tinjaw ]

Let me summarize things as I see them. Multiplayer WEGO was not included for perceived technical limitations by the developer. Many folks, myself included, want multiplayer WEGO as it was in CMx1. We have Gigabit LANs and fast computers, and we dont' believe that/understand why a "new and improved" engine cannot do what the "old and proven" engine could. The argument isn't about file sizes at all. The argument is that we want what we thought we were buying, specifically multiplayer WEGO as it existed in CMx1.

I think you misunderstood metalbrew. He wants the IFV to move again, not the dismounted infantry. I too wish to be able to do this.

As I am targeting a building with my Mk19, I move the target marker around the side of the building. Some spots are withing LOS, some aren't. Some windows appear to be reachable via area fire, while some others aren't. I take the time to pick a window within LOS and set for area fire. The line from the vehicle then snaps to the center bottom of the building and all my hits create a single impact mark there, nowhere near where I painstakingly targeted them. I would like to know how accurate the graphics are of what is going on in the engine behind the covers. Do I need to care about aiming? Should I just target the building anywhere? I also see troops in one spot, then they teleport a few meters away and immediately play the hit animation and lie down dead. What's going on?

I am wondering if this is related to the bug that has MMG fire coming from the rear right corner... Some time after deploying weapons, two members of a MMG team, get up and start running to the rear right corner. The teams are in perfect health, not even the slightest bit suppressed, nor panicked. The will go so far as to almost run off the map. Edited to add: I forgot to mention that they are carrying invisible guns as they run away. By tinjaw at 2007-07-28 [ July 28, 2007, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Tinjaw ]

How do I get my MMG team to dismount, move a very short distance, turn to face the enemy, and deploy their weapon. This should be doable in a minute. WEGO doesn't seem to have a way to do this. As it is, my guys dismount and move (via a move command), sit 45 seconds looking like idiots. Then on the next turn I can face them and deploy weapon.

Not after a move. You must wait until the start of the next turn and then give it a new facing. In the mean time, your flank or side is dangerously exposed.

I want my units to move and at the destination point to turn to face the direction I choose. I can't find a way to do this in WEGO single-player.

I made the same mistake. Use targeting instead.

Steve, May I ask you to provide some insight on my question about 100% intel? thanx

Not arguing. I'm just curious. Maybe something that saves me from coding myself into the corner at some future date. Why do you need to send the entire saved state from the previous turn? That information is known by both ends at the end of the previous turn, so save it, and then, once again, you only need the deltas. And on turn zero, the both have the same saved game, and if not, then just require that the players get the save game via some conventional means before starting the session? And as for the deltas, I can't see how they can be enough to come remotely close to exceeding the bandwidth of a DSL line, let alone a GB LAN. Again, just curious. Don't feel obligated to answer.

I just watched one of my SAW gunners get shot by an enemy infantry unit in just such a situation.

I think I remember reading that somebody already mentioned this, but I cannot find that thread, so I am going to remention it. Example, MOUT training scenario. There are enemy AI in the eastern one-story building. I have a squad of infantry prone firing their small arms at the enemy when there is a concrete wall completely obstructing their LOS. Even if it was area fire, small arms against a one-story concrete barrier is an exercise in futility.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no other way to put this then, you are 100% incorrect. I don't know where you get this idea other than the movies. The reality is that commanders have staffs and each subordinate unit has their commanders as well. Hundreds of decisions are made every second, from commander down to private on the line. Commanders approve an operational order developed by their staff. If you want to get nitpicky an talk about a tank company commander, then, yes the "staff" is much smaller, but there are rolls that are filled by the troops in the company like S2, S3, etc. The company commander does not make decisions in a vacuum. The commander does not make decisions on their own. Many people are doing many things and filtering, analyzing, confirming, and recommending things to the commander. Unless you are controlling a single soldier, there is absolutely no way to run anything larger in realtime and be "realistic". Semi-Automated Forces are a very long way away from being viable and Fully-Automated Forces are a pipedream for the foreseeable future. Edit to add: TeeHee Didn't mean to pileon, but when I started this there were no replies to Percopius. But when I clicked the post button I found about five people in line ahead of me.

Am I correct in my belief that I am getting 100% ground truth intel on my targets? For example, look at the MOUT tutorial. How the hell do I know that some muzzle flashes equals a unit that has one RPG, three AK-47s, and a pk machine gun, oh, and three grenades? How do my guys know that there are twelve guys in a block building in the first place? And secondly how do I know those twelve guys are a squad of nine and a HQ of three? Etc.

Thanks Rune. I realized that after taking my Ritalin.

Elvis, I understand that you are just making suggestions and that you aren't "against" WEGO. I understand your comment that if it is a clickfest that you aren't playing "proper", using realistic tactics, etc. But I disagree. First of all, I hate RT clickfests. No, hate isn't strong enough a word. But, despite my personal distaste for the *mechanics* of RT, and my dislike of the need to physically operate the computer keyboard and mouse at ungodly rates, I have another objection to RT. *It is not realistic.* Nothing you say will convince me that a company of soldiers, highly trained soldiers, soldiers that have battle drills and TTPS, think at the same rate as a single game player constrained by a 19" monitor, a keyboard, and a mouse. So, if I *really* want to play the game using realistic tactics, I need WEGO (and an unbelievably excellent cooperative AI, but that is a different thread.) and all the time I need to plan the next minute of combat. Just another opinion from the masses. You can please some of the people.......