Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Conscript Bagger

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    475

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Conscript Bagger

    A Crazy Idea in re: Map Edges

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Imprudent Warrior,

    The hell you say! ;)

    CMx1 already has this to some extent. Games can automatically end when certain balances of active forces, ammo, combat, victory levels, etc. are considered. However, CMx1 purposefully errs on the side of a battle playing out longer than it would in real life. Simple reason... it is a game and that is what gamers have told us they want (even when they say in another thread they don't smile.gif ).

    Acknowledged. I just wonder if having intensity be the determining factor would give more flexibility to designers and more interesting decision points for players, particularly in operations. Then again, CMx2 ops might be Totally Different.

    The same type of system will be in CMx2, though almost certainly in a different form.

    It does work well enough not to be called "broken" by any means, but I'm glad to hear you're looking at improvements. To the extent that I've followed recent discussions, I realize there are no sacred cows in CM.
    0

    A Crazy Idea in re: Map Edges

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Tarkus:

    For a start, playing on much larger maps for a given battle size is a big part of the solution. Playing a reinforced company on a tiny map will most likely result in issues with the edge. But get the same OB on a larger map and you tend to get away from the edge while still keeping options for flanking movements. And as Blutzeit point out, you don't want to waste no time where your objectives aren't.

    This got me thinking about scenario length again. For the above to work (and I think it's the simplest/best solution), it assumes a turn limit that won't allow the attacker to execute a 2000-meter right hook and still reach the objective before time runs out. Of course, that brings up the gamey end-rush thing, and "if only I'd had another turn" and so on.

    What I would like to see (and it's probably been mentioned before like everything else) is the turn limit being replaced with an "intensity gauge" whereby the game measures how much progress the attacker is making, how much shooting is going on, the proximity of the two sides, and how firmly the defender is standing his ground. It's sort of like a chess clock, although it would be adjustable based on the type of battle being represented. If the attacker's rate of fire/advance falls below the specified level for more than X number of turns, the battle ends and he probably loses because he's short of his objectives. If he keeps up the pressure, the battle continues. If either side's firepower is reduced through casualties and/or ammo use to the point where the minimum "combat intensity" can't be sustained, the battle ends (i.e., the attacker retires or the defender retreats/surrenders).

    Since both sides know the game won't end as long as there's significant fighting going on, the defender's choice of how long to stand and fight depends on whether he's supposed to hold the objective at all costs, or delay the enemy with a fighting withdrawal.

    The length of each battle, then, would be limited by the amount of ammunition available, reinforcments, and the balance of forces on each side, not a turn count. Obviously, different engagement types would require different thresholds for intensity, so a probe wouldn't require much fighting to continue, while a set-piece assault would.

    I hope this isn't too off-topic; like I said, I believe it is relevant to the edge-hugging issue, even if it doesn't address the "active edge" idea. Now everyone please tell me why it's been considered and rejected before. smile.gif

    0

    God, the Borg and the art of relative spotting.

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Tero,

    Yes, and contrast THAT with what the Germans had on Soviet positions prior to Barbarossa... practically nothing. IIRC the Germans valued surprise so highly that higher authorities (OKH I think) prevented meaningful aerial recon until just prior to the invasion and, of course, after. AG Nord had the most problems since the terrain was the most difficult of the three axis of advance.

    Steve

    One notable exception would be Brest-Litovsk, which the Germans had garrisoned for a while during/after WWI, I think. Not that it seems to have helped much after the initial assault into the fortress...
    0

    Grog and the Car Designer - A Parable

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    I want a tactical game where [nation X]'s units use [nation X]'s formations and tactics as well as weapons and language.

    I want to be able to play on a huge map using huge forces with the option to actually command only a part of them, including a different part or parts each turn.

    I want my side to attempt to complete its objectives without my intervening at all, if the mood strikes me to watch a battle rather than fight one.

    I want to LOSE, painfully and quickly, if I use tactics that wouldn't have worked in real life.

    I want a reason to conserve my men and materiel as carefully as real commanders must, and I want to know that my opponent(s) must do the same.

    That's a start. How BFC does it isn't my concern. Perhaps they can build me my perfect house through cunning use of hamster wheels, gas jets, and dumbwaiters. On the other hand, maybe it'll have a fusion reactor in the closet and broadcast power covering the entire property. Whatever, just so the game's fun.

    0

    Bye CMAK, good but flawed

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by stikkypixie:

    You know I've always wondered whether the driver would bump his head against the main gun if the turret turned.

    I read about such an incident in a U.S. division's training. A Sherman driver (or assistant, I suppose) got pinned against his hatch cover when the turret swiveled unexpectedly. Broken ribs, etc.; don't remember if he died.
    0

    Call of Duty

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by mrpwase:

    As for FPSs on the Playstation...PCs are the only proper FPS/Strategy platform. You cannot play an FPS properly without a mouse and keyboard.

    Sign me up for impropriety, then! ;) I actually prefer the PS2 controller (have been playing Medal of Honor and Star Wars Battlefront). And since I sit in front of a computer at work all day, using a different controller for games at home helps stave off repetitive stress injury a little longer, I like to think.
    0

    Paratroopers in action??

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Flammenwerfer:

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

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

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

    Paras don't drop into a tactical battle. If they do, they die.

    Horribly and in short order.

    Are you sure about that.? What about Eben Emael. smile.gif </font>
    0

    AI spotting cheat ?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

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

    Anyway, Michael Dorosh's GD scenario, "Detraining at Lodz"

    Two buttoned up tanks, at over 800 meters, see an UNFIRED at gun, situated in woods, on a reverse slope.

    So the gun was also hiding, and the mission was not meeting engagement? (The gun had the camouflage bonus)? </font>
    0

    Russian 85mm aa gun

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

    It has AP ammo. Until ca. 1944, however. At that point the 85mm tank gun became common, and I suppose that is where the 85mm AP grenades go to after that.

    Are you saying that the AA gun used the same round as the tank gun?

    Michael </font>

    0

    US towed TDs circa Bulge?

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    My experience reading American Bulge accounts is that 57mm are referred to as "anti-tank" (in infantry units as John said), while towed 76mm and SP of any type (M10, M18, M36) are called "tank destroyers." Towed 76mm might sometimes be called "guns," but I don't recall ever seeing a 57mm called a TD.

    John: I didn't know TD battalions ever fought with a mix of towed and SP. Could they have been in the midst of an upgrade? Does your source say how many of each type the 823d was using?

    0

    Best scenarios for aCMilating?

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Well, as it turned out, we had a few more people and only one of them tried CMAK. His comments:

    "I wish you could speed up the scrolling." (Fair enough.)

    "Too slow."

    "How come it only shows three men when there should be ten?"

    "When was this made?"

    "I don't think I'll play this after all."

    A lost cause. :D The night as a whole was something of a waste anyway, since I tired of Axis & Allies very quickly (only the second game in my life, and I don't feel I've missed out) and spent most of the time watching other people play with my laptop. Serves me right for sharing. :mad:

    0
×
×
  • Create New...