Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

jim crowley

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    222

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jim crowley

    Place your bets on the Front

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    MikeyD, the game is the thing, not the setting. Frankly, who cares which nationalities or theatre it will be?

    Well, no. Not for me, at least.

    I'm sure T-72, Down in Flames and Histwar;Les Grognards are all fine games; I'm just not interested in the subject matter.

    For me it is the subject that is most important (WW2), games on the subject are just a bonus. CMX1 was a fantastic bonus in all its' versions. But I only bought them because they were WW2.

    I suppose it depends on whether you are a gamer, first and foremost, or an "historian". I tend towards the latter. Will I buy CMX2 because it is a great, fun game. Yes, if it is a great, fun WW2 game. If not, then probably not (notice I keep my options open here ;)

    0

    CMx2 and Steve's mention of target "memory"

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    If we went back into CMx1 and changed these two things, and nothing else, the TacAI would probably go automatically from decent to spectacular. So expect good things from CMx2's TacAI, though since we are starting fresh with the TacAI and the game as a whole I can't make any predictions about its overall level of competence. In theory all bets are off ;)

    Steve

    This sounds very promising indeed.

    However, in CMX1, the AI tends towards choosing cover over platoon integrity. In other words, be it on attack or defence, the components of a platoon will more often than not be set up using any and all available cover, often out of C&C with the HQ.

    If there is a greater emphasis on C&C in the new engine, this behaviour would need, at least, to be moderated.

    0

    Rubble

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Will rubble be handled differently in CMX2?

    For instance, instead of collapsing within itself, will the rubble from a building spread outwards to fill an adjacent road and, in doing so, might it cause damage or casualties to nearby units?

    0

    The CPU opponent- is it limiting CMx2 possibilities?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I enjoy a good PBEM every now and then and, yes, a good human player can present a great challenge.

    However not every human player is uniformly good all of the time; I'm sure I've made more than my fair share of howlers. And some players can be fairly lame.

    I also find that I feel much more under pressure to get turns out in a timely fashion, when playing someone else and while I like the competional side of the game I don't get as much enjoyment as I do from playing the AI in "simulation" mode.

    In short, its good to have both modes of play available to cater for all tastes.

    0

    Tidbit about Fog of War

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by kipanderson:

    Steve,

    This is not strictly on topic, however, is there any chance of the attacker being able to have foxholes and such? I ask here because this thread is in great part about starting setups.

    In many/most real world battles on a 2km by 2km scale both sides will start the clash from foxholes or semi fortified positions. This is a feature I particularly missed in CMBB with the frequent and often generous use of direct fire artillery. The Soviets bringing guns such as the 76.2mm/45mm up to overlook enemy positions the night before an attack, then giving over-watch fire from dug-in positions.

    Anyway… the ability to use foxholes and trenches on both sides would be more realistic in a large range of situations.

    Thanks,

    All the best,

    Kip.

    Good idea Kip.

    PS

    Geared up for Roma?

    0

    Tidbit about Fog of War

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    We could do something for Quick Battles. It would just be a simple "this side gets to spot x% of the enemy's units, this side gets to spot y%". The choice of which units to spot or not spot would be randomly determined, perhaps with a tad bit of logic (i.e. fixed stuff has a higher chance).

    We can't afford to make this anything more than a "simple" additional feature, so let's not get carried away with 1001 ways to make this more complicated :D

    Steve

    Not wishing to add any complication :D but using the "tad bit of logic", perhaps the percentage chance of pre-spotting could be geared to the type of battle as well.

    For instance, in an assault battle, the attacker would, mostly, have a reasonable amount of intel on the defenders positions, so might get 50 to 75%. The defender, on the other hand, may have much less an idea of the attackers disposition, so may only get 20 to 30%

    In a meeting engagement, which is more of an "accidental" battle, neither side would probably get more than about 10 or 15%.

    Features like this, allied to relative spotting and enhanced C&C, can only make QBs better and better and, who knows, may convert some of those who currently find them poor fare.

    0

    To kick things off... a poll of sorts...

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Nelson 1812:

    Wonder how people would feel like if the fog of war, was to included your own platoons etc that are suddenly out of contact with there immediate commander, radios out, out sight, and the AI took over, you losing there visual aspects on the map...and them following pre arrange paths.

    Would add some fun to large flanking moves, and cut back on borg spotting!

    Apparently that is a "command level" game and no one, bar yourself and yours truly, wants a "command level" game. Shame, because I think it's a damned good idea :D
    0

    To kick things off... a poll of sorts...

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by MikeyD:

    --

    Things to change:

    1: Varying/multiple AI 'personalities'. Cautious technique, aggressive technique, etc. With CMx1 we pretty much know from experience the present AI's most likely route of advance. Grognards boasts a 'multi-level' AI?

    ;)

    I've had my five but as my No.1 was AI improvement, I think this is a brilliant idea.

    Don't know how difficult or otherwise it might be.

    0

    To kick things off... a poll of sorts...

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    1) AI. I don't buy the "AI will never be as good as a human" (given some of the people I have played!). If you don't try you will never achieve and everything can be improved. Vital for solo gamers.

    2)Robust C&C which stresses the importance of higher level HQs to manage and co-ordinate - maybe nationality based.

    3)More varied victory conditions, especially for the QB generator. So a "Fall Back" type of defence may produce a very small defending force relative to the attacking force and so on.

    4)Convoy/road movement/follow my leader.

    5)Greatly improved artillery/indirect fire.

    This should allow virtually anything, on map or otherwise, to fire indirectly given some sort of OOP system. It should also have a variety of arty missions such as "drop five rounds on this co-ordinate" and so forth.

    Damn, thats five. But ammo resupply and a pre-battle OOB (like Steel Panthers) would come a close sixth and seventh.

    0

    CMX2, 1:1 Representation and Soldier Attributes

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    We don't know what the upper size of a CMx2 battle will be so we don't want to overpromise. Over time it can certainly go larger thanks to hardware improvements. But for the first game we are focusing on a "task force" type of organization of roughly 1-2 companies in strength. Less than a company should be viable, more than 2 companies... we aren't sure. For those of you who remember CMBO's early days we were saying the same thing, though by the time we were finished battalion sized games were possible for those with decent hardware.

    Steve

    Oops. Hit the wrong button.

    In the current CM, C&C is pretty much set at the platoon level but does, at least, have company and battalion HQ's. While the latter do not have very much practical significance (to the extent that they should, IMO), you do have the makings of a battalion level command structure.

    If CMX2 is to have a more robust C&C system in place, will this be limited, at the upper end, to the "task-force" level? If so, even with faster PC's, you will still only be able to produce battles with multiple task forces, rather than an integrated battalion level formation, which would seem to be a bit of a backwards step. Or will higher echelon command be programmed from the go-get but only be usuable on higher-end machines?

    0
×
×
  • Create New...