Juardis

Wow. Go away for 2 years and things change . Seriously, I quit playing CMBB because it ceased to be fun. I never bought CMAK. But I eagerly awaited news on CMX2 and here it is. So if it's not too late, here are some of my wishes from 2 years ago and some new ones. I have no idea how much of what we came up with years ago has been written down, but what I'd like first and foremost is for the game to be fun. It is all well and good to be as realistic as possible, but at some point realism is not fun. The shear frustration of having your squad break as it runs from tree cover to tree cover while a HMG squad fires on it is not fun. It may be realistic (or may not, since we're talking about human reactions in the heat of the battle), but it's certainly not fun. CMBB took away the fire and manuever aspects that made CMBO fun simply because you could no longer effectively manuever. So you ordered your guys to stay in one place and expend their ammo until the time limit expired. Certainly not all games were like that, but it happened more often than not. It was extremely frustrating. I just read about the morale issues and I fear even more frustration. I mean, having an entire squad break on the death of the squad leader? Realistic? Who knows. Possible? Perhaps. Fun? No. So while I applaud the realistic combat simulator, is there any acknowledgement at all that this is still a game? I think the two can co-exist nicely, but it's a fine balance to be sure. Anyway, my wish list. 1. Scalable. By that I mean the ability to model the Vietnam war and the longer ranges associated with it as well as WW I/WW II eras. My main desire is for a Korean war battlefield. But if a Vietnam battlefield can be modeled, I'd suspect a Korean war battlefield could be. 2. Passage of time. A one hour battle may start in daylight (or darkness) but surely transition to the other. 3. Borg spotting has got to go. I have an idea that I put forth a few years ago, and I still think it would work and be fun at the same time. Basically, commands can only be given to units with radios or within LOS of units with radios. 4. Ability to play the game from different perspectives. By that, I mean you are either the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander or battalion commander. How much C&C you have depends greatly on which perspective you play from. For example: If this is a platoon vs. platoon, you're a platoon leader and can issue direct commands to the squad leaders and have those commands executed in a reasonably fast time and indirect commands to the individuals in the squad after some delay (to simulate the direct command to the squad leader giving commands to his subordinates). Issuing a command to a squad leader only will allow the AI to figure out how to execute the command (perhaps using pre-determined formations or maneuvers). Issuing a command to a soldier will take longer to execute since the order has to come from me (the platoon leader) through the squad leader to the soldier. I think this would work well with the previously mentioned cooperative play mode. 5. Alternate turn time limits. Instead of 60 sec, allow longer/shorter times. Longer battles can be simulated in the same number of turns if longer turn lengths are allowed. 6. Air drops. Be they supplies falling from parachutes or men falling from parachutes. The entire battle centered around the drop zone. Plenty of battles took place in WWII and Korea and Vietnam around drop zones (The movie "We Were Soldiers" is a great example). 7. Since I'm wishing, Helicopter modeling. Obviously not for WW II, nor much for Korea, but definitely to extend the engine to Vietnam. 8. I would love to hook this into a campaign system to replace the current Operations. But if the current operation system is retained, I'd love to have truly dynamic front lines that allow for encirclement in between battles. 9. I know with dynamic lighting that a lot of cool things can be added. But I'd vote for star shells for night battles and willy pete (ordnance and lighting effects). There are more I'm sure, but these will do for now. I'm trying to think revolutionary by the way.

Wow. Go away for 2 years and things change . Seriously, I quit playing CMBB because it ceased to be fun. I never bought CMAK. But I eagerly awaited news on CMX2 and here it is. So if it's not too late, here are some of my wishes from 2 years ago and some new ones. I have no idea how much of what we came up with years ago has been written down, but what I'd like first and foremost is for the game to be fun. It is all well and good to be as realistic as possible, but at some point realism is not fun. The shear frustration of having your squad break as it runs from tree cover to tree cover while a HMG squad fires on it is not fun. It may be realistic (or may not, since we're talking about human reactions in the heat of the battle), but it's certainly not fun. CMBB took away the fire and manuever aspects that made CMBO fun simply because you could no longer effectively manuever. So you ordered your guys to stay in one place and expend their ammo until the time limit expired. Certainly not all games were like that, but it happened more often than not. It was extremely frustrating. I just read about the morale issues and I fear even more frustration. I mean, having an entire squad break on the death of the squad leader? Realistic? Who knows. Possible? Perhaps. Fun? No. So while I applaud the realistic combat simulator, is there any acknowledgement at all that this is still a game? I think the two can co-exist nicely, but it's a fine balance to be sure. Anyway, my wish list. 1. Scalable. By that I mean the ability to model the Vietnam war and the longer ranges associated with it as well as WW I/WW II eras. My main desire is for a Korean war battlefield. But if a Vietnam battlefield can be modeled, I'd suspect a Korean war battlefield could be. 2. Passage of time. A one hour battle may start in daylight (or darkness) but surely transition to the other. 3. Borg spotting has got to go. I have an idea that I put forth a few years ago, and I still think it would work and be fun at the same time. Basically, commands can only be given to units with radios or within LOS of units with radios. 4. Ability to play the game from different perspectives. By that, I mean you are either the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander or battalion commander. How much C&C you have depends greatly on which perspective you play from. For example: If this is a platoon vs. platoon, you're a platoon leader and can issue direct commands to the squad leaders and have those commands executed in a reasonably fast time and indirect commands to the individuals in the squad after some delay (to simulate the direct command to the squad leader giving commands to his subordinates). Issuing a command to a squad leader only will allow the AI to figure out how to execute the command (perhaps using pre-determined formations or maneuvers). Issuing a command to a soldier will take longer to execute since the order has to come from me (the platoon leader) through the squad leader to the soldier. I think this would work well with the previously mentioned cooperative play mode. 5. Alternate turn time limits. Instead of 60 sec, allow longer/shorter times. Longer battles can be simulated in the same number of turns if longer turn lengths are allowed. 6. Air drops. Be they supplies falling from parachutes or men falling from parachutes. The entire battle centered around the drop zone. Plenty of battles took place in WWII and Korea and Vietnam around drop zones (The movie "We Were Soldiers" is a great example). 7. Since I'm wishing, Helicopter modeling. Obviously not for WW II, nor much for Korea, but definitely to extend the engine to Vietnam. 8. I would love to hook this into a campaign system to replace the current Operations. But if the current operation system is retained, I'd love to have truly dynamic front lines that allow for encirclement in between battles. 9. I know with dynamic lighting that a lot of cool things can be added. But I'd vote for star shells for night battles and willy pete (ordnance and lighting effects). There are more I'm sure, but these will do for now. I'm trying to think revolutionary by the way.

I would like to see the game become fun again. Up to BFC to define fun.

Depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for opponents, competition, unique and different formats, go to the Band of Brothers. http://p204.ezboard.com/bwebandofbrothers If you want new scenarios or mods, look elsewhere.

Ahhh, caught me before the edit Andreas. Was hoping to sneak by....

Umm, dorosh! You forgot reference to Capt. The man with a sock puppet for a friend. For shame! (or was that before your time mr. 4604?) [ January 07, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Juardis ]

I personally hope for Korea. It's a slight extension of WWII era armament.

hmmmmm, seems kinda sparse on the details....like it's only a partly finished article. I mean, what was the purpose other than to say, "Hey, here's a WWII tactical game"

Excellent Snake Eyes. That's what I was looking for. See, there is a positive in your horribly unlucky encounter.

YankeeDog, you ever see the movie D-day? The hotel the in Oesteerman (or whatever the hell it's called) had a german gun in the basement. I was thinking along those lines. It'd be like a cheap pillbox and the advantage is not many people would suspect a gun there. Heavy buildings are harder to take down in CMBB so it could stand the pounding for a few turns anyway. Much better than the alternative (foxhole or slit trench).

Just as an aside, a scenario designer can place tanks and guns INSIDE heavy buildings by putting the building ON TOP of the tank/gun. If you want it rubbled, then you destroy that building (I think that will work). The drawback of course is that it cannot move once placed thusly. Would make for realism in terms of guns and a nasty surprise for the unsuspecting victim

Thanks for the links, but those were CMBO related, not CMBB. IIRC, the flight and penetration models were improved between CMBO and CMBB. That would lead me to believe that anything related to CMBO with regards to ricochets may not apply to CMBB. So far, I have seen nothing that says anybody has seen such an occurrence in CMBB. On the other hand, I do see the graphical representation of rico's in CMBB. Not sure how accurate that representation is, but I do see them.

Just wondering since this is a touted feature of the game where every round is tracked individually. So I presume ricochets are tracked since presumably the info to track them is available (velocity and angle of impact). But I have never seen a ricochet create any collateral damage. I guess maybe the loss of the TC on a ricochet could be caused by the shell fragments. Anyway, anybody ever see any collateral damage from a ricochet? Like a shell bounced off the turret and slammed into a nearby half track knocking it out? I realize the chances of that are slim, but we have a large enough population here where I'd think perhaps SOMEONE has seen it happen.

Yes tom, it could be coincidence, that is why I was asking for other people's experiences. Another bit o anecdotal evidence is that it happened in another battle (not a test, but an actual battle). I turned off covered arcs and the following turn I spotted some infantry moving. Again, coincidence? Could be, but I'm convinced that cover arcs do lessen the probability of spotting outside the arc and increases the probability of spotting within the arc. If I were coding the command, that is surely how I would do it.

hmmm, ok, that's interesting. I too thought that cover arcs was only for shooting purposes and had nothing to do with spotting, but I got suspicious in one of my games when I knew the enemy was out there but I just didn't spot them. Turning off cover arcs led to spotting some units part way through a subsequent turn.

First off, did a search, came up empty. Ahhh for the old days when any question was immediately pelted with "DO A FREAKING SEARCH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD".....ahem, anyway, thanks for letting me reminisce. Back to the topic. Does a covered arc hurt spotting outside the arc? Intuitively you'd say yes because you're telling your guys to concentrate on what's in the arc. And if so, then the probability of spotting anything outside that arc decreases. I did a test and I think what I'm saying is correct, but I want some other opinions. Anybody have any insights?

It appears that it IS a freaking destroyer. Assault boats in CMBB weigh 2000 lbm (1 MT) and come equipped with a 2 hp engine. The motor explains why no one gets tired while in an assault boat. So how a 2 man mortar team can even move one at all is a mystery. But surely a 12 man team could manage it faster than what the game models now. I guess A Bridge Too Far is what I envisioned, not a fishing boat. [ July 01, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Juardis ]

good point martyr. and here I thought it was because they were modeling a fully laden european assault boat by mistake.

{edit: Contrary to what was originally stated by that dumbass Juardis (preserved for all it's glory here), there is NO paddling in CMBB assault boats. 2hp motors are what you get. So read on and mock me later. /edit} Yes yes, try it sometime. Have a squad paddle a boat onto land. Then try getting that boat back into the water. Or have the boat facing the shore while on the land and try to load a squad on it. Many many problems with this. First, you cannot reverse the boat. Excuse me?! Paddle BACKWARDS!!!! Perhaps that technique did not come along until Korea, or Vietnam? Or if your squad is on land already, how about they PICK IT UP and put it into the water?! Second, since you cannot reverse the boat, it has to rotate 180 degrees to go in the opposite direction. Ever try that while in the water? It should take a minute maybe. How about on land? Maybe a little more than a minute since you have to rotate it then everyone needs to embark. Except it takes 3 MINUTES to ROTATE 90 degrees!!!! Excuse me part deux? WTH are they doing that it would take that long to rotate 90 degrees?!?! Especially on land. Here's an idea...Get out, pick the boat up, and turn the damn thing around. Obviously everybody walking backwards is not an option since you cannot reverse the boat, so they must have to pick it up. It's like the game thinks all the guys are in the boat trying to turn the boat around, even while on land. Ok, if that is the case, then how the hell does it even rotate at all??!?! No amount of paddling while on land will move a fully laden african assault boat. Part of the problem I think is to move a boat across the land requires your guys be embarked on it, which of course assumes they're paddling. It's WOOD and CANVAS damnit, not 75mm thickness armor, pick it up and move it!!! (suggestion: Speed dependent on number of men moving with a minimum number required to move it). BTS, please fix or do somefink!!! [ July 01, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Juardis ]

Splatty, I saw it in a BMAREG. Don't remember when the game actually ended or how. But a lot of us that were playing in the BMAREG Tournament saw it. So perhaps it has sommething to do with making everything random? Dunno. BMAREG=Big Mac Attack Random Everything Game designed for CMBO originally by a BoB member named Big Mac

Berli, since you're being particularly verbose in this thread, riddle me this. I'm playing To the Volga as the Germans. Which means I'm attacking into fortified positions. Factory fighting, which I am now well versed in, favors the defender sooooo much that one platoon can easily hold off an entire company. Factory fighting is a huge benefit to the defender. I'm getting better at it mind you, but at the expense of almost 1/3 of my infantry. Now then, what is your opinion on this operation? We're only on the first battle, so many more to go. No spoilers please. But are the Germans really at as big a disadvantage as I seem to be at? Note: defender is very good opponent yielding ground slowly. He is able to have numerical superiority in localized situations because LOS in factories is extremely beneficial to the defender.

doh!!! ok, my fault entirely. I was trying to load FO's into assault boats. Infantry works just fine thank you. Nothing to see here, move along please

I'm at work right now, so I can't try it again. But I opened a scenario, editted units, bought boats and infantry. Tried to place infantry in the boat, boat already in the water. Editor would not let that happen. Maybe I need to try it during the setup phase?

I'm trying to make a scenario with assault boats. In testing the damned the thing I can't figure out how to load infantry onto the damned things. I tried putting infantry in them so that i start with infantry in the boats during the setup phase but the game won't let me do it. I tried leaving infantry on the shore and have them load onto the boats on turn one. Game won't let me. WTF is going on? Any help would be much appreciated.

While setting up units I get the black line indicating units (tanks in particular) are out of C&C then on the first turn they get in C&C magically. And vice-a-versa (infantry in particular). Most annoying when deploying troops in foxholes where you think everyone is in C&C then first turn they are not. Grrrrrr I issued an embark command to a conscript maxim and tried to set a pause of 10 sec. Game would not let me do it. I try with a green maxim and it would let me do it. Next turn, I cancel the embark for the green maxim (delay was set such that the maxim would not move until the begginning of the next turn), try to reissue the command with another delay but the game would not let me add any delays. Would the turn before, but not now. Go figure. I issued an advance order to a green squad out of C&C, or tried to, game would not let me do it. Multiple units ranging from conscript to green would not accept the advance order. And no, they were not tired. Some were in C&C, some out of C&C, but I could not see the logic for why some units would accept the advance order while others would not. Russian infantry if it helps. I have the files if necessary.