ASL Veteran

Oh, they do pay attention to suggestions to improve CMx2. They just don't pay attention to you. What you really seem to be saying is that they need to pay more attention to you - personally - because you think you have all the answers.

Because he is irrelevant?

What compelling interest is there to respond to anything you say? Your opinions are functionally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether you make a purchase or not. If you choose to post something in the forums then that has no bearing on BFC's bottom line.

Why don't you help us all out and explain your vision in the Action Spot thread for us?

So if GTOS has infantry formations, Combat Mission does not, and you don't 'necessarily' think that GTOS infantry combat is superior then it stands to reason that the correlation you draw between infantry formations being necessary in Combat Mission in order to improve infantry combat isn't a valid one. Has the thought occurred to you that perhaps the reason infantry combat in GTOS isn't necessarily superior to infantry combat in Combat Mission is because of the infantry formations? In the deep recesses of my mind I recall Steve saying (hopefully publicly) that a game company was asking Steve to host their game on the BFC website. He said he played it but the game didn't work very well because of the infantry formations in it. Ultimately he rejected that company's request that Battlefront serve as their store front. I don't think he ever mentioned the name of the company or the game but his description seems to match that of what I'm reading about GTOS here. Wouldn't that be ironic that the very game being promoted as 'superior' is a game that Steve refused to sell in his store.

I think your point is valid. The issue at the moment (with spacing in game) seems to be that the game only places one team in each action spot. No teams spread over more than one action spot or at least I haven't seen a team spread over more than one action spot. If we were to get teams to spread over more than one action spot then that would seem to mean that we would have to have more teams. More teams capable of being split off which isn't necessarily supported by the organization of modern squads. I don't know for certain (only Charles would know), but I'm going to assume that this one team per action spot is probably a hardcoded limitation in the CM engine that was designed into the game when it was originally conceived and it would either be difficult or impossible to overcome.

So you would rate infantry combat in GTOS as superior to infantry combat in Combat Mission then? Maybe so, but as a highly experienced veteran of software development you would know that Time = Money right? What is the primary cost of software development? Answer - the amount that you have to pay people to create it. Therefore the more new 3D and 2D art a software development team has to create the longer it takes to complete it. The longer it takes to complete the project the more it costs to create it. Why does it cost more to create it? Because you have to pay people for a longer amount of time in order to create it. You are already on record as saying that BFC's business model is flawed yet you seem to be demanding that more art content be created - which means that each game would take longer to finish - which means that each game will cost more to produce because it will take longer to complete. Given the current size of the company that sounds like a .... ahem .... well a bad business decision to me.

Perhaps, but what Kieme is saying is that your point is irrelevant - or rather what Lacroix point is I guess since he was making it originally.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but perhaps I can clarify my previous posts a bit and what I'm driving at. Some players are unhappy about the way Infantry act in Combat Mission. They want formations, SOPs, and other things. Well that's fine as far as that goes, but the reason they say they want these things is that they say CM isn't 'realistic' without such things and that Combat Mission's depiction of infantry combat fails because of it. However, there are two problems with this. 1. Troops in combat aren't always going to follow strict Field Manual guidelines as to how to act. In fact, more often than not I would say that they will not follow Field Manual guidelines. The thrust of my original post is that, while some complain about how Combat Mission treats infantry combat, it isn't necessarily unrealistic the way it is now. Could there be improvements at a micro level? Sure, but overall Combat Mission's treatment of infantry combat not as flawed and unrealistic as some would have us believe. Units moving in single file is probably more common than soldiers moving in a V formation. There are only a few types of terrain where a full Field Manual V formation would be practical. Most of the time single file is probably the better or more common option. So that's point number one - people complaining that Combat Mission's treatment of infantry combat is unrealistic may be correct in some limited instances, but certainly they aren't correct in all instances. 2. The proposed solutions so far don't follow what is in the Field Manuals. So once again - the complaint that Combat Mission infantry combat is unrealistic is tackled by a proposed solution that is equally unrealistic. What does this mean? This means that it is just a canard for at least for some who are saying that infantry combat is unrealistic without infantry formations. They don't really mean that Combat Mission infantry combat is unrealistic without infantry formations. What they really mean is that they want to place individual soldiers because they don't like how the game currently places soldiers within an actions space. They want more control / better placement rather than less control and "actual" infantry formations. Therefore all proposed solutions, no matter what their merit, will lead down the road of individual soldier placement because fundamentally that is what is the underlying factor in these types of complaints.

Does Germany still use conscription? So here is your list of Combat Mission Fails and why the game is broken for you Okay, so these are primarily a graphics complaints. We'll just give that to GTOS - advantage GTOS As you may or may not be aware, from both a fog of war and a player control aspect there is a code limitation that makes what you are asking for difficult if not impossible to do in CM. Does GTOS have full FOW fighting positions that are deployable by the player in it? I am going to assume that you mean something that the player can deploy or influence during set up. Once again though there are code limitations that make this difficult if not impossible to do in the game. If you mean something that could be placed by a scenario designer on the map in the editor then I'm sure it could be done. If the player can't control where the reinforced buildings are located that makes it harder for the player to integrate such buildings into their defenses. So GTOS has reinforced buildings that are deployable by the player too then? That's already in the game. It isn't 3D so it just falls on the screen but it is there. If GTOS has 3D falling snow I'll give that one to GTOS. There are two categories of buildings in the game - modular and independent. The modular buildings will probably always be the same, but perhaps with different facades. More independent buildings would be nice, but there are staff limitations and creating stuff in 3D takes a lot of time. Most buildings in most places tend to have similar characteristics so why reinvent the wheel every game? So GTOS has all of that does it? Pretty amazing game Yes, this would be nice to have. No doubt about it. Well as an "infantryman" (assuming anyone can put any credence to anything that you say) I expect you would know that the equipment is what the equipment is. If the game is set in 1944 the game will have equipment from 1944. That seems self evident to me.

Squads are currently organized into either two or three teams which a player can split off and command independently. The most common reason those players say they do that is because they don't like how the AI positions troops within the context of the two or three action spaces that the AI currently positions them in. These players split their teams so they can place them individually. The only thing Vin's suggestion does is to create a platform for players to complain about how the AI is placing soldiers within the 2m mini action spots. The reality is that no matter what you do with regard to team and soldier placement there will always be someone who is unhappy with where a soldier is being placed and who will want to place that soldier himself. There may be merit in the suggestion but the fact is that until players can place each individual soldier there will always be someone who is unhappy with where his soldiers are being placed on the map.

So about those intervals. According to FM 21-75 the proper spacing between individual soldiers within a squad is 10 Meters. That's about one man per current in game action spot. The fire teams are split such that the lead team is the one commanded by the assistant squad leader with two men ten meters apart in a V formation behind him on each side. The MG man is on the right and the GL man is on the left. The second fire team is led by the squad leader and follows behind the lead fire team, also in a V formation. The intervals between men is 10 meters. The AT man is on the left with another GL man and then another MG man is on the right. According to FM 7-7 there is a twenty meter interval between squads in a platoon so if you are moving in a column of squads each squad would have a lead team and a follow team as described above followed by the next squad twenty meters behind the last man of the team in front of it. The interval between the lead fire team and the following fire team within a squad is not given so I assumed a ten meter interval between the two fire teams. So a squad might have a width of approximately forty meters and a depth of perhaps fifty meters. A platoon formation would then have twenty meter intervals between squads so a platoon walking along in column with each squad split up by fire team with each fire team in a V then the platoon might take up an area something like forty meters wide by perhaps 190 meters with approximately one man per 8 meter action spot. I think it even recommends that the lead element be 100 meters ahead of the rest of the platoon which makes the depth of the formation even greater. I don't know about you guys but having a squad spread out like that in the game at all times would be unwieldy if you can't control the individual soldiers of each squad. You would end up with a lot of guys sitting in open fields because where the cover is located doesn't match where the soldiers are located if they are forced to maintain their intervals and formations. It's unworkable in my opinion. I should probably add that - while Vinnart's suggestion is interesting, according to the various Field Manuals I've just checked his spacing suggestion is not based on any sort of actual training - at least as recommended by the US military. In fact, modern infantry formations could be done within the context of the current 8 meter action spot system without any adjustment to the maps at all. It is just a matter of whether it would be practical or not.

Human beings generally feel safer and more secure when they are near someone else. Tight formations were a means of maintaining morale, discipline, and control over soldiers for centuries until weaponry became too deadly for such methods to remain viable. Only the most highly trained and disciplined soldiers can maintain their fighting effectiveness when out of close contact with other soldiers. Clumping in combat is a fact of life and artificially maintaining perfect or even expanded intervals between soldiers would be just as ... incorrect (I can't find the right word here) as how it might be in the game now. Does anyone here think that a newly minted sixteen year old Volksgrenadier with about three weeks of substandard rushed training is going to maintain perfect field manual intervals with the other members of his squad at all times? Even combat experienced American units with years of training would clump behind cover such as walls or in buildings and such. Getting something like what appears to be requested in this thread into the game would be just as ridiculous as how some view the current behavior in the game. There are numerous first hand written accounts by American veterans that describe German soldiers on patrols walking along in single file "conga lines" as some describe it. Apparently German soldiers didn't pay that much attention to noise discipline either - from what I can tell late war German soldiers were noisy, incautious, and not very concerned about intervals. To assume that all soldiers marched along in perfect Field Manual V formations with everyone maintaining perfect intervals is really a fantasy in my opinion. Heck, I think we've all seen that news footage of those American soldiers in Vietnam firing blind over a wall at the enemy. Where is that behavior located at in the Field Manual? Edited to add that - I realized I'm in the Black Sea forum and not the WW2 forums, but changes in the game are typically ported back to the other titles and I'm not sure that all this complaining - at least for the WW2 titles, is justified. I think a case could be made for modern American soldiers, but even there you should probably expect some clumping at some time.

Here is some actual in game footage of some big cats in action

I'm pretty sure that it will be a new base game not a module.

There are some who play almost continuous real time. Some of them might even look down upon someone who has to pause a lot as not being a 'true' real time player. I think there are a few You Tube videos of players playing like that. I'm We Go all the way though so I'm only going by what others request or tell me.

The reason Real Time players generally need more time is because they have to order their units sequentially during each 'minute' of game time while the game clock is still running (unless they pause the game). A We Go player places the orders for all the units at the same time and so no time is lost when issuing orders as opposed to the real time player (who doesn't pause every ten seconds) who bleeds time by the simple act of locating other units and issuing new orders for them. If someone is playing real time without much pausing it will usually take them a little longer in terms of game time in order to accomplish what they are doing. If you play real time and pause every ten seconds then it may make your units more responsive, but in terms of how much game time is consumed through the actual use of the game interface to issue orders real time will never be quicker than We Go. Real Time can only be equal to or slower than We Go because by definition the game clock is stopped while the We Go player is issuing orders.

The only difference I've noticed is that real time players seem to need more time to complete a scenario as opposed to We Go players. By time I mean the overall length of time for the scenario within the game not the actual time the player spends playing the scenario. However, adding too much time can make a scenario too easy for a We Go player so you probably don't want to get too crazy with it. Keeping your scenario time lengths crazy short though will probably cause problems for real time players more so than with We Go players.

There is both a mud 'tile' and a mud 'setting'. The individual mud tiles are a specific color of dark brown on the map, and although they might not be obvious at first once you identify one you should be able to spot them pretty easily in the future. The mud 'setting' is a universal setting that covers the entire map and so there is no way to avoid it except to try and stay on roads or something like that. The mud setting should be shown on the initial scenario environment information which I think can be seen when you first view the scenario in the selection screen (although I don't remember for certain).

The reason is that the game doesn't track independent piles of HE and Smoke artillery ammunition. All ammunition can be used as HE unless you want to fire smoke. If you want to fire smoke then there is an allocation for that, but since the smoke is not coming from a separate pile of ammunition once all your HE is gone then all your smoke is gone too.

Although it pains me to defend him , I think that perhaps you may have misinterpreted what Mikey is saying because what you are interpreting doesn't really fit his typical comments on scenario design. I think that what Mikey is saying is that scenario creators are making things too difficult and complicated for themselves because all you have to do is plop a few buildings down on a map, toss a few truppen on there, and presto you have a scenario completed in an hour or two. His comments are more in line with LongLeftFlank's perhaps.

I get what you are saying, but at the same time you have to face reality and that reality is that most players aren't going to give you very much feedback on what you are doing. What matters is what you decide to do when you reach the point where a nap is more appealing than placing another building. Most choose the nap and that's why the amount of community created content is what it is.

If someone isn't self motivated then they won't make very many scenarios. It is a lot of work and it is nice to know if someone else even knows that what you create exists, but even if someone receives a great deal of acclaim and endless downloads they will still need to be self motivated if they plan on creating anything more than one or two scenarios. Even some people who have put stuff on the release CD have only made one or two and then decided that they don't want to continue making stuff. Granted, designers will probably reach that point more quickly if they are putting stuff up on the repository, but at some point if the motivation to create doesn't come from within then the desire to create is going to depart. Whether the motivation is gone after one or two or whether it is gone after five or six everyone who designs something for CMx2 will reach the point where they wonder whether they want to place that other building on the map or if they would rather just take a nap instead. Feedback, cheers, and acclamation only delays the point where you wonder if the effort is worth it or not. Feedback and acclamation will not make that feeling go away. Feedback and acclamation will only delay its arrival.

I'm sure the community appreciates your efforts. This isn't something new either because the same thing was discussed back with CMBO and CMBB etc. There were a few scenario sites where people could upload stuff and then there would be arguments and discussions about the star rating system and different people giving someone a bad score which messed up the average and all of that. It got to the point where different designers wanted so much control over the scoring and comments that it almost became useless to try and give any feedback. The designers only wanted to read what they wanted to read and many times a designer would get nothing but negative feedback if they got any at all. I would say the percentage of people who commented on scenarios was probably less than ten percent of those who downloaded something. I made about 40 scenarios for CMBO and another 40 for CMBB and for much of that time I couldn't even find a website that would host what I was creating so I simply made them for my friends. I even e-mailed a site or two to ask if I could upload something but they would refuse - I guess I wasn't part of their 'club' or a known designer for a tournament. So even with nobody downloading what I was making I continued to create them because scenario design is a bit of a craft and it was the creation process itself that I spent the most time on in the game. You have to be self motivated and enjoy the process of creating in and of itself and you have to develop your own personal style. I used to always say that I create what I like to play and if someone else likes to play what I like to create then so much the better.

The text is a simple text file. The pictures are added separately. You have to go into the briefing section of the editor and you will see that you need to import ... I think it is something like four different files if my memory is correct. One text file and three bmp picture files.