Warren Peace

Road to Moscow!

I agree with the original poster. Given the aging engine, the idea that CMC won't be out until next year (if ever) is disturbing. Road to Moscow does come to mind :eek:

I thought the book was excellent as well. I think you guys are a little tough on Doubler. His conclusion is that the American's improved tactically throughout the campaign and that American improvement in tactics was primarily because of the flow of information from the bottom to the top. (The hedgerow cutting tanks in Normandy being the best example). He never says anywhere that American tactics won the war or that we were better than the Germans. He just says we got better as the campaign continued. If anything the weakness in the book is that there is no comparison with German or British troops in comparison.

Steve, Thanks for setting me straight about the cupholder. It just goes to show you how us non-programmer types don't really understand much about programming. Since you are soliciting input, I would like to tell you another AI related feature that I would like to see in CMx2. It would be interesting if the human player could put part of his command under AI control. For example, In a battalian size battle, I could take control of one company and the AI could take control the other two or three. Of course to make this work one would need to be able to assign global commands to the AI sub-formations like "Company 1 attack toward objective A" or "Company 2 Defend objective B". Now the problem with this approach is that I don't really understand how the current AI works. I understand that there is an operational AI, but does it have any relationship to actual unit formations, or does it simply direct each unit individually based on the strategic AI's overall plan? Based on watching the AI play it seems likely it is the latter.

I tend to agree with Rollstoy. The first two points really have to do with decreasing the human, not improving the AI. I also agree that the third point will help pre-made scenarios. However, to use Steve's terminology I would call point #3 a "cupholder" feature. As I see it, we have to analyze what the AI currently does well and what it does not do well. On the well side, the AI does use terrain well. (Infantry will always approach using maximum cover). It does a good job of recognizing objective flags On the negative side. 1) Does not use elevation 2) Poor coordination of attack (armor always goes first). 3) Does not maintain command lines. 4) Counter attacks too much when on defense (leaves fox-holes) 5) Poor use of Artillery. 6) Uses on-board mortars only in direct fire mode. 7) Has no concept of time (doesn't matter to AI the length of the scenario) 8) Has no concept of "fire-base" for heavy weapons I know that making the AI better is difficult. However, I am dissapointed that none of these issues appear to be on the agenda

Steve, My big issue is AI. I want it better, smarter, cleverer. I want it to use combined arms tactics. Is this a cupholder or a redesign? Based on some past threads it seemed like it was a redesign. This is what I care about most. Warren PS By the way, I agree with treeburst that a simulation of a company or battalian commanders job would also be way cool.

It seems to me that Grants are very effective tanks in CMAK relative to German PIII and early PIV. In reality, tankers hated these tanks because of the tendency of the bolts to fly around the cabin after taking non-penetrating hits. My question is: Has this defect been modeled in CMAK?

Ralph, a visit to www.gamecopyworld.com should solve your problem.

I am playing CMAK on a dell inspiron 8100 with a geforce 2go 32Mb graphics card. I have noticed that whenever maps have a lot of buildings my graphic card really chokes. Does this have more to do with the amount of graphic RAM, or just the speed of the card? WARREN

A partition is not necessary. Just reboot in OS9 and it should work fine. Warren

Steve: It seems to me that you are essentially saying "The AI is as good as its going to get and that is that." I'm kind of surprised by this as on just about all other issues you guys have constantly improved the game. I must admit it sounds kind of defeatest to me. Based on your posts It sounds like in the early development of CMBO you spent a lot of time developing the AI, found it was a time sink with diminishing returns, and decided your time would be best spent elsewhere. From a business perspective this sounds like a reasonable move. However, this was several years ago, and I think it would not a terrible idea to visit the AI again just to see if there might be some relatively simple ideas that might be implemented. As a scientist, I have found that sometimes revisiting issues after several years can pay off big, especially if new thinking is brought to bare. I urge you to at least spend a little time considering some of the ideas brought up here. Finally, perhaps you could consider the idea of optional AI cheats to improve AI balance. SPecifically, how about an option where the AI plays with a different FOW level then the human player? This might help make up for some of the deficiency in the operational or statagic AI. I would think this could be easily implemented. Warren

I'd like to chime in here. I am somewhat surprised at Steve's tone and attitude. People would like a more challenging computer opponent. This is clearly the case. Based on my experience, the AI has not been significantly improved in the two and soon to be three CM games. With a engine re-write in the works, it seems like the right time to try and make it better. Also, I think it important that we define what we mean by the AI. I am NOT referring to the Tactical AI. It is the strategic and operational AI I am referring to. Somehow the AI needs to move units in a more coordinated manner. In open environments (long LOS) armor needs to lead, in restricted LOS infantry should lead. On the defense, units need to stay in Fox holes and not counter attack whenever a flag is taken. I think spending a bit of time considering improvements in the AI would be well worth it. Warren

Other then the obvious (new locations, new equipment) are there any new features in the engine or the AI of CMAK?

I play CMBB on a Dell 8100 with a GeForce2go video card (32Mb). The game plays well, although very large maps (like the ones in Operation Storfang) scroll poorly unless trees are turned off. I don't have any problem with changing monitor resolution, although I generally run the game in 1200x1080.

Are any of the currently available apple laptops (G4 models) able to play Combat Mission? (I.e. boot up in system 9 and have compatible video cards). Warren

Why hasn't this thread been closed already? DO you think the BF guys have lost power and can't monitor the thread?

Panzertroupe I think you are being a bit harsh. I think there is nothing wrong with wanting to play the game without having to do the CD shuffle. In the mac world you can use Disk-Copy to make a CD-copy and it does exactly what Sefanpi wants. I realize that copy protection is important, but so is convenience.

I just want to say I totally agree that the control of the rate of artillary ammo is a must

I found the numbers here http://www.britannica.com/normandy/week5/casualties01a.html I assume they include all casualties (combat + non-combat) but I am not certain. A couple of additional points. 1) In looking over Glant'z table in WHen Titans Clashed it is apparent that the Berlin Operation was no more "bloody" then other Soviet Offensive Operations in the last year of the war. For example the Belorussion Offensive (June 23-August29) had a casualty rate of 31.8%. THe East Pomerania Offensive (Feb10-April4) had a rate of 24%. Thus the Soviets were not squemish about casualties. 2) Now how do they compare to the West? Were the Soviets tactically inferior? According to Glantz (When Titans Clashed) the Soviet's suffered a total of 6,082,189 casualties (battle+non-battle) out of an average force size of 6,569,095 (92.6% casualty rate) for the last half of 1944 and the first half of 1945. Using the table in Doubler's book (Closing with the enemy) the equivelent number for the USA would be 764,095. The US ground force in Europe on VE day totaled about 1.4 million. Thus the equivelent number would be about a 55% casualty rate although this must be low because the average through the entire period was undoubtaly less than 1.4 million. For the sake of arguement lets assume the average was closer ot 1.0 million. Then the equivelent number would be about 76% casualty. This modest difference probably reflected two factors. First, American commanders undoubtably placed a higher premium on thier troops lives, and (2) the Germans may indeed have fought harder against the SOviets (although I think the latter is fictional difference based on my readings). My take is that both Nev and you are correct. The Soviets were by no means tactical idiots, but they were willing to take casualties at higher rates then the USA to achieve their objectives. Warren

Andreas: For the period of June 6th-September 14th US casualties in France were 29,000 killed and 106,000 wounded. Unfortunately I could not find a "denominator" number. Maybe you could dig one up. Warren

Not really true. For most of the 34 day period the Americans were attacking, trying to reduce the Bulge. In fact I would argue that the numbers are quite comparible.

This is an interesting discussion. I think you guys are being harsh to Nev, even if he is in the Military . In my opinion the 17.5% rate is very high for several reasons. Most importantly, this is the rate for an entire Front, not a platoon, company or even Division! When looking at comparable casualty rates for US Divisions in high intensitiy periods like Nornandy or the Bulge the total rates are almost never this high. For US forces at the Bulge they suffered 80,000 casulaties out of 600,000 engaged (13.5%). This is for a 36 day battle and keep in mind that about 25,000 causulties occured in the first three days with the elimination of the two infantry divisions (28th and 106th). Thus the rate for two weeks would be significantly lower. Secondly, this number is increably high given the the overwhelming Soviet advantage in troops, tanks, artillery and air. At the Bulge there were roughly equal numbers of Americans and Germans. If I were Stalin I would have expected better. Warren

I'm having a problem with Biltaid. It seems to work fine but won't print on OS X. Any ideas? Warren

When invading france you can embark and debark on the same turn when going from london to calais. Simply put a warship in the port square and when you embark the transport will appear next to france. Since it has yet to move you can debark on the same turn. Pretty clever for 7. Warren

1) I get tired at the start of a quick battle having all my guys simply lined up in the back row. The first thing I normally due is try and organize them by platoon and then set them up on a reasonable platoon formation. I'd like to see this automated in the set-up for a human player and to have some hot keys for "standard" platoon formations. 2) Similarly when reinforcements arrive they are all jumbled together with many out of command of their HQ.s. 3) Multiple way points for group moves. (I realize this has already been discussed, but I think this would be an improvement.) 4) A "follow" command so that units will follow each other down a road. 5) Improvement in AI . Perhaps some tweaking in the editor to control "aggressiveness". 4)