markshot
-
Posts
869 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by markshot
-
-
MikeyD,
I do love the CM movies. In fact, one of my biggest criticism of Graviteam is great graphics without replay. A waste of a a GPU.
I like watching the movies for being there.
I also like watching the movies because they are part of a story or picture of the elephant. Watching movies from different spots on the map convey information.
---
I don't think you got my type of player. I want a good fight. I am perfectly happy to lose the fight or get a minor win.
But I don't want to lose by being tricked. I want to lose because I advanced without clearing my flank or posting a rear guard. And the enemy came up from behind me.
Another example of a fair loss is letting my platoons all get bunched up, and then the enemy calls down arty on a TRP which was intended for exactly that purpose.
---
So, I want an intellectual challenge. Not a riddle. I want to put all the pieces I have been taught about movement, recon, fire support, combined arms ... together and test my problem solving skills. I want a chance to win. I don't mind missions where objectives cannot be taken if they are constructed such that they permit victory conditions that can be achieved. Maybe like simply a recon in force ... touch points along the enemy's main line meaning that you determined his strength and withdraw without excessive loses. That's fine.
---
I hope I am being clear.
---
As you are a beta, I have a question about QB maps. In CMx1, they were dynamically generated, but in CMx2 they are selected from a large library.
Do all of them come with basic attack plans for the AI such that the AI can make a credible attack or are CMx2 QB AI attacks the gravitational force movement of uncoordinated elements towards some objective which they were in CMx1?
Thanks.
-
You don't always hold sight of something, but may not be able call in mortar fire when you do. There is no way to really mark it for later attention.
I create spotting screen shots using trees and rocks so that I can strike a target that is not longer showing itself. (especially many non-AFV defensive targets tend not to displace)
(I do full screen, but cropped these so that they could be posted.)
Comments?
-
Yes, I could win CMx1 70-75% of the time, but I feel like CMx2 are much harder ... simply good scouting and tactics will not win them ... perhaps 20% of the time, or put another way 20% of the scenarios.
They remind me of Sub Command and Dangerous Water Scenarios where you had to know the riddle's answer to beat them.
I, of course, prefer winnable on the first play if gross mistakes are not made. Of course, training does involve getting killed and repeating exercises, but the whole point is to avoid getting killed in real life.
If a beta cannot beat a scenario from the get go, then what chance does a player have?
-
Kevin,
You don't feel you are missing something by playing mainly QBs. Scenario designers do far better with their resources than the AI. Of course, the ultimate is PBEM where trick like triggering AI traps with just a couple of scouts won't work. A human will wait to they have something substantial in the kill zone.
-
Back in the CMx1 days ... I had CMBO, but mainly ended up play CMBB/CMAK, because the improved HMG modeling.
Anyway, I had about 6,000 missions and ops someone shared with me after the original Scenario Depot went poof.
I only played once (usually always the attacked; as it was was well known the AI could not attack). Once because the whole excitement was "what and where". Of course, I would say with 6,000 over 12 years, I played the collection 4 times, since I would forget the details and play it fresh.
Now, CMx2, I see greater randomness than CMx1 with multiple plans and also, there are just far fewer missions. Finally, many missions are really hard to win with just good technique and the first run through. I find CMx2 missions more akin to puzzles than CMx1 which were "mystery novels".
So, do you replay scenarios? Or just only once? Both sides? Any in house rules as to replaying and time between replays?
(just curious how people play)
Thanks.
-
Bufo,
Thank you. I have taken screens of them to review later.
-
I thought these icons were an indication of who could call. (just by observation using the scenario editor)
Like a red triangle seems to need an FO, and is denied to an officer.
Like officers cannot call in very large caliber stuff or naval guns.
-
Thanks, very much MOS!
-
Bulletpoint,
So, are you saying that change in semantics breaks the conditional logic of scenarios for the scripted AI or are you saying it breaks the human player's ability to do a good recon of the battlefield?
I find it workable, and no scenarios seem to emphasize that you need to get in and out undetected. Like the game Dangerous Waters (Sonalysts) which was once sold by BFC, and plenty of missions require you to do something covert and be undetected. There, a very rigorous definition of contact is important for play.
PS: I know very little about CMx2v4 scenario design.
-
I am not so sure I am troubled by the current behavior of HUNT. Why?
A battlefield engagement has begun. There are 3 type of zones from your command perspective:
*NO GO: death awaits you
* ACCEPTABLE RISK: it is under observation and enemy will be shooting, but not very effectively
* SAFE: unobserved
Well, most deployment areas and some distance beyond are SAFE. Most routes into combat tend to be ACCEPTABLE RISK. The last thing you want to do is plan a large crossing of a NO GO.
I think HUNT is making the distinction (now) between ACCEPTABLE RISK and NO GO. Previously, it was doing SAFE and ACCEPTABLE RISK/NO GO.
So, I am using HUNT interspersed with QUICK with facing, hide, and pauses. Say like 80-90% QUICK and reach cover (clump of trees), the hunt one action square. All way points have facing, and HUNT terminus have a 15 second pause before hide kicks in. Hopefully, if the scouts feel, it is NO GO, they will break the chain at one of the HUNT segments.
So far, I am happy with this approach. All HUNT is too slow and tiring for the pace the scenario designers set. Also, the previous semantics of HUNT was a problem, because what I want to know is can I cross ground or am I going to be going to ground.
That's my take on this.
-
I spent all evening in the editor understanding under what circumstances various officers can call in fire missions.
But I still have questions:
Do experience level impact accuracy or delivery time?
Does caliber impact accuracy or delivery time?
Does number indirect by an officer in 50M impact accuracy or delivery time versus the comms net?
Does the number of hops across the comms net impact accuracy or delivery time? I would think the battalion commander might be minimal to call in. The maximum might be one platoon in another battalion calling in company mortars of another battalion.
I think at one someone had done a study of these issues.
Thanks.
-
Thanks. Yes. I like Lloyd Nicholas (his real name). He is not simply an academic, but gets out there and experiments with spears, swords, shields, falxs, ...
-
One often wonders if PTSD was part of the ancient world. One historian said no, because on aspect of PTSD has to do with ones cultural upbringing.
Supposedly most deaths and captures in the ancient world happened when a formation broke and routed. Ancient armies were actually followed by slave traders who would buy captives post battle.
A recent video I watched cites the spear and shield (phalanx) being far more effective for the moderately trained; in formation and lines. It is often side shots by spears which get you (not the guy across).
However, Roman scutum and gladius were effective, since they were professional and disciplined to close rapidly together and get inside with their swords. Much to the shock of the Hellenistic world of Alexander's heirs.
So, did their 20 years of service to the Empire produce PTSD? There were some horrific numbers even back then. Rome was said to lose 60,000 in a single day at Cannae to Hannibal/allies.
-
I heard recently that an Imperial Legion had 1km frontage in a battle line formation. I don't know how accurate that is.
-
I remember this thread. I am just doing some scouting and already have a general idea of where the enemy is. (the briefing, and playing this again)
I think Bulletpoint had made the point that they don't seem to sensitive to rounds landing round them. And let me say the know it, since their suppression meter up is up 4 levels or so.
On the other hand, troops who are no getting shot at but report "enemy vehicles ahead seem to halt right away".
It seems that the semantics are not advance until someone spots you, but advance until you spot someone. Of course, the problem, it is usually the stationary defender who is first to spot.
-
It seems to me; just playing today, that panic ripples are working fine if engaged units are already stressed. This just seems quite a difference from CM and CM style games where there is some global morale level impacting the entire battle, but no so dramatic or local. But it seems panic ripples were real, the point was to start a collapse of the line somewhere which result in a domino morale affect.
Now, CM and modern games model flanking a line like a dugout or trenches, but this is less about morale and more about the loss of defensive structural integrity.
So morale in FOG2 is determined by the morale outcome more than damage inflicted.
---
And again was this really a strong distinction between modern and ancient combat?
If so, when and why did this change?
-
I believe CMx1 had this, because when you entered an enemy position, you could hear the sound of blows and physical struggling.
However, I also believe the out of ammo state for small arms were modeled as a very low rate of fire; not totally out.
-
I thought I would ask here, since I know you folks are experts when it comes to the modern. By modern here, I mean fire arms (smokeless) non-linear combat with the availability of automatic weapons. So, we could say WWI to today.
Over the last few years, I have become interested in antiquity of the West. Of course, there is Rome1 and Rome2 along with some superb overhaul mods. However, combat modeling does not come close to the fidelity we see in CMx1 and CMx2. However, a game I do feel which does an excellent job is Field of Glory II by Richard Bodley Scott (published by Slitherine). Now, what is very carefully modeled in the award winning DEI mod for Rome2 or FOG2 is panic rippling. So, one unit routing is very likely to cause its neighbors to bug out. So, a key focus of the game (and apparently real life) was finding weak units by creation or by events and then routing them. In practical terms this means it is better to have my heavy legionaries attack an unarmored slinger unit with knives than a phalanx unit which poses a much greater threat.
Now, I think of the WWII battlefield, and you have some Panther IIIs or a Tiger. Better to neutralize the Tiger if you can, because until you do that AFV can dominate open space if it has LOS with little that can counter it outside 1km. Once that Tiger is down, you have options for the Panzer III. So, it would seem general rules:
(1) Ancient: Attack and neutralize the weakest first.
(2) Modern: Attack and neutralize the greatest threat first.
My questions:
(1) Do I have this right?
(2) At what point in time and why did the philosophy of combat change?
Thanks.
-
Ah. So, it applies to the given scenario. I will have to check the manual again as I thought it was global. Thanks.
MAX was effectively fighting with no comms.
I thought in Iraq and Afghanistan, the locals were using cell phones. I suppose in a large enough operation, you could make sure the cell towers went down.
On the other end of the spectrum, I've heard of EMP. Are there tactical EMP weapons or generators?
-
9 hours ago, John Kettler said:
markshot,
That's fantastic news! Glad it all worked out, even if the process of getting there was decidedly suboptimal.
Regards,
John Kettler
John, good to see another old timer from the CMBO Mad Matt mod pack days!
BFC is a small company.
The largest company I ever worked for had 80,000 US employees. The smallest I worked for that I did not own was about 80 employees.
Small companies especially when we are talking under 10 are entirely different animals from the corporate jobs many of us know. In one day, you can be writing code, doing UI/game design, research, reviewing contracts, coming up with a marketing plan, looking at health insurance plans, retirement funds, interviewing for another coder, technical support, and community relations. In the corporate world, each of these are separate job titles and/or departments.
With just a small group of guys and gals, everyone works where the rubber meets the road.
I did not mean this thread to be aggressive or hostile, I just wanted not to fall off the bottom of BFC's "to do list". In fact, I did not, and a company with a dedicated Customer Support Department would have done no better (maybe just faster).
-
Maybe I was not clear. I was not asking for about FOW settings. I know what these do.
I was asking EW (electronic warfare) settings which although located in in the QB settings, the manual says they apply globally.
I got the impression that the default for CMSF2 effectively was a WWII world where most electronics delivered as expected (which was not strictly true). Ranging to a modern World on a battle field after an EMP, and all you have is voice, visual, and runners for communications.
I was trying to determine what settings folks like and why? (For example: I don't play Iron Man in CM as I don't really enjoy not having a complete picture of my forces at hand. My preference.)
But I am asking about EW and NOT FOW --- FOW I have decided on already. Thanks.
-
Okay, I am reading about the EW setting which is stealthy in QB settings (I suppose so that they could keep game engine settings the same) across games.
This QB setting impacts all scenario correct?
Also, it defaults to NONE. At NONE, it is pretty much the same as the WWII titles?
Finally, what setting have players chosen and why? BTW, I am playing my games at WARRIOR.
Thank you!
-
Okay, thanks all.
So, are casualty rates higher in these engagements and spotting more decisive given weapon lethality?
It seems the series has often been criticized for casualty rate, but then I always figured the game was not modeling the theater, but a single direct encounter of combatants.
-
20 years of CMx1 and CMx2 WWII (and other WWII) games also.
Of course, the UI looks completely identical which is a comfort, but I am sure that I have been thrown int the deep end of the pool. (Despite that the same US voice actors are used, "Take a look at that!")
However does one get up to speed on modern combat tactics?
Any resources anyone would recommend?
Yes, I did play Steel Beasts back in the day, but it was a different animal.
Thank you!
Do you take spotting screen shots?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
You can still have fire and a vague contact on unmoved, but you know if it was an HMG. If it was my command, it would have market it on at map.