Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

markshot

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    869

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Posts posted by markshot

    Terrain?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted · Edited by markshot

    Yes, I can see that in earlier games, your unit occupied a point.  Now your unit occupies a heterogeneous area.

     

    I more or less knew the following for the previous games.  The terrain tiles for previous games were pretty clear without seeing any "doodads", but for rough.  Now, it would be hard pressed to distinguish:  scattered trees, orchard, wood, tall pines, etc...

     

    terrain.thumb.jpg.a3d5e40cf3e4fea2b12c88

    0

    I am learning GTOS (Graviteam: Operation Star)

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Well, I meant hundreds of hours learning.  I plan to put in thousands of hours into such games playing.

     

    I can never understand how one can put 100 hours of learning into a game that only has another 100 hours of game play.  It seems a total waste.  I play H2H.  My priorities when shopping are:

     

    * Mature software (patched and no serious issues)

    * Good game play.

    * Quality AI opponent.

    * Either a good dynamic campaign or a prolific community of scenario writers.

    0

    I am learning GTOS (Graviteam: Operation Star)

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Well, the subject is clear.  My questions:

     

    (1)  I've seen the current CM WWII series compared to GTOS on their forums and STEAM.  Are there any interesting comparison threads here?  (I am interested in peoples opinions.)

     

    (2)  Is this a legal discussion for these forums?  As these forums are not a public unaffiliated Web site, but that of the developer of one of the two games?

     

    Thanks.

    0

    Can anyone explain this to me?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I guess if I was to summarize what you are saying; proper use of plans by the designer results in an incremental improvement in the "appearance" of an attack as opposed to a quantum leap.

     

    Yes, I remember CMBO/CMBB/CMAK attacks.  They were typically piecemeal affairs that me feel pity for the poor AI as I shot it up.  A good scenario designer could simulate probes and main thrusts by terrain, objectives, and timely arrival of reinforcements.

     

    Another problem I had with attacks is that most maps were too small to be any more than static defenses.  There was little opportunity for truly multi-layered defenses with interior lines of movement.

     

    Still I have enjoyed this game series for years.  The CMBO/CMBB/CMAK community was an incredibly prolific group of modders and scenario designers.

     

    I ended up with about 6000 scenarios.  Once upon a time there was the Scenario Depot.  The ISP went bust, but I had a friend that had a zip DB of all scenarios/ops and cataloged via an Excel spreadsheet.

    0

    Can anyone explain this to me?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    An interesting suggestion.  Actually, when I started with CM in 2000; not having any ground combat experience, I did play the intro scenario 20 times.

     

    I much better now.  I had a collection of 6000 CMBO/CMBB/CMAK scenarios of which I would cycle through every few years.  At my age, three years totally restores the FOW.  :)

     

    I am actually doing something like you suggested with GTOS to learn the game.

     

    So, as you long as you bring it up:

     

    (1)  How is this scripted AI?  Can the AI actually play the attacker?

     

    (2)  Are the scenarios replayable with up to 5 random plans?

     

    (3)  How are QBs are they worth anything beyond set ups for PBEMS?

     

    Thanks.

    0

    Can anyone explain this to me?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Rubble.

     

    You've dropped a veritable nightmare of shifting bricks, splintered wood, looping wires (sparking?), and treacherous terrain right in front of your men. They are rightfully refusing to allow themselves to be enmeshed in that mess. Far easier to use the door. ;)

     

    That's roughly the issue. Breaching charges create "cleaner" holes. Wholesale hole making can create obstacles.

     

    I see your point.  It's a touch choice.  Do you want to die of a tetanus infection or German bullets in the back?

    1

    Waypoint targeting - likely bug

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Well, I am not talking about the aiming, but where the fire goes.

     

    Now, of course, I am making an assumption that WYSIWIG and that tracers are not simply an abstraction.  HMG tracers will cover a much wider area than in the previous generation where they pretty much impacted in a tight pattern.  So, there are a number of questions here:

     

    * Are the tracers an abstraction or a representation?

     

    * If they are representation is area fire now intended to be more diffuse?

     

    * Or is area diffuse, because the prior modeling was too accurate for such fire?

     

    Ha ha ... once you ask one question ... it leads to a series of questions.  Well, I know what to do.  Just play the game.  Because in the end, the only question which counts is:  Is it fun?  :)

    0

    Waypoint targeting - likely bug

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    It gets more interesting.

     

    I later tried to reproduce the situation without smoke.  Just stacking a targeting order on top of a way point, and I could not repeat it.  I don't know how or why it worked the first time.  It is a somewhat reasonable thing to want to do, since you want to know if where you stop a tank will have LOS to point X.  (as there is no general point-to-point LOS tool)

     

    Furthermore, this generation of CM does behave different.  As it seems that as long as the area fire order is in prior to the smoke, the unit shoots.  I believe in the previous generation (CMBB/CMAK) lose of LOS meant cancellation of the target.

     

    As a side note:  (as I just switched) previously area fire was accurate, but just not aimed at a unit/tracking.  In this generation, area fire is much more diffuse.

    0

    Need C2 help?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Well, I have just finished the 6 tutorial missions, but played CMBO/CMBB/CMAK for years.

     

    So, I don't have any house rules yet for play.  I am probably going to be playing on Warrior.  I don't know if my memory is still good enough to keep track of every contact as just a generic marker.

    0

    Need C2 help?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    It matters because your units with '?' icons will spot the enemy faster than those that do not have any idea where the enemy is. Just like in real live if someone already told him there is someone near that barn you will notice then quicker as you move to a position where you can see the farm.

    Given that he who spots first gets a big advantage it can tip the odd in your favour.

     

    Thank you for a very succinct explanation as to why this matters.

     

    It would seem for small arms fire fights this matters greatly.

     

    But for other things as Weapon2010 said ... playing WEGO, one tank may have IDed an ATG, but I as the commander will area fire with quite a few turrets upon that piece ground, since I know what cannot be seen can still be killed.

     

    So, both perspectives would seem to have some validity.

    0

    Need C2 help?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I am finding lots of interesting things with various units and the scenario editor.  Examples:

     

    50M is the magic distance for voice comms without LOS.

     

    Visual close is good enough to spot.  Visual far is not.

     

    Voice comms can be used to request from a non-organic mortar unit, but the unit will not show a command link or a voice icon.

     

    The radio command net is not multi-point (aka peer to peer).  The net is a hiearchical structure where peer communications require a superior node.  I wonder if C2 with platoons in 50M (voice) or LOS of each other still require the CO HQ in order to exchange information?

     

    I am learning a lot by doing this.

    0

    Need C2 help?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Oh that one looks really interesting!  Thanks!  Yes, "spotting" for contacts is really good.  I remember, in the old games 200M was the magic number for infantry engagements.  The sneaky thing to do was have a couple of HMGs back from your main line which would stop or delay the enemy from getting into ID range.

     

    Also, I have noticed that they fixed a feature of the old game.  If you killed an ATG, even if you did not see it die, you would see an unknown team pop out (knowing it was killed).  Now, it seems to remain as a possible contact even when killed.

    0

    Need C2 help?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted · Edited by markshot

    I started with Big Time Software now Battlefront in 2000.  I've played CMBO/CMBB/CMAK.  I just got a new PC.  So, I got the CMBN full bundle.

     

    I've read the manual; especially the C2 and arty/air sections a few time.  I've played the 6 tutorial missions.

     

    But I must admit, I don't fully grasp C2.  In the old games:

     

    Any HQ could spot for on map mortars.

     

    Only an FO could call in off map indirect fire.

     

    Any HQ could give command+bonuses to support units:  ATGs, shartshooters, LMG, HMG, mortars, ...

     

    Any CO/BN HQ could command squads.

     

    ---

     

    Well, I am not in Kansas anymore.  I don't really get the new system.  I am trying to play at VETERAN and WARRIOR difficulty.

     

    At the moment, I am off to make a map and put some units on and run some experiments.  Perhaps, the CM lab approach will help.

     

    Any explanations or links to good threads would be appreciated!  Thanks.

    0

    So what's wrong with TOAW from a CM'ers standpoint?

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    Jason,

    I fully understand what your statement means, but I just do not agree.

    In my case, I played the game, RDOA, heavily for 3-9 months and lost quite consistently (yes, even after being invited to beta test). Of course, I had only just got the hang of CM and hadn't a clue about larger scale ground combat (former flight simmer). So, I can say without a doubt that poor ill conceived plans result in defeat in most scenarios. Well conceived plans that exploit terrain features, timing, strength of various weapons systems, differential LOS, and day/night visibility, ... are much more likely to produce victories. Having authored two gaming guides for the series, I am satisfied that there is a causal relationship between strategy and outcome.

    Immersion is a very subjective aspect of gaming as is enjoyment. One can well argue about modeling results of tactical engagements or if the results of operational engagements reflect likely realistic or historic outcomes. But debating immersion and enjoyment is a waste of time. I accept that you do not find the series or immersive and find nothing to enjoy in it ... I wouldn't even consider disputing your position.

    PS: However, I do hope you don't feel the need to be insulting or degrade me for liking the game or disagreeing with you. As far as I can tell, I accorded you as much respect in this thread as I can. As I have stated previously, I've learned much from you and CM was so much more enjoyable for me due to what you taught me. Thanks.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...