markshot
-
Posts
869 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by markshot
-
-
Martin,
I am not sure what the story is, but I have QX6700 (which is almost the latest technology publicly available). However, I did need to use the one CPU only option to get decent FPS.
-
I had looked at the demos from Prosim of BCT, ATF, and AATF, but they didn't grab me. However, I have to admit that I did not give them much time. That's the problem with demos in general. You are much more inclined to devote serious time to learning something when you pay for it. A free download often only gets a cursory look.
-
Myself I am a software developer. I have always found the discussion of systems design, games, and real world modeling via software a fascinating topic. I enjoy such discussions, but have no interest having one of these Internet flame wars.
JasonC, I may dissaggree with you, but I continue to hold you in the highest regard for all that I have learned over the years and how that has helped me get more out of CM. Thanks.
-
There is no denying that sales of RDOA/HTTR/COTA have not been stellar. It is a niche (war games) in a niche (hardcore) in a niche (no turns/hex/order delays/AI chain of command). Yet, it does have a following.
I will say that there a distinction that can be made between realism and entertainment. The AA engine does deliver on realistically modeling the challenges of command. The artificially artifacts which result from turns and hexes are eliminated while control through the use of the chain of command and order delays well simulates the challenges of time, communication, and coordination that actually manifest themselves in all human endeavors; not just battlefields.
However, just because the AA engine is highly realistic doesn't necessarily make it fun. Fun is very much a subjective quality. I cannot say the AA engine must be fun. No, fun is whatever one enjoys when they play a game. However, realistic modeling is a much less subjective matter. However, my opinion on the subject is meaningless, since I neither have military service or am a scholar. On the other hand, we do have team members who have served and others who work/consult at the Army General Staff College. They are familiar with some system currently in use by the name of Janus. I have it from those who are qualified to make the assesment that the AA engine well captures the real flavor and issues of command.
Fun ... that's up to you. Realism ... sorry, but I will ultimately have to defer to those who have served, studied military operations, consult to the military, and/or familiar with current military training aids.
Please forgive me if I said I would not debate, but the AA engine is not a cartoon produced by programmers. It was created by folks with who have the prerequisite qualifications and have solicited technical guidance of others who have also have the right punches on their tickets.
-
JasonC,
Thanks for the detailed response. I'll have to reread it when I am not having a sleepless night. Some of it made sense to me, and some of it went over my heard. As I said, unlike most of you folks I only started wargaming in 2001 with just a very small set of PC games. From 1992 to 2001, it was almost exclusively flight sims. So, my background is quite limited.
On the other hand, I tend to regard these products as games and ultimately whether I am having fun is my most important criteria. Although I do like games that strive to accurately model real world systems, primarily because if it is well done then I believe the end result should be more logical, less likely to contain loopholes and exploits, provide a better intellectual exercise, and deliver a superior educational vehicle.
I do find that people are constantly screaming for realism, but few will chose dry realism over fun and good game play. I think when designing a historic game, it is more important to convey the spirit of the major concepts than to strive for total accuracy in all things modeled.
Well, it's been interesting. Thanks.
-
JasonC,
I'm back!
So, you are looking for the perfect operational game and you find WEGO to be the right balance of eliminating turn oriented artifacts while still allowing you the ability to fully intellectualize the contest.
Well, let me ask you your impressions of the AGE engine (WEGO and operational) used to power Birth of America and an upcomming game on the American Civil War. I realize that some might say that AGE is beyond operational and actually strategic, but for me I would say that the engine is less than strategic (compared to the attempts by Paradox), since it is mainly focused on depicting warfare and not nation management.
Phil Thibaut the lead designer on these projects does, in fact, have his first entry into game design in board games. You'll see some of that legacy in some of the game concepts such as hit points/strength versus PC games using personel and casualty figures.
Full disclosure: Surprise, surprise ... I am a member of the beta team for this developer too.
Once again, not looking to score points here, but just to get feedback and impressions. However, I promise you, this is the last query and the only other organization which I test for. {Well, I did involve with MMG for a while, but let's not go there.}Thanks again for your time.
-
JasonC,
Thanks for your thoughts.
In addition to your comments about board game (of which I have no knowledge) designers being real game designers, I do feel that additional CPU cycles and polygons has not necessarily improved PC gaming over the years. There were more than adequate CPU cycles for good game play design 12 years ago, but not for much else. So, a larger portion of projects went into game play. These days less goes into game play and more goes into the sizzle factors. {Of course, based on your point, it might be that the early PC game designers were in fact simply prior board game designers.}
Possibly a bit OT ... but I have recently been playing a PC port of a highly acclaimed board game, 1830. Focuses mainly on railroad stock trading - but is nothing like any other RR games out there. It's one of the best PC strategy games I have ever played; solid AI, no holes, and very meticuously balanced. If you are interested: 1830 Board Game by Avalon Hill (Francis Tresham, Bruce Shelly) in 1989; 1830 PC Port by Simtex (Bruce Shelly, Russ Williams) in 1993.
References
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18XX
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1830_(board_game)
[ March 14, 2007, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: markshot ]
-
In another thread (found via search), it was stated that the play area for a scenario is about 2kmx2km subsections of larger maps.
I was just curious if that provides enough room for armor to effectively maneuver to best advantage in a scenario?
Thanks.
-
JasonC,
Greetings! I read here a lot more than I post. Yours often tend to provide some of my favorite reading, since I tend to learn a lot.
I realize that the topic of this thread is TOAW, but since you have broadened it a bit to discuss other models of ground combat simulation (although all appear to be turn/hex oriented), I did want to ask you opinion of another system. Assuming you know the system, if you can find the time, I would be interested to have you respond in some detail as to what you think works (simulates reality) properly and what does not.
The system in this case is the Airborne Assault engine. Currently, three games have been produced off this code base: RDOA (originally published by Battlefront), HTTR (Matrix), and COTA (Matrix) with a BFTB (Matrix) currently under development. Admittedly, the model of game play is very different: no turns, no hexes, hiearchical chain of command with delegation to AI subordinates, and order delays. Myself, I am unfamiliar with all these other games which are being discussed, since RDOA was my second ground combat game after CMBO.
In the interest of full disclosure: I have been a beta tester with Panther Games since RDOA in 2001. However, I am not looking to debate or score points or advocate this series. Mainly, I would just care to know if you have tried these games and if so what is your impression of how accurately they model the major issues of operational combat. So, any opinion you offer positive or negative will satisfy my query.
Thanks for your time.
-
Moon,
I know that Battlefront has been working on realism enhancements to the original Russian developed game. I am curious to what extent individual soldiers will be limited by their weapons training such that they cannot just simply man a field piece or crew a tank simply because it's there?
Years ago I played a little bit of Operation Flash Point. Although fun to play, I was always amazed at how I could jump into a tank or helicopter and simply operate it. I hope TOW is not going to be so lose with skills and training such that the battlefield becomes a big grab bag of goodies. Whereas it may be true that every gunner and tanker knows how to handle a rifle, the converse probably wouldn't be.
Thanks.
-
I am not sure I like where this thread is going ... some of my best friends are AI.
-
I like playing against the AI in custom scenarios. Generally, I play the attacker (due to AI limitations) unless the briefing suggests playing as the defender.
-
Interesting point there ... do routed or paniced units spot?
-
When I posed the question and posted I was defending against the AI. I think the AI will easily fall for a solid contact hiding and be ambushed again. I cannot imagine a human be burned more than once or even at all, since such a situation would have called for supporting units to have the buildings under observation from the tree line and then checked out by maybe a half-squad.
One situation I think where it may be better to expend small arms ammo to less affect (immediate casualties) at greater range (again against the AI) is when the enemy is combined infantry and tanks. If you can strip away or halt the infantry, the AI may well keep the tanks comming leaving them pretty much blind to whatever traps await them.
-
Sorry, I could not resist commenting on the fact hide may still be of use when units are in good cover despite having assigned arcs.
-
I just played a CMBB game where tank hunter teams despite being given cover vehicle arcs kept letting lose with their panzerfaust beyond the arc. I think perhaps they would have followed my intentions better if I had hid them.
-
Given: CMBB/CMAK
Assumption: Let's not consider the impact of allowing the enemy to close under EFOW and therefore develop solid contact reports which at a further distance would only be at best sound contacts ... Furthermore, let's not put too much thought into the exact weapons in use as to whether we are talking sub-machine guns or rifles ... I would like to keep this general.
Situation: An infantry oriented defensive battle with squads that do not have enough ammo to sustain an unrestricted fire fight for the full length of the scenario.
Question: Which is better?
Option #1: Set up your squads in heavy buildings (ground in most of the arc area would be classed as open) with covered arcs of say 30-50M with a posture of hide. When they have successfully engaged the enemy in the arc, then order them to cease fire and go back to hiding.
or
Option #2: Skip the covered arcs or maybe only use covered arcs to identify areas to cover, but allow fire out much greater distances of say 100M where the enemy will most likely be spotted and engaged in the cover of tall pines.
My Thoughts: I have gone with Option #1 so that the enemy can be engaged with the least possible cover and at close range such that the most casualties and psychological impact can be achieved. However, since close combat results in higher rates of fire, this will burn ammo very fast. Option #2 would burn ammo quite a bit slower, but it is my guess that less will be achieved for each round fired.
---
Although I have been playing since the CMBO days, I still consider myself only an experienced beginner. I would be curious to hear how the true experts view the cost benefit analysis of the above. (In particular, the very analytical types like JasonC.)
Thanks in advance for taking time to reflect and respond.
-
Where is this available for download?
Thanks.
[ March 05, 2006, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: markshot ]
-
CMAK 1.03
I just loaded up a scenario, "Buffalo Soldiers".
There are quite a few units hanging in mid-air. They are not passengers, and they are not on the second floor. Note, the location says pavement.
Anyone ever see this before?
-
Too bad ... I no longer have the save game, but it was probably the result of the near cowering units. I had also thought that the game weighs the point values of the units around the flag so that you don't have truly clear the area. However, I think one of those cowering units was a high value ATG.
-
There were. A couple had surrendered and a couple were cowering.
-
I was playing a scenario yesterday, "Battery Overrun". My forces were all AFVs. I had crushed the enemy completely by the end, but not to the point that they would auto-surrender.
The weird thing was that try as I might, the game would not credit me with holding the single VL despite having a few tanks parked on it. (I replayed the last turn a few times each time parking more tanks on it.) Instead, it kept showing it as contested.
You can take and hold objectives with AFVs only correct?
Thanks.
-
Here is something I did a few years ago:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001377
-
George,
I am getting ready to start playing.
The distant trenches are part of the Germans OOB as opposed to the Soviet. I am not sure if this is an oversight or you did that so that they would be known to the German player.
So what's wrong with TOAW from a CM'ers standpoint?
in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks
Posted
Well, admittedly, there aren't many user developed scenarios for the series. On the other hand, I have been a beta tester since 2001 and I have yet to personally play and exhaust all the possibilities in the included set of scenarios.
One of the main differences between replayability between AA and CM is CM's vast respository of scenarios (I have something like a collection of 4,000). Each scenario is a brand new problem. With AA, the set of maps is smaller than the set of scenarios. After a while, you do get familiar with the maps. This can be either positive or negative. Positive if you just want to dive in and play; negative if you would like to study a new terrain situation and find new opportunities.
For those with ground combat concepts, the series is fairly approachable. You can be playing pretty quickly without having to master the full depth of the game. In fact, despite the many rich orders available, 80% of the game can be played by just using ATTACK and DEFEND. It is much more important to have a good plan for your battle than a lot of finess with the complete set of orders and parameters.