Sig

Yes. Just re-read his post. Lots of good ideas. And his comment about the fading swishing noise: right on the spot! Sig

The french computer magazine PCFun (en français dans le texte ) finally reviewed CMBO in its March issue (sent them a mail about CMBO *months* ago). It gives CMBO an overall note of 17/20. Details of the note: Graphism 15/20 Sound 18/20 Playability 19/20 Interest 19/20 Great, no? Sig Edited because I just saw they have put the CMBO demo in the CDs included with the magazine. Another good point. [This message has been edited by Sig (edited 03-02-2001).]

I am more demanding (this is the problem with good products: you want more, mooore, mooooore...pant, pant, pant...): I would like to see different explosion graphics for the main weapon categories (roughly divided: thrown (grenade, satchel), artillery (VT,"normal"), "gun-fired" (HE, hollow charge, AP)) AND the accompanying sounds. And BTW I like the idea of muzzle flash. Don't know how difficult it would be to implement though. The sound environment is a HUGE part of the fun I have playing CMBO. It creates this feeling of immersion, which is so exciting. IMHO this is a field almost as important than the visual aspect. Hehe, it's probably time to have some "grog attack" on the topic of sound modelling! I'm serious here: if we insist on modelling perfectly, say the zimmerit pattern on a Tiger, we should also have the same attitude toward sound and "light effect". Logical, no? Sig

Thanks to the fantastic work by BTS and Co and the great feedback from this forum, most critical issues have been addressed, so I suppose it's time to go into less important details (some would say: time to nit-pick ). I would like to see some more accurate graphics AND sounds for explosions. I will focus on the hand grenade: I have thrown hand grenades equivalent to the german ones (Handgranate 43) and the detonation (sound and light) is very different from what is modelled. Graphic: TNT does not detonate in a "hollywoodian" fireball. There is a very small reddish flash and a big billowing cloud of soot. When you run through it just after detonation, no need for any face camouflage: you look as if you just cleaned your chimney . Sound: When TNT detonates, it does not go "BOOM" (a soft explosion, if I may say), but the sound is very "hard": KPOW! It's more frightening in fact because it really gives you a feeling of the incredible violence of the detonation. Just some data: the HG43 grenade I used (was in the swiss army) was a copy of the german one. Total weight is 600g with around 350g(?) TNT or equivalent. When compared to the 165g explosive in the early german Stielhandgranate 24, sound and light effects are certainly increased. BTW live 81mm mortar round explosions also have the same "look": no hollywoodian fireball and a "harder" detonation. I suppose CM2 would really benefit from an extended sound and graphic database, especially for explosions. The Great Patriotic War without different sound and light effects for those huge soviet artillery barrages...come on . Sig

Just one interesting fact about Guy Sajer: he is the author of comic books in french (bandes dessinées) under the name "Dimitri". Made stories called "le goulag" (story of a french guy prisoner of a gulag, ironic and absurd). Last I saw from him was the story of the battle of Kursk. Not pretty as you can imagine... BTW, the fact that people now know that "Dimitri" the artist is in fact Guy Sajer annoyed him a lot: he felt that this part of his life belongs to the past, and he said he still hasn't completely been able to recover from his WWII experience. Said also that writing his book helped him mentally a lot (was really mentally shaken after the war), and also that NOBODY can understand what it means to be in the middle of a war like WWII if one hasn't experienced it personally. Just a word of warning: what I wrote are not his exact words, it's how I remember what I read. Will try to find the interview if I can. Sig

A way to counter (as the defender) the "Flattening Method" is to use the "Monte Cassino Method": wait till the building is reduced to rubble and occupy it again with infantry. As the defender, a good timing is needed as when to leave your position in the targeted building and when to come back. Drawback of this method: if the attacker uses artillery to level the town, it can be very unwise to leave a building... OTOH the attacker will probably use most of his artillery asset. Advantage of the method: a nasty surprise for the attacker who now faces intact (or at least not too damaged) entrenched infantry instead of a bunch of poor shaken remnants of a platoon Sig [This message has been edited by Sig (edited 02-23-2001).] [This message has been edited by Sig (edited 02-23-2001).]

Agree *entirely* with this one. It would be a major improvement and help to create realistic (as close as possible) urbanised (incl. villages) European areas. Just to add to the topic of European villages: farms are often not isolated in the middle of the countryside, but integrated close to each other in a village. They can even be tightly linked together: in the village where I lived, the main road was limited on one side by "solid" row of 7 linked farms. We just hoped no fire would start when the north wind was blowing...the row was oriented N-S... . Complex and "anarchic" village structures are quite difficult to properly model with the 20m-tile system. BTW, very nice pictures David. Visited Scotland (and Edinburgh) few years ago. Aaah..souvenirs. Mmh, were did I put my passport again? Sig

Asking for more control on ambush can be percieved as asking for more micromanagement. As far as I'm concerned, I don't want too much micromanagement in CMBO (I like it in other games though), *but* in my opinion ambush managment should be improved for scenario design. Let me explain what I mean: a player is *far* more efficient than the AI with ambushes (by ambushes, I mean a *hidden* unit waiting for good target, even without the proper ambush marker). Why? Simply because he can *choose* the right moment when to unhide, and this is the *critical* point. The AI cannot do that, except at short distance (if no ambush marker). Scenario design and ambush. As a designer, it is difficult to create a flexible ambush, because the AI does *not* know when to unhide. Imagine this AT gun at 500m from the road, hidden in woods. Ambush marker targetted. Your clever scouting has shown you that the ennemy (2 AFVs and some infantry) will come right down this road. Now, the opposing player, being also a clever guy will scout ahead of his armour. The ambushing player (you) will hold his AT ambush, remain hidden, wait for the AFV to appear and (hopefully) score. The AI in the same situation would see the scouting infantry passing on the ambush marker, the AT gun will open fire with HE, and next thing would be arty falling on its position...dead. This is in my opinion the main drawback of the system. This leads to less challenge from the defending AI in canned scenarios and gives an additionnal advantage to the player. But as far as I'm concerned in a player against player situation, this is not a major problem. Sig

I believe ambush *sectors* (limited in size and form) would be good, and would prevent too much player micromanagement. Add to this a distinction between "armour ambush sector" and "infantry/soft skinned vehicles ambush sector" and you have good enough (IMO) flexibility, ESPECIALLY for scenario designers. Sig

Ack...the infamous "back". grr [This message has been edited by Sig (edited 02-14-2001).]

Your comment gave me an idea: if units have to penalised during night fighting, it should be based on experience. It makes sense that a green unit will lose more of its combat value during a night fight than a veteran under the same condition will. Alternatively, instead of decreasing the combat value, impact on the *moral* could be increased at night, always in relation to unit experience. This would simulate a green unit loosing its nerve faster at night, when under the same circumstances, a veteran would retain cohesion, having already experienced this kind of situation. Do you think this could be worth implementing? Sig

Talking about AT weapons, I think we should consider the psychological benefit of having such a weapon in your squad! Even if your chance to knock out a tank is quite low (accuracy problems, short distance to target, infantry screen, armour) at least you have one. Without an organic AT weapon, a squad would simply be dead when facing one of these steel behemoths. I have no data concerning the effect of this psychological impact, but I *think* it must be significant. Has somebody more precise information? Sig

Agree totally with you. Sig

My experience with the fighter-bombers: I haven't been able to find any predictable behaviour when they attack, except that they consistently seem to look after everything that has tracks and/or wheels. Mmmh, which BTW *is* a predictable behaviour... They give this feeling of being outdoors in the middle thunderstorm, wondering where the next lightning bolt will hit: no control, just hope my umbrella, er...AA guns will protect me. I like this kind of unpredictability, which IMO is something which makes CMBO so addictive. Sig

Thanks for the feedback. What is funny is that I'm basically happy with the LACK of precise orders. As I said before, I like the way CMBO limits the micromanagement. It is far more challenging. But I need to insist (sorry if I wasn't clear): the ambush zones would be great for *scenario or operation design* to help the AI! The AI does not use the protection tactics we as players use, and it *cannot* decide to hide or unhide at a critical time for distance ambushes (lets drop de "long distance" for lack of common definition ) ! It is not "smart" enough in this situation. Therefore the scenario *designers* cannot place a viscious ambush that would be challenging for a good player. If my proposal leads to too much micromanagement (and I dislike too much of it), then make this feature "scenario or operation design only". The designer would be the only one able to use this feature, and the player would stay with the usual Ambush marker. My opinion is: great, no problem at all. In fact it's even better. Now, the only thing to know would be: is this possible without too much coding? And BTW guys, great feedback and comments. I agree with the protection or engagment tactics you describe. In fact it's the way I always try to set AT ambushes. But what you explained can also be of great use for people who want to learn CM tactics. To sum up: if I may mix what I propose with your feedback, the system should be used only for scenario and operation design. Should be limited to the AI, to prevent too much micromanagement. And even if the exemple used in the topic speaks about AT ambush, is not limited to that kind of ambush. Cheers, Sig

Well, TRPs are not the answer. FOs target them and that's all (can be enough sometimes ). The main problem with ambush arises when you design a scenario in which you want to set for instance an AT ambush (AI controlled defense). Against a clever player, your settings will NEVER work properly! Why? As I explained before: if you hide an AT gun, it won't fire except when the enemy comes close, too close for health in fact. So, no long distance ambush. If you don't hide your AT gun, it will open fire, but more often then not will so on the scouting infantry (again I assume a "good" player). Result: artillery fire or similar, gun out and enemy AFVs intact. If you place an ambush marker, too restricted for a *prepared* defense: the enemy has to pass on or very close to the merker, and again the AT gun will probably open fire on the scouting infantry. This is not too much of a problem if it's player against player, because you can hide and then unhide the AT guns when enemy armor appears, thereby achieving surprise. But this IS a real problem when the AI is in charge. And as a scenario designer this is frustrating (very) to know your long range AT ambushes have practically *no* chance against any player who knows a bit about infantery "scouting". What I would like with this kind of system is to introduce a simple way to eliminate the AI limitation (know when to unhide) to be able to create more realistic, or at least challenging ambushes. Such an improvement could only increase the pleasure the player can have, by increasing the challenge. At least that's how I see it. To end, just note that I used as example an AT ambush, but obviously this should also work with other arms as well. Thx. Sig

Yeeeeehaaa! Double post! Sig [This message has been edited by Sig (edited 02-03-2001).]

Thanks for the replies. Very informative. I have one more thing to ask: what was the strength of the recoil? My father shot rifle grenades with a bolt operated rifle and he told me they had to be very careful because the risk was a broken finger. Standard procedure was to pull the trigger with only the tip of the finger. Otherwise, with the recoil the (don't know the english word) metallic element protecting the trigger would brake the finger. He told me some soldiers used a short piece of wood to pull safely the trigger...talk about fire accuracy. Most of the soldiers (me included at the time) usually hated the AT rifle grenades because of the recoil (could really sprain a wrist, or the gun barrel could hit your face if you cared to aim this *** thing). Thx for comment. Sig

The way an ambush is handled in CMBO seems to raise some problems regarding its accurate simulation. I would like to propose a possible simple way to improve the efficacy and realism of ambush while in a defense scenario. First of all, a precision: I am NOT a micromanagement fan, and I think the way the ambush marker works is generally OK (at least for me). And to clarify further, I like CMBO the way it is, with chaos, surprise and unexpected failures (and success) which forces you to react, adapt and be imaginative. Very stimulating. However, the way an ambush is set seems to be unsatisfactory, when you are in a DEFENSE scenario. See many previous treads. What is one of the numerous advantages a defender in ambush has over the attacker? He knows the EXACT distance to target (by target I mean the ambush zone)! Because in a *prepared* defense, these distances have been measured. Having fired an AT weapon very similar to the Panzershreck, I can tell you that knowing the exact distance to target leads to a *very* significant increase in first shot accuracy, ...and survival. I would like to propose the following add for CM2: the possibility to buy ambush zones when on defense (and ONLY on defense)! Two options: *First: fixed volume, a rectangle you could place like say, the barbed wire element. Dimensions would be something around 20m by 10m. *Second: flexible. By flexible, I mean you would just buy the four corners of the zone (materialized by 4 flags, or buttons, or whatever) and then would place them on the field to create the ambush zone. This would help to create a more versatile zone, and not simply a rectangle. However, in this case, to prevent "gameyness" (e.g. an ambush zone 200m by 0.10m...) you need to give maximum and mimimum distances between the flags. And also to give a price depending on how far from each other the flags are. More complicated to implement. Now, to improve this system, you would have three types of ambush zones: 1/Armor (open fire only when armor enters the zone) 2/Infantry and soft skin vehicles 3/Kill them all (everything that enters is attacked) Example: I have a rifle platoon and an AT gun over watching a key road. I need to interdict this road. I would then buy two ambush zones, one against Armor and one against Infantry and superimpose them where I want my ambush to be. The platoon would target the Infantry zone and the AT gun the Armor zone. Et voilà: no more At gun opening on enemy scout infantry, and no more infantry platoon firing at an AFV, but a "FLEXIBLE" ambush. Now, here is the bonus: *scenario design*! Today, if you design a scenario with for instance an AT gun over watching a critical sector at 500m, with the normal ambush marker (the one we have now in CM), the enemy must pass very close to this marker to trigger the ambush. If you have no marker, and your gun is not hidden, the enemy can scout with infantry, the AT gun will often open fire....2min later, artillery barrage, a dead AT gun. And finally, if you have hidden your AT gun, at 500m even if a complete Panzer Division passes in its sector, it won't open fire. However, with the different ambush zones I would like to propose, scenario designers would be able to create *real* and *efficient* ambushes. More challenge for the players, and more fun!! One last thing: to be closer to real life, once targeted, an ambush marker should give the ambusher an improved accuracy for the *first* shot (distance to target is precisely known). Since I don't program, I have no idea how difficult it would be to implement this system. However, I believe it could really improve the efficacy of an ambush. Again, this is meant only for the DEFENDER (like pillboxes, mines, etc...). Feedback and comments appreciated. Thx. Sig

In a night scenario, valiant Americans shot and killed some enemy armor with rifle grenades. They shot from the upper story of a large building. My question: how are WWII (american) rifle grenades fixed to the gun barrel? I ask because during my army days, I shot quite a lot of AT rifle grenades (a real pain in the ***, BTW ) and these grenades could not be shot downward, because they would slip from the barrel. So, shooting from above on an AFV in the street...forget it. Oh, BTW, and if you know the way they were fired? I am curious to know. We had to insert a special ammo clip firing a low velocity soft bullet (was wood IIRC) to start the grenade. Thx Sig

Hello, I have noticed from time to time tactical comments assessing the efficiency of a defense (or attack) by comparing the relative values (in points) exchanged during a phase of the fight. This sounds usually a bit like: "...well, as long as I exchange the 36 pts of my regular 50mm PaK38 AT gun for the 122 pts of his regular M4A3 Sherman, I can consider it a success even if I then loose the gun to the following artillery strike...". If I personally prefer a more "role-playing" approach ("Ack, my poor gunners are under heavy fire, I must find a way to help...aaaaarrrr..too late) versus a "number" oriented one, I find nothing wrong with the latter, so far. However, 1.Obviously, the value of an asset is highly variable once the fight has started. Example: if my regular 50mm PaK38 AT gun blocks the main approach to the objective and therefore stalls the attack, its value is not anymore 36pts but *far* higher (I win as long as the gun holds). Furthermore, if this is my last AT element in a crumbling defense, its value is now infinite (I lose if the gun is destroyed). In this last situation, even if my gun were able to, say, KO 3 of the five M4A3 attacking before it is silenced, its loss would be a disaster! Even though the "points" exchange would heavily be in my favor (36 to 366). In another situation where the enemy is already holding the objective having bypassed my MLR, the same gun would have a much, much lower value. In addition if I could then destroy even one AFV before the AT gun is blasted, I would be a clear winner. 2/I have the *feeling* that people basing their fight purely on calculating points lost versus points destroyed are severely limiting themselves. Understand me well: I do not imply these people cannot win or have bad tactics. No, my feeling is that if you see units in a fight only as friendly "points" which must remove at least an equivalent amount of "points" from the enemy's order of battle in order to be worth buying, you may well limit your perception of the battlefield. This is because your focus would be *absolute* point ratios (my 600pts vs. his 1200pts) and not the *relative* point ratios (e.g. my strong hull down position vs. his "exposed-on-the-slope" AFVs). So, what can be the impact of such an approach of the game, especially against another player (I lost 122 "points", he lost nothing, I surrender)? Does such an approach actually *have* an impact on the way you plan, play, think? On the contrary is such an approach an advantage in simulations? If yes, is this a limitation inherent to all simulations vs. the real stuff? Last but not least, if you know your opponent thinks "numbers", is this good for you (can you outsmart him *because* he thinks like that)? I would be very interested to hear comments. I am curious about that, especially because it seems to touch a lot the way gamers (esp. wargamers with extensive "board game" background) think. And we all know it helps a lot to understand how the "enemy" thinks. Sig (Insert little disclaimer) Sorry if this is not crystal clear, but English is not my mother language. Feel free to ask for precision.