Vanir Ausf B

It seems to me that system would tend to favor the attacker from a victory point perspective.

Although I'm an unabashed fan of a possible modern CM, I would prefer it be based on a hypothetical conflict rather than either Gulf War. I don't see how it could be both realistic and balanced. I'd make it NATO vs. a neo-imperialist Russia in Easter Europe, or maybe US vs. China somewhere in Asia. UK vs. France in the Chunnel. Whatever. Kicking the crap out of some third world armed mob holds little appeal for me.

I got a different quick test for ya: Who offered up an interpretation of the manual's passages? Keep your eyes on the road, Steve.

It's not my fault if the manuals are wrong I too am quite pleased with the present scale, regardless of what label is placed on it.

BTW, when we are talking "modern" warfare keep in mind that Steve has indicated that they are looking at present day, rather than Cold War or Arab/Israeli.

Except that Steve has already indicated that they are a bit burnt out on ww2. After 3 do they want to do a 4th right away? I have mixed feelings both ways. A modern combat CM has been a dream of mine for years. But I also know that the first release will be more basic and unrefined than the later ones. I could hold off knowing that when it finally does come the modern CM would be better for having waited.

I hope all you ww2 or bust guys are aware that BFC has already said that some of the CMx2 games will be ww2 and some will not. So it's not a matter of if you will need a straightjacket but when.

Not that it much matters, but I was just thumbing through the CMBO and CMBB manuals and ran across some interesting parts. CMBO manual page 6: page 18: And on the "role" the player assumes in the game, CMBB manual page 99:

Relative spotting will likely make the game more difficult to play well. How much so I don't know, but the general trend of the first 3 CM games was that they got more hardcore and realistic with each release, with the big jump happening between CMBO and CMBB. CMx2 looks to be more hardcore and realistic than the last game, so I don't think CMx2 will be very newbie friendly.

If you compare the gameplay problems that leaving the WIA on the field creates with the minor loss of immersion it's intended to fix, abstracting them out is the obvious choice. I guess crosses are ok as long as you can turn them off.

I remember people asking for this when CMBO was released.

Heh In all seriousness, I don't think it will be WW2. If I had to guess I'd say modern combat. For a guy doing WW2 games, Steve is surprisingly up to date on current US Army TO&E. :cool:

That's similar to the "convoy" or "follow" command people have been asking for to prevent multiple-tank pileups on roads. Now that vehicles block LOF, being able to have a squad advance behind a slow moving tank would be nice.

I'm surprised that SOPs aren't going to be used and that movement speed and reactions will still be amalgamated into a single command. Just because a unit is in a hurry to get somewhere doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to stop if someone starts shooting at them. I suppose if SOPs were considered and rejected there must have been a good reason, but it sounds like the new command system will be much like the old one. (?)

That's good to hear. I think sharpshooters work fine the way they are. The "problem" that people are talking about is really more of a god's eye view issue than one of relative spotting. I don't consider this to be a problem at all, and in fact think of it as one of CM's best attributes. The only way to "fix" this "problem" without turing CM into a command level game is through multi-multi player.

oops

Will CMx2 have SOPs, so that movement speed and behavior vis-a-vis enemy units are not always wedded to each other? For example, you could give a unit a fast move order, but there would be a list of standing SOPs that could be applied to the unit to govern its behavior if it sees an enemy or is fired upon. Kinda like this: I think the second set shown above might solve Bigduke's dilemma. [ September 09, 2005, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Well, maybe a little more than zero. CMx1 did have battalion formations available for purchase. They were very useful and it would be nice if this were in CMx2 also.

The outcome of larger games is less influenced by chance. That's simple math and isn't debatable. Whether there is too much chance in small games is subjective. Some feel it's more exciting that the outcome can hinge on a single pivitol event. Others don't like being bound to the fickle finger of fate. My own reasons for liking bigger games is because it allows for greater flexibility in planning and force composition. My only concern was that the game would allow for battalion+ in a way similar to CMx1. It seems that will be the case and our ability to play large games will only be hindered by the steep hardware requirements to do so. But this is something I can live with because that will become less of a factor over the years as people upgrade.

That's a strange example to use, and it really illustrates how little you know about the game you're trying to criticize. First of all, there has never been a Duke Nukem game in 3D, unless you're refering to the eternal vaporware Duke Nukem Forever. Secondly, the move from sprites to 3D in FPS generally made possible much more detailed and realistic graphics, but the actual gameplay wasn't greatly affected. One of the chief complaints about Doom 3 is that once you look past the graphics it's still basically the same game as Doom 1. Ironically, CMx2 is introducing some new features such as dynamic light and an advance particle system that have the potential of having a fundamental effect on gameplay at least to the extent of the example you gave. But I suspect you didn't know about that...

"Doing better" than your opponent is the ultimate goal of the game. Which makes some sense given that the game simulates a type of contest (warfare). Some people think the fun in CM is in the strategizing and tactics. Some people consider the purchasing of units to be part of their strategy and therefore part of the fun. Everything about CM is artificial. There is no real battle being fought when you play. We do agree on something No one is complaining that rarity is "part of the problem" (part of what problem?), but rather that the current implementation could perhaps be improved upon. [ September 08, 2005, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I don't recall seeing anyone argue that they should be allowed to buy more rare units than what the game size would otherwise allow. That would be a very strange arguement to make, and it certainly has nothing to do with the system I was talking about. Speaking of which, The system I suggested would also be more REALISTIC. Yes, I'm playing the realism card KTs, for example, were indeed rare for the war in general. But if they were involved in a particular battle there would typically be at least a platoon present rather than one or two individual units. The CMx1 system encourages the use of rare units in onesies and twosies. So yes, most of the time rare units should not be available at all, but when they are there's no reason they should not be purchaseable in quantity to whatever extent the size of the QB allows (I guess I need to make that clear ) I don't think this is true at all for people who want a rarity system. The first part could be true of those who don't want to use rarity in the first place, but they don't have to so who cares? [ September 08, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I wouldn't make it strictly realistic either. The "ASL Method" mentioned above is more what I had in mind. Rank units 1-10 from most common to most rare, or even 1-5, or whatever works out best. If Jadgtigers are available in 1 of every 5 games they won't appear in 1 out of 5 games. People won't buy them every time they can. I played CMBO for 18 months without ever buying one. You'ld need some sanity check in the code to throw out the results and reroll if someone was very unlucky and ended up with no tanks or something really unfair, assuming you rolled seperately for each unit. If you use a single roll for the whole game the same roll could apply to both players.

The rarity system has always been overly complicated, marginally effective and generally a pain in the butt. I hope they give it a complete rethinking. The basic problem is that it uses a single numeric value to represent two entirely different and unrelated characteristics: rarity and battlefield utility. A much simpler and more effective system would make the unit either available for purchase or not available for purchase. The unit cost should not be affected by rarity at all.

w00t! LOL!