Tarkus

I completely agree with more terrain variety, both for buildings and natural features AND a certain way not to know exaclty what type of terrain there is prior to setting foot on it. You sum up reasons that goes beyond eyecandiness and thus are relevant to realism. That would allow some cool recce scenario, getting points for completing a patrol unharmed while bringing back exact terrain feature infos that would "stick" to the second phase of the battle, the terrain would be "FoW free" (cf. somewhere up the thread, ideas like that are already suggested). Plus extra points for spotting/IDing enemy units. That would be cool: it would make for something like two QBs in one. Purchase you recce assets, your assault assets, and boom, you try at first to know what your opponent is up to (while he, of course, tries to deny you of such knowledge). Then you actually go ahead with the plan. </font> Defender would get reduced terrain FoW, plus, using nifty command zone feature, SOPs and, of course, an extremely sophisticated preplanning tool , he would be able to set up patrols, OPs and listening post to guard his line againts infiltrations, having only part of his force available for it (based on what ? I dunno...)</font></font> Attacker would get to recce and earn point for it, for IDing enemy assets, positions, MLR, foxholes, trenches, you name it;</font></font>Prisonners taken would radomly give away certain informations about your opponent set-up/OBs, thus earning you more points;</font></font> All this, of course, optionnal to boot, with switches in the QB editor: allow terrain FoW >ON< >OFF<; allow recce >ON< >OFF< Then some submenus:</font></font></font></font></font></font></font>set % main force, where the player would pick some realistic (EDIT: and/or balanced) values for recce force purchase points.</font></font> Recce force type: Infantry, mechanized, armor, etc.; (or simply allow purchase point based on the main force selected in the QB editor);</font></font>Set duration of recce: player decide number of turns allowed</font></font> Set time of recce: Night, Dusk, dawn, daylight;</font></font>Set recce time before battle, enabling limited setup changes for the defender for mobile assets and troops (depending on recce delay.) More recce assets for long delay before attack (gameplay issue);</font></font> </font> NOTE: Of course, the scenario editor would allow for even more flexibility on these one-two scenarios</font> See what you've done ? Now I've got all these ideas going again and I must flood the rest of the universe with 'em...*sigh* Nah. Cheers. [ November 10, 2004, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Hi again. Thanks for the kind words, I am happy you like the DS interface. As for winter mods, two things worth of note: At cmmods.com, there is a "winter" column that tells you if the mod is/contains a winterized version. Also, many modders include some sort of reference in the title, like "WW" or something. There are some winter packs. Here's a suggestion: go about this by section. With the search function, sort by country, then unit type. It can be long at first, but this way, you can get pretty much everything there is systematically. The "problem" now is that it gets confusing since there are so many mods. Good luck, have fun.

MikeyD strikes again ! Yahooo ! As usual, pretty darn good job.

Congrat Yskonyn, your in for some real good time ! Mad Dog guide on CMHQ is really more approriate for CMBO, and a bit out of date to say the least. (Last update on CMMOS may 2003). But CMMOS is quite a useful tool if you take the time to properly configure it. Have a look at cmmods. You must register. It is THE mod place now. You will find hundreds of mods and both the latest version of the CMMOS (including, IIRC, all the info you need to get it to work properly, look under designer name MikeT) and the excellent MCMMM by GreenasJade (got a separate link on the left menu). Both are must have IMHO. enjoy

I read somewhere (sorry I can't dig out the proper ref) that Hitler, upon being presented the prototype on his birthday, requested that a way be devised to mount 280 mm guns of the same kind as the one mounted on the Scharnhorst and be so designed as to be able to cross the English Channel underwater for a surprise stomping attack on Downing Street. For some reason the whole project was quietly shelved to direct brain power and increasingly scarce ressources on the more down-to-earth Land Cruiser project. Make sense.

You're right GaJ, it is clearer this way. I took note of the problem too, (and I take note of your answer to it ) and I am trying to adress it in the complete overhaul of the CMAK interface I am doing. I included a led "early warning" system for every situational info that I can't wait to show you guys. I was doubtfull of its real efficiency at first, but after a couple of game, I must say it really works. Cheers.

Good job ! Looks mighty good to me, but again, I am into real dirty vehicles. Slowly coming together. Target date: Christmas eve or New Year day. Since we'll have to run CMAK intensely for at least another year, might as well make it a little more neato. Cheers

These are outstanding quality mods. Should you plan to go about the whole german HT line, I'll be the first in line to grab 'em ! One point though. The driver compartment bmp that appears to be so neat dont show up in CMBB. Anyone else with this problem ? Haven't checked in CMAK... In any case, the whole thing look goooood ! Thanks

These are outstanding quality mods. Should you plan to go about the whole german HT line, I'll be the first in line to grab 'em ! One point though. The driver compartment bmp that appears to be so neat dont show up in CMBB. Anyone else with this problem ? Haven't checked in CMAK... In any case, the whole thing look goooood ! Thanks

Yeah, i'd like to 2nd that. </font>

I was. The psp files I saw come with the pink area selected and you just have to copy/paste it to leave it on top. I understand you would like a different format to use it, but what you can do is d/l the psp trial and process the files through batch conversion into photoshop or whatever you use. The batch converter is very easy to use. The guy goes out of his way to offer us something that CAN be helpful for modding, depending on your taste, technique and skills. I really don't think it's appropriate to give him hell on this. You don't like it, don't use it. He also have a web site presenting some of his techniques, made for PSP users. Beside, some of the best modders around use Paint Shop Pro 4 Cheers [ October 31, 2004, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

You're right about that YD. Plus it gives the whole C&C thread an interesting perspective. Thanks Tom fer Digging that one out.

While I think C&C problems are more accute on the attack, and loss of cohesion will more likely occur with units moving on hostile ground, your quite right in pointing it out. I not only agree with you on the fact that there are applications and questions to be ask on other tactical situations, but I encourage you to contribute as well. From the top of my head, I'd say that one thing that would be very interesting would be to implement some sort of field telephone system. Not quite useful on the attack, but for defense, given what we all hope for as far as comm are concerned, that would be a basic defence choice in every buyer's guide. You would buy a field telephone post (or pit, or trench, or bunker) and it would be assumed to get all surrounding units wired, based upon such thing as battle type (could be related to "unit can dig in" option). Same would go for a radio hub of some sort. Here I would call for the imput of someone who really knows how radio were used/deployed/maintained, including traffic, during WWII, but some sort of overall HQ tent/trench that would take care of this business of communication could be interesting to look at. The key, as with all the rest, would be to very clearly state the pros and cons of such units within the game, so player knows what he's in for when picking them. There were other propositions in the thread about using comm/planning/editor to adress some C&C features while enabling developments for others tactical situations like defense, raid, patrols, surprise attack, etc. Cheers

I've got mostly praises for it as well. I really enjoyed reading it, with both in-depth perspective on the subject, yet good rythm if I may say. The author evidently went on the spot he is writing about, something not all military writers cares to bother about. Although he focuses on the front lines, he still pauses at time to talk about the larger scope. Maps are sharp and clearly indicates the tactical/operationnal situation at hands. Coming from an historical background, I would have liked Atkinson to use endnotes more consistently to state clearly his sources. Not that I doubt of the authenticity, but it would have been interestingn (and useful, mind you) to know exactly where infos where taken. Also, to take Michael comment further, a big forte of the book is that it holds one of the most thorough bibliography on the North Africa campaign there is. I'd say this book is definitely a very good start. Cheers

I think the solution lay not only in one specific formula but instead, by cleverly reassessing the various aspects of the game, the level of abstraction they hold, and the way they combine. Command zones are part of the solution. Communication network is another. SOPs are another. Hell, maybe even the planning phase is one ! The point is, thinking about all those realities that we all acknowledge to be part of the battlefield, if by successfully implementing them, BFC narrows the player's options into realistic playing (meaning: the smartest way to act/win is the most realistic), boom, the battle is mostly won. Cheers

If I try to compare your example with current CM, I see the following: In current CM, you are allowed to do whatever you want at any time, the only obstacle being that you must trade time for change of plan. In CM: Beyond Hoolaman , you now trade time, manoeuvering flexibility, and situational awareness. Well. I'll think about it some more, but it really does sound like it could work. I can help but to wonder what is going through the mind of those who actually code the game and make it all happens. They must really think we're quite a nutty bunch. Cheers

(EDIT: read Hoolaman post afterward. Same point/disclamer about the same time. Funny.) A point concerning the present discussion. Speaking only for myself, I draw your attention on the fact that discussing design features imply by definition excellent from very bad ideas, and I offer that both are equally welcomed, since knowing how NOT pratical an idea is is very close IMO, to knowing why another is. Both help moving forward. I say that because my point of planning tool isn't necessary a good one, but I feel it carries at least part of what we are discussing now. That is an option I never thought about. My guess is not all people would like it, but it would add a definite tempo to the game and, combined to time limit in TCP/IP, would induce kind of an "adrenaline" play.. This one worth thinking about, and to be placed under the "advance option setting" tab in the QB engine. Default setting "off". Ken, I think the way you put it is the way to go. Just like the FoW is optionnal, so many other new, exciting C&C features should be. I am not saying making it a twelve-in-one arcade game, but to go from one style of play that would focus on fast pace, jump-right-in tactics (as of now), and at the other hand of the realism spectrum, a realistic, albeit maybe slower paced game with more options for those who like them. Take Redwolf CMBB Quickbattle Armor Limit Ruleset for example. No one forces anybody to use them, but they are there for those who want to give it a try. On this I am pretty sure that the key is letting people choose what they like while enlarging the available options. Not to say that all our wonderful ideas should get in. But leaving the final choice up to the player is the best way to go. Plus it covers our a**. Agree on both counts. But I point out that these commands scheme, doodles and such are not intended at all to force anything or preclude any change to a plan. These are, as you rightly stated, the commander intent. As such, we assume they are conveyed one way or another down the chain of command, up to the moment where a force move out. Then, as it was pointed out numerous time, plan generally goes out the window (good ol' "no plan survive contact"). But the plan remain the basis of at least two things: 1) Commander intent and 2) basis of situationnal awareness. Correct me if I am wrong, but in your sim example, you knew what the objectives where, you also knew who where supposed to be where. When you were informed or concluded things were going otherwise, you began reassessing the situation from the basic infos you could still count on: a flag to be taken, and units being (or not) there and there (on time/late/early). This is what I mean by providing the planning tool. Not to prevent the player to change his idea, but to imbed on the map, to his command, a rought frame of deployment/movement/focus/intent. This can be changed any time, but I suppose it should be dependent of various communication structures, subject to some penalties related to the game specifics we know, the key word being still: is it, or is it not realistic. My guess is that planning isn't always practical or realistic, or at least do not always assume the same shape/procedure. A platoon getting into position for a fast pace advance does not set things up as one consolidating its position, and the commander does not necessarily use the same tools. The planning tool could be locked for one player (who could be denied part of it, or have zones already drawn) or maybe differ when he is on defense of attacking, again refering to other scenarios that are not practical within CMxx actual engine, but could be very interesting in the next. I refer here on the first page of this thread where I suggested using this drawing tool within the editor to allow other small unit actions, like patrols, raids, recce, etc. 'Circular' movement waypoints, permanent ones, whatever that helps depict small unit action while enlarging the context (rear area units under attack after a breakthrough, surprise attack, etc.) Cheers. [ October 26, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

I understand your concerns... I admitt we are making this sounds like an enormously complicated scheme, but I believe the actual implementation in the game of many points suggest here would not necessarily imply that you have to constantly set things. Units would simply act a little more realistically, and some units, like HQs, would be more important to keep in line than others. Perhaps some important changes in the command structure would be set, but that would not translate into you having to set many more values, but rather choose among variable orders. As for SOPs, there would be generic values, and you just modify them to your liking should you feel the need for it. Plus many ideas can easily be made optionnal. I definitely agree we must NOT make it an all-think no-action game. But a realistic one at that wont hurt. Cheers

Well, kind of. But I simply try to see what the whole thing would look (and feel) like on the other end of the design spectrum. Yesterday, reading about the thread, from the part I understood , I began to wonder... "yeah but... how's this going to work ?" There are many ideas flying by, and I decided to try to actually translate it in game terms. I am happy to read your post, since it allow me to better understand your idea and raise some points about it. Here's a VERY RUDE sketch of illustrating your idea further and merging it with the command phase. I still think both fit ogether quite well. EDIT: This is CMBO and I am using Strontium Dog excellent grass before anyone ask It should definitely look better than this in game, but hey, I haven't had my coffee yet . I would envision something much closer to standard tactical drawing with big arrows and symbols. And that would look goooood. Note that the round waypoints are just a suggestion as to how this could work in a simple visual way. It could also serve to encourage simplicity by tracking accurately a plan and making it so that changes and long, complex legs would be harder to achieve and/or maintain than simple ones. The point is to provide the player an easy-to-use tool to set the stage for actual game phases, the structure of which would be based on the various propositions you are suggesting. I definitely see that, and I understand that you are specifically concerned with the borg spotting issue. I was too at first, but reading this thread, I wonder now if a proper communication model could not do the job ? Meaning, you would either loose contact with units without radios/out of sight/gone, but would still benefit in real time from unit able to communicate. On the other hand, I still dont understand how you can effectively "devide" an onboard command into subunits and restrain the player into not benefiting from at least some information, appart from imbeding the orders the player wants to give inherent to the communication net in the game. From what I understand, you suggest to limit the flexibility of any given subunit by the way it interact with the immediate higher echelon HQ with more than just delays, but with the command area this HQ (or one higher still) "represent". I see better where you are getting at now. We all basically roam around the same idea, but I think many point of view are offered as to how exactly this could be implemented in the game, plus some point of details. I think the better place to put this command idea is during setup, leaving the choice open to modify/cancel it -or not- along the communication channel during the game, where you suggest to imbed it in the game mechanic as an inherent command feature. In addition, again correct me if I am wrong, but you are also suggesting to connect the command process (order available, communication available, else?) to what is being seen by any given unit. I am pretty sure I dont get the whole picture still, but this last point is perhaps the most brilliant idea of this whole thread. Good thinking Hoolaguy ! Eheheh, we still have to think about that. :cool: [ October 26, 2004, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Holy smoke, you guys aren't wasting time ! I have to keep up now I see no one reacted to my foggy morning point, and my guess is that no one got it since it is rather unclear So I give it another go, just to at least make the point a little bit more clear. It will also allow us to take a step back and see how can this thing come together visually, and to make sure we all talk about the same thing. Hoolaman idea is just another way in presenting two battlefied realities: a commander (us, the players) and the command (the troops we give orders to). Sounds basic but let's push the point about the commander further. By being allowed to draw command zones on the maps, the on-map commander (us, the players), is being given the means to -roughly- illustrate his intent both graphically and systematically (i.e. with consequences on the game). It's basically just like a commander pondering over his map, thinking about what his next move is going to be, illustrating it and showing it to his staff for his orders to go down the chain of command. Since we said the commander is at the same time the trooper, all this ends up being one conceptual operation that is good for every member of the command. Drawing a line is thus assumed to be passed on to its approriate destination. A company HQ, a tank platoon, whatever. From there, many ideas were suggested. Let's review some of them. Command zone. These can be many, with various effects. I think the best way to implement this would be to provide the commanders with drawing tool or basic waypoints as they are now implemented in the game with some more elaborate features (variable surface coverage, radius, etc). Arrows for movements, lines, brushes for areas, shapes for objectives. Whatever is useful to allow the commander to put on the maps what are his ideas. That way, planning and commanding would merge into a "command" 3D map without having to separate the planning phase from the setup phase. These ideas that the commander draw would later proove influencial on the game. How ? By providing, as Hoolaman, Mr. Tittles and others are suggesting, a frame representing the battle plan within which units would be subjected to certain "stance" bonus/penalties according to the commander intent, his plan, the ground upon which all this occur and all other applying factors. The point would be to allow the commander to prepare his staff and command to execute his orders and provide it with a certain framework of contingencies and perhaps orders available in certain zones. Here's an example: Say Commander Grant is ordered to advance with his mech Battalion to take possession of a village, consolidate and await reinforcements. Studying his map, he decide of a time frame, his path of advance (including phase lines, schedule and the like), the force he will use, and the various step in implementing the plan. He then passes on his orders to his staff who work out the details and prepare orders drafts. Say in the plan he decides that a platoon of M3 HTs will move on a road which follow a river bed, then crosses a bridge, move further down the road to a specific overwatch position and have a support platoon debus and setup in a wood, preparing for overwatch later on. He could "draw" his plan like this: - Draw an assembly area (present setup zone could act as default) - Draw path of advance (with waypoints ? brushes ?) with a tool that could either represent a stance (contact likely, contact expected, no contact) representing an appropriate doctrinal wording based on various Field manuals of the era depicted. - Draw a zone where his troop would debus and assume defensive positions, scout the patch of wood and prepare for the next part of the mission. Perhaps some more or less orders could be available to troops with more or less experience. Repeat the process with other combat team within the frame of the plan. Q. But, yo, I mean, what would this give to the player ? Well, for a start, a carefully laid plan would allow the player to benefif from having his troops already acquainted with his intent, the time frame and the objectives of the plan. That would have various effect on delays and such. I refer here to all the previous ideas that where suggested in the present thread. That way, troops could "stick" or "tend" to be more responsive within the frame of the plan, but that would NOT prevent them from acting otherwise. It would simply imply more delay, variable lack of cohesion, raising the probability of friendly fire, etc, based on a multitude of factors, like morale and HQ bonus and penalties. Note that I do not imput any value in this scheme. I just assess the principle. Next, Troops would be able to distinguish from various "zones" that would influence their stance and modify the way they carry on certain orders. A "move" in an assembly area would be carried on much faster than in a "contact likely" area. Third, all this could be made available to scenario designer that could either edit and lock some of theses zones to simulate suprise attack, raid, patrols, front line, rear area, whatever fits. Fourth, I let you guys in. Q. Would a player be required to use these planning gizmos ? Absolutely not. The regular delay system (or any one BFC devise) would apply. The planning tool would be an add-on to help people think, create, and carry their plan throughout the battle. It could be turned on and off as an option. Plus, with Standard Operations Procedures (SOPs), the game would still carry a good measure of control, without having to rely on this overhead planning phase. It would be an optional rule, but interesting for those who like better immersive play, and the challenge of not only deploying and fighting a battle, but thinking it ahead. Think of it as a grog option. Q. What if my plan goes wrong ? You would have some choices. First, you can fight the battle as is, using all available units with their generic orders. Just like it is right now in CMxx. Or, using the communication network you have at your disposal, you would then go about the process of changing your orders, "redrawing" (or not) your ideas, intent, zones and such, and reseting your plan to better adapt it to your reading of the present situation. You could do it partially, within the communication at your disposal, or globaly. Of course, depending of the way the communications are implemented, the situation at hand, and the current state/experience/whatever state of your comm people and equipement, this change of plan will take more or less time to take effect. * * * That will be all for me gentlemen. Hope I got this right. Feel free to bash in and correct. 'night [ October 25, 2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

This brings another idea related to command. I am not sure if it could be useful, but since I have to leave for a while, I throw it in anyway, in a rough, sketchy way ... As far as the interface goes (I am especially interested in this ), would'nt it be useful to be able to select particular informations from units, or put it in a certain "mode" or "stance" where certain actions would be priorized, like "spot", or "infiltrate" or whatever, all this eventually related to command zones ? In the planning phase, you could set up an objective as being "flank guard" or "mop up" and that could influence on available orders and delay later on. Then when you click on that unit, knowing the stance, you roughly know what this unit is doing, and consquently, what it is NOT doing, i.e. a unit in the process of sneaking up on the enemy in a ditch is definitely NOT long range spotting, where a HMG or a mortar team scanning an area is under no condition to react swiftly and get on the move fast, but does see quite far. I am afraid this is terribly unclear and halk-baked to say the least, but hey, that would be the first time I know but which album ? Live ones ? Pleeease tell me Latest I have is Space Groove from Project Two. Cheers [ October 26, 2004, 05:44 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Quick fix : Alt-tab, switch to desk top and then back to CMAK. HTH

Absolutely right. Options are the key. I did adress that in a past post when I said it could be a bit like a flight sim and you adjust realism options to your taste. This is also a solution to the steep entry Dave Stockhoff was refering to. Cheers

Okay. Now I see better what you mean. The problem is most accute when on the advance, when designating in advance specific field of fire isn't always possible. But can we do anything about that beside letting the AI control all fire ? SOPs seems to be a proper answer to that one again, leaving a certain control as to how the player wants his troops to react on contact. Then on next turn he resume control of fire conduct. EDIT: maybe with restriction on target designation ? Just as panicked troops are out of control, maybe some "force targeting" related to moral and context could do... But I wonder if it is not already in somehow... :confused: [ October 24, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

I absolutely agree, but for the basis of a discussion, since we do not have access to combat vet, I would suppose peacetime military experience is as close as we can get. I readily concede that I have no combat experience and limited military experience, so I am a lot better in asking question than answering them... You are drawing attention on some realism issues that I recognize to be true, but I do not find DG comments far off in adressing them, neither do yours. Right again, but don't you think CM must depict a generic reality instead of specifics ? Given, the later would be more realistic, but perhaps less well balanced. In current CM, for example, unless I am wrong the "advance" command is the same for every single unit that has access to it. Why ? I really do think both are important, and my understanding of our recent discussion on this topic is that there was a general agreement on this, no ? I mean, a plan can be perfect, its execution a total failure, and vice-versa. Cheers