Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
It's not something we are planning on simulating, no. The practice is still alive and well today, but we're not convinced it's used enough to make it worth coding.
Couldn't the coding be used for giving guns (drawn and self propelled) indirect fire possibilities, too?
-
Steve,
i don't know why you talk about "10 minutes" delays. Nobody was talking about such huge delays.
Then how do you instantly fire on a patch of ground that you think might have an enemy unit waiting in ambush? There is absolutely no justification for a delay, even a short one, any more than there is justification to delay targeting a known unit.1. How realistical is a delay for a simple move command?
2. Or how realistical is a 1 minute "pause" until a unit can be given important commands? It is so incredible unrealistical, that i suggest you abandon WEGO.
3. Even under best circumstances the order for suppressive fire given from the NCO in the group will need a few seconds: who and where to fire.
Why 30 seconds? Why not 30 minutes?
Why not 30 minutes? Because the player's experience is the answer what works?
I think most people would agree that even a 1 minute delay doesn't really do anything. If I find someone's AT Gun in the woods, and I can't get at it with my wee little pop gun squad, then I halt ops until some unit of mine that shouldn't know it is there can get some Area Fire on it. Waiting an extra minute to neutralize something I shouldn't have been able to shoot at doesn't change the net outcome...Is that an implicit defense of the lack of realistical movement orders for AT-guns?
If an AT-gun has realistical retreat orders, then even a few seconds would decide, if it can be supressed, before it can move into safety.
-
While your suggestion sounds good, it seems to me to be a whole lot of work for very little reward.
Elmar, what could be easier, to try that out in a beta version, by adding a simple timer for that command? How long would Charles need to code it? Two minutes?
You know, for the defending side often a few seconds can decide about annihilation of a unit or it's escape, when the delay for the retreat command kicks in. Especially when the defender is outnumbered.
So what is more realistic: immediate area fire on almost surely doomed defending units, or defending units, that can shoot and can retreat alive?
If i think further about the great possibilities that emerge from that in conjunction with the decreased borg-spotting with enhanced commands when it comes to tactics of small & medium AT-guns (immediate retreat after x shots), defenses could become much more dangerous than they ever were in CMx1.
And with that more realistic danger of defenses, also correct attack tactics would become more important.
Not worth the effort?
-
Steve,
with all respect, I don't get the argumentation.
The AI does not recon by fire. So IMO the arguments regarding realism do not fit, because the player has to order area fire anyway. But if the player orders it, command delays have been an exceptional good abstraction to simulate somthing more complex behind it.
And i'm also quite surprised, that you judge something gamey by the game's internal measures, instead of the result.
CMx1 is full of that gameyness - but the results are good and theygive the impression of realism.
You even were proud of things that gave great realistical results, although the mechanism behind was not realistical at all. The impression of realism of the result counted and not the way how it was achieved. Now you rule out suggestions, not because of the results they could produce in the game, but because of comparisons to reality.
-
Since the original thread is closed, i'd like to throw my 0,02 ct. into the discussion:
Maybe a simple compromise would already reduce the unrealism of immediate and perfect aimed area-fire orders? What about a (optional in the game preferences) general delay of a few seconds for area fire orders - say 15 or 20 seconds? (maybe dependant on troop quality and equipment?)
And if it is easily implementable certain modifiers of the command-chain could additionally reduce it: i.e. is the unit in command of a HQ?
2nd idea:
Make area-fire a bit fuzzy-logic controlled: a certain chance, that the unit does not fire exactly where you order it to fire (instead it fires at another group of trees nearby, adjacent window/house). Appearance of this faulty behaviour could also be weighted by troop quality, equipment, HQ-command, incoming fire,...
-
Regarding area fire:
Maybe a simple compromise would already reduce unrealism a lot? What about an optional general delay of a few seconds for area fire orders - say 15 or 20 seconds? (could be dependant on troop quality, and vision equipment)
And if it is easily implementable, certain modifiers of the command-chain could additionally reduce it: is the unit in command of a HQ?
Another idea:
Make area-fire a bit fuzzy-logic controlled: a certain chance, that the unit does not fire exactly where you order it to fire (another group of trees nearby, adjacent window/house). Appearance of this faulty behaviour weighted by troop quality, equipment, HQ-command,...
-
Now, what's the difference between the two, one might ask, in terms of gameplay? Well, if you don't care about realism then the answer is "not much".
Won't have the tiny turrets of PzIVs in hulldown positions a huge impact on gameplay compared to CMx1?
-
Steiner14: German traitors?
Biggest betrayal in military history.
-
Are there any plans to include Panther and Königstiger since the Panzer-Lehrdivision was equipped with them?
I'd like to make some scenarios, that show, what would have been possible, if the german traitors would have not taken them away from the Panzer-Lehr on June 4th.
-
The screenshot is interessting - really. Becaus at least for me it creates a feeling again, i never had with CMSF, but that was there with CMx1. I think that's a good sign for the sales of the upcoming WWII title.
The best thing of some of the new 3D monitor technologies, is that you doesn't need to wear glasses!!!.
I think the technology with polarized glasses is more robust.
But what could be interessting for BFC: offering a bundle for real CM-fans - a special edition CM:Normandy-3D with polarized glasses, that look like goggles.
-
What would be the effects on blue and red forces, if an electromagnetic pulse bomb would be dropped?
-
IMO CM is without doubt a very good training tool for tank tactics.
But IMO it's good for infantry training, too: because it helps to get a better understanding of tactical problems in a shorter amount of time (on the field): reading the topography faster, understanding tactical problems of given situations faster, finding solutions that are not complex but simple and work.
Therefore it safes time (soldiers learn faster) and blood. What else can someone expect from a training-tool?
-
It has attracted a lot of attention. The problem is guys in $5000 suits with bags full of money attract more
Steve
I already wanted to reply, that you need a contact-person, that makes you a contact for a presentation. A fancy, colorful, multimedia presentation...
Decision-makers in the western world have become like little children (they also take no repsonibility, but the cash). They are not interested in facts and deep knowledge of the problem - they only want Power-Point-Sheets...
-
adultery,
Yes and no. There will be nothing available to WeGo that isn't available to RealTime as well, so features that can't work without the Blue Bar won't happen. However, so far the features programmed have only been a problem for WeGo and not RealTime. Ironic, I know! So the "yes" to your question is that we can add features into the game that wouldn't be possible without the BlueBar for people with marginal systems and the desire to play in WeGo mode. You can reread my opening statements for more details.
Steve
Do i remember correctly, that you always denied the arguments, that realtime puts restrictions on the game-engine, that true WEGO wouldn't?
Since the goal of you at Battlefront always has been to achieve the most realistic results, i'm confident at some future point - sometime after WWII-title's release - you will yourself be interested enough about the results of a higher battlefield resolution, and you will start to implement WEGO-only functionalities, if they can be implemented without much labour.
The latest development seems great in that regard for me, since game calculation and realtime graphics display in WEGO have been seperated even more.
Also a full-game replay - at least for WEGO - seems to have come a step closer because of the better separation.
-
Wow! The blue bar is back!
Can't wait to get my hands on the WWII title.
MikeyD's experience with the Blue Bar was not isolated. The ability to skip ahead for the first couple of turns (especially) is definitely one of those things which has a larger impact on the perception of gameplay than actual.Steve, IMO you still underestimate the psychological aspect of such "trademark" related aspects a lot (you only see the rational aspects).
-
I'd prefer a keycommand to switch it on/off.
-
What, you are supporting this banksters regime with your life? They laugh at you.
-
Conversely, someone would have to hold a gun to my head to play a regimental sized CMx1 game
Why? Because I would feel overwhelmed by the number of assets and objectives I'd have to manage.Ah, this brings back wonderful memories.
One of the most exciting things for me in CMx1 were big maps with even bigger forces, where attacker and defender had freedom about concentrating or splitting forces, freedom to attack/defend several targets simultaneously or let an iron first roll from one victory location to the next. Where decisions could be made if it were better to use a fast armoured Kampfgruppe that will support several infantry force groups, or if tanks attached to each force group would work better.
For me battalion and regimental sized battles offered a tactical freedom and therefore unpredictability that i think can't be found in small scenarios which are mostly decided after two or three won tank battles.
-
What if units would stay to some degree under player's control, although they have become invisible?
What about a command that allows drawing a rectangle on the map and assigning a move-command to the units in it. Then the invisible units in that rectangle start to move (after a certain amount of time) to that Sammelpunkt where they could become visible again.
-
What is necessary in a game? You mean not necessary for YOU.
-
@El Hombre
yeah I know, replay is cool but not really necessaryNot necessary for what?
-
Steve,
The artillery bombardment you mention... why should a platoon completely unaffected by, or perhaps even unaware of, a bombardment (let's say it was 500m away on the other side of a hill) suffer some sort of hit? Especially if it was already carrying out orders given to them before the bombardment?Are you talking about my suggestions? They are distance related.
-
Sgt. Joch,
interesting aspects.
Maybe beside the implementation of IPs in the core of the game, also scenario-designers could be given the possibility to assign some kind of IP-recovery factor to a side, or to single units, determining, how fast/slow, and maybe even under which conditions, IPs are restored?
That way some kind of higher "morale" could be simulated, not necessarily depending on the units morale. For example crack SS in May '45 organizing for a local counter attack. Morale is good, initiative too. But a heavy unexpected soviet artillery barrage shows, that although losses are minimal, the target will hardly be reached -> IPs collapsing.
IPs could affect not only the action-delays, or pause commands in several ways, but also the amount of allowed movement actions for one unit, or how far from the unit the endpoint of the movement is allowed to be.
-
Don't know if this idea is any good, but it just came into mind regarding initiative "points": what if certain enemy measures could affect initiative points negatively, i.e. artillery barrages or air attacks?
So a heavy barrage without strong physical losses could nevertheless result in the reduced ability to order complex tasks afterwards. Depending on troop quality, the impact could be weighted differently, too (a company of crack SS would be not so highly "disturbed" to conduct further complex movements/coordinations, while a conscript Volkssturm could become severely confused).
In CMx1 i always found the amount of supression due to artillery vanishing too fast (although the impact on morale was balanced very well), because it was only reflected by the reduced morale status of the units.
If i think of a defender, receiving a barrage, the reduced initiative would not harm his ability to wait for the enemy and fight coming attackers back besides the effects of morale/supression.
But when a barrage hits units, that are preparing for an attack, this should cause major problems to fulfill complex and highly syncronized tasks afterwards - even if morale has recovered -> initiative is disturbed.
Maybe this would also offer a good solution to the not so perfect possiblity in CMx1, to concentrate big amounts of units before an attack, without much danger, that enemy artillery or air raids, would cause a long lasting "confusion".
But if an attacker has to be aware, to lose a lot of initiative "points", that are necessary to conduct the attack properly, if artillery or air attacks take place, this should in practice lead to less concentrated units, which i have to admit, are not that realistical, although i vastly made use of it, especially in tank battles - manage two or even three tanks extremely close together attacking one enemy tank at the same moment, was often the guarantee to win every tank battle.
Why? Because I would feel overwhelmed by the number of assets and objectives I'd have to manage.
Area fire: ideas for more realistical results
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Correct. I brought it for your straw-man argument of not enhanced realism by a delay to area-fire commands.
5-15 minutes for moving a PAK? The Germans? In WWII? I don't know about the other armys, but that is at least not true for the Panzerjäger.
But now i understand better why you see no big problems, when it comes to the possibility of immediate returning area-fire of all available weapons and why you think a delay of a few seconds couldn't make sense.
A few videos illustrating that it doesn't take 5-15 mintues to move guns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOoWuAvY_ok&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmv3hOb2rvs&NR=1
IMO there is absolutely no reason, why ATGs on a crest, or in well prepared postions should be nailed down by immediate returning area fire, while in reality they would have been brought in safety or even made a Stellungswechsel (changed their position).
That's not true. I said, that immediate returning area fire in CM makes it impossible to move ATGs, even if they could move as fast as in reality.
What you are argueing for is that ATGs stay lame ducks that stay nailed down, after they have made their first shot.
In CMx1, almost every ATG that opened fire, was doomed because
1. of way to slow movements over short distances.
2. of the possibility of immediately returning area fire. And i predict that in RT-mode this will become even worse.
No i haven't. I have explained in my first post, why a delay is not only very realistic, but why it could offer more realistic results in the game.
You came with straw man arguments like 30 minutes delays being not useful and ATGs "need 5-15 minutes to move".