Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
Great and funny idea! Ignore the old grumpy men.
-
Thanks Ardem. First he says, stacking means victory, then he suddenly discovers, that the absolute losses are key...
-
??Originally posted by Andreas:Wein auf Bier, schadet Dir. (Brewer's wisdom)
Bier auf Wein, das lass sein. (Winemaker's wisdom)
That's a bit wrong, i'm afraid:
Bier auf Wein, das lasse sein,
Wein auf Bier, das rat' ich Dir!
Always start a nice evening with beer, and switch to wine later. No problems. Never vice versa. Deadly.
-
I find the idea of JasonC with pouring in reinforcements extremely interesting.
It shouldn't be impossible, to add that option for CMC-campaigns (Realistic punishment of gamey overloading? On/Off).
My 2 ct: the max points could be made dependable on the infrastructure/streets in the area. The better the infrastructure, the more streets, the higher the max points.
The more the points of the stacked force exceed that max value, the harder the impact of unrealiable reinforcements.
That could be intepreted as jammed streets, overloaded transport systems and logistical problems.
The amount of the point values and the percentage and time delay of the reinforcements should allow a quite good balancing of CMC to get the best compromise between the possibility of stacking, and a certain (more realistic) price that has to be paid for it.
-
ROFL!
Anyway, where can i send my money?
-
JasonC, i know what i can, and cannot in CM, believe me.
Agree with Ardem. No one says, that it's easy, but a good player is able to harm stacked forces quite well.
For the defender it's easy to get a 3:1 superiority in a keyhole.
The "problem" in normal CM-battles is, that the stacked force is mostly concentrated in an area, while the "defender" in that area has not enough firepower to stop it, because he has to defend his flags and not enough time to move the mobile forces around.
But in CMC the defender doesn't need to care about flags at all! He can even concentrate all his firpower on a small keyhole, concentrate his whole arty on one area, he believes, the attacker will come across.
As being myself a player favouring highest possible local superiority and compensating that with higer speed, i know very well, where weak moments, even for the strongest force in CM are. And if the defender is prepared for that moment, then good night. Luckily in normal CM-battles, the defender has to defend his flags and therefore prediction is easy for the attacker. But in CMC this is all different.
[ July 16, 2006, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
This are good arguments, but there exists a correct answer for that in the game:Originally posted by JasonC:Andreas - stacking alone did not work in the real deal. It will work far too well - alone - in CM campaigns, if the designers stick with the cookie cutter 2 km by 2 km map sizes they've said they will always use, and the rest of it. It is precisely an excess of effectiveness to stacking alone that I am trying to warn people about, in time for something to actually be done to address it.
There are significant modeling weaknesses in CM. Stress them hard enough and they will break. Relevant ones here include weak area fire effects, lack of modeling of grazing fire and penetrating fire for infantry, expensiveness of artillery and limitations on shell number, rapidity of rally after causalties, lack of serious disorganization effects (units stay units and respond to orders until routed etc).
On a small enough map you might still get some of the realistic problems from overstacking, even with CMs modeling limitations. On 2 km by 2 km maps, you can put 2 battalions in the first wave and not encounter a single issue, other than micromanagement workload. And people will. With tanks it will be even more effective to stack.
give me artillery support and a platoon of decent PAKs, and i will first disable 75%-90% of your stacked force by blinding them, while i will knock out one tank after the other.
The answer to stacking would be, to increase artillery load in the game and as i understand it, the amount of ammo will be handeled by CMC completely. So the aspect of too expensive arty doesn't hold with CMC.
-
JasonC, i'm a real friend of the concentration of forces
, but i'm quite confident, that gamey tactics wouldn't work, or at least be no overall key to success:no matter if you'd have a tank regiment and i'd have only a platoon of StuGs in one battle: on one place, there can only be one tank and since minutes are not a cruicial factor in CMC anymore, there will be finally enough time for more realistical maneuvering. Then i would shoot only one, two or three out of the crowd with extreme fire corridors and afterwards i would simply retreat. Now it's hardly possible in CM to appear 10 minutes later somewhere else, or retreat from the map completely. In CMC this will be normal, i guess.
And once the surprise from the gamey-force is over, the defender can react accordingly.
Who doesn't say, that the defender also concentrates in a gamey manner all his PAKs, arty and air-support?
And good CMC player would anyway choose defensive positions wisely on the operational map, so that an attacker may rush forward with a stacked force, but the real resistance will occur in a good terrain for the defender, not the attacker.
[ July 10, 2006, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Since CMC seems to model artillery support quite well, it could be extremely dangerous, if players stack forces unrealistically... If a player has learned once, what a rocket-barrage may do with his 200x200 meters wide tank-regiment, he will not do that again.
To the highly flexible arty-support comes IMO another aspect, reducing this problem: the terrain. Even with the random map generator, there is a good chance, that a wooden area will become a difficult and dangerous area for massive tank formations.
So the attacker has to choose the correct operational route and that already gives the defender more realistic options.
And as second aspect, we have modelled supply. Stacking forces can become deadly, if this force is cut off.
I'm very optimistic, that CMC will reduce gamey-problems quite well, thanks to it's realistic model.
-
Hunter, thanks for the infos.
I'm very interested to see the final game.
-
Thanks for the news.Originally posted by MikeyD:[QB] VERY CM looking! Turn-based, not we-go it seems, but the turns will be chopped into separate 40 second orders & reactions phases.
Hey, and it IS even WEGO!
See post#24 in this thread:
-
Dorosh, get a life.
-
It's so easy: the auto-resolver just has to deliver the most probably results.
If you expect something else, just play it out.
-
Thanks. Do you know why there aren't more screenies in the meanwhile? Major problems?
I don't visit the ShockForce forum often anymore, but some time ago, Battlefront.com started a lot of threads and Steve was very active.
Now i have the impression, BFC has become very quiet.
Does anyone know, what happened?
I hope that's not a bad sign, because i hope BFC will make it to the second, the WWII release.
-
Sorry if i missed something, but are there new screenshots out and hidden somewhere in the forum?
-
Announcing it and then silence for weeks is not really nice.
-
With "real Dollars" you mean the money, produced by the FED, a private bank that lends this privately produced money to your state?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:JC, US soldiers buy a lot of their own kit as well, even though we spend trillions of REAL Dollars (not those funny colored ones you use
) on our military.You know the term Fiat Money?
-
Great maps!
We see immediately how unrealistically usual CM-maps have been before CMC: in reality things are way "bigger". Fields and woods, while streets are much more sparse and important. Another very cool aspect, how CMC will expand the value of CM. Fantastic.
-
It doesn't need to be a book...
-
Wow.
Seems you have some nice ideas.
-
Yeah, the lack of running around civilians and flying chicken in the lines of fire are a big problem!
How the hell can Battlefront think, that an attack during rush hour without traffic jam could be realistic?
-
Russophile,
what do you want?
Everyone tells you, that maps and may they be the best ones available, are no substitute for a direct look at the battlefield.
The direct look at the battlefield is in our case the CMBB map.
The point is, that a CMC player can look at all the CMBB-maps in all detail if he wants. Therefore he can decide, which map is tactically suited best for certain MEs.
The operational player therefore has the knowledge that is usually restricted to the tactical commanders, when they are already ordered into an area.
The CMC-operational player can plan his operational moves with that knowledge.
It must be a huge advantage, over any operational player, that doesn't do so.
What is hard to accept, that so much info, is totally unrealistic?
But more important to me seems, that it is less fun to play, if you have to learn the CMBB maps prior - and you will have to do so, if your oponent is doing so.
-
He get's enough of an impression to judge by the data CMC provides.Originally posted by Russophile:Not allowing players to see the maps in advance robs the player of the very real benefits of aerial reconnaissance, mapwork, divisional staff work, personal reconnaissance by unit commanders, and the work of recon units, be it a battalion recon platoon or a divisional armoured recon battalion.
By looking at the CMBB map, he sees too much.
But nothing else is my argument: looking at the CMBB-map gives way to much info.You are correct that ambush positions and detailed info would not be available until a battle was in progress;
I usually know quite good how my tactical plan must look like, after i've inspected the map long enough.however, Vulcan's comments are apt - much of this is not apparent even when one looks at a map in advance of a game.
Surprises during battles are therefore minimal.
And the longer i study the map prior, usually the better are the results afterwards.
With winning around 70% of my PBEMs and so far having lost not a single battle as defender since CMBB, i think i have enough experience to judge the importance of maps.
If i magine, i could select one of three maps, with a fixed unit-composition (which is the case, if i would look at the CMBB-maps) and that the oponent doesn't do the same, then i.e. i could simply decide, on which of the three maps the tank battles should take place. There i would wait for him.
I think everyone can imagine, what that means, if one player can choose one from three maps, while the other choses his one blindly. Now accumulate that probability over a campaign and you know the result, before the first battle even has begun.
The difference will be huge.
If you have a reference to back up this assertion, it would be of interest. I'll post some stuff from my sources later on. I think your understanding here is poor. The recon elements are there to assist the commander in understanding what lies ahead - that can mean what enemy units, it can mean location of the enemy, it can mean strength of the enemy, it can mean finding a ford in a stream, or even locating the top of a hill.</font></font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And recon elements are mostly to recon the enemy, not to describe the terrain in detail. -
London Calling,
yupp, at least when the best and strongest battalion has become the last hope for the decimated ones...
WW2 game?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Congratulations to Battlefront, for that deal. With that strike, they have become a much bigger player in the business. And the marketing effect for the later published CMx2 is hardly to overestimate.
What i'd be interested in, how did it come, that the IL-makers were ready to go with Battlefront? Were they tired of the marketing-pressure of the other publishers, where the quick money comes before quality?