Steiner14

Here's my wishlist: Tanks/Vehicles: - tanks have a size -> cover for infantry and vehicles - riding infantry on tanks can shoot and has partial cover behind the turret - tank movement: additional option for Schießhalt (stop&shoot) when at full speed and contact to enemy tank appears (an additional option depending on the enemy's vehicle-class would be even better; i.e. Schießhalt only for medium/heavy tanks while ignoring others) - better hit model - modeling the size of the turret - crewmembers can leave vehicles for spotting - turn rates - especially allowing fast turning of tanks after a fast move - if tanks gotten stuck: possibility for towing out during battle - additional command(s) for AFVs - now either the vehicle is driving way too slow but cautious (move to contact), or the speed is realistically, then it's like playing russian roulette - so an optional command for vehicles what to do, if they spot enemy armor, would be fantastic - important for operations: rescueing tank crews by entering friendly tanks - even better hit calculations? I have the uncertain impression, that the hit-probability (not the displayed, but the effective one) of tanks depends on their stats; i may be wrong, but i have the impression, that the performance of very successful tanks decreases quite drastically during battles - tanks should not slow down that much over small foxholes Guns: - much faster turning around of light-medium AT-guns - retreat without turning around? - indirect fire of howitzers and self-propelled guns Landscape: - placement of buildings (i.e. rows) Artillery: - FOs can be added to vehicles, or FO-function added to certain tanks (don't know about Allies, but common practice in the Wehrmacht; but i guess also for the western Allies) - possibility to take woods under fire, although no LOS torwards the inner of the woods - offboard artillery can fire smoke preplanned Aircraft: - airforce liasion officers (is that the correct name? ); and this function also assignable to tanks (very effective with Stukas - dive bombers); they should be able to call in air-support, determine the target-class and the location) - better aircraft model - much better tactical effectivity of dive bombers (Stukas) regarding hitting AND identifying friendly tanks compared to overflying planes - exactly preplanned air-strike like for artillery Fun/Atmosphere: - full movie replay; exportable to share with others - enhanced briefing (possibility of pics, debriefing) - enhanced audio engine (same redundant principle as for bmp-graphics; optional sounds are only played, if they are present, otherwise the standard sound is played; also for the annoying environment-sounds it would be great) - more possibilities for scenario designers: reinforcements, depending on certain aspects; i.e. if certain units are still available; so there could be made scenarios with huge artillery/aircraft use but they stay balanced like the designer wants it; also the scenario designers should be able to give the air-support the target-class: i.e. heavy tanks; trigger levels depending on hit probability and vehicle class for AT-guns and tanks in Lauerstellung (lurking-positions?)) - optional hiding of the attacker/defender display in the user interface (this setting is determined by the scenario designer) - realistically timeframes for the included scenarios (as education for the scenario designers to develop longer lasting battles, instead of the usual ridiculous 30 minutes shootouts with 20 tanks without any maneuvering) Gameplay: - keep WEGO! - keep the great user interface - 1 turn/email - full movie replay - grid overlay - display in GUI if vehicle is transporting a unit - mouse wheel for level adjustment; remember the horizontal elevation (SHIFT+A, SHIFT+Z) of each level - no automatically unbuttoning of tanks during battle - player can make notes on the map during battle - different scenarios (maps) connected to an operation (a bit larger timeframe than actual operations) - last file of battle with detailed unit data export possibility for the community (you guess right: for campaigns and operations ) - units and their status on battlefield import (you guess right: for campaigns and operations ) - multi-multiplayer mode (gamemaster centralized) - true-combat mode with optional picture (of a tactical map) - solved unit-marker problem - better sound-contact classifications and partial identifications (in doubt, always the stronger, never the weaker) - new victory condition for one side only instead of flags: destroy enemy [ December 07, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Stalingrad is an extremely bad movie. It's a quite primitve political propaganda movie, and has no historical accuracy. 1. the characters are caricatures and no real persons. Almost every sentence in the dialogues is ridiculously and does in no way reflect the feelings, thoughts or real normal dialogues. 2. the whole representation of the Wehrmacht is anti-german and therfore far away from reality. A soldier forcing a doctor to operate or the cowards as being the good guys, while the brave and comradely ones are stupid and navie ones, is not only far away from reality, but also is an evil slander of the own soldiers. What makes me really angry when i think about it closer, is that the german children of these slandered soldiers, who fought and mostly died, are making such films against their own grandfathers against all historical facts only becasue of political reasons. If the former enemy or Hollywood is making such movies, is understandable. But the own children? This movie is an excellent example movie, how german comradeship is devaluated and only practised by stupid Germans fighting for the wrong side. 3. the impression the movie creates, is that the good and symphatic german soldiers are against Hitler, yes are even against Germany, are against winning the war, are for a peace in the east, know already how the war will end, although only a small Schütze Arsch, do in no way believe to defend Europe but have a politically correct opinion. 4. and even in the war-historic aspect the movie fails, because the aspect of the heroic self sacrifice of the 6. Armee, to rescue the 1 million comrades of the Heeresgruppe Süd, is not even mentioned at all. IMO Stalingrad is one of the worst war-movies, because it's a german production and it's a shame, that germans have that less knowledge or will to show how the german soldier really was but instead spread primitive propaganda. But on the other hand, what can be expected in a state, where the chancellor does not even visit the grave of his fallen father, only becasue he fought on the wrong side, or the same chancellor 'honoring' (how can such a person honor anyone?) the alliied soldiers, but not the own soldiers... The movie 'Stalingrad' fits perfectly into such a state.

'Franzmann' (singular) or 'Franzmaenner' (plural) or simply 'Franzose'. In general we Germans didn't use disdainful names for the enemy.

Beside the suggestion to search for 2player battles or AI battles, i have a major problem with the FORCE BALANCE rating or even the rating system in general. IMO it depends way too much on what the player expects. But the problem is, the player doesn't know what he can expect and so the ratings do not objectively reflect the intentions of the designer. An example: a designer makes a scenario for very good players. Newbies or average players will usually rate it very bad, although it is exactly the challenge good players are looking for. If you search the Depot, and have the old rating system, you will not even take a look at this battle, becasue of it's awful ratings, although it maybe could be exactly what you are looking for. Or what about historical battles which are completely unbalanced? Voting FORCE BALANCE would in no way be just for such scenarios and on no way reflect their intentions. So the votings are even turning into the oposite of their task: they become misleading. A way out of this dilemma could lie in the oposite of the actual way: maybe we should think about a voting system, that shows intentions of the author, the expectations of the reviewer, and maybe the experience of the reviewer to get to a more valuable result. So far only ratings of the players are discussed. And tastes are very different. Levels of players, too. And even more what the players expect when they download a battle - although they don't even have really a clue, what they are downloading. This obviously has to lead to misunderstandings and unsatisfied players and authors. Usually the authors know quite good, what they created. So how about giving the AUTHOR the possibility to rate certain aspects of the scenario? I.e. difficulty could be a rating, that can be judged quite well by the author and the testers. Categories could be Winnable for newbies (against AI) up to Impossible for Cracks (against AI) (if you win this, you're the best of the best). If you know, you're going to play a very hard scenario, you look with completely other eyes at it, as if you expect a balanced scenario, but it is the heroic last stand of brave men. And for H2H battles the rating could be: Winnable for newbies (against average/good/very good player) up to Winnable only for Cracks (against newbies) Important seems to me, that in the rating the level of the oponent, on which the rating is based, is clearly expressed, to get it more objective because of the different levels of the players. That would bring much more interest on unbalanced scenarios which are really challenging. And so it finally becomes possible, that players become happy with a draw or even a minor defeat - because it is such a hard rated scenario. I think such a rating system would greatly broaden the bandwith of liked scenarios. A bandwith that CM offers, but which isn't used, because every battle leaving the small path of an equal force balance has no chance in the user reviews. Personally i'd give way more on such a difficulty rating from a respected designer, than on ten reviews of players with completely different levels and preferences. Map design, atmosphere/fun ofcourse would stay categories to be rated from the reviewers. Also the reviews could contain the possibility to rate the authors rating about the battle's difficulty (i.e. was way harder for me than author rated; my rating: above average; oponent: newbie) Just my 2 ct. ps: just had an idea, about a feature that could increase vastly the number of reviews. When you have reviewed a battle, you can post your result (against a human oponent, you have to rate his level). Then, depending on the authors rating, your result and the strength of the your oponent, you receive a personal rating! Ofcourse this rating is just a personal information and is nowhere displayed. So there's no need to tell wrong results. Thid could be even expanded with statistics for each battle. Example: Your rating (based on the authors rating and your result): You're an average player. Your rating (based on the results of other players and your result): You're a good player. Statistics: based on 20 results Played as Axis: 60% (12 players) lost this battle - 30% (6 players) with a total defeat - 20% (4 players) with a major defeat - 15% (3 players) with a minor defeat 10% reached a draw (2) 30% (6) won this battle - 25% (5) with a minor victory - 5% (1) with a total victory Now tell me, such statistics as price for a review would not lead to more reviews! Based on the statistics, there could be even made a ranking of the most difficult battles. pps: just had another idea: the Depot is marking REFERENCE BATTLES (only battles against the AI with most reviews and therefore most statistical data) or REFERENCE BATTLE of the month - battles which should take attention to get many reviews and results). [ December 02, 2004, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Although i only have one list from 3rd Gebirgsdivision dealing with the number of necessary hits until the russian tanks were confirmed as taken out, there seems a major flaw in the hit-model to me. With the downmodeling of hitting-effects of some calibres this has become more critical: to me it seems, that the idea behind the current hit-model is, that it fits with the average historical number of hits, until the vehicle was definately taken out. The problem is, that the real numbers of penetrations are in no way correlated to the effects to the crew. It only shows, how many rounds had to be pumped into the enemy tank, until it was clearly visible taken out. A report stating, that there were 10 50mm hits necessary until the tank was counted as eliminated, doesn't mean, that it was eliminated only with the 10th hit. I'm losing more and more interest in CMAK, because of the ridiculous penetration-model and the unvulnerable Über-tankcrews.

Posted in the bug-thread. [ January 21, 2004, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

GaJ, another solution could be, that we leave the Mod where we have downloaded it. When installing a mod, McMMM is directed to the downloaded file and asks where to install it. Then it copies it and asks to delete the source file.

Great idea. STICKY: Hall of Shame

Kellysheroes, if you like CMBO and CMBB even more, then you'll definately like CMAK the same. 1. higher terrain elevations 2. panicking units (in foxholes) act way better (don't underestimate not very spectacular sounding tweaks; remember the CMBB MG-efficiency) 3. dust 4. excellent supplement to the fierce and brutal Ostfront-fighting in CMBB (different atmosphere) Although i'm personally much more interested in the Ostfront, i can only highly recommend you to buy CMAK, too. And that says a lot, methinks.

Hopefully more than 4 players max.

Jazz27, simply take a look at a world-map, at the resources of the USA, the (former) British Empire, France and it's colonies, the USSR and the tiny Germany and at production numbers. Then you'll definately not ask that question again. Even not the best army in the world could win against +90% of world's resources.

Dugfromtheearth, i understand what you mean, but simply have another look at the rarity setting and QuickBattles. They are not for giving historically accurate unit compsotions. Look at them as a bonus. If you want historically accurate, or more realistic battles, then you should stay away from QuickBattles and choose one of the many premade scenarios. There are so many interesting premade battles out there - from balanced to completely unbalanced - there's absolutely no need for you to use the QB-generator. It's only a bonus and can't replace the human genuity of the scenario makers.

Fridericus, what? You claim CMAK having a bug? Stop reading comics! You ask yourself, how does it come, that you never read about gun-damage as a big problem, and wonder why you get 100% gun damage in a CMAK battle? You're a fool, if you're asking logical questions, when the answer is so simple: i haven't had that. So it's not there.

Oh, and I want that for my CMBB splash screen: To bad the guy is too expensive for me.

There are usually many scenarios i like but so far, i'd only name a single scenario, which gave me a beautiful map, unpredictable enemy behaviour, a very interesting topic and excellent action: 10th SS Breakout (played the Germans PBEM). The highly acclaimed scenario 'Ghosts of Radziechov' looked promising, but in the retrospective, i don't find it very exciting (played as german defender). Ofcourse it's a good scenario, but i simply can't understand the hype about it.

Hearts of Iron

Well this should be limited like in a solo game. Whatever BTS decides to implement (mabye some true-combat mode, who knows?). It would offer exactly the same with only one restriction: the units a player can control are not the whole friendly site, but only those units, that are assigned to his password (from the GM). There's no principal problem, if people fly around on the battlefield like now. It would be even very exciting, to watch the movies from different perspectives to see, how comrades are doing and if finally the support weapons are on their way, before your platoon will become eliminated. Hell, when will the bastard Steiner finally come up with his tank? And in the IRC-chat (or by email) you can request urgent support from your commander, but after the discussion he tells you, that in a few minutes, one tank will come - maybe... Or did i overlook something? Feel free to add your suggestions. Hopefully BTS reads this thread. IMO the strenght of this system would be (besides the tremendous fun and enourmous learning effects, by watching others how they do certain tasks), that it should be possible to implement GMMP within a decent time-frame and manhours without writing a complete new 2nd engine for multiplayer and the number of participating players isn't fixed, but free. [ December 12, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Have you ever heard about the meta-campaigns running since BO? They are much more time consuming and work, too. The oposite is the case, i think: it would be very easy for everyone to participate, as long as he can send the moves of his (few!) units until the agreed time. And if someone can't joint the chat, he'll receive his orders from his commander via email. Shouldn't be to much work, to read an email, before plotting the moves. If the task stays the same, even no message is needed. Players proceed to follow their orders, until they receive new ones, or until they decide on their own - with all possible consequences, even losing the command and leaving the game. And to continue the game until the end, will be no problem, too because PBEM works, too and no one leaves. Also any just disappearing member would be well known in the community. And as last point, the higher ranked officers can tell the GameMaster they want to take command of PlatoonX and the password of the former commander should be deleted and the units assigned to the new password. And whoe would really leave a battle, that develops magically, all friendly units act in an intelligent human way, while every player just controls his few units? No one would leave this thrill freely! BTW: the GameMaster priciple offers exciting possibilities. I.e. the GM could announce a GMMP-game here in the oponent-finder foum and give only as much information out, as he wants. And if the GM even uses a newly developed scenario, no one will be able to take a look at the other side, even if some players want to do so. [ December 12, 2003, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

I couldn't find any forum discussions dealing with the idea i had today and when not now, is the time, to bring up ideas for the next engine? Today i loaded for the very first time 'To the Volga' and was totally impressed. I never before saw such a monster-battle. Choosen one side and only looking at the masses of the units from view level one gives an exciting experience. And my next thought was, that it must be even more fun, to play such a battle, if one player would control only one platoon of infantry or maybe even only one single tank! So here is the rough-idea, how it could be implemented: BTW: no special multiplayer-scenarios will be needed. Every single scenario/operation from the upcoming CMx could be used as multiplayer! 4 or 6 players in Combat Mission battles as a dream? Bah! Peanuts! With the following idea we would get the possibility of (almost) unlimited players with one turn per email and a faster advancing game than ever before! The game is set-up and run from a master 'host' which receives the turns (PBEM) of all players. All action is calculated on the GameMaster's Computer. Before a battle starts, the players have to decide about the usual things: who wants to control which units. After that is done, all players send their password to the GM. The GM now set's up the battle: in CM's multiplayer-setup, he loads the desired (completely normal!) scenario and gives CM-the data, to prevent players, giving orders to units they aren't allowed to control: he picks the unit(s) for each player (maybe even from an abstract table of equipment) and assigns them the password from the player. He should also be able to change the names of the units, especially of the HQs, that the friendly players will be able to identify which friendly units are controlled by which HQ-player from the community. After the setup is done, CM calculates one single multiplayer file. Now the GM sends this file to every player. Each player receives the file, enters his PW and sees everything as usual but with one difference: he can only control his own units. After he's done, he sends the file back to the GM. All single files are added by CM to the resulting move. The movie is made and the next turn follows (btw: 1 turn per email!). Very important is, that CM can ignore missing files: i.e. if a player doesn't send his turn until the agreed time (i.e. Mon & Wed & Fri until 8pm), the next turn can become calculated anyway (CM treats the units as if they received no new commands), and therefore single players can't delay the whole game. Reinforcements: CM asks the GM, who should control the newly arrived units: either the game-master can enter new passwords for additional players, or he assigns already existing passwords to the units. Losses: Ofcourse! **** happens. If the controlling HQ is killed, the according player is eliminated and any higher ranked HQ should be assigned to control the units directly. Pro's: 1. multiplayer is lot's of fun - even more, if you know, that the running fugitives on your right side, are commanded by Michael Dorosh... 2. huge battles would take only a very small amount of time from each player. It only depends on how many players will be allowed to participate. Finally people with only few time will get the possibility to play even the hugest battles and operations, because they control only as many troops as they want/their time allows. 3. the chaos on the battlefield will make you sometimes really cry and sometimes maybe you'ld like to kiss forum-members, for helping your men out and even rescueing your HQ from becoming eliminated... Sometimes you'd like to curse your commander, for giving your platoon/tank/whatever the decoy-part, while others are assigned to collect the merites. You control only one single PSW and you receive the order to drive ahead? That could become a very short battle for you... 4. what makes multilplayer even more fun is, you can share your feelings and experiences with others. For many people, this is the real fun of multiplayer. Playing solo against one oponent, can't offer that: he will never be really happy, if your PIAT-team knocked out a Kingtiger, that was going to decimate the whole company. With this kind of multiplayer, you enter the IRC-chatroom of your side, and everyone will really share your feelings. Or what a poor bastard you are, if you fail... 5. especially in battles with many players, where each player controls only a handful of units, the responsibility-feeling would be completely different and often enough conflicts between the given tasks and saving the own men (especially in operations), will apear. 6. discussing the tactics on IRC, while the highest ranked commander on the battlefield should finally have the last word. He could issue the orders in a private chat or by email, so that the enemy can't listen... Additionally the IRC chatroom could be made password protected. 7. CM keeps it's pure tactical scale and the suggested multiplayer-mode wouldn't too heavily touch CM's internal structure and it works completely independent from all internal spotting-solutions the new engine will have. Each player sees as much as he would see if he'd play his side solo. [ December 13, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Holy cow, Canon! Before i read your comment, i had looked at the photo and thought, you'd have a new hobby: flying!

Good, but if that were the case, why are you asking that: Simply read the book and decide on your own. BTW: science (especially true for history-science) IS revisionistic.

You're right Sergei, it wouldn't work. But nevertheless i like Elvis' idea very much. How about the possibility to create scenario packs, but be able to present them the way Elvis' describes? Different scenarios could be finally brought into a visual and strategic context and wouldn't it be great to play battles 'Stalingrad Pack' from such a visual environment? I.e. an operational map showing the locations of the unit(s), the time, and pop up menus could offer additional info (i.e. real-life photos). If you decide to play a battle on a certain location, you're zoomed into the map to find yourself seconds later on the virtual battlefield of this scenario. To complete the effect, after the battle, there should be a possibility for the designer, to present some info to the player again (i.e. how the battle(s) ended in real life) and then you're brought back to the strategic map. The already played battles/locations should be marked by CM in some way. [ December 09, 2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

They are disappearing? That is very good news!

IMO ari is one of CM's weaknesses. I hoped CMAK will improve it, but reading the posts it's obvious the ari-model isn't corrected. As long as the FO can somehow identify the location of the (pre-)barrage, this is already a reference-point. Why is it still not possible, to drop barrages into areas out of LOS, if they aren't too far away from the reference point?

He? :eek: You didn't clarify who owns the rights?