RockinHarry

SHIFT-E hotkey

Did play Panzer Command for a very short while, not even as fas as to have mastered the system. However, while it has some appeal, the game routines are translated from miniatures wargame rules and AFAIR the maximum map size is about 1000x1000m!? Might have some more fun with it in the future, but for me it does not even compete with CMBO. Maybe the next PC game will, I don´t know, but even with having CMSF on my computer, I still have great fun playing CMBB and AK in H2H mode and I still love making maps and scenarios! Btw, I remember I could not start the Panzer Command map/scenario editor, cause it requires an installment of IE7 minimum. I´m a Mozilla user long time! Think that was also the last time I did start up any Panzer command software.

John, I´m not actually the person to address in the shell pattern discussion ect. here! Should be DAF instead. If you reread you´ll notice I made some more in depth notes with regard to special setups for playing H2H games in a sort of "faked baked" format! Otherwise,..interesting discussion between you and Joachim.

Thanks again for the great info Steve! 8) My questions were already made in anticipation for upcoming CM2 Normandy and at whatever state it will be delivered, I´m quite certain I´ll love it as much as I still do all CM1 games! Just started to dig again into CMSF after the release of the 1.11 patch and now have lots of fun with it, although I´m actually little interested in "modern" warfare and the middle east desert TOW in particular. Think the release of CM2 Normandy will be my main motivation, to upgrade my "vintage" hardware finally.

depends upon whether one sets up a sort of platoon formation. At least some flanking squads should protect the flank of the leading squad, if possible. Otherwise a well executed ambush lets you very few options. Reminds me of the thread I started here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85840

That is something I meant to say. "Scouting" german infantry squads would have the squad leader and maybe another soldier moving forward, with the remaining squad following in cover at distance. Also the single line column would vary related to soldier spacings, dependent upon proximity to enemy and available cover. A german quick command would also differ in execution. Example would be crossing a forest track from one side to the other. It could be a quick jump of all squad members at once, or single soldiers following one after another in irregular intervals. That would be pretty much micro detailing movements under certain circumstances and probaly hard to code in any CM game to follow. More easy to code would be "narrow" or "wide formations", although path finding would be more difficult to execute I think.

Hi there sorry if this has been discussed in detail before! I have the "impression" that soldiers do clump up too much in CMSF and need to spread out more. How ist that modelled (correctly) in CMSF and what would be the standard battle drill nowadays? From my observations, individual spacing relates to the various movement orders, but I still think, soldier clumps offer too much of a valuable target for all kind of incoming fire. I understand that "path finding" could lead to various problems, when modelling individual soldiers, as well as squad movements. Also splitting squads to assault and support teams could not be a real solution IMHO. For WW2 germans (thinking of CM Normandy now) there were various squad formation orders, as well as commands to adjust soldier spacing when appropiate. I would wish for something similar in the Normandy game. Also "custom" formations would be a nice feature maybe.

Did you check CMMODS.com already? Browsing youtube I found many interesting clips with people shooting all sorts of weapons (the Garand included) and in www.vixy.net you are able to save any video clip in MP3 format only. Have an audio editor handy that enables to extract the MP3 back to WAV, do some cutting and editing and save the new audio file in the desired slot in CM "Wav" folder.

Using TRP´s looks like a workable solution at first sight, but most my experiences were and are still disappointing, mostly due to the random factors involved and the AI moving around the spotters when it should not. When testing the AI during gameplay, I "surrender" the game at opportunities to check the map and whereabouts of the enemy units particularly the AI spotters. Most of the time, these are on the move and start targeting only when as part of the first infantry wave are already very close to human players positions. Needless to say, many spotters get lost, before the AI gives any opportunities to start reasonable actions. CMSF "baked" scenario format would give great opportunities to CM1 to solve some major problems. Although it does not work in CM1 for the AI player, one can partly use some "tricks" for H2H/PBEM games. Setup the player which you intend to have the artillery spotters target particular areas at given times and place these very close (few meters) to the friendly map edge. Start the game and in the first orders phase let the spotters target desired areas in the enemy main battle zone (or anywhere else). Use the timed targeting method (Q key) when appropiate. Then give the spotters movement orders off the map. Since they are placed very close to the map edge, they´ll move off during the following action phase. NOW it would be great if one could save the game after resolution of action phase #1 AND back in the editor save the scenario with "preplanned" artillery strikes to be used by an AI player. Well..it´s CM1 and not CMSF, but some sort of preplanned arty strikes can be forced to one human player in H2H games this way. Off course the scenario needs to be delivered in "saved game" format and there´s the problem with whether the players are willing to play double blind and whether they like to play a game with units they can not move in any setup phase, since it´s gone this way. Maybe BFC comes back and includes a "switch" that enables to have a human played game to be played by the AI midways. Can´t be THAT hard to code (I think...) Other creative ways to use any "preplanned" (by scenario designer) artillery strikes in a H2H game would be to have some devastation created at the start of the game, causing random suppression and damage at particular units, having craters at desired areas, smoke and dust (CMAK), as well as random fires at bombarded places. One can even simulate friendly arty strikes, which are out of cpntrol of the human player (since the spotters moved off in turn 1, the player owing the strikes wouldn´t even know). Off course one can place fires, craters, suppressed units ect. already in the scenario editor, but the more awkward way mentioned, deliveres some "surprises", as well as more realistic visual results. With this method it´s also possible to have destroyed vehicles on map at the games start (orders phase 2 in H2H games). Just setup strong mobile AT units at the map edge, let them create some devastation among enemy vehicles and then let the AT units move off the map edge. Save the game and in orders phase 2 and with some luck and repeated attempts before, you have the desired results. This is all very rough stuff and most likely not usable for most scenario designers and little liked by the majority of players, but it´s interesting to try and to experiment with.

Thanks for the efforts! V 1.11 makes CMSF now fully playable and well performing on my vintage computer! Now get to play more and get aquainted with the full system to be prepared when the Normandy game arrives! 8)

hm....not having any idea which way you setup the scenario and which changes you made since, I assume the random detection routines make the german trenches not visible, when you want it to to the russian AI, or the strategic AI thinks it makes more sense to bombard the german held (?) flags. The flag ownership routine is pretty random too, as you know. All random factors involved I think.

...well, a lil bit of patience made it again! Off to download...

From my experience, reinforcements always point toward the center of the map.

Generally yes. AFAIK it´s oftenly way more simple, I´ve seen boxshaped or circular map symbols with a "KG" or "KGr" (Kampfgruppe - battlegroup) notation. Example "KGr 260. I.D" or "KG Peiper". The symbol roughly denotes the force size, in example 2x Inf. Btl. a Pak platoon and a Pionier platoon would have a regimental symbol. Remnants of a Division would have a divisional symbol, even if it´s just battailon size. However, I´ve not yet seen a general rule, with regard to german battle group symbols. Other related examples would be the german "Vorausabteilung" (advanced detachement) or "Marschkompanie" - "Marschbattailon" (march cpy / btl ). Map symbols would be similar to battle group, the force size/type symbol with a "VA" beside it or in case of the march cpy/btl a force symbol with "MK" (Marschkompanie) or "MB" (Marschbattailon). http://www.axishistory.com/ gives various interesting search results (keyword kampfgruppe) for german battle group compositions, but no map symbols or examples.

Excellent! Thanks a lot!

that´s because a german Kampfgruppe can be anything from a reinforced company up to brigade size (or depleted division) and thus is presented by appropiate map symbols.

check out France 40 map based on RHZ Fall Gelb scenario of mine. Map http://www.the-scenario-depot.com/map_details.html?command=search&db=maps.db&eqskudatarq=57 Scenario http://www.the-scenario-depot.com/scenario_details.html?command=search&db=scenarios.db&eqskudatarq=874

Too true. What the CM series entirely fails to simulate, is pre battle recconaissance. Normally each engagement (well...at least the majority) would assume to have combat reccon sent in first to locate forward lines, as well as few details of the enemy positions, before you as commander would start to make a battle plan. Most scenario makers do not give this consideration either. You always have to start making battle reccon, when actually you are to start the attack. In order for this to work, scenario makers should give a considerable amount of extra turns, so one can send in the reccon and wait for results, before one would deploy or move forces into their jump off points and make the battle plan. There´s no such thing in the game and also using briefing text is not a good substitute for missing pre battle reccon. CMSF handles it just little better by enabling the scenario maker to load up some battle map into the briefing screen. Surprisingly the pre battle reccon feature was already simulated in wargames of equal scale, but unfortunately most game companies do not take these ideas up for their own designs. HPS Tigers on the prowl/Panthers in the shadows have a working, though abstracted pre battle recon feature, based on amount of infantry units (assuming these always send combat patrols out) and an abstracted reccon value, taking into account air superiority (air reccon possible or not) and other stuff. I think these are rather simple calculations, fairly easy to implement into a game, with the end result that you at least have a minimum knowledge of enemy fortifications, as well as some MG or gun nests, that surely would have been discovered before the battle starts. CM always simulates lost (visual) contact between both enemy armies, which is anything but true in reality, particularly in "assault" style battles. Hopefully one sees something of equal quality in oncoming CMX WW2 modules.

I´ve been busy with RL lately, but I should be able to send a set up soon. Double blind off course.

Think it´s still worth the wait and the purchase. I´m in!

looking for a PBEM opponent to play this one. Play either side.

Start decreasing texture quality in Options/Preferences. Your GFX memory is full most likely and the game routines switch to increase performance.

I think the limited amount of things we can do with infantry is the real culprit here, not the limited array of vehicles. In ASL, as in real life, infantry can do a lot of arcane things - wriggle through barbed wire, interrogate civilians, split into individuals and search buildings, swim rivers, take prisoners, climb cliffs, scale and rappel buildings, descend by parachute, fly in gliders, capture trucks and drive them around, close assault tanks, man enemy heavy weapons, dig foxholes, fortify buildings, engage in other imaginative labor tasks (search an HQ for documents, for example), send scouting parties out, wire something for demolitions, conduct a snatch patrol, etc. etc. In CM, infantry are severely undermodelled which I think may lead to some of the true boredom - were some of these capabilities in the game there would be far more to do than just advance, shoot and duck, which is basically what it is now. I've posted at length on the inability to engage enemy armour realistically with infantry, for example, or the absence of prisoners/surrendering. It's all very sterile. In CMX1 you could at least image the close assault against an enemy tank as it was actually depicted, so were surrendering units. The fact that there is absolutely no campaign system in the game now is also a bit of a letdown, as the Operations at least gave some sort of context to individual games. But a good scenario briefing does that as well. I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to have a random briefing generator for quick battles - might provide some of that contextual experience and remove a bit of the sterility. Otherwise, I think I can relate to what you are saying - variety is the spice of life - but I would say the problem isn't lack of units but the number of ways in which those units can be used. Even the limited number of vehicles are hampered by the "sameness" of the terrain in CM:SF though a good scenario designer like George can cure that. Trouble is, scenario designs are running to two hours, and I don't have time for that - some guys are lobbying for 7 hour time limits(!) - and map sizes are getting larger. No thanks. In CMX1 you could bash together a nice 30 turn QB on a computer generated map and have no problem with "sameness", and even if you got the exact same kind of tanks as you did the last time, it was fresh. You also had more ways to use the vehicles, what with seek hull down commands and a much more vibrant Tac AI that would keep the enemy doing interesting things. </font>

Would be interested if any (or all) of the 26 downloader so far had success installing the mod and getting it to run? Anybody knows how to make a screenshot of WinXP file explorer? Fraps does not work as it seems. :eek:

Another nice topic! As long as it´s non desert, I´ll support everything!