willbell
-
Posts
229 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by willbell
-
-
Is the community somewhat diminished?
-
Originally posted by Dorotch.
The point being that everyone claims to have the perfect idea for a game, but no earthly idea where to begin coding it. What sets Steve and Charles apart was that they stopped talking about it and went out and did it.
Oooooh, a coder, so it takes one of those?
-
Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!
This is the thread for soul searching and facing reality.
And we thought the internet would be an anonymous place where we could invent a personality.
As for being an historian, technically it is not a profession, you don't have to be licensed to be one. But all the points about schooling, publishing, and original research are right on.
In my never to be humble opinion.
-
Yiiiiikes!
Do you guys have jobs?
-
Tarkus,
OK, I'll skip all the legal stuff.
Go ahead and do it!!! I have been wanting to experiment with playing a PBEM game of CM with an opponent on the inside.
Also, send letters with those cool, super detailed, little sketches on them in ball point pen, only with CM subjects.
Keep me posted.
William
-
Crank_GS
As a Captain in the Army, don't sell yourself too short in that you are a piece of living history. You have an insight that all the dusty archivers couldn't acquire no matter how much intellectual wattage they threw at it.
William
-
Here's my two bits.
First, I think Michael Dorosh probably hit the target closest with his last posts.
My initial tendency with this thread was to go with historians being only those who do research on original source material. But then how do you explain the research done on Rome?
I consider myself either a poor student of history, or a history buff. Probably the funniest letter to the editor I ever read was written to a very well respected history publication admonishing that, as a "history buff", the letter writer could assure the editor that a certain author was inaccurate in his facts, which he knew because he had read a book about the subject.
That had me rolling on the floor sucking my thumb.
William
-
Not very originally posted by Michael Dorosh
"Ideas for games are like assholes; everybody has one."
The Michael Doroshs of the world have secure assholes, they stay right under their belly buttons.
-
Interesting you should bring this up. The year before last I did a great deal of investigation into creating a Napoleonic game, including running the idea past Battlefront. Their research shows that the next most popular eras, in oder of preference, are Modern day conflicts, Vietnam and Civil War. (I think I may have hooked them up with Nafziger who was working with me on this.)
I didn't have much luck finding an interested programer who was also good. But I did hash out a lot of the different elements that would go into this type of game. As far as support from Battlefront goes, it would come after the major work was done on the game. They are way too busy with what they have planned already.
One misperception that a lot of gamers have is that there is a basic program for CM that can be altered to fit different games, there is not. They have to rewrite each game, albeit with the experience gained from previous versions.
-
I'm from heaven, I mean Santa Barbara, California.
-
-
Michael emrys
Michael,I'm not about to get into an argument over Napoleonics with a couple of studs who obviously have studied the matter more closely than I, but I want to warn you about assuming too much when it comes to C&C via radio in WW II. As far as infantry goes, I think only the US consistently had them down as far as platoon level, and those didn't always work. A lot of communication between HQs and subordinates was still done by runner. The Germans used a lot of whistles; maybe some other armies did too. Flares (Very lights) were used extensively for various signals, like "Objective taken", or "Begin/cease (artillery) fires", etc.
BTW, during Napoleonic times (and both before and after) weren't simply commands communicated via drum or bugle?
I can guarantee you I don't claim any expertise in WWII or Napoleonic History, but I have done some studying and thinking.
As for radios etc, you are absolutely right. I didn't explain myself well. The modern radio and phone communication system in WWII allowed for a long, spread out front which could be monitored and controlled more or less accurately. In the 19th century and before there was no way to communicate quickly over long distances, so armies stayed more compact with massed power so they could find each other then try to knock each other out. The organization of forts and units across a large area were based on lag times of days for communications. Modern communications literally changed the face of warfare.
That is all I meant.
As for bugles and drums, they were used to signal what movements smaller units were to make and also to start or end major large scale movements. But throughout a battle the commanders communicated tactical instructions to sub commanders with written orders that were delivered by staff messengers. Many an interesting turn of fortune in Napoleonic era battles were based on poorly written, misunderstood or missing written orders.
-
Shosties4th
LOL, preserve me from the infamy of trash novels.Why am I suddenly thinking of Sharpe's Rifles??? "Men are dirty, sir. Rifles are clean."
I can see it now... Combat Mission:Peninsular Campaign, with the inevitable Sharpe's mods (including rather fetching Spanish partisans in low-cut bodices)
Seriously though, a Sharps Rifles concept is a too literal an interpretation of CM for Napoleonics.
Think total rewrite, not CM, but the spirit of CM applied to Napoleonics.
In traditional Napoleonic games the company unit is almost totally abstracted, thus giving the impression that only Battalion or Regimental size maneuvers are possible. But does that have to be the case? With a computer's ability to keep records and with a carefully balanced Company AI you could experience all kinds of tactical situations.
There are a lot of other considerations, but you don't want an essay do you?
-
Shostie,
Exactly. The lack of small unit action in a large organized army was due to inability to communicate rapidly, they had to focus on larger goals.
I disagree with your first comment. There is a ton of detailed tactics to get involved in with Napoleonics. It has just never been included in games because of the tremendous amount of record keeping required to keep it realistic. Voila, the computer. The large unit movement belief is derived from traditional ways of playing Napoleonics, not from the actual historical facts.
In my opinion, in my opinion, etc, etc.
-
Sorry Shosties4th, I'm lame at this quote stff.
-
Shosties4th
Yeah, you got what I was driving at. The complexity of the mission orders you could give to a particular officer under your command woulddepend upon his experience level and abilities.
I'm curious, why do you think such an approach would be especially suited to a Napoleonic wargame?
One of the defining technologies that changed warfare is the radio, in Napoleon's battles there were none. Consequently, a brief order was written and sent by messenger and the recipient had only that much to go by, the rest relied on his intelligence, initiative and tactical sense. Your sub-level officer AI would be a major defining element in a Napoleonics game. In CMBO there a constant remote updating by radio that is assumed so the focus is more on the overall commander's point of view and control.
-
Try getting in close to the tank from the sides and the back. With a little practice you can actually get in and out without casualties. just keep your guys heading for the rear of the tank.
Of course this assumes no local, unfriendly, fire support.
-
Wait a sec.
Does the minutes until impact continue to count down?
Could you start the firing early, then race the FO closer and have him fine tune the target at the last second, reducing his exposure to fire?
Or does the minutes until impact simply suspend temporarily.
If so you could have your FO climb in a jeep just seconds before impact. Then he could simply stay in the jeep until the most ideal turn for impact comes around.
Is that it? I have never heard of this.
-
Shosties4th
I have had the same problem with focus.
My solution was to break down the whole conflict into several interesting elements. So I have maybe three or four problems to solve, staying within the parameters of my tactical goals, which are different.
In a turn I will visit the different elements seperately and I will bounce back and forth if my interest in one flags. This also helps me notice little details easier.
In a turn though you need to force yourself to step back and make sure you are not losing sight of your tactical goals. This is a process for keeping focused, it is not a way to execute your tactics. It is a mind game.
I hope this is clear, the idea is a little abstract.
As for your other question, yes, I have often thought that a game where there is a type of lower unit AI that carries out the specifics of a general order would be really cool. You could even have unit leaders with different personalities that would react differently. Also, unit leaders could have technical specialties. In fact, if a Napolenonic type game were to be successfully created along the lines of CMBO I think it would have to incorporate exactly that kind of game AI. But that would take a really good programer to figure out.
-
Here is a little first person history.
We bought our first refrigerator from a salesman named Ivan. We started talking and he shared that he had been a sniper in WWII. He told us to refer to him as Ivan the Sniper.
Interesting, huh.
-
Re: Original post. Can someone send me info on WW11?
I have only gotten as far as WWI and WWII, I guess the other nine big ones got past me.
-
I regularly target off map artillery while it is not in LOS and then move the spotter to LOS in several moves. I'm convinced that once in LOS the strike becomes more accurate.
Here is another trick. I target the off map artillery several moves ahead in a location that seems likely. A couple of moves later my FO is in LOS and at that point I can move the target around a fairly wide area with only 15 or 20 seconds delay. From the enemies point of view it seems like I slapped them with heavy artillery the second they stepped out of the woods.
-
I think anyone who tries to fire a mortar from inside a building should loose the entire team. Let them work it out for themselves.
I will admit to trying this myself. My logic was that if you were close to a window with the motar at the proper angle it would sail out the window and past the eves. Needless to say it didn't work. (scratch one mortar team)
As for direct fire, I was under the impression that the projectile had to be dropped down the tube to fire. This is just from observation though, I have no idea how the firing mechanism works.
William
-
Got a Good City Fight?
in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk
Posted
I am in the mood for a good, CMAK, building to building city fight with some tactical challenges thrown if that's not too much to ask for.
Seen a good one around?