KNac

but the website and their forums are outdated?!?!?! tehre is any other site? anyway can i join? very rare what´s your opinion about mega-camapings

I´ve already posted something here [ April 06, 2002, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

I was asking myself why the CMMC project was left, too much work? Anyway, there is any spectative to restart it (with some modification) when CMBB comes out? I got CM very late and couldn´t participate in it, I would like to play a role (as a battalion CO or artillery officer, I love artillery because my frustration as a KG CO in WWIIOL (is quite different indeed but...). After this question, I was thinking if there is a possibiliti of add-ons packs to the game (that cost $, off course) like special designed mega-campaings that could be done by mapping teams, with nice info, photos, etc. It should get additional systems to the UI but wouldn´t take too much effort as well as some extra coded things maybe. I say this all because the fun I have playing SPWaW mega-campaing Lost Victories (and maybe in the future I will buy Operation Watchtower by Wild Bill, I do not like too much pacific combat but if is nearly as cool as lost victories...) I think it could be a nice money input to BTS and the different research&scenario making teams (like the Wild Bill team, that as I have said before have already done a mega-campaing). What is your opinion about this???? [ April 06, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

i was searching for some CMBB screenshots, and i thought i could bump

This is an example than a computer will never be smarter than a human the best is playing against other humans

Download Fernando's mods who was mate of my WWII OL squad anyway he got bored (like me) because the unrealistic gameplay and the lacking of thousands of features and he left. I´m still paying (for supporting the product) and playing sometimes, I was in the axis GHC and was KG XO (and squad XO). Anyway CM will give you lots of hours of fun too cheers

Well said Fred. I think that the TacAI is very good, but Strat AI, is not very good in large battles and with large forces. IE. I´ve done an operation (I´m still testing) that is huge, it really push CMBO to the limits with a full strengh inf regiment with lost of supports assets, a part of other problems, the heavier problem was with the AI, in the first battle the US in on defense against the enemy german regiment, because I must position all units of the germans yet, I picked up allied side to see how it played against AI. First of all, I must tweak the scenario to assault (when it should be advance) because the AI didn´t move (I haven´t tried destroy yet). When I did the AI played just in a stupid way, with a full regiment it only moved some of its assault guns which were destroyed easy by my AT guns and TD and it didn´t use its infantry (with a full regiment lol). Also you have noted that it leaded with tanks. I´m still testing but there is some problems within thje CMBO that cannot make the type of operation I want. I know it is a bit off-topic but I will coment anyway. I haven´t written the brief but it should be something like this: It takes on June 44 (it is fictional but) before D-Day when the allies are pushing towards Caen, etc. The fictional scenario is this: the germans have exploited a gap in the flank of an advancing us armored division and its corps (or army), a lot of units haven´t entered in fight yet (because of that base level is green and are full strengh) a kampfgruppe formed by an inf regiment with lots of support units (and artillery), and an assault gun coy have been formed to exploit the gap. When a inf bn was trying to link between the division and its corps receibed a radio comunucation that a large german force was going towards their position. Well the US mission in the first battle is to hold the ridge they are defending and stop enemy advance until reinforcements, after that the US receive LOTS of reinforcement and must counter atack and destroy the enmy attemp to break the link (and the main supply route) and put that division out of supplies creating a pocket that could destroy that division.for the germans after reaching the ridgeline, it would receive the rest of the kampgruppe assets (2 panzerjäger coy of different types) to defend the ridgeline and if possible expand the gap. I think is a nice scenario that involves low level strategy and nice tactical action. I don´t demand the AI to be so inteligent but at least it could move units an other lack on the CMBO engine you can note in this operation is the option of define the caracter of each battle, I mean, now you only can use 3 general status for the whole operation: advance, assault and destroy 8and if u pick defender: defend) but what about if you want to make an scenario like i described, it should be 1&2 battle assault (or take x flags if they could be used, dynamic flags that after that scenario dissapeir) and before that it should be defend. and for the US side it sould be defend (1st and maybe 2nd battle) and before atack (or counter-atack that is the same). I know is a bit off-topic but it seems a ncie option and easy to add. Anyway the op I have done is more to play against human, if someone wanna play it when is finished (but it is huge!) [ April 05, 2002, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

I love huge maps, I have also done an huge fictional operation but still testing and probably will not release it (is my first map) but I will do an historical huge op and will release it. Well I want it will play as germans (I hope it plays well as germans) e-mail at my profile

First of all, those who are insulting people moaning or whining. I don´t know if you were refering to my posts (I hope no because I wasn´t flaming at all, I only was suggesting; I think that this is the best WWII tactical game by far and I love what BTS has done and cannot wait for CMBB) but anyway who is worse? the man who moan and whine (or sometimes, makes suggestion, because there is people that get flamed because posting suggestions) or those who insult who is whining? I think both so demostrate that you are an adult or at least that you are mature. Second and returning to the topic, my suggestion was about doinf better CM (or incoming games) and offering wider possibilities, those can be "actived" or "desactived", for those who don´t know tactical warfare (at least in WWII) went from platoon size to battailon size with great number of support assets, anyway you can go to a wider tactical level (or very small strategic level) with the current CM engine, I have done a operation that involves a german regiment with LOTS of support (AFV, vehicles, guns, off-board artillery, etc). So, IMHO I think that when more possibilities offer the game better (or no?) so if the possibility is you can still get it off and it will not "hurt" you, and for human vs human games "rules" can always be used. So, I was suggeting some way to decrease the level of micromanagement in somethings, when you are playing the type of games I described, or even battailon size games it can be "a pain in the ass" to take care of ALL the little details, to give orders for a turn you can be 2 hours if you canread my suggestions (page 1&2 I think) and give your opinion, please avoid flaming NOTE that this is only a suggetion and I will play the game and love the game anyway.

I would like to stick to the main topic. as i have said before the problem is that there is too much micromanagement made by the human player, as you said, int the TCP/IP games (i haven´t played online but i imagine) it can eb solved by some rules (1 min to move troops by turn, etc) but i thing that this is more a temporal fix. is a matter of which is trying to recreate the game. we all know that CM tries recreating tactical warfare. so basic training level decision and micro-decision are just not realistic. so i think the only final solution is programming the AI to take those micro-decisions. i´m not saying that the AI must take care of all and be perfect. in fact the AI can be programmed to not be perfect. and you will still needing to order that a squad move there, or here, so it will not be a "advance, hold, retreat" game. one way to do that would be this: ie the player orders a squad to move X position, then when that order is processed by the game it creates a "action zone" that action zone can be of 2x2 or 4x4 meters (that would be the programmer decission), more or less depending on the unit type, vehicle, etc. what that "action zone" does is fixing unit position and/or state depending how better is for the squad (in this case). ie you order a squad to split of its platoon and move to a scattered trees area, searching for cover. when the order is proccesed a 2x2 meters "action zone" is created where you pointed the squad to move (being the center of the square where you pointed), when the squad arrives to its position the squad will evaluate his state within some conditions (LOS, cover, enemy presence, etc) and "fix" its position depending on those issues. I think thia is realistic and is a good abstraction of what a sargent will do, also this can be attached to moral and psychic status (a routed squad will not make the same as a normal squad) and experience if BTS thinks is ok. finally, my .02 euros

I think that all is a good thing that adds realism, and the pourpose of 3D engine is not only because it looks nicer but because of LOS, cover, etc. The problem for me is that all the micro-decision (squad management, search for cover, better LOS, ets) should be done by the AI. CM is a tactical wargame, where you comander of a battalion as much (more likely company comander) the coronels, captains, or even the lieutenants shouldn´t take care of those micro-decision, because that was decision of sargents and was a basic training in all armies and basic rules of combat. So in conclussion the AI should be better programmed in incoming games (i hope CMBB has advanced in that aspect) to make those microdecisions. as well if in the future we get full represented squads or crews (i mean if a squad have 9 soldiers you see the 9 soldiers on the battlefield) program an AI management of the microdecision into the squad, movement into the squad, etc, ie where to position the LMG man and were to place two rifle man, etc) i know it will be a lot of effort but as a tactical commander we cannot take care of each micro-decision (it is unrealistic!) because the game can be very long and less flexible. [ March 24, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

wow my first post and I had a BTS anwer! thanks Steve, I liked all the anwers I cannot wait for CMBB but i cannot wait also for the next incoming game You have a good customer here for the incoming years, for the good and the bad things Again thanks, and thanks for giving us this great game see you soon

First of all: hi!!! I have been reading this forum since a bit time ago, and I must say that there are great people in here along with some people with great knowledge of WWII... well after that introduction I was inmterested in posting something about this subject some time ago. My question is, if in CMBB (or other incoming games in a "near" future) will be an option of doing your own formations (i do not mean "screwing" squads or weapons/vehicles) when i say that is because there are lots of formations/OOBs that are not (and maybe cannot be because of the high number) that are not present in CMBO (and will not be in CMBB) what i mean is something like this: in the buy screan there is an option that says "customizable formation" when u press u have a number of default HQ units (from platoon HQ to battaillon HQ, regimental HQ would be cool too nd u can attach under their command, maybe u could do this option available in the scenario building part of the game if u feel it´s neccessary . well, along the HQ unit would be all kind of lower level units (squads, single vehicles, as in the actual CM) u can buy thos eunits and assing them under a command, also it would be good to have the possibility of asigning a HQ status to an other unit, imagine that i want to create a tank company of a very specific type that is not in the default units list (i have read that now vehicles?/tanks will be available in platoons, nice so i could go to the buy screen (as a scenario designer) and use the "customizable formations" part, and assing buy X number of tanks of different types, and assing one section as the Co HQ, and one for those tanks as Company CO , and then assing platoon HQ tanks of specific numbers, etc. if not this system it would be good to be able to eliminate/add units of other formations or change those units for other units... a part of this, i had a pair of other questions: 1.- i have read that there will be an option to change the number of men in a squad (giving some men within a squad the death status). this point out two other questions: 1.a)the death men will count when the scenario/operation is finished as casualities (i hope no) 1.b)this other will be an option in squads? or it will be possible in tank platoons, etc. (also other status than death, like wounded case of inf, or gun damaged, case of tank platoons, i know it sound stupid, but to create histical scenarios 2.-more off-topic, when ussing FO, will we have the possibility of changing the type of gun (i mean there wasn´t only one type of 150mm howitzer) and changing the number of guns in a battery (1-6+) and other variables as firing speed/rates, number of shells per gun, etc... ? that all well it´s enogh for my first post