Nac4

Michael, I figured if anyone would respond to my hypothetical it'd be you. Unfortunately I can't send you originals. I could do three things for you, I can send you b/w hard copies, (just pay me the kinko's fee and shipping.) I could send you a quality scan of the grids you want. Or I could make you a few CM maps of the area you're interested in, I enjoy it and am quite good (if I may be the judge). Just let me know.

Starting Fresh...please don't allow my previous (infamous)post affect those of you interested in the concept below. I'm a likable guy. I figured out a way to fuse the Operational/book keeping wonders of TOAW with combat outcome decided in CM. Its a matter of renaming save files to scenario files. Player1 makes his moves to combat and proceeds with all prebombardment and Tacair. He saves the game and sends it to a GM including a list of engagement by unit and grid. GM then simply renames the file *.*sce and opens it in the editor. He reads the combat orders and assigns a map and any defensive reinforcements based on T reserve and L reserve in TOAW. In addition to supporting ARTY. Then the players resolve the combat. Units are built based on the capabilities presented at time of combat in the TOAW unit report. This includes experience, fatigue, and supply loadouts. Players report casualties to the GM. He then enters this into the TOAW editor and manually adjusts the unit proficiency/readiness/and supply. The GM also redeploys those units and saves the .sce and sends it to Player2. Repeat. As you know TOAW calculates replacements, supply, weather, and attrition. Human commanders play as usual. All data taken from TOAW is from units just prior to combat. 4 caveats I've run in to. 1, the newly saved scenario always begins turn one. To combat this, the GM simply advances the clander appropriately and shifts any turn-based events down one turn. 2. Players must resolve combat in the same way the TOAW engine does, by movement points remaining. More MPs to small MPs. This is long and relatively tedius but has the bonus of allowing disengagements and multiple battles. The alternative is to allow only one combat round per side. 3 the GM has to manually decide the shift of initiative. This isn't difficult, its just a really important judgement call. 4th and lastly there is no protection against cheating. Any player could change unit attributes in their editor and send false information to the GM. It would be up to personal honor and the GM to be wary of such attempts and catch them. GMs with previous save files and data could easily catch suddenly changed numbers if they were looking for them. In theory this method would allow several players/commanders, even those who only play TOAW to pass along files to one another then to the GM. Several players could play or only 3. It's even possible to play alone. I currently have a COMPLETE set of 1/20000 topos of Germany (1948) and and Netherlands (1951) and would love to put something together with anyone interested. My test case was a hypothetical winter offensive by AOK 25 and FJAK 1 across the Waal into the Nijmegen salient and pushing towards Antwerp, lots of fun. However all TOAW scenarios are possible. (dictated by map access.) I'd love to hear your questions, comments, things I may have missed, or general interest in the possibilities.

[ June 11, 2002, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Nac4 ]

I felt like my last post would return the thread to neutrality. Based on their response, BTS has no desire for this. I never claimed my occupation and knowlege of programming "trumped" yours. One flaw remains, I KNOW what you do for a living. I know game coding though I no longer make an income doing so. You have no idea what I do. If you want to argue occupational complexity you're opening an entirely relative and subject box. I'm confident in my abilities and "authority" I needn't pursue that. My arguement is NOT that recoding to allow for a 3rd party or sole proprioter Ops programs would be simple. My argument is that it would have its merits and rewards. Rewards I believe greater than CMBB. I believe Directive21 has accurately targeted the issue I raise. The market exists, if you're anxious about a return, charge $70 for the product. Games such as these devolops loyalists, you know that. I'd spend $100 on a BTS game that fuses OPs with their Tactical engine.

I'd like to say some more... First, Steve you are wrong, add me to your small list. I have only posted under nac4 and have correctly been a member only since 3/28. Second, I would again like to reiterate that CMBO is a superior product. Though again I feel that without an Operational overlay it is incomplete and thus faulted. Third, As I stated in my well articulated but poorly written original, for those of you who did not actually read it, I AM a fan of BTS. As to answer Steve's request for games that accomplish operational and tactical combat, some members have mentioned games I am aware of, namely: the CC series and SPWaW. The arguement that this proposal has never been done well only supports the need for such a product. BTS noticed 5 or so years ago that their was no viable product that accurately modelled tactical combat. So they created one. I trust no other company more than BTS to create this newest product and fill this void. I officially apologize to the forum for the tone of my original post. As stated by others, I was venting. However dark the tone, I don't feel that at any point I used slander or insult to support my points. In addition I don't feel that the tone of the original post negated or invalidate my points. That being said, I realize this issue has come up before, and I understand the frustration of answer multiple requests for the same thing. However that is no excuse to use derrogatory or explicit remarks in the replies to this thread. As for my authority on the subject, having more or less authority in programming and design should not lessen the validity of my arguement. And as I stated earlier, game coding is not my field, though I am FULLY aware of the pitfalls and miss-ques it entails. Finally, I have seen many posts reguarding ways to utilize the current capabilities of CM to model Ops. One of my favorite is the CM*10 posts recently. Perhaps I should have taken a few breaths prior to writing and posed a question rather than a statement. Admittedly that would have been more productive.

Steve, I may be wrong, but I believe of the games you mentioned, ASL was the most recently released in 1985. I validate the merits of a tactical level game, what I propose is that we not settle there. We have the means and power to produce tactical games in the scope of Operational games, even further, but like I told Karch, small steps. Why aren't we? Why stop there? Why not continue to release groudbreaking work?

I was referring to the trailblazers site.

No, I'm not drunk. The "grand" nature of Eastern Front has no bearing on the CMBB player beyond aesthetic and a few engine refinements. The nature of the "grandest front" will have absolutely no effect on CMBB because there is no front present. Its a scenery change. Can't wait to see what sets they've built for ACT III. Come on, wake up. This is just like EASports releasing a new Fifa or Madden game every year for the lastest uniforms and rosters without largescale improvements. How do you argue against "wave-riding"

For the sake of anonimity and unbiased posts I'll let you infer that one. I will say it would take some mental retooling to attempt to modify CM. BTW I love your site. One of the finest of its nature. A while ago I attempted and operational level campaign using CMMC rules to reenact Operation Nordwind. I was on your site several hours researching. Very comprehensive. Thanks

I just thought I'd reiterate a few of my points, for those who have been distracted by the excitement of joining the hordes of flamers. CM is a wonderful product, it is the best on the market for what it does. Though not entirely realistic or historical based on the absence of operational repercussions. The market for an operational level tie-in is much larger than BTS would have you believe. And the work would be less. CMBB is BTS's answer to captilize on a cornered market. The have redressed an essentially identical product, rather than gaining consumer confidence and creating something as unique as CMBO was. I never referred to BTS as morons. Though I discredit their genious. Many of you must have a certain vested and personal interest in their work to defend against criticism as you do. Has BTS gone public? BTS has no authority to question my expertise on the subject on which I write. You would do better not to chastise or attempt to alienate those who you do not know. BTS has repeatedly detracted from criticm even as far as equating it with masterbation. This attests to their resistance to healthy dialogue and the amount of time the spend alone on the computer. I don't think that asking for an operational level supplement is akin to asking that Panther's never get killed by Shermans. Your "Fuzzy Logic" may work on your flamers but not here. If you market a game as realistic or historical, it should be. If you open a dialogue with consumers you should be prepared to deal diplomatically and judiciously with your detractors, not like a 20 year old college student. I thank the few who were brave enough to support my ill-written paragraph. I don't post because nothing has mattered to me as much as this. I want to know if BTS is planning to do anything in the operational arena at any time. I hope there were enough breaks in the above text for those of you who have difficulites reading long strings of words.

I agree, but please, small steps. How about an operational level game first.

A rebuttle had to be expected, OH ARDENT DEFENDERS Captain Wacky : Not sure what you define as "stoofed" but I'm sure its something really wacky. Karch&Wacky : I don't think "this game really sucks" I feel like I made that clear. I don't necissarily feel the game itself is faulted, I think the BTS attitude is. For all their revolutionary openess to consumers, they spend most of their time ignoring or discrediting suggestions, most pointedly on this topic. Second I entirely recognise the superiority of CM and BTS's domination of this market. As I said BTS has the most solid foundation of and with it's partnerships, an even stronger ability to meet the needs of it's audience. Though I have no intention of writing my own game, my collegues that have requested the necissary programming formats to do so as a third-party campaign setting have been repeatedly denied access by BTS. Lastly I am a fan of BTS and their products. Consumers don't effectively incite change and improvements in firms by striking out on their own, especially in this industry. I would be a fool to attempt such a thing without a fraction of the resources as BTS. Notwithstanding the fact that BTS is fully capable providing such a product that would prove superior to its current competetion and only improve its current market share. Flamingknives: I recognise the length of time BTS has taken in creating the CM engine and the immense difficulty it has had in doing so. I feel the tactical engine is the most difficult code of the operational game I propose. Though not a walk in the park, building from the solid IIRC platform, an operational engine would be quit simple, comparatively. For instance, all TO&Es from army to platoon can currently be modeled from current CM capabilities. Logistics coding is perhaps the most simple proposition given an import/export function. Weather is no great mystery, I wouldn't even complaing about historical climactic data, day to day over Europe, the records are ample. As for topigraphical maps, I wouldn't expect BTS to provide as such. CMMC and every University Map and Geo library in the US alone has proven that this is no daunting task. Maps would undoubtly appear as infectiously as texture mods. Modders would include maps with Operational level scenarios. Even those gamers who couldn't get maps of their arena could make them or use a generator. Although a player using a generator would less likely be interested in a "realistic" operational sim. Political pressure would be difficult to deal with however, and a good point is made there. There is no question that follow a series of histiry altering tactical battles, socio-political implementations would have wide scale ramifications. But I don't think that it would be difficult to form a random event generator or event dependant algorithms. Not too difficult. You can hardly equate asking for comprehensiveness and realism from computer sim with wanting to join the armed forces. Besides even then I would be missing Shermans, and SS units. Lastly I had no intention of patronising the rest of the forum. I apologize if that is how it appeared. I simply want to open another dialogue. Berglightingen: Point well deseved and well taken. I trust my lack of paragraph breaks didn't happer your ability to understand my post. Keke: No, this is not an attack by Matrix Flipper&Karch: I would hate to live in a society where criticm is deemed as "whining" and "crying", but apparently in this small culture I do. I think I offer a constructive and well-advised point of view. There is nothing unhealthy or weak as the terms "whining" and "crying" imply about raising questions as to the products we buy. Shadow 1st Hussars: Shadow meet Space Bar Space Bar meet Shadow. TAB takes you to add post, not a paragraph indent. This isn't Word.

I a just returned from reading every thread dealing with campaign development and operational level settings to improve CM. After advocating the game for over a year, I finally quit playing it. I had no idea how ardent BTS's stance was against improving their game and their market. BTS has vigorously defended against the design or aiding the design of an Operational supplement. They argue that division or corps level support and logistics are "beyond the scope" of CM. However, they focus heavily on maintaining realism and boast that their game greatly reduces the effectiveness of "Gamey Tactics". In the end, not allowing for a dynamic and realistic operational setting has lead the majority of gamers to use CM not as a simulation but as nothing more than an arcade game. BTS has bred a culture of "quick-battle commander" by neccessity. Battles are resolved less on tactics but more on the allocation of fictional resources, "points" for weapons that never or rarely appeared together on battlefields. Even aside from quick-battles, BTS has managed only to create a game proporteldly based on realism whose brilliant game mechanics serve only to resolve unrealistic engagements through the use of unrealistic tactics. Why should CM commanders maintain low casualties or conserve ammunition? Why should CM commander not employ corps/army sized arty support with a full compliment of rounds? BTS's "in the scope" theory manages to scoff at realism. In war, all levels of organisation or "within the scope" of each other. Nothing is beyond the scope of a tactical engagement. Strategic commands are entirely dependant of Operational capabilities. Grand Tactical HQs deal directly with the abilities of Company commanders as they do Supreme HQs. No level of organisation is immune to the influence of others. Saying that logistics and casualty rates are "beyond the scope" of CM is akin to arguing that weather or morale have no decisive facter in the outcome of wars, campaigns, operations, battles, and skirmishes. They are all interdependant. Tactical battles aren't about objectives, they're about opportunity-cost. When you remove the repercussion of cost, you remove the necessity to fight at all. Why simulate battles when their results mean nothing, why work so hard on something when in the end, the result is less than trivial. Tactical battles as wonderfully simulate in CM are pointless without their place in the greater scheme of things. Because of their failure ot capitolize on this, players have turned to themselves. Inevitably all threads dealing with campaigns have one member spouting about CMMC. CMMC is wonderful but it serves onnly to fill a void left by BTS. For all its strengths, CMMC is cumbersome and time-consuming, its players and GMs have been forced to manually resolve issues that a computers have been doing more than effectively since Koger's Operational Art of War in 1998. I want a game that lets me play when I want to against who I want to, including AI. With the technology that exists and BTS's new founded partnerships a solution to this problem is easily constructed, but for some reason ignored. I don't believe as does BTS that I am in the minority. Every thread on this subject is full of posts, and the issue has been exausted. But there is no great alternative to the issue. When I play an operational game, I find myself wondering if a brilliant field commander would have been able to save his company against the odds. When I play a Strategy game I find myself longing for more realistic usage of terrain and weather. There is no perfect alternative but BTS has created the most solid minature on the market. Now if only they would change their stance and work up from their solid tactical foundation. But they won't. So, I quit. CMBO has worn thin on me. The curiosity of "what ifs" have long worn off. The awe and excitement of mods, textures and detailed armor hits have dissipated into oblivion. Now I want a game that makes it matter how I attack town X, how many casualties I took defending ridge Y, or how many rounds I'll have availiable to my FO after counterbattery fire. I'm done with battles that don't matter. Many would say I'm cutting of my nose to spite my face. It is true that CM is a wonderful product but is is highly faulted. BTS has the authority and means to give the game the substance it lack but they refuse to do so. Until they do this, however menial, they've lost one consumer. I can't understand how so many are anticipating CMBB which again serves only as a series of unconnected battles with tweaked graphics and gameplay. You will never have to answer to the spector of an operational CO, your victories and defeats will have no bearing or effect on a greater strategy. You may continue to use "gamey tactics" and force compositions based on fiction. But hey, at least there will be some neat soviet tanks to play around with and machine gun options. Not that taking 98% casualties against that MG42 nest would matter though.

Has anybody attempted to combine a proven Operational System like OPART with CMBO resolving at the tactical level? I've been playing around with it lately, having OPART handle supply, interdiction, movement, for operational scale engagements which feed information (Unit Assesments) for resolution in CMBO. Just wondering if anyone's done anything similiar or had any experiences with the theory.