OddjobXL

Maybe it just recycles numbers? I play a MUSH (text based roleplaying) and all the object numbers recycle as items or players fade out. While it's considered somewhat stylish to have early, low, object numbers it really doesn't mean anything.

Tom Chick's a good guy. I don't know him personally but I've run across him in forums and become a devoted fan of the 'Shoot Club' column he writes for an online site. He plays all sorts of games and many of them might be described as 'underdog' favorites. On the other hand he's into some very popular games as well but I wouldn't call him a flight simmer. He's definitely a seasoned journalist and reviewer. Battlefront was lucky to get him assigned to this one.

I was reading "Panzer Battles" by F. W. Von Mellinthin and there's a passage in the beginning where he describes his, then green, troops firing on a circling plane. It turned out to be a Storch carrying the Luftwaffe officer responsible for the formation's air support. Von Mellinthin notes dryly that this officer failed to see the humor. So, evidently, friendly fire works both ways especially with inexperienced troops. I wonder if anyone's seen any of this yet or if it's modelled. Heck, getting some friendly fire payback would be pretty amusing at this point. BTW, I think the air strike TRP idea is a good one if it holds up historically.

Aside from TacAI targeting and manual targeting there are also 'covered arcs' now which serve to tighten up the area the TacAI looks for targets in. I don't know how that might effect the speed of acquisition or if the AI even uses covered arcs but it might be another variable worth considering? Maybe not. Interesting discussion though. I'll kick back and leave it to the experts now.

This isn't a call to action so much as an observation. Combat Mission is a realistic engine which also features hordes of variables in the Quick Battle Generator. These things I love very much (and I'd suspect Quick Battles are by far more played than regular scenarios or operations - but that's a topic for another day (probably yesterday, I'll search)). If all the variables for map and scenario creation are left random it seems there's a very good chance you'll end up with unfit green or conscript troops, in freezing weather or mud, facing an assault against a crack defender settled into craters on a mountain. And given no cover turn one becomes a fine display of the enemy's forward observer skills. Okay, that's not entirely a fair assessment and it actually makes for some interesting challenges when it happens but it seems that in probing, attacking, or assaulting QB scenarios that weather, ground conditions, buildings and elevations that favor the defender should somehow factor into the point totals the attacker has to spend. It sounds to be like it might be a difficult thing to factor but if there was some way to do it we might see somewhat more balanced battles. In the meantime, I've taken to adjusting some settings. For example I set fitness to 'fit'. Considering the insane weather, terrain, and unit experience conditions that might come up in a fight it seems the least I can do to balance things somewhat. Even if it means fewer troops at least it's fewer troops without asthma. [ October 29, 2002, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: OddjobXL ]

And sometimes the grogs are the nutcases. I say this as someone who respects more than a few grognards.

These forums are great. I really appreciated the examples (both game tests and historical references) posted in this thread. While I'm not tanker I can speak, for what it's worth, to playing a tanker in a sim. In Panzer Elite there's a mode that limits the player to using internal views. When your hatch is open that's no problem at all but once you're under fire it's a real bitch sorting out targets and figuring out where all the damned noise (IE the shells bouncing off your armor) is coming from. Once you don't have movement you can't achieve objectives meanwhile bits and pieces of your beloved tank are getting shot off. It passes through your mind that if you could get out of this damned tank you'd be a pretty small target and could sneak away, maybe... Factor in RL things like fire, acrid smoke, heat, screaming of the wounded and confused shouting - and the 140 db ringing of shells, and I can see where bailing out might seem like a great idea even in situations where, on paper, it might be a better idea to stay inside.

I think, in a way, grogs and mainstream gamers attracted to Combat Mission have this in common. We like CM because it's realistic. We hang out in the CM forums to argue our positions, ask our questions, and make our suggestions because Combat Mission is what it is and I doubt anyone wants to fundamentally alter those attributes. Folks who want more gamey games have plenty to chose from already and I don't see Battlefront gaining anything, even from mainstream gamers, by dumbing down CM (which seems to be the great fear).

Nah, grogs aren't snobs. It's easy to generalise about any group and in the grog community, just as you'll find in any small overly specialized community, there are very vocal individuals who have zero tolerance for folks with diverging views or questions they feel have already been resolved. The 'RTFM' phenomenon and disdain for the 'unwashed masses' pose didn't arise with grogs and isn't limited to them. Likewise some of the coolest and best informed folks I know are self-described grognards as well. I don't think CM would be the product we love so much if there wasn't a community of well studied, perfectionist, grognards out there but there are times individuals within that community really annoy the heck out of me with their tunnel vision and shrill, combatative, self-righteousness.

I'm with Deanco. I don't see a division between a game being "true to itself" and "best tactical wargame set in WW II Europe" while also improving graphics to a competative level. Flight simulators are some of the most exacting, realistic, game designs out there but one can't say graphics aren't important to them. I'd also like to see quick-battles with the same core forces linked ala Steel Panthers or Across The Rhine. How hard, really, would that be to do? How would that keep Combat Mission from being "true to itself" or "best tactical wargame set in WW II Europe"? I think there's a camel's nose argument here that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense and, contrary to a previous poster, I do detect there's more than a little 'I wuz grog before you wuz grog' elitism at work. [ October 27, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: OddjobXL ]

I agree with the respondents here. I find the improved realism encourages much more realistic tactics and, while it isn't always the case, the AI's usual ability to use its forces intelligently while kicking my butt is quite entertaining. CMBO's AI wasn't chopped liver but I'm seeing more consistently intelligent calls being made by the AI in CMBB. I don't know what happened with that mortar round. Haven't seen anything too odd yet myself but things like that will always happen once in a while.

Crews remanning vehicles and guns is actually modelled in Steel Panthers: World at War. It gives you a little extra incentive to kill or rout stray crews lingering out in the open. I couldn't say whether it's historical one way or another but it adds a little extra excitement when a crew rallies and creeps back in to man your last tank or an abandoned enemy vehicle suddenly comes alive behind your lines. Do'h! [ October 27, 2002, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: OddjobXL ]

I think when we talk about economic compromise and the future success of Battlefront the compromises should be made by the fanbase and not the company. Most games published now are for higher range machines. And to put the grognardier than thou debate to rest there are plenty of folks who, to my mind utterly deludedly, already call Combat Mission eyecandy for the masses and won't give up their hexmaps till you pry them from their cold, dead, hands. Those guys already think CM is too demanding of hardware. The fact is that if Battlefront wants to make more money it has to try to come up to the graphical standards of the market. In another thread I've suggested a couple other tricks to make a future product utterly irresistable: linked randomized Quick Battles with logistics routines, personnel/organizational management, and special conditions and events for the strategic engine and generated tactical battles and, possibly (god this would make everything complete), the tracking of individual soldiers ala CC. We already have the example of Medieval: Total War. We know from designers comments that each individual man in a unit is tracked for a variety of persistant stats (even if that information isn't available in the interface). We also have extremely good graphics. We have a strategic game as well (if not the sort that would work realistically for Combat Mission). And this game has just been named the best game of all time by PC Gamer. I know, it's a bit like the Velvet Underground being named the best band of all time by Teen Beat but, hey, beating out Half-Life and Civilization in a popularity contest is no mean feat. I'm not at all interested in comproming the modability and realism in CM either. That's what the game is all about. However to get more folks involved standards have to come up. I don't want to play GI Combat or some Panzer Claws RTS. CM brings the feel of combat to life in a way these likely cheesy games won't. However it should have as much graphical fidelity as it does historical fidelity. Bring everyone together.

I'm new to these forums and here I go with a post out of left field about a future iteration of this product. Of course, I'm sure these suggestions are nothing new but I haven't seen them yet in this thread. To take a broad view of squad level WWII games and what makes them so successful and beloved by a wider market one has to consider Close Combat and Steel Panthers. Close Combat's unique contribution was the idea of tracking individual soldiers both graphically and throughout the battles they'd live through. I'm aware that the designers of CM feel that the poor rate of survival makes this an unrealistic feature but it's definitely one very compelling one. Whenever folks talk about CC this feature comes up with wistful adoration and it does help put a human, almost roleplaying, face on an otherwise abstract struggle. That can only make a reinvented engine more attractive to a wider public and it doesn't have to detract from realism either. While many love the premade scenarios, campaigns and megacampaigns for SP:WaW there's a huge body of fans that live for the random campaigns. This is one thing that could be created within the parameters of the current engine (tracking unit stats and calculating replacements, resupply, for a particular historical unit type between randomly generated 'quick' battles) it would take on much more significance if combined with a the detailed individual and unit based system mentioned above. I imagine something like Across The Rhine where missions are generated along a track, rather than some hokey CCish operational or strategic element, and overseeing maintenaince and juggling attached elements between battles is the balance of the connecting activity. I don't know that I'd allow the SP practice of just allowing players to buy units but allowing upgrades (or even a stores of ammunition, parts and replacements) to come naturally available based on historical circumstance and random factors would be a more realistic system. In fact, a detailed events index based on factors that influenced supply and readiness or morale should be created and applied as special circumstances both between battles and before them (along the lines of randomized 'complications' in the solitare boardgame Hornet Leader or the Squadron random events in the Pilot Personality Profile fan mod for Red Baron 3D). These two suggestions taken in tandem or even just the latter one would open up markets and gameplay in some pretty astounding ways without sacrificing any existing aspects. You've already got the grogs, the modellers, the scen designers and the early mainstream adopters. Why not the world? Take it from a mainstream gamer who's also a wargamer. PS Improving graphics has already been brought up but that would be the third thing on my list. The improvement between CM:BO and CM:BB is noted and appreciated. Now, mortgage the house and hire the best graphic designers you can - I want flares, realistic smoke, and humans that don't look like toys. Thanks. Oh, and thanks for a great game as it stands. I love it. Want more. Can't help myself. [ October 25, 2002, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: OddjobXL ]