GerryCMBB
-
Posts
648 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GerryCMBB
-
-
We really appreciate when this is done. Saves a lot of time.
Gerry
P.S. I enjoyed Le Desert.
Even just setting them up in 'parade ground' formation - by platoon, company, and battalion - can save a TON of time.Sometimes I leave it in the parade ground formation because I don't want to inadvertently leak FOW information that can be inferred based on how I - as designer - would deploy the troops.
-
I ask as someone on another thread said they spent 6 hours, IIRC, on a setup. I probably spend less than an hour, maybe closer to a half-hour.
Gerry
-
Hello All:
How long on average do you spend on your defensive setup for small versus medium versus large battles? Just trying to get a general idea.
Thanks in advance,
Gerry
-
Ridiculous use of the word cheating. I don't play the AI. I play other players. Not trying to cheat them. Both would have the same tools. Just like both can choose to use vehicle CA now if they want.
Previously people would argue against a wish list item of a forum member by saying it would take too long to program and we would miss out on other stuff. Now we are labeling some wishes as cheating so they won't get added to the game.
Gerry
Regardless of your intentions, it's still cheating, or if you'd rather phrase it this way, an unfair advantage. If I was playing a game versus you and you had a LOS checking tool and I did not, that's an unfair advantage.It's kind like a chess match between two humans but one of them has access to IMB's Deep Blue.
As mentioned by others, humans already have this basic ability when setting waypoints, which gives us an unfair advantage - it's just cumbersome to use. Now what Townes(and others before him) is suggesting will make it it easier for the player to have an unfair advantage.
-
This would be a great help.
Gerry
But when you're a scenario designer setting up a fortified position, or a player deploying forces in a setup zone, it would be very useful, even if it's too calc intensive to be usable during play. -
I am very much in the camp of they couldn't continue the CMBO/CMBB approach financially.
Gerry
-
Definitely not. That would be way too much work for me. To the best of my tactical knowledge I try and understand the map and see where I want to place MGs, AT Guns, etc. So I am choosing the general location from a tactical perspective. Then I would like to be able to find out if that unit has the field of fire, I think they will have, from that area. So many times I have moved units somewhere that seems good tactically and their LOS/LOF is nothing like I imagine from looking at the map.
I am probably not spending enough time on defense actually. IIRC the guy that did those videos at Armchair General spent 1.5 hours setting up a defense. For me that is more work than fun. I do try to do a good setup but I cannot spend that long.
Gerry
Just out of curiosity, do you actually check the LOS the every possible location? .... -
Maybe what some people are bothered about is that the $ amount has gone up a lot since CMBB (not talking about inflation). Then you had 1 game for a whole front. Now we may have 4 game families (say $55 each), each with 3 modules at $35 each. That is quite a jump.
On the other hand many are excited about so much detail and content. If there are user-generated scenarios as in the past I will be happy. If there are only a few small to medium scenarios that come with the game/modules that have been tested H2H, then it will be a harder choice for me. Playing H2H is the best way imo to experience any tactical game.
Take care,
Gerry
-
Not interested in cheating anything or anyone. Your first sentence says basically what it would achieve. Making LOS a bit easier to figure out. (If BFC were worried about cheating they wouldn't allow us to plot a waypoint and check LOS from there btw).
As players we are trying to see a 3-D space through a 2-D screen. As has been said, in RL the soldiers would be able to find a good location with LOS as they can use their judgement to move over a few feet. We cannot do that.
It's about making it less hard work. Not about cheating. The need to implement good tactics and an overall plan would still be there.
Gerry
Yes, it would be a HUGE time saver. It would also be cheating when playing vs the AI. You'd be playing against an already inferior opponent that cannot check the LOS of any spot on the map to any other spot. So now you're probably saying to yourself "well, BF can even the playing field by adding LOS checking to the AI code." Now you just opened up a whole can of worms to reprogram the way the AI behaves and it would probably take up massive CPU cycles in the process. Massive disaster.The only logical and fair implementation of this would be to allow it for online/pbem only, but make it OPTIONAL for those of us who don't like to cheat or who like the realism of the game the way it is.
-
Massive +1 to this.
We already have the workaround of creating waypoints to an area and checking LOS from there. This would just make the game less hard work.
Gerry
Even though (IIRC) CM2 takes into account height of objects, it would still be very useful and a HUGE timesaver to instantly see all the terrain that can be seen from a particular location/waypoint. -
I understand what you have heard about trees. It just that it takes a lot of dinking to do setup. Zebulon above mentions execution being the key. In a tactical wargame, I think the key should be tactics. While he says tactics are in books, they will have to be applied differently in each game as each situation will have unique features. (Like in chess, you can learn positional themes; however, if it was that easy we would all be grandmasters. It's figuring out exactly if and when to apply a theme to the current situation or when to break the rule that sets players apart).
I know tactics are still important here but it seems that success also requires a lot of the player in terms of handling the interface in a very detailed way.
Also as Erwin says in RL the soldier would shift a smidgin to get that critical LOS. There is some abstraction in the game. I still see soldiers going through walls, the whole foxhole thing, etc. Maybe it is this issue for me of how much simulation versus game CM is.
Take care,
Gerry
-
Hello:
I find the game so frustrating sometimes. I have a MG in a building on the 4th floor and it doesn't have LOS. The building is even on a hill. If it was on the 2nd floor I would find it easier to take. To set up a defense for me seems such hard work. It just is not easy to find good LOS positions for MGs and AT Guns. One cannot check LOS from a point on the map where you do not have a unit. So the only way I know to do it is to plot waypoints all over the setup areas and check LOS from there.
Skiing moguls seemed fun for some people. For me, regular skiing was enough hard work albeit fun. Some of the workI have to go through here seems almost like skiing moguls.
Sorry for the rant. It's obviously a great series. Sometimes I just wonder is it for me.
Take care,
Gerry
-
We feel your pain. Two vehicles in one turn. Unbelievable.
Gerry
-
My God, poor Bil. I hoped he enjoyed his vacation.
Gerry
-
If more people are designing scenarios but not making them public, which is of course their right, it means that the official scenarios become more important for future games/modules. Maybe we need more of them per module released?
This seems quite different than before. Everyone talked about how strong the community was in terms of user-generated scenarios. I acknowledge that CMFI has only been out a short time. Maybe a blast of them will come out soon!?
Gerry
-
There are definitely fewer user-created scenarios for CMFI. Maybe not so many designers are interested in this theater?
I only play small-medium scenarios H2H so that rules out the campaigns also. Not too many options now after playing since it came out.
Hope it will be very different for other games/modules in the future.
Gerry
-
It is not a feature currently. The only time you can click the line is for the current waypoint you are setting.
There have been some changes since CMBN; for example, you can now adjust waypoints.
Sorry, I don't know why you cannot click a path. I would like to see it added in the future.
Gerry
-
I was playing PBEM. I thought the TacAI was what controlled our troops once we issued the orders?
Gerry
-
I really wanted to use this TELL feature yesterday. I had a Tank Hunter team hiding in a building waiting for a tank to pass by. But my opponent was leading with infantry of course. The house was surrounded so I really wanted them to use one of the two demo charges. As it was they died for the Fatherland with both Demo Charges preserved.
It probably would be hard to code this behavior into the TacAI. So it would be best if there was a property we could set for the team to allow them to do this.
Gerry
Ok, so now all we need is the ability to TELL them to do it
Just had a 10 turn close in battle with the better part of a platoon of pioneers get wasted fighting other infantry - average range was 15-25m.
Not one charge used
Muppets.
-
My understanding is that in times past when we went to a new base game, here CMFI versus CMBN, the older game was not updated and forever languished behind (in CMx1 I assume this would be CMBO versus the newer CMBB).
Now we have an option to buy an upgrade to get the new features ported back to CMBN ($10 or if you wait for MG, then the upgrade will be bundled with MG for $5). It seems that most people thing this is a small price to pay for updated features.
Gerry
So will the base game get all the graphical and engine updates for free without the need of buying all these DLC's? -
Thanks for checking this.
Gerry
-
Hello:
Will a Tank Hunter team, or any unit for that matter, throw Demo Charges out of a house?
Thanks,
Gerry
-
Hello All:
It seems that in the games I have played PBEM, the attacker wins nearly all of them. Maybe I am a lousy defender?
What are you noticing for your record as Attacker versus Defender.
Thanks,
Gerry
-
Oddly enough I did this tonight. More by chance than design. They killed a bunch of enemy rushing into the building but as they were outside they were wiped out later by enemy approaching from the other side.
As you can imagine I am losing this one! But it was interesting to see how effective your technique could be.
Gerry
If you are wanting to ambush an enemy as they enter the building, which appears to be the case from your description, the best place for your ambushing unit is probably outside of the building on the opposite side from where the enemy will enter.
Too much money
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
c3k, I worry about you sometimes.