David Chapuis
-
Posts
627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by David Chapuis
-
-
I dont think anybody is suggesting what you are implying here. What I, and others, want is a way to simulate the communications/inforamtion breakdowns that are so common in battle. Communication breakdown is modeled some (with command delays and hopefully in future with borg spotting fixes), but information breakdown is not modeled at all.Originally posted by Becket:I have little desire to give up my command of squads and watch the TacAI play a wargame;
-
I agree that multiplayer will help a lot, but it wont totally fix the problem. You will still have the "all-knowing commander" problem for all units under your control.Originally posted by kipanderson:in CMX2 you will just have to make the full jump to realism and get a group of people together to play one team against the other, live. Do that, together with what I call individual spotting by each unit, and Borg spotting problems are thing of the past.
That is right. the player does have too much knowledge. And that will still be true - even in a multiplayer game. So why not limit the knowledge? And Im not saying turn it into a command game. Rather look for areas in which to limit what is shown to the player, while keeping his units under his control.Playing as one player on each side, or against the AI, will never be as realistic as live team play. For many reasons, you will always have far too much knowlegde of the battlefield.
-
I would consider this a close 2nd option to what I mentioned above. It would do a little to limit the "all-knowing commander" issue.Originally posted by Charlie Rock:I'd recommend the friendly unit can fire at the enemy, but if far enough out of LOS and command, you don't see what it is shooting at.
-
Steiner14
Your example about the tanks and borg spotting shows the major limitation of the improvement - that once the timer stops and the game goes back to orders menu, the benefit of borg spotting is almost gone. The human player can just make the tanks move in such a way as if all the tanks had seen the gun.
And I am not saying this is a perfect suggestion. I can think of some situations where this wouldnt be that good. But I think having FOW over friendly units sometimes would be a good thing. (btw, the game already does this now on captured units)Although your suggestion has some good pros
Again, you would still have control over your units , you just would just have some degree of FOW about what is going on with them.IMO taking away control from the player if a unit is out of C&C or LOS, is way too much.
Sergei
Well, why does BFC draw the line on squads when it comes to command bonuses? That is pretty artificial too, dont you thin? Surely, there were plenty of squad leaders that commanded their troops in such a way that the game would be accurate in giving them a bonus.Why do you draw the line so artificially to squads?
Their moral breaking and them hitting the road is still retreating. However, I agree that it isnt the same as a "planned retreat", and that the AI would never do that. But that is fine. As mentioned before, the player could still cause his units to withdraw before they break if he thought things were bad.No, it doesn't make them retreat - it's a different thing from the unit morale breaking and then hitting the road. A planned retreat ...
LOL. The same way lots of other game mechanics work together - because it is a game and you try to find a good balance between conflicting needs. The same logic you are using here could be used to ask how a bunch of squad commanders, all out of C&C, work together to coordinate an attack on a position.How does that add together? If a unit is out of C&C, how can you order it to withdraw? On the other hand, if you are making the decision as the squad leader, then why don't you know what the situation is over there?
kip
Well I dont accept that condition in a rigid way, like you apparently do. And I dont think I should just have to live with a huge problem that can be minimized? And right now you dont have god-like knowledge to some degree - you have it in totality.I think one has to be up front about the fact that if you are a single player, then you will have God like knowledge of the battlefield, to some degree. If you wish to maintain the fact that you play the part of the squad/AFV commander, there is no full way round this, in a single player game. There never will be… “if” you accept the above condition.I know I wont change your minds about this - that is fine. I still say that the "all-knowing commander" is bad at certain times and should be changed.
-
The best all around infantry squad is the fallschirmjaegers. Other than the sturmgruppe company, they have greater firepower at all ranges than any other squad(Gebirgsjaegers have slightly better firepower at less than 40 m & mot pz grn have slightly better at 250+m). In fact, they practically double the firepower of normal british squads at any range - and they are both 10 man squads. And you dont really have to pay much extra for them. They cost the same as ss mot pz grn and significantly less than sturmgruppe squads.
If I know that I will have so very close quarter fighting, and if my opponent doesnt mind mixing force types, I will pick a cheap VG platoon.
But if I could only have one German inf, it would definitely be fallschirmjaegers.
-
One other thing. As you described CM above, you play the part of the battalion/company/platoon/squad commanders. It is very hard to realistically play the part of a battalion or company commander when you always have perfect information about every unit, because there are times when you should not have much information at all. That is one of the major appeals (at least to me) of multiplayer. Why not add that dimension - in logical situations - to single player too.Originally posted by kipanderson:Do remember one very important point. In CM games you play the part of the battalion commander, the company commander, the platoon commander… and the squad commander. This last point matters, a lot.
[ August 29, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]
-
But you really cant limit borg spotting without limiting what the "all-knowing commander" knows. You can make changes that have a minor effect on borg spotting, but as long as the commander knows all, then its impact will be minimal.no Borg spotting, and multi playI agree that multiplayer will be great because the "all-knowing commander" now knows much less. But IMO, adding a method to limit information that the player receives (in certain logical circumstances), while leaving his units under his control, would make the game much better than it is - and much more realistic.
I could give numerous examples - I will give two:
1. Jeep rushes. The jeep and crew could get killed anywhere on the map and all friendly units would know where it got killed, and possibly what killed it. Very unrealistic. My suggestion would solve that.
2. Similar situation but scouting with a half squad. The half squad is out of LOS & CandC of all other units - gets ambushed and killed rather quickly. All units, very unrealistically, get the knowledge of what happened. Really, they should just know that their friends never came back.
You cant solve either of the two issues above with just a fix to borg spotting (at least not the fix that I have heard).
It makes sense, even if you consider the game a squad leader game, that all friendly units dont get the knowledge of lone-wolf units until the lone-wolf unit comes back into contact (in some form or another - visual, radio, C&C, runner, etc) with the rest of the group.
-
This would never apply to a group as large as a platoon, since a platoon hq is in C&C all the time. This would only be for individual units. As long as the squads were in C&C or line of sight, then it wouldn't be a problem. And units off on their own should not have the benefit of the decisions of a platoon leader. That is the entire point.Originally posted by Sergei:But an isolated AI platoon couldn't make any of the decisions that a real platoon leader should, like retreat in front of overwhelming numbers.
First of all, the AI already does this on a limited scale (I imagine for CMx2 it will be greatly enhanced). It will cause squads to retreat without getting wiped out (they will have a moral hit - but they should).Instead they all would just rout and get wiped out. The player, if he doesn't know what's going on (except maybe a sound contact from the fighting) couldn't help the situation in any kind of way.
Besides this option should only come into effect on limited occasions. If a platoon commander sends a squad off on its own, he doest really know what is going to happen to it. Squads are just not very effective off by themselves, and they shouldnt be.
But take you example above. The human player would see a "sound contact" marker of some sort and could decide to go find out what is happening, which would bring them under c&C, or could order a withdrawel. The player can still control the unit, he just doesnt have perfect knowledge of what is happening to the unit.
And that is exactly what makes this idea so interesting - and that fact that it will limit the "all-seeing commander" problem.
It could work very well, and would be a step in the right direction making the similation more real - since you will never have a all-knowing commander overseeing the actions each of his troops.Wouldn't work.
And I prefer to think of it as simulation from the commanders' points-of-view (not just one commander, but platoon-level up). That is why it could be another FOW option.I like CM simulating commanding a company not simulating a company comander.
well it would be much more realistic is the main thing! And if half the time your troops are out of C&C you probably need to adjust the way you play. Besides, you could still maneuver them. The point is that you dont have perfect information about what is happening to them.What's the point of a game of maneuvring troops about, where half the time you can't maneuvre troops ?
I dont know how this would take away commands :confused: If some of the SOP options that I have seen mentioned were added, this would work even betterI hate to see resources spent on taking away commands instead of adding them.
[ August 29, 2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]
-
My suggestion was just for the problem of "God-like Command and Control", and has nothing to do with borg spotting (I just said that since BFC has a solution for borg spotting, how about addressing this). In my opinion, "God-like Command and Control" is much worse than borg spotting. And this would limit "God-like Command and Control" in a realistic way.Originally posted by IntelWeenie:This is more "God-like Command and Control" than Borg Spotting. Sorry, I don't see where this would prevent the case where one uint (in C&C) spotting an enemy makes it visible to all friendly forces (in C&C).
I guess I wasnt clear because I wouldnt want the AI to modify unit's actions any more than it does now. My suggestion is just that the human player doesn't know with certainty what is happening to his units if they are out of LOS and out of C&C.I think the TacAI does enough to modify unit's actions to react to enemy actions even when you don't want them to (like Greens and Conscripts not staying hidden too take a potshot at some guy 200m away).
Currently in CM, if you tell a squad to go through some woods - out of LOS and C&C of the plat HQ - the squad could become engaged with the enemy inside the woods. It will stop and start firing. that is good. I am not suggesting to change that at all, merely to not let the human player know this. Therefore, the unit looks like it keeps walking/sneaking to the end of the order. But that is just where the human thinks the unit is - the comp is keeping track of the squad just like it does now, but just doesnt display what is happening. This shouldn't be a huge change since what the human player sees is just an animation anyway. Just add another button to the unit screen that makes the human player know this is an "estimated" friendly position. Or it could function kind of like the "sound contact" display works now. The display shows and estimated position - but this would be for friendly units.
And none of that would need be changed. The only thing that would be different is that you could give a squad an order and it starting location would be different. The AI could handle that just like it handles adjusting other movement orders.The TacAI as such doesn't really make very far-reaching decisions. It only looks for cover if a unit gets demoralized. It doesn't know anything about unit cooperation needed to prevent a flanking move. Basically it only involves the individual unit: what should it target, where to retreat, etc.
My idea would basically provide the same effect that multiplayer would - but in a single player game. That is why I would call it "Extreme Friendly Unit FOW".But I hope that there's gonna be multi-multiplayer in CMX2, in which friendly commanders could only share information through messages.Anyway, I think it is a great idea.
-
What do you guys think about this idea for CMx2. We already hope they will have a solution for borg spotting. How about an option for Extreme Friendly Unit Fog of War.
This would affect any units (maybe a few exceptions like sharpshooters) that are both out of command and control and out of line of sight of friendly HQ’s. The idea is that a commander doesn’t always know where his men actually are. So if you send a squad through some heavy woods, the icon might show them making it to their intended location, but in reality the unit could have gotten into a firefight in the middle of the woods. Not only do you not see what is shooting at the squad, but you don’t even know that your men have stopped and are fighting. So the unit that you think is at the far end of the woods providing flank cover might suddenly appear someplace else routed and running away.
Of course there would be a little button that let you know which friendly units were at ‘estimated’ positions, and which ones were in confirmed positions.
[ August 27, 2003, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]
-
I drive on gravel roads almost everyday, and some of them kick up a whole bunchdust. In fact just two nights ago, we were following a friend and lost LOS with them because of all the dust they were kicking up. However some gravel roads, the ones with lots and lots of gravel, arent too bad. Regardless, I cant imagine how much dust a tank running at full speed would kick up.Originally posted by MrSpkr:Tell you what, I wont't say anything about your screw up regarding dust on what are obviously gravel roads if you don't say anything on my alleged error.
Steve
This is completely off topic, but am I the only one who turns on their windshield wipers while driving through dust on a dirt road? My wife thinks I am completely ignorant, but I always enjoy looking at the faces of other people as they drive past me.
-
I didnt notice til you mentioned it - bet that makes for a bumpy ride.Originally posted by Thomas Goetz:[QB] Wonderful screen shots, very nicely done. Funny, though - everyone is noticing the Stuart's hexagonal mantlet, and no one has said anything about the truck's tires.....
:eek:
-
I had a squad of Brit surrender about 30 seconds into a turn, and then about 5 seconds later they just vanished off the map. Never heard from them again. They were in the middle of the map, not close to a map edge.
I could send you the file and let you watch it yourself if you would like.
-
Well the campaign has officially started today. It isnt too late for anybody else with the desire and some free time to join. Just send me an email to let me know, or post here.
Also, if you already sent me an email wanting to join, but havent heard back from me, that probable means I just missed it, or misplaced your note. Just send me another message and I can get you plugged in. It definitely isnt too late - the action is just starting.
-
Another thing that is different from say a FPS expansion or typical RTS stategy expansion (like Age of Empires) is that BTS has to spend a lot of time researching historical weapons/vehicle information - not only from previous time periods than CMBO, but also from new nationalities. They arent going to just slap new skins on Russian tank data.
In my opinion, what you are describing is if they would charge you for a CMBB expansion where they added more vehicles and more scenarios to the same game.
I cant wait to send my $40 to BFC for CMAK.
-
I think I could have enough control to not do it if I wanted to, but when I get into a game, I control my men as much as possible. But I think I would like being forced to be more like a company/batallion commander than I do with just 1 minute turns. Futhermore, since I typically only play against humans, this would keep from having to depend on the honor system.
-
I was reading the debate about borg spotting, and somebody mentioned having longer turns (e.g. 3 minute turns instead of 1 minute turns).
So I was wondering if having a turn duration option has ever been considered, and if you guys would think it would be fun? I could see how it could be a very different experience to play a big map with large forces with 3 minute turns. Instead of just 60 minutes (60 1 minute turns), the battle could be set to 90 minutes (30 3 minute turns). I think a game like that would make me feel much more like a commander of a battalion, than 12 or so platoon commanders. I also think it would minimize, to some extent, the all-seeing-eye problem.
But I suppose the tac AI would need to be altered quite a bit for this to work right. For example, I can picture a platoon of men move into contact with a company of men at the start of a 3 minute turn. Supporting the platoon is a tank that is supposed to stay hidden until needed. Well 3 minutes later the platoon is dead or useless, and therefore the tank is no longer needed for support, because the tac ai wasnt smart enough to move the tank 25 m and provide covering fire. But then again, how long would it take a platoon of men who needed tank support to have that message relayed to the tank. Probably more than a minute (assuming in 44 - 45 platoons could radio directly to a supporting tank). So maybe it would work.
Anyway, I wouldnt want to play every game like that, but I think it would be a fun option. What about you guys?
[ July 22, 2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]
-
FYI - we will be starting soon
-
I'm intested in playtesting it.
-
As i tried to imply at the end of my post, i am sure the porblem was ultimately mine. I was trying to use it as a tank, which it isnt. Still, I cant for the life of me figure out why that StuG decided to go driving around in the open. The only thing that seems possible is that instead of rotate ('o') I hit the hunt ('u') command. But i am not color blind, and can generally tell the difference between purple and light green (i keep all move paths showing). Maybe CM models temporary insanity.
-
Now I could be wrong about some of this, but if my memory serves me:
Well there is no CDV version per se. CDV is a distributor. So it isnt really accurate to call it a CDV version - since CDV sells the other versions besides CMBO:SE in Europe.Originally posted by PoppinHobbit:But I'm told by something that because its the CDV version its buggy?
I think you are correct in assuming it works fine. The CMBO:SE version is version 1.12 with a few graphic bonuses and extra scenarios. 1.12 works fantastic for me - in fact I have only heard of one minor bug (the control panel on bottom is all black sometimes).It works fine, I didn't know there were two versions. Help explain this to me please? -
Somebody says they like the StuG? The StuG? :mad:
I used to like the StuG - until last night. I was in a 500 point QB with a StuG against 3 HT's and a Priest. The StuG drove back and forth, back and forth, pivoted, aimed, reversed, turned, crested, hid, and eventually died. This in a span of about 15 turns. StuG kills - 0. HT kills - all my men.
The memory of this is still quite painful, but I will attempt to elaborate on two of the many insanities of the StuG.
1. StuG behind building A 125 m from building B with Priest about to stick his nose out. Order - peek around the building. Result. StuG peeks around the corner, and then decides to go swap some Schnapps with the enemy. He takes off and pulls within 5 m of the enemy occupied building B, the entire time getting shot at by, not 1, but 3 equally inept bazookas. When he gets to the building, he doesn't fire. No, that would make too much sense. He turns broadside in order to face nothing. When the orders phase came back up, he was going to reverse around Building B about 5 m in front of the priest. :confused: :confused: So I move those reverse waypoints as far as I can back towards building A, which is only about half way, and add another that will put him back where he started. Of course with 3 zooks and a priest at +/- 50 yards there is no way he can move half way into the open, pause for a few seconds, and then continue the journey. But, believe it or not, he did.
2. After this, I decide I better try my luck on the other side of the map, where a nasty HT was cutting down my men. At the same time I turn around the HT drives right past me - in the open- into the rear of my position to kill all of my soft units. So what does my brilliant StuG captain do? Nothing. :mad: He had line of sight on him (I saw the line), but let him go. But maybe he was more concerned about the zook hiding in the building in front of him (who had to be drunk to miss that many shots at 50 -75 m). So next turn I order the StuG to blast the HT. What does he do? Nothing again. This time he doesn’t even shoot at the zook. No, he just sits there, motionless, and does nothing the entire turn. :mad: I am not making this up. Meanwhile, all of my soft units are now dead, since the HT is still blasting them at close range with a 50 cal.
I have more examples from this same StuG, but I cant bear to explain it. :eek:
Needless to say, he died in a most humiliating manner, but anything else would have been out of character for this guy.
I wont be buying a Stug anytime soon - not with the goal of killing anything faster than a turtle.
ps. This made me wonder if BFC modeled idiocy into some of the units. But upon further review, why would they need to when they have people like me playing.
[ July 04, 2003, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]
-
that is what had me so confused - pines line of sight is still 30 m. So when I had my tree graphics off, I wasnt really paying attention to pines v woods, and was really confused as to why i could see through some and not others.
[ July 03, 2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Dodge ]
-
I just realized that you can see 60m in winter woods, but on 30m in other woods. That was really confusing me until I turned my tree graphics back on. That makes a lot of sense, but it almost cost me an AFV.
Anyway, nice attention to detail.
In CMx2 are you going to model woods so that if you blast them with enough HE they will become more like scattered trees, but with slower movement through them? That would be realistic.
How about this idea for CMx2
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
If you consider a "command game" something other than that (giving orders at the platoon level or above), than CM already is a "command game".
So what this really comes down to is not "should this be a command game", but "should the player know everything about each of his units". IMO, that would make for a very good FOW option.