Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Chelco

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    363

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Chelco

    Hugging walls and covering corners

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Ey Thomm,

    Those results, using whole squads?

    I tend to split squads in MOUT, but I was thinking of not doing it anymore since the behavior at corners in 1.05 is way better than before. I noticed that the results also depend a lot on how the team arrives to the corner (perpendicular or parallel to the wall).

    And to athkatla: yesterday I saw that too.

    Cheers,

    0

    Could the soviet method of war have been successful ?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    IMHO, the Soviet way of war could have succeeded in the hands of the Soviets only.

    The problem with importing military doctrine from another country is that you have to be very clever accounting for cultural differences and your officer corps shortcomings. For example in the October 73 war, the syrians "took good Soviet tactics and made them bad and took bad Soviet tactics and made them worse" (from Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991).

    0

    Hugging walls and covering corners

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Take a look at this screenshot (pardon the jaggies).

    Corners1.JPG

    The 3-men team in the forefront was pulling overwatch for other 3-men team in the background (near the cursor) when they spotted an insurgent team moving along a side street (far background). The insurgents were killed (black mass in the far background) by the overwatch team.

    What I really liked from these 10 seconds of action was the ease of moving the background 3-men team along the main street but just short of the corner and how none of the men made anything goofy as exposing into the danger zone/line of fire.

    Also, is it me or in general infantry is doing a better job "hugging the walls" (see the men in the main street against the wall)?

    [ December 15, 2007, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Chelco ]

    0

    Am I the only guy here who is sick of WW2?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    And who couldn't avoid finding your post sophomoric and embarrassing, particularly the part about "enjoyng modern warfare a lot"? Perhaps those least able to understand Jason's points are those most likely to criticize their tone. [/QB]

    I meant enjoying the setting of CMSF. What is wrong with you?

    Look Dorosh, I wrote my post in a laptop while riding in a train. Sorry it failed to meet your standards of writing. I thought I was writing in an internet forum, not for a peer-reviewed journal. Can you let it go this time, Dean Dorosh?

    As for Jason, my personal apologies. I didn't mean to offend him, but his post is highly debatable. We were talking about gaming preferences and his post didn't sound to me as such, but rather arriving fast to too wide conclusions about tactical warfare. There is a lifetime of research papers by Stephen Biddle regarding gaps in weapon's technology and their influence on winning/losing battles. That's all I have to say.

    0

    Am I the only guy here who is sick of WW2?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I'm a wargaming wh0re of sorts: any period has interesting twists for me. So, while I enjoy modern warfare a lot, I wouldn't mind any of the other interesting scenarios mentioned here.

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    After, tech dominates to such an extent that the higher tech side has n ways of doing anything necessary. It is not necessary to have the proper weapon for a task or to employ it carefully - everything can do nearly everything and pretty effortlessly. That can cut into both forces (meaning, loss attrition on both sides is possible), but it never requires deep thought, or hinges on matched commander wits. A war that was won in a lab 2000 miles from the front a decade earlier, is devoid of tactical interest.

    Jason,

    While I respect your opinion and tastes for wargaming, I couldn't avoid finding your post too pretentious. Stephen Biddle would have a ball reading the previous snippet.

    0

    Is CMSF Fundamentally flawed beyond patching???

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Hi Webwing,

    Originally posted by Webwing:

    [QB] The idea behind the CMSF editor is to be user friendly and to leave more decisions to the TacAI and less burden on the designer. SB for instance doesn't hava a TacAI, therefore the need for triggers, etc.

    You make a crucial point.

    What's your take of CMSF's TacAI?

    What it can do and what it can't do?

    I could be wrong, but it seems to me like once the TacAI orders a group to move down to a waypoint, it will assign a path to it and that's it. The poor AI soldiers assigned to this path and waypoint wilco no matter what. There is no re-assesment or re-planning of the path assigned.

    You know what I mean because I am sure you have witnessed Panther's AI (apples and oranges acknowledged, but still) to attack you in one direction and after suffering losses it will pull out and attack you from another direction. Even when the AI is trying to move into the same piece of terrain during the whole scenario.

    I could live with a waypoint that lasts the whole game because the lack of triggers, what I cannot live is with an apparent AI path created at the beginning of an scenario that lasts until the very end. I don't know how a scenario creator is supposed to work around this.

    0

    Is CMSF Fundamentally flawed beyond patching???

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    The AI editing tools in SBProPE are far superior than the ones in CMSF.

    The implementation of triggers in CMSF's AI tools is sorely absent. For the scenario designer, there is no option to change the AI plans in the middle of the game because of an specific player’s action. I am growing more and more distant to this game due to the non-reactive, follow-waypoint-to-death AI opponent.

    There is no doubt that making a good wargame AI is a great endeavor. It can be done, though (have you guys tried any of Panther Games?). Lately, I don’t wish developers would make a super-smart computer opponent, I just wish they would make a “credible” one. One computer opponent that fears the bullets of my grunts (don’t enter a kill zone if he sees his mates being ripped apart), one that fears his retreat routes being cut (reaction to turning movements), etc. I would be more than more than happy if CMSF’s AI editor would allow me to (even painstakingly) script that type of behavior.

    The best tactical (company sized engaments) AI in a wargame is in the HPS' Squad Battles series. Pity those games are IGOUGO.

    0

    A question about spotting of CMSF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    The enemy unit will appear as a fully identified enemy unit icon or as a question mark depending which one of your friendly units is selected at that moment.

    At elite level, clicking on the map or on the enemy unit will give you only partial details of it anyway.

    But I think that when no friendly unit is selected you will see enemy icons and question mark icons that represent the collective spotting made by all your units. I think that's what you are referring to: you get (partial) details from the collective spot reports (no friendly units selected at that point).

    I don't think that a friendly unit will target a question mark, unless you give that unit an area fire command.

    You know? One cool thing I experienced a few days ago is how info on enemy contacts is transmitted via the communication links. I had a dismounted US Cav. commander on top of a hill and his platoon waiting at the hill's base. The Cav. commander spotted all type of units, but the rest of the platoon was out of sight so when I clicked any of the troopers, no enemy icons appeared. Silly me, the commander didn't have a radio so I moved a CFV closer to him and a few seconds after the commander mounted the CFV (remember it's equipped with good comms) all the other units became aware of the enemy contacts. Extremely cool.

    0

    CMSF is still a unique achievement

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Dale,

    With great shock my family found out that after 26 years of lighting the plays of the Buenos Aires Philharmonic Orchestra, my uncle was still unable to play the violin.

    Playing games is one thing, designing them is another.

    Boom is a straight shooter. I once collided with him and we exchanged vitriolic e-mails over that. In the end I prefer his style. Political correctness tends to transform discussions about substance into discussions about etiquete.

    And he has the background I say he has.

    0

    CMSF is still a unique achievement

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by dalem:

    Maybe it's because the core game concept is broken, bugged, and poorly implemented?

    -dale [/QB]

    The way you talk about "core game concepts" and "implementation" to people with successful, multiple-awarded wargames on their resumes never ceases to be an amusement.

    I'm sure you are clueless about it so let me brief you: the guy you are responding with such condenscendence is part of ProSimCo's team. Author of "Raging Tiger" and "The Star and the Crescent", that guy works on military sims for a living.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...