GSX
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GSX
-
-
My point remains that if you don't brew the contents of one Module to play another Module, then what will you need to play an Arnhem module? The argument that it was a different airborne division or SS one doesn't work because by that time we will already have had airborne and SS units.
Therefore, it makes sense to not have Brit airborne in the next module. The precedent is already there for this as we don't have German airborne in the CMBN base game and they were pretty much involved in action against US forces. I'm not even sure if they actually fought the Brits in Normandy.
The question would remain, how can you fight Arnhem without the SS?
-
Does a Market Garden module mean that no Brit Airborne will be introduced until this module? No module needs a previous module to play, so it will have to offer something that's not in any previous module while not requiring any previous one to play. This will mean no SS either I imagine? Of course it could be a building/terrain module I suppose?
-
This sounds rather like wanting a red shirt and a blue shirt then being disappointed with the clothing retailer for not letting you pay for just one and return it whenever you want for the other color. Sure they're both the same style shirt but they're still two different products.
Hardly, it's more like buying music from Zune and not being able to play it on an iPod.
-
Not to be a stickler but the actual quote is "around the end of April".
That means before May or they would have said, 'Around the beginning of May'. I was kind of hoping it would have been out already as Im off work for 2 weeks and its beginning to be a wee bit wall to wall Royal wedding right now!
Im also missing my PS3 network fix and so between Sony and BF both are managing to screw with my insomnia by forcing me to read books and other boring stuff!
My guess is Friday, last working day before the end of April........
-
Steve
I have PC O and will definitely get PCK, it is a free upgrade after all. However, as you dont know anything about it, it does have a couple of innovative features that CM games could incorporate.And maybe for that reason looking at PC:O might be interesting. However, last time we looked at it all we saw was CMx1 with a "command" layer on top that we have no interest in.1. The ability to import data from Google maps direct to a mapmaker. Obviously these will be modern maps, but they will be real maps that can be made much faster than a human can make one. Terrain is after all terrain.
2. The ability to use a file transfer service and incorporate it into your PBEM turns. The game asks you your preferred service and does the rest. Playing a PBEM game like an IP WEGO game would therefore be possible.
Only just skimmed over whats happening with PCO but there does seem to be a wee bit of innovation in the update, albeit the game does feel dated when fired up now.
-
So what you're saying is... the Canadians weren't a part of the Commonwealth? I learn something new every day.
Steve
Not wanting to be too picky, but at the time it was referred to as the 'British Commonwealth'. The British bit in the title wasn't dropped until 1949.
So in 1944...........
-
Yep, interesting AAR. Very nice looking map as well. I liked the screenies, and I noticed a certain Mr Dorosh agreeing. well, sort of!
Just done reading this. Very nice little write up with some nice shots. So what if a little bit of gun gets stuck in a wall, never seen a Perfect PC game for this kind of stuff yet. Look at the Uber budget 'Call of Duty' games, you still get to kill guys because you see thier leg sticking out of a wall. I can live with minor stuff like this.
Seems like the fella you mentioned likes it so much that he has pre-ordered too. Now if one of CM-2s biggest critics has pre-ordered, then I can only say that either the game MUST be good or the box must be really shiney!
-
I heard we have ammunition bearers etc in the game? Any word on how this works vis a vis re-supply etc?
-
I have to say Im really enjoying reading all of the QB threads, its been a good insight into CMx2 improvements over CMSF.
But, as Ive never been much of a QB fan, is there any chance we can have a peek at some of the other features.
I know bridges were mentioned aeons ago, so how have they turned out? Id also like to see a few Mortar or Gun Teams in action in defensive positions. Maybe a look at fighting in the streets and buildings? All the QB stuff has been good, and I know you want to show off these new features, but Im actually looking for the other stuff too. How does a fight in darkest Bocage look?
Can anyone do an AAR of a scenario?
-
I heard an interview with a surgeon recently back from Afghanistan. He said he could immediately tell Americans from Afghanis on the table by the sheer volume of fat packed around every organ. And one assumes McDonalds burger and snickers bar wrappers in there too. I joke that when they cut me open they'll find a nougat center.
Wouldn't the weathered skin, beard, looking 60 at 30 and lack of a NATO uniform be an easier way to tell this instead of cutting them open?
-
Two issues that come up after reading the AAR:
The reason that the FO could not call in Air Support seems like it was some sort of chain-of-command issue. Maybe the FO was an artillery observer rather than an air controller? Brings up an issue however. Will the player have to make sure that any FO he chooses will match up with the asset in a Quick Battle? Will the auto-picker make sure that observers and assets match up?
Also Sound was mentioned in the AAR, and the author was wondering why the Germans did not attack a nearby U.S. tank, because surely they had to hear the tanks engine. This brings up a good point? How are sound contacts handled in CM:BN? Will the AI fire at a sound contact? I was never clear on how this works in CM:SF.
There is no sound contact in CMSF, or I think CMBN and so its just something you have to live with. Just pretend all of your troops are deaf....
-
Redwolf,
I see you're still stuck a bit in the CMx1 mode of doing things
There is no "hit probability" either. As Elmar and Sergei point out, something is fired and it's trajectory is traced exactly as it is shown on screen. Everything that should go into that trajectory, such as aim point, accuracy, velocity, drop, wind error, etc. is taken into account. Wherever the round hits is where it hits. If it hits the edge of a PzIV's fender... THAT is what it hits. There's no calculation like "well, the probability is it would strike the upper hull armor" because that is not what the round hit. Period. What happens after that is based on the effect that particular round, with whatever properties it had at the time of the hit, would have on whatever was hit. In the case of striking the fender it would likely be simulated to pass through it and strike the armor directly behind it without much appreciable difference than if it hit that armor straight on (I can't say for sure because that's an extremely technical question). The strike against that armor happens because that's where the trajectory would take it. There's no probability because the game knows EXACTLY where it is.
After striking the armor the game figures out what happens. Penetration? Well, that depends on all the variables being carefully calculated. No probability here either, except in the form of variables within the equations where appropriate. Assuming there is penetration then damage is assessed based on what the round hits and what sort of physics are involved. In theory it could pass through and out the other side (happens to Halftracks quite frequently, for example) and impact something else.
It's all physics, not dice rolling. Which means we have 100% of our bases covered 100% of the time with 0% extra work after the initial modeling.
Steve
Just curious, all of the above being true, which it is in my experience with CMSF.
Where does the gunner aim? If he can see the whole tank that is? And is experience added into where he will aim against a specific vehicle?
-
Screenshots do indeed look very good. The interface looks better than CMSF, more akin to the nice one in CMA.
One thing though, why persist with the damned awful looking 'Green' weapons icons, cant you just let scipio do you some to ship with the game?
-
Yes, the guy who sets up the game can choose the map AND preview it before finalizing his selection. And yes, I do expect there will be some gnashing of teeth and whining about this by the 2nd player. Our standard answer to that is... if you find someone trying to screw you over in multiplayer, refuse to play with him again. Works every time
Steve
I shall be using the old, 'next time I choose the map' line I think.
Can you let the PC choose for you as well?
-
Did I notice that map selection right? Picked by a human, ooh I can see the arguments starting already, gamey picks, and now gamey map picks......
I like it, should lead to some very interesting discussions post game, or games....
-
I'd go along with the above. It seems like a lot more skill is required to make good CMSF maps than a CMAK one. Ive played around with making some, but to be quite honest im not one of the guys with infinite patience.
When it comes to Normandy, its all about where the water flows that makes the terrain and good maps realise this.
But, how do you tell a randomly chosen AI force when and how to counter attack? I dont want to be attacked by a Mortar Platoon etc....
-
Please stand Corrected.
All QB Maps have multiple plans for both attacker and defender. So they are scripted. The defender always has a "counter-attack" variable timed movement to Objective order. In Meeting Engagement the AI attempts to push beyond the objective. This is the case with CMSF QB's today.
The early days of CMSF QB's and the long...SLOW.... process of learning what makes a good QB map frustrated many CM fans. So changes made to QB Map design went generally unnoticed. I could sure understand why.
CMBN QB includes new functions NOT seen in latter day CMSF. Testing has been really fun.
My Personal Opinion: No AI can ever match the cunning of the human opponent, but the CMBN AI will give you a darned good run for your money.
I stand corrected then. My only experience with sole QB in CMSF has been dire.
Are you saying that CMSF QB solo maps have scripted AI as well? I played a couple of attack defend type games when I first responded to this post as I wanted to be sure I knew what I was talking about and honestly the AI didnt do much except sit there. There was certainly no placing of defenders etc in places where any human would defend.
However, I await CMN's AI maps. To be honest though this is the first time any of you Beta Boys have mentioned this, unless Ive missed it of course.
-
I sincerely hope that is not the case!
Perhaps MarkEzra could throw some light on this, assuming that it doesn't impact on his NDA?
Everything Ive read here makes me believe that the AI in QBs will be the same as we see in CMSF. So unless QB maps are somehow scripted for solo play (and I cant see how they would be) I dont envisage much, if any difference between CMBN and CMSF.
If you have CMSF try it and see what happens. In my experience you wont get much of a game out of the AI, with any kind of battle.
-
Me too, which is why QBs were almost the only thing I played in CMx1. Although sometimes they were a kind of hybrid between QBs and scenarios insofar as I would select the forces for both sides. But placement of the opposing force was still left to the AI, so there were always plenty of surprises.
That said, I am assuming in CMx2 that non-random maps DOES NOT equate with canned scenarios. Once again, I am expecting that the AI can, if allowed, choose its own forces and placement for them. So each engagement, even if played on the same map, can be unique. If I am incorrect, I hope someone with definite information will correct me.
Michael
Correct me if Im wrong here anyone but Im not sure the AI is up to non-scripted scenarios in QBs. I dont think you will get much, if any enjoyment except possibly in an attack type scenario (where you do the attacking).
In CMSF the AI notoriously just tends to sit there in Meeting Engagements etc. I rather think the QBs are for man V man PBEM or RT enjoyment.
-
Well because we aren’t allowed to tell you regarding CM:BN, running your own test in CM:SF and extrapolating is your best way forward.
I imagine then it won't vary significantly from CMSF?
-
Elbow, some good stuff in here and I'm enjoying you DAR. One question though. How does the infantry fighting feel compared to CMSF? Are the sides more even and how is the accuracy at various ranges compared to CMSF. Does it feel right?
Oh, and when the game comes out, please remember to give me a game.
cheers and well done.... So far.
-
Well if you use file sharing and something like Hamachi to get yourself on the "same" sub net you can avoid the "pass the usb stck" method.
Just stick with PBEM and save your turn to a shared drive and then the other person can access it from there (saves on email attachment limits, etc.)
I'm one the "movable waypoints bandwagon" too.
Why not just use a shared Dropbox folder? Almost as fast as TCP and no loss of features. Well, except maybe a chat facility.
As stated above, there are oh so many ways to share files these days.
-
Well, at some point, hopefully about 3 months before the game arrives, the real name of the Normandy game will be revealed and a new forum section opened.
Perhaps this will be soon and perhaps not. Until then I think CM NATO or any derivative of it will be okay.
Steve, release bone, bridge bone, bocage bone, or even water bone would do. Unless the water is the same as it is in CMA? Then I don't need a bone.
-
Nice results Vulture.
My point about this though is related to the thread topic and while I appreciate anyone who takes the time to work out these things it's maybe worth a whole thread of its own instead of being lost in a Normandy one.
My only point was that while I understand the out of command colours, I would think it would be good to see it represented on screen, especially in RT battles.
Therefore if the icons were to gray out when the unit was out of command, once glance at your screen would give you an instant appraisal.
I was just wondering how easy this system may be to implement?
Brits?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Oh Im not convinced, Im just thinking logically. If BFC are going to make an Arnhem Module they need to put something in it. Logically then, it cannot be SS as they are in Module 1. If the Brit Airborne are included in Module 1, then what does that leave to attract anyone to an Arnhem module that a scenario designer cannot already make?
So if one module does not require another to play it, what would that leave? Some terrain and building changes? Which leads me to believe that sense would mean leaving the Brit Airborne out until Module 2, though Im still not sure how you can play Arnhem without SS units.
Unless of course SS units also get included in that Module as well. Which again makes sense to me.