Paul AU
-
Posts
200 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Paul AU
-
-
First, I should say that that Fortress Italy is great. CMx2 II, works. Nice work on infantry aligning along cover, on roads, on many things. Nice work. (That's not suckage, that's my opinion).
1. In the scenario editor, how do you set where the initial point-of-view is? I mean, when the scenario starts, what determines what your first 3D point of view is? How do you set, that point of view?
2. Don’t half-tracks seems a little too susceptible to bullets? Isn’t the point of a half-track, that it isn’t? How accurate is BFC’s simulation of this? Seems that any infantry squad can see-off a half-track. Shouldn’t that be the other way around?
3. Somewhere in the excellent manual (I'm thankful for the spiral-bind) , it says where you can toggle-on "Show enemy units" during play-testing. So you can see what your AI-plans are doing, while play-testing. Er, where is that? I can't find it again. And I've looked.
-
Here is the OP:
>> Gentlemen from Battlefront,
When i heard about Combat Mission Battle for Normandy, i was expecting great things with this new opus. A few games after, like many veterans of the Combat Mission series, i feel something like a bad felling about this game. A feeling of deception, of mess-up. Why ?
Because of many bugs and irrealistic things that ruin the interest of the game. Here is a list :
- Artillery (even light mortars) is too powerful. 2 rounds of an artillery barrage are enough to destroy half an army or at least, reduce drastically a platoon to a few men harmless group. With this problem, it is difficult to manage a strategy or having a real fight with guns, AT, etc. Everything is destroyed after a barrage. Artillery power must be decreased for at least 30 % of its current efficiency (and accuracy in the same way). The artillery problem is the main problem of this list.
- Path-finding is poor and players have to manage units one by one to obtain proper movements.
- No possibility to select armour cover arc or infantry arc as we could in CMx1.
- Unexpected point of impact on armoured vehicles (for example, hit on left flank when the shooting enemy is on the right side…)
- A.P. shells kills infantry as easily as H.E. shells. I hope it is a bug. For example, a 57mm caliber American A.T. gun shot against a building with men in it. 4 of them died with one shot!!! I thought A. P. had no explosive ability…
- No delay to execute an order whatever the unit’s level is. So, why should we spend points to buy crack or veteran unit? No matter with CMBN.
- units are sometimes very difficult to place on terrain at some strategic points or to give them the best concealment as possible (for example behind sandbags).
- Troops covered in buildings are too much vulnerable under enemy fire (light or armoured).
- Same icon when an enemy is spotted. No matter if it is a tank or a soldier. I mean than soldiers should be able to identify at least if there is a tank or men in front of them. But when the enemy is spotted, we know immediately what kind of unit it is. Is it a new "fog of war" style ?
- Armoured vehicle’s shots and gun‘s shots are too accurate à too many “one shot, one kill”
- During assault against a building, friendly units continue firing on building to cover, with a risk of casualties on assaulting troops.
- What exactly soldiers do with the order "to hide"? Where do they hide? Does this order really mean something?
- A.I. manages troop’s behaviour in a strange way and not with appropriate action. Sometimes, they fire with their gun on a tank, sometimes they did not shot with their bazooka on a tank, and more other stupid things like this.
- Armoured spot enemy infantry too easily.
Of course, there are probably other problems, but those are enough to make me stop playing this game. Unless a patch fix these problems, there is no chance than i continue playing it or i than i buy the adding modules. I think i will continue Combat Mission x1. This one, at least, has been programmed seriously. CMBN is the perfect example of a game which has been thinking only for graphics effects. No matter with realism or playability.
Regards.
JC-CM>>
Everything in it is valid.
-
I have become a firm believer that the bogging/imob percentages are set way too high. Playing the Letzte Hofnung, 75% of my vehicle losses were to bogging/imob, not enemy action.
I am playing "A Strange Awakening" and I just had a PSW 223 bog/imob after moving 5m on the road. The conditions are warm and dry and his damage screen shows engine and wheels are both a green square, no damage. ?
Many immobilisations are especially annoying because they’re completely UNavoidable, and not due to your mistake or enemy action. I expect trouble if I drive through a ford, but not on a road or dry firm land.
A solution would be for BCF to add an “immobilisation slider” in Preferences, so the player could influence the probability of bogging or immobilisation. (Two sliders, then).
I’ve suggested this before, but BFC’s reply (paraphrased) was “Nah, we prefer realism. Part of that realism is getting unlucky sometimes.”
My main complaint was that small games are frequently won or lost on who is immobilised first. You could effectively lose 100% of your armour because you dared to drive down the road. 5 metres in the above example. It’s a game-breaker.
And while losing a game (and wasting all the set-up time) may be realistic (and it’s obvious that many here think that BFC’s immobilisation regime is not realistic), it’s not fun. It’s no fun to have a game screwed by a risk you CANNOT avoid taking – eg, moving down a road.
I can’t see what harm giving players some control over immobilisation probability would do. I don’t think it’s a big job to implement.
I suppose I have unrealistic, expectations.
-
Both visually and functionally they are quite like ditches. The CMSF trenches are in fact very un-trench-like.
I agree. But I'm thinking, for Europe, sharp, narrow (wall-like, in Cmx1 terms), ditches that require a 'crawl' or ('slow') to be 'in'.
Ofcourse, that type of trench may not have survived the transition to LOS applicable fortifications. But scenario designers have been using them widely as ditches so I can't imagine they've not been brought forward in to CM:N in some fashion.
I don't want a big fat 3 metre-wide 'trench'. That's the point.
About random immobilisations:... no, my complaint is system-wide. In small games, random immobilisation decides the game. There should be a toggle to prevent that.
And then there you are, immobilized at the most inconvenient place possible.**** happens.
Well... I could go on about that....
-
Elmar Bijlsma
Yes, particularly ditch-like. Fields and roads don't have 6' deep, wooden-reinforced trenches down each side. Your typical Normandy field is not ringed by a military 'trench'.
All the eye-witness accounts I've read, have mostly been from 'ditches'. Seems to me, most of that war was fought from, ditches. Narrow, low, muddy, not-a-trench, ditches.
(Would you like to talk about the game-killing effect of a random immobilisations?)
-
Thank you, Mr. Vulture. Indeed.
CMx1 does it instantly. Crop the map, *then* unleash the scenario editor.
(And don't forget the ditches).
-
A Quick Battle's set-up zones are based on the map it's given.
Any questions?
-
Uh... are you sitting down? No random maps for Normandy.
Well yes I am. And, I thought BFC'd said there would be. What was that whole 'tiles
thing?
It was 12 pages.
-
Yeah, cropping maps is a lot harder than it sounds. At least the way the game works now. To crop a map the game would have to dynamically reconfigure setup zones and AI Plans. That's not easily done.
No, you crop the map first. Before the player is presented with it. Then the program runs as normal. It's a naked map - no set-up zones. Easy.
-
BFC wrote:
Cherry Picking isn't a neutral term in my eyes.
It’s a negative term. Most of the time when I ‘cherry-pick’, it’s not for the ‘best’ units, the cherries, it’s to create ad-hoc units in odd combinations which weren’t as rare as I think you think they were. When I do this, I’m as likely to pick a crab-apple as a cherry.
I too mostly liked the ‘shopping’ aspect of CMx1, and accept the ‘mis-pricing’ (IMO) of some units as part of the, er, price of such a fun QB purchase system. It’s a shame that’ll be gone. It’ll be interesting to see how CMx2’s (hidden) dynamic/relative unit costs work out.
You will be allowed to specify … individual elements, not Formations which are predetermined collections of specific Units. You will, however, be able to pick Formations if you want.
Sounds good, and a relief to hear.
(That way I can pick my single piece of armour that gets bogged on turn one on the road while going slow… given any more thought to the ‘Immobilisation Probability Toggle’? No? Oh.)
Also relieved to hear that a random map system will be there. Yay.
How about, in addition to the ‘tiles’ system; the QB system can be asked to select an entire pre-existing map from a maps folder - at random? So you’d get a random non-random map, possibly cropped to suit the size of the engagement.
(And don’t forget to include the ‘ditch’ terrain-type).
-
The game knows the "% chance to hit/kill". Players enjoyed seeing that, even if it might be wrong, or unrealistic to know. Give it to them, for the Game's sake. They'll enjoy it more. Especially when the players know it's only an approximation, and it's unrealistic to know.
Give 'em what they want, when you can. (I say).
-
I didn't think of that, because the rest of the vision was so authentic (if highly edited).
I dunno. Not sure that's the answer.
-
Of course not.
I just watched a 1943 American propaganda movie telling us how great and noble the Russians were in WWII. For two hours. Rare enough in itself.
A few scenes were baffling, documentary-wise.
I’m sure I saw (I re-watched it a few times) German infantry attacking through the snow, supported by American half-tracks. The standard boxy M3 half-track. Definitely not the ‘Hanomag’ SdKfz 251 or any variant thereof.
What could the Germans have had, (ever) that could look like that?
This was purportedly a German advance in 1942/3. Yes, I understand is was a propaganda film. Yet the footage was real.
(You think I’ve mistaken Russians for Germans. Maybe, but no, I don’t think so, the helmet shapes and MG 42s are a give-away).
-
I was creating CM:BB scenarios five minutes ago.
-
(Don't for forget the 'ditch' terrain element).
-
There will never be a time when I do not hold BFC in the highest regard - on the back of CMx1. And the 'support' they gave that (and me) then, and CMx2, now.
I don't really like where they are going now, but I understand why they are going there.
(I'm sure I'll "get it" soon).
Cheers, BFC.
-
Mr. Harrison, I agree entirely.
Early-on I voiced my doubts about a game where too-close-to-real life war-games are… to close to real life.
If you feel uncomfortable about “beating up some kids” in the game, imagine my Leftist view about a game that invites us to… be too close to real life.
I know that many people enjoy the military superiority that the US has. More than enjoy.
As I’ve said, it’ll be a relief when we can get back to a historical period when we are more able to pretend to a moral, but not technological, righteousness. And we can all chose which side that righteousness belongs to.
“Isn’t this a waste of time? Couldn't we better spend our time planning a war on a country that couldn’t possibly defend itself?”
“Yes, yes. We'll do that after lunch.” -The West Wing (TV series)
-
I've been wanting to say this for a while, because BFC keeps calling it "cherry picking", with the implication that players want to chose the "best" units in unrealistic combinations.
First, what's wrong with that?
Second, for myself in CMx1, when I do that, it's usually to pick the worst, or oddest units or combinations, to create interesting (not-usual) situations. Not the "cherrys".
Third, the idea that only complete (yes you can delete units, but still), on-paper "correct" formations are available - is pretty unrealistic and dare I say, historically incorrect.
Odd combos, remanent units, ad-hoc formations, seem to be common in historical accounts.
If all I have to kill Private Ryan is a Tiger and a man-packed 20mm Flak, then, that's all I have, no matter what my TO&E says in BFC's file. And wouldn't that be interesting?
(Actually, no it wouldn't, Paul, because your only Tiger will get bogged on the road on turn 1 for no apparent reason. Sometimes, more often than you'd think (BFC), "Realism" isn't very realistic, or interesting).
(Yes, I feel better now).
-
Yeah, Mr. Cape.
-
Despite Doodlebugs excellent posting, i still have no idea who started the most useful mod, ever.
I'm only annoyed it wasn't me.
-
I think this *was* anti 'me'. You've started two 'same themed' threads here - on the subject I just raised in CM x 2. BFC closed that thread, but you wanted to keep talking about it.
Chess vs 'crap-shoot' - I've expressed my opinion. Long, and hard. In those threads.
-
Good fun, keep it up (and yes, images fine here too).
-
CMBB is flawed. CMAK is the refined version of the product.
Not without flaws but less than CMBB.
Yess... but CMBB has such *scope*. It's just huge. I got CMAK, it still mostly play CMBB.
-
I'd like to re-state that the recent thread about game-killing immobilisation in the CMx2 Forum, and the original thread started by me in the CM:BB forum - made clear, rather repetitively, I thought, that the realism or otherwise of some kinds of luck were irrelevant to the game-design issue at, er, issue.
Paul AU's Questions.
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
Excellent, George, Thanks.
>> scenario author mode when you open the scenario to play (can only be done when you select single player RT or WEGO).
I never saw any toggle or yes/no?