Wartgamer
-
Posts
939 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Wartgamer
-
-
Should be worth a download at least.
-
You may want to be more specific in terms of terminology - the Germans didn't have "corporals" and those armies that did used them very differently. A corporal in the British army was a full blown section commander in charge of 10 men. In the US Army, a squad leader was a sergeant (in normal circumstances).Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer:
Actually you now play many PFCs as I pointed out before. The driver of the Kubelwagon? The two man bazooka team? The sharpshooter (not really a sniper but why quibble), etc.
Unit leaders to me means a NCO (minimum). A corporal being perhaps marginal. The german half squad would certainly be led by a corporal with the squad NCO staying with the LMG as an example.
But a flamethrower? A BAR team?
The German lower ranks included Schütze/Grenadier, (and Obers, generally those found unsuitable for advancement), Gefreiter and Obergefreiter (with career privates eventually making Stabsgefreiter) - but in practical terms, none of them were "corporals" - they were private soldiers with pay raises. The next rank was Unteroffizier, a full blown NCO rank with attendant rank and privileges - equal to a corporal in the British Army but surpassing what a corporal in the US Army was normally expected to do.
To use your examples, an LMG team might be led by an Obergefreiter but he would compare more directly to a PFC - as per your example - in terms of responsibilities and authority. (CM uses that rank to distinguish drivers and team leaders, both, incidentally, whereas you feel a "corporal" should be in charge of one and a "PFC" the other - but in the German Army they are the exact same thing).
How's that for obsessing over a cupholder. We also want to see Lieutenant Colonels in charge of battalions.
</font> -
While I would welcome many improvements in the arty modeling, I wonder that since the overall scale of the game seems to be shrinking slightly, will any arty just dominate?
The single modification I would like to see is that FOs do not have 'ammo-loads' but rather mission requests that may be denied. The battery may have a ammo limit, but it could be decremented for fires elsewhere. Also, barrages are not turn based but based on '4 rounds per tube' fires or something like that.
Victory assessment based on ammo usage might be nice as well as getting a FO on the victory 'flag' (or area) with some battery ammo left. The US actually planned assaults around this concept. They called the victory areas that the FO would be able to see from (once he got there), murder zones or something like that. They would plan on killing the eventual counterattack with arty fires. So when attacking a small town, lets say, the victory 'flag' would actually be at the back of the town facing open areas that the enemy would come from. Of course, the Germans soon took to defending the back ass of towns.
[ February 18, 2005, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
Actually you now play many PFCs as I pointed out before. The driver of the Kubelwagon? The two man bazooka team? The sharpshooter (not really a sniper but why quibble), etc.
Unit leaders to me means a NCO (minimum). A corporal being perhaps marginal. The german half squad would certainly be led by a corporal with the squad NCO staying with the LMG as an example.
But a flamethrower? A BAR team?
-
Is it a binary though? Wouldn't be the case that a units effectiveness would degrade before it disolves? In CM this might be analogous to losing the assault and advance orders, perhaps in extreme cases being unable to move closer to enemy units (I fink some unit states are already handled like this?), then eventually vapourising.Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
In general terms, the more men that "flake away" the greater the chance that the unit will cease functioning and become combat ineffective.
Sources?The above is well known to military strategists.Cheers
Jon </font>
-
So should 1 man squads - or even 5 man squads...Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer:
Other units like tank crews should not fold in but rather get out of the battle.
In CM, the auto surrender applies to the force as a whole, and the squads also have autosurrenders built in...
I think each multi man squad should have a threshhold also at which the survivors simply rout, hors de combat, and take no more active part. For some squads, this could be after 1 casualty, for others, perhaps will never happen til the last man is dead. Would help bring in, as Kip suggested, national characteristics that are realistic - ie Japanese soldiers rarely simply skulking off, ditto the Finns, British commandos, the First SSF, etc. </font>
-
Yes they do testing but I am really curious about the methodology. Specifically, when playtesters play, do they have questions that need to be answered? A test sheet? After action feedback? Does anyone at BFC look over the turns?
-
No, the point is to find bugs, not to win the game
Testing is NOT to just find bugs. You have to test for correct modeling. Just because the system doesnt crash, or a unit doesnt disappear off screen, that there arent modeling problems present.
-
Thats not the intent (ubersquad) but a consequence. And yes there should be penalties. Maybe not being able to split the squad, reduced overall experience, etc.
If a squad can be tracked ammo wise with the 1:1 modeling, so can NCO leadership. The thought being that small unit leadership can be lost and the resulting remnants will be susceptable to combing with either other remnants or the platoon HQ (or company HQ, etc).
The player should have no control over this and the game will combine remnants as it sees fit.
The ability to give many units orders allows ubercontrol on the battlefield. Small units like a bazooka team may have a corporal but in many cases were just privates/PFC types. Having these small support weapons demonstrate the same controllability as squads led by NCOs has never been addressed (I think?).
[ February 17, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
Even if the last surviving guy was the squad NCO, he would be so traumitized temporarily or if not then needed elsewhere (to replace another NCO), that his 'unit' status would be lost in the game.
I would think he would have to come to some good order status before this would happen.
-
1:1 control, as we were discussing before, pertains to individual soldiers within a unit. For example, a truck with a crew of 2 is treated as a single truck from an orders standpoint. If a truck is destroyed, and the crew bails out, then the two men are directed as a single unit. If one of the two crew is incapacitated in some way, then you are now ordering a unit of one man. So, in this case you have 1:1 control, but it is incidental (i.e. through losses) rather than inherent (i.e. set up that way from the beginning).
A sharpshooter is a single man inherently controlled unit in the sense of 1:1 control.
But for remnant units like the single man survivor of a squad, I wish the future game system would just fold him into either another squad or into a platoon HQ. Having this single man 'entity' with all the orders capability that is present in the current CM game is an abuse of control.
Other units like tank crews should not fold in but rather get out of the battle.
[ February 17, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]
-
Space Crabs 2000
-
Is this similar to Panzer Elite or any other Tank Sim? If different, how so?
-
Could you share the methodology? Are you assigned an opponent and how do you procede?Originally posted by Andreas:Speaking as a former beta tester for BFC's CM products, TCP/IP testing is the way to go. It beats PBEM due to the speed with which you get through turns - more turns = more of a chance to see how it works. For anything that needs serious consideration, you do solo-play anyway.
There never was a problem finding another beta tester for CMBB or CMAK, ready and willing to give you a game.
This whole argument clearly comes from someone who has zero clue what he is talking about.
I am sincerely curious and hope you can share this.
-
Well if its a truck driver then thats 1:1 control (right now). Any chance that these will go away in the future?
-
Depends what you are testing for.
If you are testing for computer crashes/lockups/major malfunctions; then play as fast as you can crank turns.
But if you are playing to test for actual battlefield realities, then I would say that PBEM is better. It allows more observation of the movie feedback while the other person plans the move.
-
A more detailed example could be:
1. Choose RECON
2. Three small 'flags' pop up. Each one is a point that would provide LOS into enemy held areas.
3. Pick one 'flag' (or whatever its represented as)
4. Front setup lines will move forward towards that area (a narrow corridor typically) but any enemy units will limit the actual 'penetration'.
5. Short term goal for that scenario in the campaign is to take the objective.
-
Much of the RECON mission is not represented in actual game terms. Part of choosing a RECON mission would allow the setup lines to be moved forward dynamically. It would depend on where the enemy has picketed his lines.
So if you were to choose a RECON mission and the enemy had picketed the small house, you would not be allowed to 'setup' (actually this models your forces creeping up without combat pre-turn) very close to the house. So your RECON is likely to be unsuccessful.
What I want is more dynamic intermediate objectives that are generated as a function of the players 'Big Plan'. The main objective (however represented in the new engine) is the overall campaign goal but the smaller 'flag' type objectives are not so clear cut.
-
One of the rules in Sales is never to belittle the competition. It always casts you in a bad light. Never belittle the customer (they pay you money?) as it is just childish and silly (even if they are wrong/dumb/whatever you feel).
A sense of humor helps frustrated people also.
-
Does one need to have developed a wargame to realize that having testing done with the requirement that both testers be online at the same time is going to be a hassle? Also, will the online play have a impact on the playtesters giving feedback?
And since you are so enamored with car analogies (its a bad analogy too); I have tested many car related products.
Testing is like Sales. Doesn't matter what you are testing or selling. There are principles that are applied.
-
I think its a sign of insecurity to come onto your own forum and continue to trumpet your achievements; like we said before, none of it matters a damn. I'll buy your next product based on the demo, not your track record.
I do not mind this as much as the need to belittle other game designers and talk down the attempts that thier own customers (Grog or Not) make to either provide feedback or (God Forbid!) put forth ideas/wishes.
-
Was it the Grogs that were responsible for the CMBB improvements? In part, sure. They were some of the people that were asking for improvements. But guess who actually came up with the design changes? Not the Grogs... us. The Grogs, in fact, were completely and totally off base as to what needed fixing. I remember telling them what our fixes were and many were CONVINCED that we had it wrong and that the changes wouldn't do squat. Instead they dwelled on their own suggestions. We ignore them because we knew how the game worked under the hood, and therefore we knew what had to be changed. So... another good example of Grogs not being useless, but not being nearly as useful as they think they are.
LOL! C'mon. The Grogs do not even have access to a flow chart let alone any code.
You see a Grognard as a complainer. I see it as someone being critical. One of the definitions of Critical is important.
The truth is that customer feedback initiated changes to a very flawed (yet ground breaking) CMBO. Whether you like the tone of the feedback (and feel the need to label people) seems to weigh more heavily on your mind and I guess I feel sorry for you.
-
OK I will get a brain AND a 'Puff o smoke' generator.
-
If a game designer doesn't listen to a Grog in the woods; Does he make any sound?
From reading threads during the much anticipated CMAK final patch threads, its apparent that whoever at the company that was supposed to be paying attention to anyone (Grog or Not) did not partake in any discussion.
It was funny that when it was released, the PBEM did not work! Thats a Test Jest. Funny huh?
Edit: Testing TCP/IP is going to be much harder than just saying that. Coordinating that will be a hassle. Solo means against the AI? Thats not testing the game. Thats just testing the AI.
</font>
CMx2... a little more to chew on...
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
No. Fire missions are typically called in with rounds per tube IRL. In the rare case where unlimited fire might be called for (FFE), the battery commander might call it off to preserve ammo.
The FO has radio/commo contact with the firers. The FO is not in the dark about how many rounds are coming in. You can't plan assaults and not know how many rounds will land on the enemy.
[ February 18, 2005, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]