xian
-
Posts
827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by xian
-
-
Does Rattled equate with Broken in the manual?
-
It's been mentioned before, but the Assault command penalty is either going to mean that the ASSAULT button ends up as a the 'lazy man's attack' button, or else be completely ignored.
Only the actual team experiencing heavy incoming fire should suffer the effects of suppression, rather than the whole squad. As this problem doesn't happen when you manually split squads, you really shouldn't be penalised for selecting the ASSAULT command either.
Also, would it be reasonable to include an 'Attack' command for units within a few meters of a fortified position? You know.. Bayonet's on, war cries etc. I think CM1 had something like this?
-
AI armour and guns don't seem quite so eager when it comes to shooting infantry. It's probably a union thing and outside of their remit.
-
I've also seen soldiers aiming just their empty hands at the enemy, and I love the treadmill effect when units scoot along the ground without moving their legs. All part of the fun.
-
Are there shadows of aircraft as in CM1?
Sad to hear that you cannot defend against them as in CM1.
-
I also think that that AI let you off lightly - I'm still waiting for those 88s to turn on my infantry (they know I'm there) but they don't seem to want to.
-
I understand what you are saying and I think you have a point. But aside from what Sergei says about some of it not even being possible within the present "under the hood mechanics", most of that kind of information is available from other sources if one really cares. That is to say, the game can be played and played well without knowing all that detail. I does lose something of its pedagogical worth in the process however, which I think is what you are saying? But it also brings us closer to the real world experience of soldiers in combat who didn't have all that information at their fingertips either. They did things based on the best guesses they could make derived from their experience. If it worked, fine. If it didn't, maybe they died or were wounded or captured. Similarly, if a player is attentive, he'll start to work out at least a rough idea of what works and what doesn't on an intuitive level. Again, this puts the player closer to a real world experience. The game could have evolved more in the direction you advocate—and it wouldn't have necessarily been wrong for it to do so—but BFC chose a different path and it seems to be a successful and pretty popular one. I doubt that they will abandon it any time soon.
Michael
I understand the point you are making. I guess I need to remember that we are talking about two different games and not a Combat Mission MARK 2. It is so hard to avoid making comparisons though, and I do feel that many of the design decisions are based upon the fact that there is now a RT mode. Players wouldn't have as much time to check all this unit info in RT. That said, a few things like 'overhead unit status' would help both modes of play immensely - especially RT.
Actually, I'm still not clear on whether CM2 uses 'real-world' data for calculations like CM1 did?
-
These are pretty much impossible because unlike CMx1 there is nothing in the game to draw these from. The game is not based on hit chances or penetration tables.
Sure, I understand this. But surely a rough 'to hit chance' could be extrapolated simply from the distance, the type of round, the velocity etc. Then converted into something for the player (example):
Chance to Hit: GOOD
Chance of Penetration: AVERAGE
Is this not possible?
-
In many ways the CM1 series of games was the spark that ignited my interest in WWII wargaming and WWII history in general. What made the game special for me was the wonderful detail about the capabilities of units that the player received. The percentage hit chance when targeting, the penetration tables, and the real world information about armour thickness/slope/hardness/shot traps etc. really helped me to understand the intricacies of the WWII battlefield.
CM2 is undoubtably a worthy successor. It really succeeds in bringing the visual detail of the WWII alive in the mind of the player. The battles are incredibly immersive and I certainly feel for my little Puppe Truppen. Of course, I am aware that there are still a few things that needs improving or tweaking such as the AI and some additional GUI commands, but I am sure that future updates will have no problem ironing these out.
My major concern is that the designers seem to have decided to considerably reduce the amount of information a player receives about his units' capabilities and status:
A few examples:
1. Percentage hit chance and likelihood of penetration when targeting armour (I have absolutely no idea if I am attempting a pointless shot)
2. Penetration tables (were a great rough guide - they don't NEED to be 100% correct)
3. Armour thicknesses (Bergman's mod helps a bit)
4. Overhead unit status info (I need to check each unit individually to see how it is doing)
5. Unit's current location on GUI (ie. light woods/building etc. I need to zoom right in to see where they are).
Like CM1, I assume that there are some serious calculations going on in the background based on 'real world' data. CM1 seemed to have the balance right - that extra layer of detail helped players to make informed tactical decisions and provided new players something to get their teeth into. It's just a shame that a bit more of this information isn't given to the player in CM2. It was a clear demonstration of the authenticity of the data 'under the hood'. I mean, why not show off a bit!
I realise that the detailed visuals in CM2 provide far more feedback than its predecessor ever did, but somehow I still always feel like something is missing.
I also think that players new to WWII wargaming might not have the information and unit feedback they need to really understand what is going on in any depth.
Don't get me wrong - I love the game. It really is a fantastic piece of work that BF should be very proud of. It's just that, with a few changes, it could be exceptional.
-
Push us hard enough and we'll remove the points again, as we did with CM:SF. So tread carefully
Fantastic - never known a software company to threaten its customers with reduced functionality... very funny.
-
Nope.. seems like they forgot about the Mac delete key.
-
doesn't seem to work on the Mac... I'll try some other keys.
-
I notice that the hotkey for 'cancel target' is labelled as 'unused' in the hotkey document. Would it be possible to active this to allow a user-defined hotkey for 'cancel target'?
-
It's a small thing but...
Just playing through the Raff campaign and I'm glad I read the manual because I wouldn't have known how many setup zones there were meant to be in mission 2.
There are about 5 different coloured zones (purple, green, light blue, dark blue, mauve). I realise that the terrain underneath must be affecting the colour but it is highly confusing.
Could this be fixed?
-
My feeling is that, if anything, they're tougher. 2 casualties in a single minute seems to pin and reduce to 'Nervous' from 'OK' any size unit, from 12-man US squad to 4-man team. Even though it's 50% casualties for the team and 17% for the squad. Add the broader suppression frontage of split squads and the fact that it's easier to get them to sit where you want 'em, plus the fact that if one team finds itself suppressed the others can still be free, I'm struggling to find reasons other than convenience to keep a squad intact. Oh, and the profligate use of AT weapons when you give them anything other than a 'Face' Edit: I mean 'Target Light'... command is a great reason to split off the AT team at game start, give it a 10m circular covered arc and never recombine it.
Hmmm... it seems to me that teams should incur a small morale penalty if they stray from the rest of the squad. I'd be more nervous if I only had one or two buddies with me rather than being part of a 12 man squad.
-
OK thanks - at least it will stop me searching.
-
Our free demos are still frequently covermounted, and a couple of deals have been signed already. On the Mac side, we'll release an updated demo soon that will no doubt find its way on Mac covermounts soon enough.
Thats good to know... but I fear that those magazines don't have the readership that they had 10 years ago. I certainly don't buy a computer magazine anymore.
Online reviews are everything.
-
Can anyone help with this one?
-
Do split squads suffer from any kind of penalty (as in CM1)?
-
Yes, I've seen this too.
In CM1, I remember hiding Tank Hunter teams in buildings, whereupon they would attack armour coming into range, before returning to a hidden state to avoid detection.
This doesn't seem to happen in CM2. I only use the hide command if I want to hide a unit, not as the basis of an ambush. Set an arc without hiding to ensure that an ambush works. If your unit hasn't moved it may have avoided detection.
-
Ten years ago, I remember discovering the demo for CMBO in 'Mac Format' magazine (UK). After playing for a day I was totally hooked and subsequently bought every Combat Mission game for the Mac (yes, it's been a long wait for CMBN - but worthwhile).
I wasn't even big on wargaming and had limited knowledge of WWII materiel and tactics - but I loved it from the start. If I hadn't found that demo all those years ago I would probably still be in the dark about Combat Mission today.
It does make me wonder how, in today's gaming environment, BF is going to find a new audience for its excellent games?
Could it ever find its way onto the xbox? (shocked silence)
In the meantime I'm on a mission to spread the word: I'm in the process of convincing my brother in law and my nephew of CMBN's merits - latest report is that they love the demo.
-
OK - yes. I understand that from a communications and command POV it has value.
But does a poor HQ lower the ability of a squad below that of no HQ?
-
If a platoon has a leader with a -1 or -2 leadership penalty is it better for the squads to be out of the control and command range of their leader?
-
Actually - I've had a rethink...
This might be a fundamental limitation with any game attempting to simulate the WWII battlefield.
For instance... you certainly wouldn't want an enemy tank-hunter team legging it halfway across the map in order to engage one of your Sherman's when there was absolutely no way they could be aware of its existence.
But here's an idea that might solve this problem (but would it work?)...
The human player could be linked to the highest HQ on the map (almost as if he were roleplaying the HQ). So, only units within the chain of command would be under the player's control. Any unit falling out of contact would be left to its own initiative, and would have to be spotted by a friendly unit in order for the player to ascertain its location.
I think it is an interesting idea - but could a game work on these principles?
Rattled not mentioned in manual
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
... I've seen troops Shaken too - so it can't be that.
Perhaps an explanation of 'Rattled' from BF would be helpful as the manual doesn't cover it.