Zalgiris 1410
-
Posts
544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Zalgiris 1410
-
-
Having different levels of CPU opponent AI tactical abilities is a good idea and to have it also have different tactical doctinal tendancy options as well.
This would be handy for newbie friendliness as well as for giving veterans a greater challange in solo play. And I absolutely support having the Strat AI not only provide an auto-deploy fuction which also could be availliable in different modes of overriding tactical doctrines as well.
I would also like to have greater use of the Strat AI during game play as an adviser or as a substitute step in handler of my units or those that I haven't ordered, but again with having various commanding officer personalities to choose from.
This would also assist newbies as well as veterans in CMx2 and make it more likely that games especially human vs human games run quicker and actually more than likely finished.
These ideas are all based on having a vastly improved Strat AI that could actually really perform all these function satisfactorily.
-
Well der Dillweed, that's why the PzIVF2 was called a Special. It was given the extra long main gun to deal with the T-34, as was the StugIIIF.
IME all T-34/75mm model forces would suffer likewise as in your test due to the faster targeting by the PzIVs because of their better spotting.
BTW get used to fearing for your PzIV Specials, because for all subsequent models of PzIVs they never have more than 50mm of turrett front armour, ever! This is true, I've checked, I don't know the reason even when they put more on late war PzIII turrett fronts. At this point I blame Guderian until I know for sure.
So never ever just rush in your PzIVs, quite right Dillweed. I'm going to be following your huge set of AAR to watch how you handle them. I'm looking forward to see how you go with this.
OTOH, I don't know if this was a response to my quierry as to whether you are sure that you let the CPU opponent / AI freely set up or not?:
Positive, there would have been much more infantry the areas getting hammered by my guns if I hadn't
I don't understand what you are trying to say Dillweed. :confused:
-
The worst outfit in CMx1 is definately the Hungarians in CMBB, much worse than the Italians IMHO, especially as the Russians get better and better while the Italian were sensible enough to surrender. The Honved units arn't worthy of fighting against much more than partisan bands well away from the front.
-
If CMx2 is gonna be as completely different as the BFCs are making it then I think we are all gonna be transformed into newbies quite frankly.
The good thing about that is that we're all gonna need to be treat ourselves as newbies to start off with.
This will hopefully mean that we can all enjoy those specifically newbie friendly senarios and find out just how quickly we become veterans again.
Now that's an idea for a challenge, hey!
-
Are you absolutely sure that you allowed the computer opponent to freely place its units because IME with this battle, you ought to have been minced meat by now considering that you just 'advanced' your Infantry without spending enuough time providing a softening up preparation of his forward positions Dillweed?
-
Wow this is heated and its even got car crashes and a samurai commiting hare kiri...
Just to calm things down I think some of the problem has been because of symantics. I'm not sure if I posted something similar in this thread or elsewhere but I have said that some of the problem has been with different people idea of CMx2 being designed as a "Company" level similation.
For a while that term was scaring the hell out of me, but I think it was because posters are referring to different conceptualisations by this term. I was reading it as implying that CMx2 will be a concrete hard and set fast single Company commanders responsibilities only sized game.
I always thought of CMx1 as a Btln sized game which allowed me to handle a reinforced battalion sized force in terms of units that are Squads and teams of infantry and individual guns and AFVs etc. I hpoe that clears the air somewhat, but I will add this quote from another thread becase I think that it is relevent:
Hmmm, (However, with relative spotting) I fanatically afirm that I agree! *froffing at the mouth*Originally posted by Pirx:CM is definitely a combat simulator, not a command simulator. If it was a command simulator, all you would be able to see is your HQ. I know some people would like a command simulator better than the current game, becuase of the increased realism. Personally, I like the god-like omniscience of CM because I dont have to miss any of the cool little things that happen during the game.
-
I thought that CM already has its self appointed pit boss that doorbitches the players and rubs our noses in it when they feel like it.
But seriously if this multi-player stuff is gonna bloody happen then I think that this pit bitch cross dressing trans-sexual transylvanian thing sounds like a good additional idea, Josh.
I have to agree with Ardem that given the restricted force size scale / scope of CMx2 at least initially there should not be more than 4 players max in Multi-player games esp if this limit saves some BFC programing time and hardward space.
-
Nevermind the crazy stuff, however I still think that gun sight and Infantry-mans POV would still be within the bounds of CM say as one more level down from camera view one at the moment Steve, but I do not regard this as essential since I like to watch all the fireworks happen as it is. (Even more so with relative spotting, hopefully.)
BTW I wish that I had come up with something like the below sentiments and to have expressed them just as well in posts elsewhere:
Hmmm, I fanatically afirm that I agree! *froffing at the mouth*Originally posted by Pirx:CM is definitely a combat simulator, not a command simulator. If it was a command simulator, all you would be able to see is your HQ. I know some people would like a command simulator better than the current game, becuase of the increased realism. Personally, I like the god-like omniscience of CM because I dont have to miss any of the cool little things that happen during the game.
[ September 14, 2005, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
There were a lot of pots for some form of formations option to be in CMx2, but Agua idea of having customisable templates for them is the best suggestion that I've read.
Something like this might also help the CPU opponent fight better and in a more realistc manner, hopefully too.
I would like to add to Agua's concept of having templated formations as a player aid should not just be availliable as an option during the set up phase, but also during the game, including as a 'maintain this formation' or 'adopt this formation' order to help with movement.
It could also provide an overriding tendancy that ensures that Pltn HQs control their Squads and teams, rather then running forward beyond a sinsible distance as the CPU opponent often does IME.
-
Oh I forgot to describe the problems that I've been having. (Forgive me I've had to do that in a number of replying emails!)
By basic I mean absolute total but not technical.
I should indicate that I am a complete and utter ludite when it comes to the way all this works, esp cos it hasn't bloody worked for me yet.
Firstly I don't know what the hell I'm doing in the first place, but the closest I've got to playing PBEM has been when I've got to hear that 'error ding' over and over and over again!
Some how I've managed to save an attatched file into the PBEM file of either CMBB or CMAK on the hard drive, but when they actually show up it's the pleasent sounding 'error ding' that I get when I click the file or try to run it whatever!
Someone sent me the copied into the email type of PBEM file thingy but I don't know what to do with the scibble yet.
Thanks Schrullenhaft for the patch thingy in your first paragraph but I'll leave it til I understand what it means.
BTW when I download senarios from the Proving Grounds do I save it as *All files*? :confused:
[ September 14, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
Thanks Dillweed for the linked battle pics how do you do that and get them in your posts and how were you able to draw the light blue line representing your front line and the red circles etc. What's the process?
BTW I'm assuming that you're playing against the CPU opponent and did you let it to place its units during the set up phase with no adjustments in force balance.
-
Oh what a good idea, gun and tank sight views in CMx2, very cool and it might even help me to get over the restricted level of force size!
-
Oh thanks Vanir Ausf B those Battalion scope of CM is music to my ears, warming my heart and given this thread making me chuckle just a little bit. Can we be sure that the BFC and everyone else who posts heavily devoted to the myopic "Company" scale reads this and in some cases reminded of these, what shall I call them - Combat Mission Statements!
-
I'd like to add that may be there could simply be a two stage iconography for casualties. I mean by this, lets say have during the movie-turn phase or else based on x number of seconds for there first to be a writhing casualty icon figure and then they all develope into a totally incapacitaited and immobile 'dead man' figure.
Thus in CMx2 all casualties would be on the map and still be of no concern of the players to do anything about, since they will handled in the AAR at the end of the game as with CMx1. This would satisfy the eye-candy needs for WIA being depicted to the minimal degree as well as be the best minimal realistic solution.
-
I find Pltn sized games and even single Company sized games masochistic at least to the extent that they are frustraiting and probably not going to involve enough gore and massacurism that the bigger ones can.
I think the way that Steve et al are constantly posting in terms of CMx2 being a "Company" sized game in scope is scaring a few of us who have taken this to mean that our accompliments are not gonna be eough to allow for combined arms actions.
That's not what I hope is the sense in which they are using this word as a description of what is going to be the scale for CMx2 in the early stages.
This is to say that it is still their intention for maximum force sizes to be able to handle one or two full Infantry Companies with their support weapon teams (HMGs, THs, mortars etc.) a few ATGs, AAGs, IGs etc and a Pltn or three Of AFVs and any FOOs with their off board Artillery batteries and planes for airstrikes. Of course there will also still be trenches, mines, barbed wire and other extras accordingly.
I think I'm right anyway, though it would be good to be sure! :confused:
-
I have not yet successfully played against a Human opponent!
Please can any IT technik help me out, I would greatly appreciate it thanks.
I have only got CMAK version 1.1 unfortunately while I hear that most people have got CMAK v1.3 and that this means that I can't play it with most players in PBEM!
OTOH I have a Special Edition CMBB version 1.3 SE, though that hasn't yet worked in PBEM even with an opponent who has the plain CMBB v1.3, WTF? :confused:
I have at least been able to download senarios from the proving grounds and to actually play them, though of course that has all been against the CPU AI opponent only!
-
However many IDs it was that got their full 6 sIGs there was the tendancy towards replacing the 2 gun Pltns with batteries of 4 120mm mortars.
-
I hadn't thought of using two 2 man TH teams against a single AFV as an SOP, though I have rush single enemy tanks with an entire German Infanrty or Pioneer Pltn.
But still I think that those 2 man TH teams are too small and vulnerable, that is suseptible to being eliminated for my liking, because unlike most other 2 man teams in CMx1 they are mostly likely going to have to expose themselves to danger.
-
This idea of having the CPU play with itself while I just have to watch is a novel one and it has my vote.
However, I would like to see the Strat AI improved to such an extent that not only does this C v C work but to the extent that player can choose to employ different ITs as a substitute for themselves during games. This feature could even be used to simulate having a subordinate providing the player with alternative plans for ordering units or providing orders to units forgoten about etc.
This ought to make both set up and ordering phases much faster and hopefully ensure that for Human vs Human games the turns are done quickly enough and to make it more likely that those games get finnished.
-
WTF makes you think that I'm Finnish JonS? :confused:
I was born in Melbourne, Australia but with no Finnish ancestry that I know of.
Thanks for the link, it's something that I've been looking for since I obviously don't have good information with regards to British & Commonwealth TO&E.
I stand corrected on that issue completely and I must agree therefore that it was because they were mostly on the defensive that the German DF well accounted for itself in combat.
BTW I did say that the German TO&E was not maintained properly throughout WWII. But to add to this I'll provide the tables as I know them for the offical 2 Btln per Rgmt Infantry Division:
13th Company 2 Pltns each of 3 ATGs.(3 Rgmts of 6 ATGs)
Panzerjager Btln of 2 Companies both of 4 Pltns 3 ATGs ea.
Its 3rd Company was replaced by one of 12 20mm AAGs.
The Reconaissance Btln and its ATG Pltn was replaced by a Fusilier Btln without its own ATG Pltn.
So the new kind of German Infantry Division had a total of just 42 ATGs and a maximum of 14 75mm leIGs and 6 150mm sIGs.
-
The 1:1 representation ought to mean IMO that WIA are not just going to vanish, esp while the dead bodies pile up. It wont make sence and it will spoil the depiction of casualty events for me at least.
I think that casualties, that is both WIA and KIA ought to be represented in the game, even at least as the same dropped body icon, while the CPU decides at the end for the AAR to assign the ratios.
Blokes get knocked as casualty icons period, incapacitated but alive or just dead. The players don't know between the different states until the arbitrary ratio is worked out at the end, fair enough.
That is the least bothersome solution for now I think. Having the WIA distinct from the dead creates more trouble than it's worth judging by the posts in this thread.
[ September 13, 2005, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
So why not spend just a little time BFC and develope an improved CMx1 version 1.4 with such minor enough changes in the interium?
-
I'm for WIA to be treated, that is depicted, like KIA in CMx2 though perhaps as writhing rather than just immobile figures to draw the distiction.
For Cm battle time frames I thick leaving them there is a fair enough representation of the time it took strecher bearers etc to come to their aid IMHO. So leaving them there ought to be good enough.
-
Does having muzzle flashes in CMx2 mean that units with LOF but with LOS obstructed (not absolutely blocked) say at night or in an area effected by smoke or a dust cloud are going to be able to fire half blindly back at the muzzle flashing targets within range?
(Before someone says it, I'm not talking about this without relative spotting issues, assume that the not yet firing unit is looking in the general direction of where the muzzle flashes are.)
How about flare pistols and very lights for night fighting, does anyone have word yet?
Extra time for a battle
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
The option of extending the time of a battle is a good idea IMHO however it is handled but I would like to add that it ought to be availliable for solo play as well.