John_d
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by John_d
-
-
I don't think it does, but we've run out of things to discuss cos we haven't received any new info about the game pretty much since it was announced that it was going to be made. Which sucks. There was a great deal of interest initially though and arguably there was more enthusiasm for CMC than CM:SF at first
-
Would it be possible to try playing one of you lot please? Just so that you can assess my tank tactics for yourselves. I think I'm following the advice that I'm getting on the forums, but it doesn't seem to be working all that well
-
I was looking at Combat HQ tonight and I found some pictures of a map of a dam (for CMBO I think) and its incredible! I was wondering if anyone had a copy of it that they could email to me. Was thinking of using it to make a commando raid type mission
-
I went back to have a look at how the AI is handled and I think that I have found a possible (unavoidable) flaw. I think that there is an element of the AI and the TactAI working closely together in a way that the human player can't. In a sense, the computer has a greater control over his troops- there is a lower level of control that the AI can go down to. When I issue my orders, I can only predict what will happen within the confines of the orders that I have given- if the TactAI decides to do something that will result in my orders not being effectively carried out, then I cannot predict this. The AI on the other hand is able to predict exactly how the TactAI will work and therefore is able to pull off tricks that are, by and large, impossible for the human player to master.
I see what you mean about overestimating the capabilities of tanks. I think that everyone realises pretty quickly when playing CM that tanks are no longer the miracle cure-all for military matters that they often are in other games. But my gripe here is that the way that the AI handles tanks gives it an unfair advantage when they go head to head. I can usually win the infantry battle without any trouble, but I always lose badly when it comes to the tanks. As I have pointed out before, I usually now just use infantry AT, as I find it alot more reliable than other forms of AT.
Btw, I would be extremely interested in playing PBEM with a more experienced player to point out where my tactics go wrong and also to see how an intelligent opponent differs from an AI one
-
EDIT: post edited to remove childish tantrum
[ February 04, 2006, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: John_d ]
-
Oh, I have just watched a PzIIIJ wipe out an entire platoon of T-34s, all with frontal penetrations. Most of the shots fired by my T-34s missed, apart from a few that hit and bounced off, despite the 76.2mm caliber. Also, the Panzer was about to get ambushed, but conveniently turned around at the last moment, despite being out of LOS to my tanks. It took less than 40 seconds for the Panzer to kill all 3 T-34s. In addition, as soon as the crew started to bail out, the Panzer switched targets. According to the kill timer, this shouldn't happen as he should know that the tank has been destroyed.
This may be the final straw that makes me abandon CMBB altogther
-
OK, I am seriously considering removing CMBB from my hard drive. This is due to the tanks. I am getting sick of playing against the AI and watching my tanks consistantly getting whipped by other vehicles with inferior specifications. When I use a PzIII, I can't get a frontal penetration on a T-34. When the AI uses PzIIIs, they merrily blast their way through the frontal armour of T-34s with worrying frequency. Whenever I outflank the AI, enemy tanks immediately spot the threat, spin around and destroy my tanks. Whenever the AI outflanks me, my tanks either don't notice, or don't move and engage the enemy with their rears exposed. My tanks invariably get huge command delays, bog or get caught up in traffic jams. All of which usually contribute to their hasty demise. Also, my tanks will follow my orders to the letter. So if they see a KT with its sides exposed whilst their driving along, they will ignore it and continue to derive the extra 5 metres. In the meantime, of course, the buttoned AI controlled KT will somehow spot my tanks from behind, turn around and start firing (always with gobsmacking accuracy). But in the face of this onslaught, do my tank crews return fire? Do they hell! They sit around eating their sandwiches until consumed by fiery death. My attempts to engage the enemy from two sides do not work.
Frankly, as Nienie said, you don't play the enemy, you play the computer
-
I have just found another use for halftracks, where tanks and trucks would not do the trick. I was recently playing a game against a friend based around a large town in the middle of the map, surrounded by countryside and fields. The town itself was too packed and LOS too poor to really make best use of tanks, so whilst an infantry battle raged in the town itself, there were running tank battles out on the surrounding fields. These tank battles had reached a bit of a stalemate, so I decided to do something totally unexpected to wrongfoot my opponent. Inspired by the 'Thunder Run' I decided to charge my re-enforcements (mostly more tanks) through the centre of town and through enemy lines in order to get flanking shots on the enemy armour. However, I realised that I would need infantry to spot for me. But I couldn't get them through the centre of town on foot, nor could I get them through on the backs of tanks, as my tactic rested on the idea that my opponents AT defences wouldn't be able to react quickly enough to an all-out charge, but the small arms would (thus why I coudn't do the same thing with an infantry charge). So any infantry riding on tanks would get hit. So instead I used HTs. Seeing as I wasn't going to encounter much AT fire anyway (hopefully), they would serve to protect my infantry as they drove through a hail of small arms fire. Perfect.
The tactic worked really nicely, with me losing a couple of tank commanders to rifle fire and one PzIV to a lucky shot by a T-34 parked down a side-street. Also, all of my infantry made it intact, which wouldn't have happened if they had been riding tanks or in trucks. So HTs do have a function that nothing else can perform, even though it is an extremely limited one
-
I had this problem. Right click on the CMBB icon and go to 'Properties', then 'Compatibility' and select Windows 95 from the drop down menu. Should work
-
I was having a poo the other day when I had a stroke of genius. It occurred to me that the tactics we will have to use in CMBB sections of CMC (henceforth known as CMCTACT, as opposed to the operational level past of CMC. Which I will call CMCOP. Just for simplicity really) will be very different from those tactics that we currently use in standard CMBB. Of course, this has already been covered several times in this forum, but I came up with an idea- why not create scenarios in CMBB that will reflect the kind of things that we will come across in CMCTACT? For example, recon work where the object is not to kill the enemy or take any territory, but simply to see what is out there and then get out quickly. Or infiltrating a company of infantry through enemy lines at night (or even in a city) without making contact with the enemy. Or concealing a large force from a recon platoon as effectively as possible. Or defending an artillery battery against a far superior force (which I think would just involve running away). Or ambushing a battalion in convoy with only company (or even a platoon).
So I got to work creating scenarios that would reflect the weird and wonderful new experiences that CMCTACT would offer us. I designed the maps based on my understanding of how CMCTACT is supposed to look- 2km x 2km maps with large victory flags in each 1km x 1km quadrant. The one thing I was unable to work out from the information that we have been given is who controls which flags at the start of the battle, although I suppose that this will depend on the situation in CMCOP at the time. I didn't really bother playtesting them for playablilty to reflect that you won't always get a pretty looking, balanced, fun to play battle (in a CMBB sense- I imagine that CMC will completely change the definition of what is and isn't fun to play, given that unbalanced forces will be the norm and there will be much more opportunity and call for retreating) in CMCTACT.
However, I noticed one major problem. The AI (understandably) always behaved as if it were fighting a single, isolated CMBB battle. Recon is surprisingly easy when the enemy makes a banzai charge towards one corner of the map to capture a flag. Basically, all battles got reduced to meeting engagements. Not only is this historically inaccurate, but meeting engagements are the type of battle handled most poorly by the AI and IMHO the least fun to play generally. Also, the AI made no attempt to reduce casualties. A further unforseen problem is that the victory flags no longer really mean anything. Because of the way that they are distributed (i.e. one per 1km x 1km square) they often end up in totally inappropriate places. Like in the middle of a field or a river or a lake. Then, predictably, the AI runs to whichever flags its does not control, which doesn't even give it a slight strategic advantage like it does sometimes in CMBB, by holding a hill or a group of buildings or so forth.
Anyway, the upshot of this is that for in order for CMCTACT to be playable against the AI, some serious changes are going to have to be made. Either the flags will have to be positioned differently (i.e. by the scenario designer) so that they only mark out points of strategic importance, or the AI will have to be recode to prevent the banzai charges and conserve troops for later.
If anybody wants to try out making mock CMCTACT battles- just use the random map generator and follow the instructions above. I have a few, but it seems kinda pointless for me to send them, when they take so little time to make yourselves
-
Not a case of not knowing how to move infantry without armour protection, but more to do with the fact that infantry takes so bloody long to cover long distances. HTs win over trucks on off-road ability, infantry on foot over distance and tanks in terms of expendibility. Losing a HT rarely changes the course of a battle- losing a tank often does. If I do find myself in a situation where I am forced to use vehicles to move my infantry about, rather than letting them get around under their own steam, I'd rather use vehicles that don't have any other particular use. My tanks are better off doing what tanks do best- killing stuff. And besides, there are plenty of times where I don't want my tanks and my infantry going to the same destination. In these situations, HTs fill the role very nicely.
I see your point about HTs being expensive, but for someone who never plays QBs, I don't really consider it to be an issue at all.
-
In defence of HTs, I have had some good use out of them in the past. Firstly, it is sometimes possible to rapidly 'insert' troops. I have done this to great effect a number of times in order to either a) reach an objective before the enemy arrives
reach an objective before a smoke screen or artillery barrage clears c)attempt to run 'under' enemy fire, basically just by charging recklessly across the enemy field of fire at range. The point here is that I'd rather do this at 30mph than 6mph. HTs can also be used effectively on the defensive. They can be used as mobile MG positions- just put them in position, let rip and fall back. HTs are far more effective at this than MGs on foot. They can also be used to quickly ferry troops around your defensive line.
Nobody seems to have made the point yet that HTs are off-road vehicles. If you need to move your troops 2km to the front line, HTs are far and away the best way of getting them there, especially if the roads are mined or damaged. Try getting a load of trucks to go down winding, potholed, mined roads. You might as well forget it. Hitler will have killed himself by the time they get there. HTs on the other hand, can just go cross country. Providing you stop in cover and let your troops walk the rest of the way to the actual fight, this usually works out ok.
Also, I don't like using tanks to move infantry either. Can't remember who originally brought it up, but I wholeheartedly agree. Quite apart from the time wasted picking troops up, letting the embark, stopping in cover and letting them dismount, I find that it limits what I can do with my tanks and breaks up any kind of squad coherency. Suppose that I have a bunch of troops on the back of some tanks, when suddenly I notice that my opponent has messed up and left some of his tanks in an exposed position. Let's also suppose that the tanks currently on 'the school run' are the nearest units to this opportunity. Here you have a dialema. You don't really want to engage the enemy's tanks with troops on the back of your tanks (quite apart from the fact that the infantry could be doing something useful, rather than watching a tnak battle they can't contribute to other than by dying), but you don't want to miss this opportunity either. Even if you split some of the tanks off to join the battle, this will break the platoons up and then you have to dick around matching them up again, by which time they are probably several km apart. Basically, I would rather have dedicated AFVs and APCs than try to mix up the two roles
-
Completely. This scenario really isn't any use unless compared against 111. I assume that's the point of it.
It been a while since I've played 111, but from what I remember it is a damn sight easier than 110. One platoon goes out first and spots targets, the mortars and MGs suppress and the other two platoons go in for the kill. Roughly speaking anyway. Also what shows up is the amount of punishment a company is able to take as opposed to a platoon. One platoon can be stopped dead, but they recover much faster when are 2 other platoons there to bail them out and provide alternative targets. And even when squads break or route, there is the company HQ travelling behind to rally them. Thus the recovery speed of a company is faster than a platoon as it is much harder for a unit to go out of command radius
-
I wasn't specifically referring to urban combat. Now you mention it, 15 minute turns would perhaps work with urban combat, but I would still rather play a 4 30 minutes battle operation than an 8 15 minutes battle operation. Alot of the time this problem links back to one of my original gripes about time limits. To me, unless the map is particularly small or scripted as Jason pointed out, 15 minutes isn't really enough time to really get stuck into a battle. I've played 15 min operations where approaching the enemy can take 6 or 7 minutes in itself. This only leaves a very limited amount of time for the actual combat to take place.
In response to some comments made about manuver in 15 min operations- I can accept that in urban combat sometimes defenders and attackers will find themselves positioned within feet of each other. But that doesn't explain how they got there! I'm talking about starting a battle only to find an entire battalion of men have magically appeared yards from the objective. In real life there is the possibility of detection in these kind of movements. Stalingrad would have been over much more quickly if one of the sides was able to teleport its men through the enemy's lines to take up position next to prime objectives
-
There's always the option of reducing the visibilty using fog to recreate dust thrown up by bombardments and air-raids. This gives the boats a fighting chance. But besides, half the fun of amphibious assaults is knowing that only about half the troops you start off with are ever gonna make it to the beach.
Another way I've seen amphibious assualts done is to give a smallish number of boats to the attacker (enough that some of them will make it across) and then have re-enforcements arrive shortly after they land on the beach. That at least removes the possibility that the defender gets lucky and wipes out the attacking force whilst they're still in the water
-
I agree with Steve here- I honestly don't see the point of this scenario. It involves doing something that I would never do if I were playing for real and which would be even harder done properly (if only b/c you would constantly be on the lookout for other troops). I could only be convinced of its worth if someone could manage a total victory the first time they played it. As it happens, nobody much can do this mission and those that can do so knowing the terrain and the enemy- a privilege that you rarely get when you are playing for real. Besides, when was the last time you found yourself in a position to take 20 minutes to use one green platoon to assault a single MG post? Its never happened to me in over a year of playing CM. Realistically, somebody would have shelled my troops to pieces whilst they were still farting about between the village and the hill.
I have won this battle a couple of times and come close a couple more times (i.e. suppressed the MG but not had time to take the trench) and a far as I can tell, it is largely down to luck. All it takes is for one unit to break unexpectedly (as they do in CM) and the whole plan goes to buggery. Test it for yourself- save the game halfway through your attack and then replay it exactly (or as close as you can get it) a few times. Different outcomes each time. Units which had previously broken will now shrug off MG fire or not be targeted at all. Other units that were pinned for 3 minutes or more will now be given a chance to carry out their orders. And the next time you run it, it will be different again.
The only real value I can see in this scenario is to demonstrate how inflexible single platoons are compared to a company, and how they should be handled differently.
-
Erm, my tanks rarely do what I tell them. But I've never had them drive off the map. Tell him that to lose one tank is unfortunate, to lose all of them looks like carelessness. Sod him, if he can't keep his troops under control he shouldn't be in playing strangers on the internet.
Alternatively you could offer to exit your AT guns and tank destroyers to even things out, seeing as you probably won't need them now
-
Ok, it would be a waste of time to recreate enormous campaigns that lasted months and involved millions of men, but surely it would be possible to at least double the scope of CMC by staggering the entrance of units. Remember that it isn't CMBB that has to do most of the processing b/c most troops won't be actively involved in combat most of the time.
Michael, I think ppl were talking about the possibility of something like the quickbattle option in CMBB for CMC, or at the very least something on the campaign editor that would allow the relative 'values' of various units to be assessed
-
Only b/c I've heard that CMC will be limited to divisional size solely by the amount of process power it would take to handle more than a division on-screen at any one time. If there were a reserve option, then much larger battles could be fought without causing problems with the processing time
-
Good point Sergei
-
I was thinking, if fortifications such as pillboxes and trenches are available, then there is the potential for abuse if they are to be placed in the setup period of the CMBB battle. I assume that in real life, you would place fortifications facing the way that you believe the enemy is most likely to approach from. Because these things take time to construct, you have to figure this out in advance. But if fortifications are to be handled in CMC like they were in CMBB, you will only have to place them when you actually come under attack- i.e. when you know where the attacker is approaching from and perhaps even roughly what troops he has. This is rather unrealistic. Also, there is also a potential for abuse from the other side. I assume that once fortifications are placed, they will be 'locked' as they are currently in CMBB operations. So what is to stop a player from sending a recon platoon into an area that he suspects will be fortified, thus fooling the other player into setting up his defences facing the wrong way and having them locked. Then the main force of course atacks from behind of from the side.
This kind of thging could be quite easily fixed one of two ways. Firstly, when digging in, ou specify whether to defend along a north/south axis or an east/west axis and this limits how you can rotate defences in the CMBB setup. Secondly, when you give the order to dig in, CMC automatically cuts to CMBB setup to force you to place your fortifications before making contact with the enemy.
Just a suggestion
-
Talking of this kind of thing, surely it would be possible to increase the scale of CMC battles by keeping units in 'reserve'. For example, I buy a division or two of troops, but there is some kind of limiting factor on how many I can have on the field at any given time (say two regiments or something). Every time I lose x number of troops on the field, the computer brings in a further part of my force on the CMC operational map as re-enforcements. This way, the scale of CMC battles could be increased indefinitely, as the number of units available to either side would be spread out over time, which is of course a huge variable. It would also make it possible to capture the scale of huge campaigns such as Stalingrad and Berlin.
Also, on the editor, will there be pre-set groups to choose from like in CMBB? E.g. if I want an infantry regiment will I just be able to click on "'43 Guards Regiment" in the editor and immediately have all the troops at my disposal, rather than having to figure out exactly what should be in the group, platoon by platoon. If so, what will be the biggest group available? Division?
-
So are the scenarios at the proving grounds all untested then? That's where I tend to get my scenarios from, and where most of my gripes have come from. I haven't knowingly playtested though. I was thinking myself that I really ought to start posting feedback on there
Panzer_M: I know what you mean about tank-heavy battles. They can grind a bit
-
Oi! Doesn't anybody else's opinions count around here anymore?!?!
reach an objective before a smoke screen or artillery barrage clears c)attempt to run 'under' enemy fire, basically just by charging recklessly across the enemy field of fire at range. The point here is that I'd rather do this at 30mph than 6mph. 
Progess Report/Release Date? (Lurkers Abound)
in Combat Mission Campaigns
Posted
I wonder if they have encountered problems that are difficult to solve- stitching two games together to create one uber-game can't be an easy task. In another thread, I mentioned that I had tried setting up scenarios of the type that we have been told to expect from CMC. They didn't work very well as the AI was trying to fight as if the battle were being fought in isolation (a la CMBB). It rushed victory flags, thus reducing every battle to a meeting engagement; and didn't conserve its forces. I think that CMC will probably require CMBB to be patched in order to solve the AI problems. This, I suspect, is why we have heard so little about CMC