Narses
-
Posts
270 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Narses
-
-
Oh yes, saving private ryan, that well heralded, verified documentary that should be the cornerstone for any historically accurate normandy game
Its always good to hear from an expert.
So your saying the German 2 cm wasn't used against ground tarhets ?
I only mention SPR as that was a good representation of using the 2 cm that most have seen. The use of the 2cm against ground targets appears again and again in those weekly movies showing in German movie theaters during WW2 (available from IHF).
-
Would it be possible for scenario designers to upload their scenario maps into the QB map file?
In that way, we the unwashed and map-challenged plebians, can have more QB maps to play with.
Great idea !
-
I read long ago in a Swiss book on early German armor tactics that vrey thing - called outlier hits. In 41-42 the German Pz III and IV with 5 man crews could fire quicker than, for example the early Soviet tanks and the T34 where the T34 cdr was the gunner. The Germans would count on getting more rds on target (3 or 4 :1) since they had a cdr, gunner and loader. And then with that number of hits they might get an unexpected or outlier hit to jam he turret, damage the gun, kill mobility or just hit a certain "sweet spot."
In addition we are faced in CMBN (1944) with the fact that German armor in 1944 was not always the best and they would often skip face hardening or adding certain elements to steel that they no longer had access to ( imports stopped from Turkey for example) causing their armor to be brittle and crack under hits.
-
Okay, you don't mean rarity, you mean cost. You don't think there should be any points at all, but points are fundamental to balance and AI choice of units.
No, I said let the plyr select from within the points. I get that the AI must select also.
But your point is valid - if rarity is none what is my problem. I question the value of rarity in QB at all. In a historical game rarity might have some purpose to prevent the accumulation of nonhistorical assets (I guess). QB should be whatever the plyr wants from the assets available.
I liked the CMx1 approach. Want a self-developed quickie. Just go to list of units/weapons and pick. Stay within your points, click on a squad, here, a towed piece, a tank or 2 and off to the war. Yes, I still play CMBB and AK. Love AK as it goes to Sicily and Italy.
In CMBN I'm constantly going from Formation to individual vehicles to suggestions to delete, etc., etc. Seems overly complicated. I'm deleting to get where I want but still it gives me something slightly different.
Actually I'm damned pleased with CMBN. Can't wait to get to the Canadian/British beaches.
-
Then set rarity to "none" and purchase what you want.
Two things I may be still too new to CMBN to have figured QB out totally, in fact I just realized I wasn't using "suggestions" as well as I might. I'll keep working at it.
Still my point is why is there "rarity" at all ? The essence of QB should be to let the plyr do what he wants within the point restrictions for the battle size.
I very much like this game and can get fairly close to want I want in rarity none. But you can not get whatever you want it seems. However, even using automatic is an excellent choice often if you don't want to cherry pick a unit and have to fight with what you get.
-
You can trim those options down to what ever level you want. Having just started messing with that myself, I'll let someone with more experience tell you how. The reason it is set up the way this is way is for historical reasons, displaying formations as they actually were set up. It's easier to trim down to a company that to "trim up" to a battalion...
I don't think "historical reasons" is a good argument. First the Germans were masters at throwing together ad hoc kampfgruppe and in QB the plyr should have no restrictions as 1) there is already a point (value) limitation) and 2) the units/vehicles available are already only those for the June thru Aug 1944 time period.
Finally QB is a great place to try out experiments and tactics or just to see how units perform. Having to dick around with "rarity" & "suggestion" is a pain in the rear. I kow what I want.
-
Hi,
im searching for books about the Battle for Normandy.
A book that is about the operational-warfare and describes some company or battalion sized battles (CM scale) in detail with maps, Order of battle and casuality reports.
Maybe AAR's from both sides would be nice.
Most books look like they tell you the hole story, the big picture but i would like to get some informations about the many small sized battles that took place there in 1944.
Can you recommend something ?
I can recommend for division and lower Normandy combat & actions:
1) Normandy Front (D-Day from the German 352 Inf Div) by Vince Milano
2) Beyond the Beachhead (The US 29th Inf Div in Normandy) by J. Balkoski
3)Eagles & Bulldogs in Normandy 1944 ( US 29th Inf Div & British 3rd Div) by Maj Gen M. Reynolds
4)The Bloody Battle for Tilly (Normandy 44) by Ken Tout
5) A Fine Night for Tanks (The Road to Falaise) by Ken Tout NCO, 1st Northern Yeomanry fighting with Sherman Tanks)
6) From Normandy to the Ruhr ( With the 116 Pz Division) by Heinz Gunther Guderian (son of Heinz Guderian)
7) View From the Turret (the 743 Tk Bn D-Day) by W. Folkestad
8) Steel Inferno ( 1st SS Pz Corps in Normandy) by MG M. Reyolds
9) Sons of the Reich ( 2nd SS Pz Corps Normandy etc) by MG M. Reynolds
4)
-
Hi John,
I posted something on QB elsewhere but I've done some testing more on small battles usually with mix and find it a bit more even inf to armor. I'll go back and look at it.
My complaint is the "Rarity" selection. I don't see why its needed. Points govern the force. If you select a Panther you'll pay for it.
But your point is my point - QB should permit any purchase within the points available so the plyr can play with what ge wants for tactics testing, examination of various combinations or whatever. As in CMx1.
Sometimes I get really strange combinations in "all armor" with 7 or 8 PSW222 (production ended in 43) and a PzIV and a V. Or lots of Stugs when the count of Stugs in Jun 44 at least was around 150 versus very roughly 700 IV's and 700 V's. But that's not the point. Just let the plyr pick what he wants to run whatever exercise he wants.
-
I would recommend that plyrs be permitted to select units in QB without "Rarity." Keeping the point values for total units is fine.
I've played countless games from "strict" to "none" and don't get it. What is the purpose. It seems it simply prevents the plyr from setting up exactly what units he wants from those available in this time period.
I generally use QB as in the early CMx1 games to see how certain units react against each other to satisfy some issue or question I have. Sometimes to pratice tactics. Or sometimes just to set up a small quick battle I want to design without the complications of the full Editor.
If I want 3 Panthers and 2 halftracks or scout cars why can't I ?
All in all though CMBN is great.
Ed
-
This is a matter of personal preference. I find it VERY F'N ANNOYING when I'm trying to move a unit near another unit and the system thinks I want to switch units. Lacking an explicit deselect feature, like CM has, the game switches units and then go back to the previous unit (which might even be off screen) and pick up where I left off. I've had this happen to me enough to know I don't want it for my CM experience.
The right-click to deselect is second nature to me. I don't even think about it. Was the same with CMx1 too. I'd hate for it to be like RTS games, even though in RTS the issue isn't as bad because fidelity isn't as much of an issue.
Again, this comes down to personal preference. In RTS you're trying to select a bunch of guys in one area and you don't really care too much about what you're doing because it doesn't really matter (because it's an RTS). In CM it's important to be more exact. The way we have it now allows you to be more exact and I for one wouldn't want it to change.
Yet again... individual player preference
Whether it be CM:SF, CM:A, or CM:BN I only do Facing for the last Waypoint and only then if the direction of travel to the Waypoint is different than direction I want to face. Which means I probably put down one Face Command for maybe every 1 in 3 units I move.Which gets back to Phil's point...
How one uses the UI ultimately determines what their perception of it is. While I absolutely will never make the argument that the current UI is "perfect" (no UI ever is), I think that some people create their own problems. And the more complicated a game's UI is, the more potential there is for players to get frustrated with it. Combat Mission is "cursed" with having far more features and user options than other games, therefore it is saddled with a certain complexity of UI which few games have to deal with.
As someone else put it in this thread, RTS games design the UI and then limit the gameplay so it doesn't break the UI. We design the gameplay and then figure out how to make the UI work for it. It's an imperfect process, but I'd rather err on the side of having a super rich game with a slightly clunky UI than a super slick UI with a game devoid of detail.
Steve
I'm getting the hang of deselecting.
-
I want to keep a thread where all discovered and acknowledged game meachanic issues are listed so we don't have to see new threads popping up all the time. Makes it easier for everyone.
Here are those that have been seen so far.
Case: Off Map Mortar Innacuracy - Mortar Artillery fire has often very bad accuracy.
Status: Acknowledged and being looked into. Problems could arise when the Spotter called FFE even without having seen the spotting rounds
Case: Trees of Steel - In some cases where tanks are standing in front of a tree they will keep firing into the tree when ordered to fire at the enemy. The trees are almost indestructuble and will take a lot of rounds.
Status: Acknowledged and being looked into.
Case:Building provide very little cover to inf.
Status: Unknown?
Case: Infantry in buildings open fire through walled windows.
Status: Confirmed and being looked into.
Case: Reversing Rhinos. Rhino tanks will force bocage even when reversing.
Status: This is a TacAI limitation. It's on a list of things we want to address, but there's no specific patch in mind for a fix.
Case: QB AI loves AT guns
Status: Picking logic gets a bit confused when it has a limited budget. The AT Gun issue is a separate one and that should be fixed for v1.01
Let me know what other game mechanic issues have been acknowledged and I'll keep the original post updated.
Maybe its just me - I've been introducing myself to the game by playing lots of Quick Battles (but I'm in a campaign and several battles already also).
In QB my Germans seem very brittle. They run almost immediately although I select "veteran." Is this an issue.
-
Infantry firing small arms on armored vehicles,with no realistic chance of success
Its not a bad idea though to let inf fire on armor to keep the vehicle buttoned while hopefully your plt sgt takes other steps to get a bazooka or faust ready.
-
I tried to get used to it but i'm noticing, that there are so many clicks necessary, that wouldn't be necessary, if the interface would have been developed further.
Clicking on movement paths does not select the unit. :mad:
No info in the unit panel, if a unit is hidden, or if a tank is buttoned or unbottened. I'm already getting really frustrated, to zoom in to check that out, instead that the interface shows that info.
Another huge step backbward is, that there are no target lines. So you can easily overlook important action. Three steps back from CMx1.
But that's not only a bad interface decision, IMO it also reduces the thrill: In CMx1, it was part of the thrill, to be noticed about the dangerous fight, that is going to play out, but there was no need, to watch the unit all the time. Now, in the best case, you hear a tank shooting. Or you hear the impact. You are not noticed, when the unit gathers a new contact. Big parts of the rising tension due to the notification of the player, that a unit has engaged another unit are missing (i think that's one psychological key aspect, why CMx1 firefights between tanks were more thrilling and why they lack that tension in CMx2).
Another pain in the ass for me are the missing C2-lines: it forces the player either to click like crazy on every unit to check, if the units are in C2-range or to bunch them up unnecessarily, or not to click like crazy and accept that they could be out of range. Shouldn't graphics be there, to support the gamer?
That there is no window for unit data and no kill stats is ten steps back.
Way to much info about foreign units.
Camera movement is blocked way too early on the map edges. Often i would like to move more freely over the map edges (i.e. viewing level of 8 or 9 above units at the edges of the map) but since the movement is blocked, additional movements with the mouse have to be made.
Or that waypoints still cannot be moved, is also not really a step further from CMx1. How long has CMSF been out now?!
And, btw, the path endpoints with their circles without any 3D-look, look really amateurish and do not fit into the 3D-map.
When CMx2 was announced, it was claimed, that dynamic lighning will allow to judge terrain undulations. That was not true. But what is much worse, that in all the years nothing was done, to give the player a tool to judge terrain undulations. Like in CMx1 days, you have to choose a grid-mod for that and you can't switch that off...
After having played many hours now, the interface to me feels like being incomplete and in some aspects the amount of clicking and mouse movements, that could easily be avoided with certain interface improvements, therefore make it partially a really bad interface.
I don't think,with that interface, CMBN will reach the praise CMx1 received and i think a fair amount of possible gamers, tactically really interested in WW2, will not buy the game, after they tried the demo, because of the interface shortcomings.
Although i like the action and the tactical modeling, the interface frustrates me so much, that my wish to play more and more is kept at a quite low level.
I agree on target lines and unit data plus kill stats. Loved the CMx1 data & kills.
I'm also having trouble with terrain for my vehicles/men but haven't played but maybe 5 hrs over last days. I was able to quickly use line of sight in CMx1 but here I don't see that, maybe I'm missing something.
Camera on map edge only a minor issue for me I think.
Seems I have to click after I assign a movement path or on moving to another vehicle I'm giving movements to the first vehicle. I'm learning I think to click again after assigning a movement. That seems to work. Am I correct on that?
Even in CMx1 I usually played my own scenarios of small co or co+ finding that small battles are better (for me). Afterall a Bn cdr needs to let his co cdrs operate independently within a general mission statement. Probably true here as well. It worked for me in Kursk as well.
-
Promoting a game is really no different than making a game. You try to anticipate what the customer will do, but there's only so much you can do to outguess the many different ways many different people can look at the same thing. In CM we've often found someone reporting a bug or problem and we look at it and say "huh... never thought someone would do that" or "never thought someone would have a problem with that". AFTER someone raises the issue it's often times completely obvious. But not necessarily before.
For example, not once did any customer ask us before we shipped "hey, is this box really 100% steel"? If someone had we would have said "no" and explained the details in text. At which point the customer would have likely said "oh, thanks! Well, based on the name of the product, and what the video looked to show, I thought it was going to be 100% steel". This is where we would have said to ourselves "ahhhhh... I see your point. Well, we should clarify that".
Unfortunately, we got the feedback that we needed better clarification after the fact. And now it's obvious the clarification was needed (for some at least) before the fact. Life's a rather imperfect experience for everybody. Just ask iPhone4 users
Steve
Good response.
Lets face it the game's the thing. Most companies today put the manual in a file you can pull up - NOT ON PAPER. I kinda like having it in the game box though and previously opined yeah, black on white would be better but I'm 73 with several right eye surgeries and I can read it.
Steel - come on did you really expect steel !! I like it.
-
Huh? So there's no triple-A except 88mm heavy flak units and MG's on vehicles, right? Boy that looks like a massive oversite. So I need to spend another $55.00 inorder to get 20mm or 37mm flak guns to protect my German units. If it blows down to the Normandy game and not just stays at the Market-Garden level. I say a patch is required.
Oh, the USA lacks the .50 cal Quad units, towed and SP M16 HT unit. Yeegads!
I agree this is an oversight.
Especially the single 2 cm on its carrier. Remember SPR? The Germans used these against ground targets as they did not have a true heavy 50 cal (only the 7.9s MG42 on a "heavy" mount").
I don't mind no grd to air though. Its probably not necessary of course some quad 2cms mounted would be nice. They could fire on their own. But against grd targets devastating.
-
For me, it's mostly about the setting. The WWII Western front setting is the base motivator, it was my father's war. I own CMBB and CMAK, but barely played them.
As to the modern stuff, no thanks. I don't know if it's lack of interest or if it's just too close to home, but there's just no appeal there. I'm glad the modern themed games kept the ball going forward, but that's about where my interest ends.
I don't know about any old timers vs. newbs vs. deserters stuff. I'd hope that BF slaps us all with the label of "customers" and treats us accordingly.
I've been playing CMBB and AK from the start and a few other BF games but my primary interest is WW2 and my brother in law fought in France 40, Russia 42/43 and France again 44 (captured around Hill 112). Just passed 4 years ago.
-
I am interested in a future purchase of CM:Battle for Normandy but want to know first if it works fine with XP 64 bit version.
I say this as I had problems using CM:AK on my XP 64 system.
No problem on W7 with 64 bit.
I play CMAK and BB frequently after I got the patch for Vista and they work equally fine now I'm on W7
-
OK, I admit it, this is a rant and I will probably get nothing from it other than the "feel good" of venting. I also realize that this will most likely raise the ire of many Battlefront fanboys.
First, who am I? I'm a retired computer systems analyst and multi-platform programmer. I’ve been playing PC based games, from FPS to adventure and sims, since '84, starting with MS Flight Simulator 1.0.. I currently own over 500 “boxed” games, many of which can be seen on my personal homepage at: http://leadmeister.250x.com/index.htm (click on “My Rigs”).
Combat Mission, time on the ground: My brother introduced me to CMBO several years ago. He’d been playing it for many years prior and convinced me to give it a try. I loved it! Since then we’ve played CMBB and CMSF, all via PBEM. We both like CMBB the best and continue to play it even now. I made a little movie of one of our CMBB games and posted it on You Tube (
).The rant: I just received my CMBB “Steelbook” and, just like my Brother, was shocked at what I really got. This so called steel book was a very poorly designed inner plastic box with front and rear ultra-thin steel (?) laminates press fitted on. It was shipped to me in a thinly padded envelope and, like my Brother’s, was damaged upon receipt. His was bent and mine, even though not bent, had one of the inner (upper right) lid tab holder slots broken out which now prevents the lid from fully locking down. Further, I immediately noticed that the design of the inner plastic recess that holds the book in place was devoid of any open access indentations that would allow the manual to be lifted out with your finger or thumb. Instead, you are relegated to turning the box on its side and “dumping“ the manual out.
The manual itself was even more of a disaster. What was the BF design team thinking when they chose to use ultra small light brown (tan) text and graphics on a light tan background. It’s an eyestrain experience to say the least, and pretty much makes the manual useless on the long term. Also, the right margin is too narrow and forces you to bend the book open way too far which damages the spine (pages on the floor very soon).
Well, that’s it, I’m done. Final conclusion … I’m stunned that BF did this to a largely loyal repeat user base. It does not bode well for their future.
My box came in fine condition but I do agree the choice of colors for text and page is a little rough on Narses' old eyes.
My first PC game was Atari's "East Front" (was that the title?) and my PC tower was about the size of a standard toaster. Guess I should've kept it as a historical relic !
-
I have a 2 Quad 2,50 Ghz, 4 GB RAM, 64 bit system, Nvidia 8800GTS and W7.
No issues with CM:BN on my system.
Btw, how can I ck fps ?
-
IIRC, in CM the Print key alone does it.
Thanks to all who replied !
-
Could someone remind me how to take an ingame picture?
Also, where do these pictures go - desktop, documents, etc?
I tried searching in the forum but "ingame picture" didn't show up.
Thanks.
-
Looking for a complete list of Armor Characteristics and Gun Penetration at 100, 500, 1000 and 2000 meter ranges as listed on the Vehicle Data Charts in Combat Mission. Is there a complete compiled list?
Try this site:
http//gva.freeweb.hu/index.html
When the page comes up click on "Weapons Data."
I've used this site for years.
-
Thanks. I'll try those suggestions.
-
Is there an issue with W7 ? I just went from Vista to W7 and although the graphic portion (terrain area with units) is fine the lower portion with the controls is blank - black with white spaces.
Anyway around this? I have a W7 64 bit machine and CM AK & BB played fine on Vista64. Graphics card is N8800 GTS.
Whether it be CM:SF, CM:A, or CM:BN I only do Facing for the last Waypoint and only then if the direction of travel to the Waypoint is different than direction I want to face. Which means I probably put down one Face Command for maybe every 1 in 3 units I move.
Are AI 'Suggestions' using the same process as AI purchases?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Vanir is correct I missed your point as I was so involved with my own issues with plyr selecting and further I have only been selecting "small" as I noted.
I find "mix" pretty good although I've not charted it out. My mixed force generally seems to run up against a mixed force. My only armor force as well fights only armor so I suspected that The AI selected whatever I selected.