HintJ
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by HintJ
-
-
hintj I would ask where then the AI that makes combat mission shock force better than TOW2 is?
I don't know--more likely TOW2 is better compared to Actung Panzer Karkov. In fact, I've only played the demo of TOW2, and I always want to load up APK afterwards. In APK, I've seen a T-34 crew panic, bail-out, and while running away, get gunned down by another T-34! Now that's some interesting A.I.
My rather off-topic response was more directed to many of the older member's prejudices against RTS.
-
RTS's can be a great training tool, but only if the AI acts realistically human. YOU GO HERE-YOU GO HERE-YOU GO HERE-CLICK-CLICK-CLICK-REAL PEOPLE GET PISSED OFF!!!
I mentioned in another thread that I work in an industry (trucking) where I have dispatchers "commanding" 50 or more trucks in a RTS, of sorts. And it is the younger guys that run the load boards like Command and Conquer, and their drivers quit all the time, running up turnover costs! It is the experienced older guys that think a little more that are far more valuable to me.
I'd rather have a middle-aged (but intelligent) military veteran dispatching, than a hyperactive recent college grad.
The best dispatcher I know is in his 50's, and according to him, a good dispatcher "knows where the problem areas are [i think maybe NYC, or big cities in general], and focus on what's happening there." He knows when people are burning out, and he gets them out of bad areas. His doesn't babysit the guys in Kansas--drivers must have good AI!
At some point, I believe the military will have microchips in every soldier's gear (or body), and there will be someone sitting at a computer screen, trying to direct everything in real-time, and it will be the wiser/older men that are the best at it, because there is always a human element.
Until, of course, robots are doing the fighting, then we will have lots to worry about!
edit--sorry, off topic, I think TOW2 is pretty fun, but not even really comparable to CM games--achtung panzer kharkov is a little closer but it's better than TOW2
-
The point of my not-so-tongue-in-cheek rant above is that military contracting is very, very often about spending money for something that doesn't yet exist. And that the reality is many of the things they contract for disappoint. This is something they are used to, as a community. So why would anybody blink an eye about signing a contract with a small software company to produce something which is technically straight forward and relatively cost effective?
The simple answer is because we don't have $5000 suits.
One Colonel, who was in charge of a fairly large area of hardware development, procurement, and training told me that if we asked for anything more than pocket change the contract would have to go before a centralized review. At that point the big guys would say "oh, you want that? Well, we can transform our cardboard box manufacturing simulation to do what you want it to do. Of course we'll do it better and it will take a bit more time, but who would you rather trust making your software? Some puny company with no military contracting experience, or us? BTW, they are low balling their cost estimate. It's going to cost 10 times that amount."
They sign the contract and they get their money. But the military never gets a useable product.
This might sound very cynical, but I assure you I'm an optimist
Anyway, the point of this semi-rant is that we are fairly sure that a military would license a product from us if we built it first. But we aren't willing to put our jobs and your entertainment on the line for a "maybe" event. We're quite happy to make our living from the private sector. If a military customer approaches us with a sensible deal, we would definitely do it. But after perhaps a dozen pretty promising leads over the years, including flying around and even a draft contract at one point, we're not kidding ourselves about the reality of how this game is played.
Steve
It makes total sense the people awarding the contract aren't going to give you the investment money!
Maybe I've got the dollar amounts guessed wrong here but,
You just need more money. If you had $400K and a year (for example) then perhaps you could make a product a government would give you a $900K contract for. Am I getting that right? You could then pay off your investor $500K (20% return in one year) keeping the rest for paying costs and further development--and further contracts?
Isn't that what you're trying to do and what others contractor hire lobbyists in $5K suits to protect? So what then hire someone w/$6K suits--they don't have souls anyway.
Yes, I'm sure that I'm oversimplifying it, but don't expect a customer that has purchased every one of your CM games to feel sympathy for you when a more important customer didn't buy your product.
-
Are you playing WeGo or RT?
I have found that one can get better vehicle / troop placement (like hull down, etc) and better fire control by micromanaging matters in RT. Granted, not everyone plays RT or likes the work required by micromanaging individual vehicle / troop placements.
I play RT and I don't mind the level of micromanagement to get the level of precision I want. I have finished all campaigns with Total Victory as a result.
I have yet to try a campaign doing WeGo but my suspicions are that it is much harder because the lack of precision compared to RT and alot can happen in the one minute turn that you have can't react in a timely fashion to - like that BMP opening up on your troops 10 seconds into the turn, leaving you at the mercy of the tactical AI to handle your reactions for the remaining 50 secs.
My two cents.
I thinks this is good advice. My playing style is evolving a bit. I actually try to do everything in 15 second runs lately using a simple Autohotkey script, but, of course, it comes w/the price of losing the replay.
I also would like the ability to access the individual missions of a campaign.
-
Well, I think I understand what you're saying, and I also think that voice recognition software is absolutely essential for realistic training programs, or at least a co-op game w/radio simulation that tells people where to go is better than mouse-clicking.
My military experience is rather modest, but I do know that a reasonably articulate radio operator is worth his weight in gold.
Perhaps the best simulator I've played is Steel Beasts, when the players print out paper maps beforehand, and communicate over microphones.
-
2. What "cognitive skills" would a junior officer or NCO take away from CMSF?
Perhaps confidence in the concept of sectors of fire and proper placement of heavy weapons, but other than that, it is probably a bad idea to train NCOs with anything that has a pause mode or wego.
-
What an interesting topic, with implications beyond military training. . .
I work in the transportation industry, and I wish all dispatchers would play Close Combat for awhile, because their job is kind of like a real-time strategy: They have to direct trucks in real-time, and drivers have varying levels of experience and ability, and just because a dispatcher "orders" a driver to go somewhere, doesn't mean he will do it! Too many stressful, low-paying runs into Brooklyn or Detroit and he'll defect to a competing company!
A bad dispatcher runs his load board like a Korean kid playing Starcraft, or something like that.
-
TMJ--
Too many Jews
-
Panzer Command Ostfront
-
Are Dutch Recon Lieutenants really armed with M240/FN MAG's or is this a TO&E mismatch?
What's that circular bases mod called? It reminds me of Close Combat hula hoops!
-
When I installed the Marine+Brit bundle, all the names were wrong. A re-install fixed it.
Do I need to unlicense or anything first, or do you suggest just re-run the bundle .exe?
-
Yeah, the 1.30 changes applied to everything IIRC, including existing campaigns which were all made in the editor at one point. That mission in TF Thunder originally had the unit named "Callahan", but since updating to v1.30 it is just A Co HQ, but the unit leader name should be Callahan now. I don't have a running TF Thunder campaign in progress to check, but can you tell if the unit leader name is at least correct?
I know what you are talking about--in 1.30 we have lost the ability to name units in the editor, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Maybe my problem with leader names is only after installing the 3-module bundle. Many of the leader's names are now the same as the unit's name. And some of the Stryker's names don't even match the vehicle #. It's a complete naming mess and obviously an error.
-
In v1.30, there was a fix that made name changes to individual units apply to the unit's leader name in the unit info panel rather than the individual unit. Therefore you can't go to the editor and rename the A company HQ to "Callahan," but the leader name in that unit's info panel will say "Callahan" when before it might have said "Smith." Platoon level formations and up can still be renamed, however.
What I mean is, after having installed the NATO/USMC/UK bundle, the TF Thunder campaign messes up the names of many units. For example, the company commander is now called "A Co HQ" instead of "Callahan," among others.
Because I'm talking about a campaign, I can't even load it in the editor to change the names back.
-
Thanks for the info.
-
I should say, since this is a NATO bug thread that, after having installed the NATO addon as part of the bundle, TF Thunder units have messed up names.
-
I apologize if its already been mentioned, but it seems that in the Task Force Thunder campaign, many of the unit names are not human proper names, but are team names like "A company HQ" instead of "Callahan," or whatever. This was not like this before.
-
Is there an FAQ or tutorial somewhere for making campaigns?
-
Is is possible to create a campaign that strings together a bunch of otherwise unrelated single missions? For example, I want to play a bunch of scenarios with the same set of core units.
I understand this isn't aways a good idea or what the author intended, but is it possible?
-
Actually Ive always played WEGO but after reading about your method using real time to your advantage and using a gamepad has tempted me to expierment in real time. What I have loved about WEGO is the ability to rewind and study every move, every units perspective, ect. One self imposed rule of mine is rendering buddy aid just like you would do in real life. Not too many modern soldiers/armies leave their comrades dead or injured if theres a chance to save them, even in dirty wars. Another thing I do is, in between games, read everything I can on the subject while listening to Afghani tribal music in surround sound. Ha! The sickness has spread too. Im also building a model of a BMP....
I really miss the replay in realtime, but a whole minute sucks!
I'm experimenting with 15 second turns in realtime, and during the orders phase, only issuing one order per platoon. If I want more than two squads to move at the same time, I give orders to one and tell that team to pause (that little green button in the bottom right), and on the next break I give the second squad commands and un-pause the first squad. That way it still takes 30 seconds to tell 2 different teams to move in unison.
The trick, it seems, is to be at the right spot when the game is rolling so that I don't miss any important action--sometimes it is just best to let realtime play out from a high overhead view and zoom in to see the individual's point of view in the pause.
-
For the German Panzerpioneer platoon, it seems none of the infantry teams (including the platoon leader!) has a man-carried radio! The APC's have radios, but as soon as the infantry teams dismount then C2 must be audio or visual with the platoon leader, or fall out of C2.
Am I getting that right? And if I am, why during the setup phase, if I dismount the HQ unit, and place him on the other side of the map away from his platoon, his unit report list in the bottom of the GUI shows nothing but green crosses, indicating he is in C2 contact with all his units.
The leader has no radio, no line of sight, and obviously no voice command of his units from that distance, and still all his units show green crosses in the unit report--see pg. 52-53 in manual ver 1.20.
Huh? Someone who understands please explain.
-
60 second turns puts pressure on programmers to create quality A.I. But I do agree that customizable turn times would be great, just so long as everybody didn't set the game up for 5 second turns--that would just lead to A.I. the quality of Electric Football.
It's not my intention to disparage Electric Football. I think it was one of the first tabletop, minature, Wego games around before anyone knew what Wego was.
I'm really looking forward to PC:Ostfront, by the way.
-
@Hintj, I have my mouse programmed for CMSF, and anything I play. For CMSF I have the forward, and back keys for cycling through units. All the other buttons are for the camera views I use most often, usually 1-4, and 6. My model has an extra side wheel that is nice. I have my main 3 camera controls there. Also, I have one that locks camera to unit. All comes in very handy to move around the battlefield with relative ease. I use a similar setup for TOW. Unfortunately I do not see my model mouse on the market anymore. Mine has powerful wireless too, can play lying on couch. I recommend the MX revolution highly to anyone.
Interesting, especially the 2nd scroll wheel. Using a couple of xtra mouse buttons for shift modes, you could theoritically play the entire game w/just a mouse . . .
-
Quoteing the help page: "- you pay attention to both the password AND THE USERNAME in the email. The username is LIMITED TO 25 CHARACTERS, and you have to enter it exactly as printed in the email."
I spent about 45 mins to figure out that the username is my e-mail address.
-
How? Do I use my normal username/password. Do I need a new one? Its says something about my e-mail already being used, and to click forgot password to get a new one. I don't see that anywhere.
Better yet, does anyone know of a website that has CMSF mods that isn't on this website?
Theatre of War 2 vs. CM Normandy
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Fair enough, but I never said TOW2 (in particular) is a clickfest. In fact, it looks like it should be a lot of fun; however, lack of a binocular/zoom view disappoints me, and the artificial feel of the spacing when moving squads does too.
Apparently, it meets some people's desire to control every man, rename them, smart-pause w/orders, etc. And it looks pretty cool, too.