ZPB II

Ah, the links keep piling on! This will put a dent in my productivity. I have a particular interest in them myself. When I was younger, I used to train a bit of aikijiujitsu or somesuch, and there was Systema training at the same gym. Every now and then instructors from Russia would come over and hold a training camp. Several of the instructors were claimed to be ex-Spetsnaz from you name it. Alfa, Vympel, Special Border Guards and MVD. Veterans from Afghanistan and Chechnya. I don't think it was just marketing pep talk. I recognize some names and faces on the Internet. I've probably never been around people who simply ooze so much presence. They were extremely professional, stern, just and pretty easy-going but I could never shake off the feeling that I was in the presence of killers. It was simply something in the way they moved, spoke and conducted. They seemed like guys who got jobs done. During my brief mandatory military stint, they also tried to teach and train us a bit about them, since, well. If the military is to train against a hypothetical opponent it might as well be Russia. It's kind of a hush-hush thing though. Not really talked about much in the media. I was in armoured infantry so Spetsnaz wasn't the primary focus, as armoured infantry was trained on how to flank and strike at the weak points of enemy columns and formations, crashing the party while planting mines everywhere and riding off before a counterattack as normal or mechanized infantry absorbs the blow. Expected opposition was Border Guard or Mechanized Infantry divisions. But in the case there's Spetsnaz in the area, one should know possible frequency hopping ranges to jam with that fancy hightech...uhh...thing. Jamcannon, yes. That was it, the secret weapon. If I'm not wrong, military police and signal corps and such might get pretty intimate training about the Spetsnaz since they'll be stationed at likely targets for them.

I recall that when CMBN came out there was plenty of discussion related to the shortcomings of machineguns, especially machinegun teams in CMx2. I've felt that MGs aren't as much of an area denial weapon as they should be. There are times when an MG burst cuts down a squad in the open but then there seem to be plenty of times when the whole squad escapes unscathed as the entire burst lands somewhere near the next post code. To the last point, I believe it is a bit of both. There may have been an intent to model area denial by spreading the bursts over adjacent action spots, but a glitch causes this effect to become so prominent that it actually lowers the effectiveness of the MG.

Vinnart makes a good point. If arms are as deadly and as accurate as in reality, then in order to maintain realistic gameplay, the infantry AI needs to be as good as in reality. This will not happen any time soon. There isn't as much cover and concealment available as in real-life due to technical limitations. Programming an AI as sophisticated as the human brain under stress, I don't even want to think about that one. The animation budget would need to be obscene to accurately model every way in which troops utilise cover available to them. I'd love to see MGs being fixed and I expect I will. But there will always be abstractions. We will just nudge and tweak these abstractions so they portray reality more accurately.

Straying off the topic on yet another wild rant, Hey Bimmer (and others from the Farm tournament), I never got a reply when I posted about the results and the conditions leading to my forfeit in the Farm tournament. I felt bad about dropping out and was unsure if the communication ever was succesful. I might remember wrong though, it was a hectic time and I can't verify since I lost my corporate email account and the sharks are trying to get me to pay them 400 euros to get my email backups. This very large ISP failed their contractual obligations due to mismanagement and greed yet they are still trying to rip off money. Figures. I'd love to apply gentle pressure to their legal team over lunch or something. They didn't muck up just my email, but every email account in the company. Can't go to war against every band of cutthroats and corsairs one encounters, but boy does it piss me off. Back on topic, I also came to the conclusion that simply making the terrain took such time that it felt like a bit of a waste to make simply vs. AI scenarios. So there will usually be two files in the zip, one for vs. AI and one for H2H. The thing is, I play very little competitive Combat Mission. Playing Combat Mission for me is more like watching a movie than playing to win. For competitive PVP, there's stuff like Guild Wars 2. I'd be interested in reading what kind of expectations people have for a good PVP/H2H scenario. Balance is important, but aren't mirror scenarios boring? I've been trying to juggle with the victory conditions to make interesting asymmetrical scenarios, but there's still a lot to learn. What is it that wargamers crave for when they face eachother? Is an arena-style fight to the death the standard to aim for? Or should the designer try to actively participate, as in making the map and conditions such that the fight is very dynamic and unpredictable? I realize these are a bit silly questions since the answer lies in variety, personal preference and so on but I'd like to read some opinions. If anyone has links to threads or articles discussing scenario design in-depth, that'd be great. Oh, and Ted. I believe the current "chant" for the season of 2012 is "If I Can't Have You" by Yvonne Elliman. The council discovered that the lyrics told a story about a grognard and his search for a perfect wargame.

Well, since you mentioned it. I'll have a talk and see if we can sideline the usual paperwork. You will need to acquire a few essentials, such as a robe or an attire resembling a robe with plenty of the colours white, blue and black. A mock lightsaber is mandatory, preferably one in the 150-dollar-plus range. Cheap ones make the brotherhood look bad. Members are required to like F1 and rallying. You'll be provided with the location of the nearest enclave in North Europe.

Great link, 'twas a good read. The MDZ sounds particularly nasty. I wonder about the 800m accuracy claim for the RPG-16, I am in no position to argue it but I am wondering whether in this instance he means accuracy when fired down from a hill or a mountain. Although I found the plentiful typos caused by OCR to be rather funny. Hire instead of fire, oilier instead of other and so on.

There is indeed a sparsity of scenarios. I haven't heard of any scenario treasure trove somewhere in the murky deeps of the internet. It's a combination of having a bit rough tools and a demanding audience. Don't get me wrong, I love the editor for what it is and I love having access to it, but this is still a niche product and the tools aren't the kind of streamlined and grossly simplified ones you would find in many other places. I like the editor, it's oldschool and it gets the job done. It's a macho editor for manly macho men. But there are some bits that are frustrating (like the editor graphics, when you stare at the editor for 6 hours in one day it really starts to hurt the eyes) and some that are really hard to solve unless I personally get much more computing power. For example, every time I apply a change to the scenario, I have to sit through a loading screen that can be at worst several minutes. Yeah, those are minutes that can be easily spent drinking coffee, watching porn, doing pushups or playing the guitar but it still interrupts the workflow. I'm an ADHD monkey so these interruptions are what is personally keeping a couple of scenarios and a mini-campaign from being pushed out of the oven. The second thing is about the demanding audience. This might just be a thing I've gotten my mind fixated around and should stop worrying about, but there's this impending feeling that one is expected to pump out a very polished product with well-written bits of prose, vivid images, historically accurate OOBs, realistic terrain and have all this mesh together in a realistic chain of events. Eh, I'm rambling now. Again. I probably had a point at some point, but it's all lost in time now. Something about something.

Yet another quality post by BD6, bravo. I'd like to add some words to a couple of points. I think there are some gross perception errors. First, painting with a broad brush and assuming that there is a single entity faction called the Taliban and every member is a generic peasant with an AK. The tribal militia "doctrine" if one might call it that, is quite an effective thing. There are some rather hardcore mujahideen fighters in the country. Second, having the mindset that you think in lines drawn on a map. It's a western way to think. The planners neglected such things as culture, religion and ethnic groups. Third, in the world we live in, if the US will use overwhelming force it will trigger a jihad on a scale reminescent of days that are not all that long past. The current mujahideen are well aware of this fact. Considering the current state of economics and politics, I don't think a jihad of this scale is going to improve things much...Atleast not in our lifetime.

To Vanir Ausf B, The thing is, war is always fought in the real world. There is little room to speculate or say "but if you disregard this and consider only this, we would have won." What I mean by arrogance is the same thing that causes most traffic accidents to happen on familiar roads. Overconfidence, underestimating certain factors, being lulled into a false sense of security. It's the routine that kills you. Going into Iraq and Afghanistan, the US assumed things. Now, I know what they say about hindsight, but...Assuming you could simply park an army tailored for a Cold War slugfest into a hostile country and be greeted as liberators was about as naive as it gets. So many people ended up paying for the politicians and lobbyists lack of insight with their blood. I don't know what I can say about fundamentalism and especially fundamentalism of that certain religion. One needs to be tact and diplomatic on this forum and I don't think I can express my thoughts in such a fashion. But this is a civilian opinion and it has no room in military thinking. When you start to think of your opponent as a demon, it will cloud your judgement and in the end this will result in loss of life. A military mind will always respect his opponent and never underestimate. I had fun writing. I did the inflammatory tone to juxtapose what I perceived as quite outlandish statements. I do admit that I felt a slight tinge of, I don't know. Hhmm. Let's just say that there are Finnish peacekeepers in Afghanistan right now trying to do the nation building thing. I was quite close to sending the application papers and possibly ending up there myself. I'm an idealistic fool, but the world needs them. The American Gung-Ho attitude is extremely dangerous to the health and well-being of these men and women. I hope you understand my view, that there are real people with their lives on the line as they try to build a nation. I'm not saying your post is relevant to this, but the opinion and attitude in general. The attitude of might makes right, shoot first ask later...this kind of thing inflames the situation and increases the risk. I also know some nice Afghans so reading that...well...you know... No hard feelings, man.

You do realize that it is this kind of arrogance that has lead to the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, failures. The US was bled heavily in these places, how much damage was done is left to be seen. Expensive military blunders that greatly reduced the diplomatic influence that the US wields on the world arena while accomplishing...umm... The bit about going Roman on Afghanistan has me thinking this has got to be trolling of some kind. What do you think the purpose of the war is? To kill people and blow stuff up? Is the United States in dire need of enemies and wants to make more? Soldiers should fight for peace, not for war. The West currently has a glass jaw in terms of casualty-sensitivity. There is a reason for this. The Western society is a modern one that doesn't treat people as cannon fodder. It weirds me out to read this kind of war fantasy. I get the mental image of a person shouting "WE HAVE SO MUCH FIREPOWER THAT WE CAN KILL EVERYONE AND BLOW EVERYTHING UP IF WE WANTED HAHAHAHA THAT'D BE SO COOL" But I guess that's not so weird when it comes from someone who glorifies unfortunate events in history, such as entering foreign territory and killing people so you can claim it as your own. You know, like what happened to Native Americans. (atleast I get the feel of glorification when you talk about bumps in the road...) Hubris brings down empires. You should know, seeing how eager you are to use the Romans as an example. I do not understand why one would want to underestimate his opponent, as far as I know history is full of examples on what happens as a result. You do not live in a vacuum. If you play fantasy war where you nuke countries into submission, I'll introduce the scenario where the world is shocked at the barbaric and destructive US horde. Russia, China, the EU, India and Pakistan unite under a single banner for the sake of mankind and declare war on this psychotic and rampaging nation. Do tell how this fantasy war will proceed? Does the righteous corporate USA have enough nuclear capability to take on the world and come out as a winner? Your violent and xenophobic reaction to the failure that is the US involvement in Afghanistan leads me to believe you are afraid. The mighty war machine grinded to a halt on the dusty mountains, the technological edge blunted by the jihadist approach to warfare... But hey, the resistance in Afghanistan is militarily insignificant. It's a cakewalk out there...What a joke.

Hhmm, I could almost swear that deployed MGs on tripods shoot though low walls in an abstract manner. I'm pretty certain I had an Italian MG do that in one QB and a .30 cal team in another. Will need to test it a bit. EDIT: I just confirmed this in the editor, deployed MGs will fire through low walls. Tried it with stone and brick walls and with the 1917, 1919 and the Ma Deuce. I think this is a good thing. Adjustable tripod animations aren't high on my priority list.

Not sure about this at all, but try using a program like Winzip or WinRAR to compress the btt-file and upload the result. I would guess that the *.btt file is forbidden due to general security reasons. Eager to play new scenarios! Thanks in advance!

By the way, has Malick's version of "The Thin Red Line" been mentioned? It is perhaps my favourite war film, truly mesmerizing. I've heard people say that it's boring and, well, boring. I can see where that opinion stems from, but personally I love the pacing and atmosphere. There are so many scenes where the atmosphere is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Could someone recommend similar war movies?

I had a great deal of expectations for Iron Sky. It was Finnish and it was going to have Space Nazis, how could it not be a great movie? Unfortunately it was utter ****e. My friend fell asleep while we watched it and I almost did too. And we represent the target audience pretty well, 20-somethings who love loud flashy stuff and laughing. We had been smoking and drinking the entire evening before watching the film, so one would think we were attuned. After the movie ended we woke from our torpor and resumed watching funny videos on Youtube. The problem with the movie was that it's makers have never produced funny material and they sure didn't start doing it now. They can make good CGI but that's about it. For a movie whose concept was born in a Sauna while drinking beer, it was astonishingly dry. The bit with Sarah Palin was funny, but you can't make comedy with only one joke. I got the feeling that the people who made the movie thought that the mere idea of Space Nazis from the Moon is enough sheer funny lunacy that you don't need to come up with actual jokes or funny dialogue. It is almost criminal how they could make a movie that is about Space Nazis and the end result lacks both humour and wit. I guess that is what happens when geeks who love computer graphics make a film, the things that make a movie good are neglected in favour of visual fireworks. But if someone wants to look at pretty pictures, why not simply run 3dmark on your computer? I love cheap, tongue-in-cheek exploitation films with outlandish themes, but Iron Sky was just plain bad. Nevertheless, it was a crowdsourcing milestone and an important project in other aspects, but as a movie it failed. I do have to add that Julia Dietze is smoking hot. Oh my.

Completely forgot the beginning of the post. In all the time I have played I can't say I've noticed that the mere presence or visual cue of AFVs would have a noticeable impact on morale. The most important factors regarding morale would be a change in C2 state, casualties or taking fire. I understand the concept, but finishing the design for a game could be tricky. Never been in a war so I fortunately don't know, but having spent a reasonable amount of time in the presence of different armoured vehicles... It's not a clear-cut thing. There are so many variables. There are situations where the presence of friendly armour near your very personal battlespace is unnerving. For an infantryman, a vehicle is an explosion waiting to happen somewhere, maybe near you, maybe near the enemy. In modern times especially, the frontal sector of several AFVs is a deadly place to be, due to the shoes of the sabot flying rather unpredictably. The blast wave from a main armament firing can be deadly. Then there's the noise and heat... There are plenty of other things to worry about, but you can never completely stop worrying about whether the commander and the driver see you. It's a great idea, but it also has many variables that need to be taken into account. Like in the winter, your troops behind a tank will be happy because the exhaust keeps them warm. But on a hot summer day... EDIT.

Hello again, back after an exciting evening! First off, I'd like to say that when I came to this thread and saw a poster whom I perceive as always being polite and well-spoken being slandered. This ruffled my feathers in the same sense as walking into your favourite bar to have a good time and there's a fight going on. I first started reading this forum when I was, uhh, I don't even quite want to think about how many moons ago that was...When was the beta demo? I think I might have been 13. I spent a lot of time in the CMHQ chat and we played a lot of different games with voice communication. My age meant that I quite quickly assumed the role of an agent provocateur, the junior in the group. I'm not nearly as much of a rascal these days, but there's still a bit left. My postings regarding the topic were meant to touch the subject on the level of society and economics on an evolutionary scale. I read through them again and there are parts that might sound like going personal when misinterpreted and taken out of context. That certainly was not the intention. I edited in some bits as I was taken by surprise how quickly the thing spiraled to the personal level and felt I had to mount a forlorn defense in order to maintain credibility. I'm certainly not insulted in the slightest, merely amused and a wee bit surprised. EDIT: I'd like to add that I love SPR. I was very young when I saw it and it had a powerful impact and certainly changed my view on things. I'm not advocating that everyone should be watching silent Swedish art noir war flicks.

I don't know if you are having a bad day, but right now I'm perceiving your behaviour as extremely childish. The word tantrum comes to mind. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a world to change. I'll be back but I have this foreboding feeling that this thread will be locked by the time of my return. All the best. EDIT: I don't know about the legislation in your country, but I am not authorized to share private marketing research in the public. I also love how you drag this to a personal level at each chance you get and how you chop my post into pieces and take them out of context. And no, I'm not trolling right now. This is trolling: "LOLOLOLOLO YOU CANT CRITICIZ ANYTHINGG IF YOU R NOT FREEDOM FIGHTERR AND 2477 FIGHT DA POWARR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLOWUP DA MATXIR!!!!1 420 ONE LOVE BREDDA!!!!!!11"

It's starting to feel like someone's sensibilities have been offended on some underlying level. I am almost certain that you have limited information on my life and my plans, so as such I'm not sure you are in a position to comment on that. I am working on projects related to entertainment and culture. One could say that I am trying to change the system on a microlevel, as I feel change comes with a carrot, not a stick. Today, I am slightly disappointed with this forum. I thought we had higher standards. This is not to say I'm trying to gain any moral high ground here, I'm just expressing my feelings. I'm well aware that I'm a bit of a troll. EDIT: Ok, let's not call it mindless consumerism then, if you hold the term fallacious. I gave it two seconds of thought and came up with a fancy term: "producer controlled and borderline enforced consumerism." I have to run now, so maybe someone comes up with a better term in the meanwhile. Just in case, Hi Mom!

I think they do, but this is merely my opinion. But it is an opinion that I base on my daily interactions with people. I like to keep my finger on the pulse of modern culture, it is part of my education and my career. Ignorance fills the streets, schools, cafeterias, newspaper comment sections, Facebook, Twitter... It has a lot to do with the modern tempo. I think it's unhealthy. Everything today has to be faster. Faster scenes, faster cuts. Hurry up! Preorder Medal of Honor: Warfighter so you can enter Battlefield 4 beta! Run! Gun! This leads to attention deficits. People aren't given time to think things through. Many popular consumer products don't require critical thinking, because there's no time for that. Someone with a tinfoil hat might propose that this is intentional, to feed more consumerism. It's rare to talk to a person who actually wants to increase the tempo of his life. There's a reason why downshifting is popular, and it's not just because it's hip and chic. In real-life, I get along with people pretty well. I like to think that it's not a big loss if you treat a person nicely even, if in secret you think to yourself that the person represents such a level of willingful ignorance that it's almost borderline evil.

Whoa, looks like I've missed the party. Simply reading this last page amuses me greatly. I haven't had time to dig deep, but am I seeing people being called names for their opinions regarding consumption culture? Funny stuff, you can call me a dick too because I hate consumption culture and I look down upon the people who mindlessly consume it. Yes, that's right. If I meet a person whose focal point in life is Jersey Shore or Big Brother and this reflects his values in life, I will follow my natural, evolution granted instinct and adjust my reaction to him accordingly. If that makes me an elitist jerk, I don't really care. EDIT: To stay on topic, I had a quick glance at the three trailers and they looked abysmal. Truly signs of their times. I feel sorry for mankind, all the pain and suffering that is war is turned into hollow mass products. It stains the memories of good men and women. I watched them again and I'm having a really hard time figuring out whether they are parodies about how many cliches you can cram into a short trailer or actual, authentic trailers. I'm especially loving the soundtracks, same notes and patterns feature prominently in 95% of war movie soundtracks. (a statistic straight out of my fancy white fedora)

I haven't played CMx1 in many moons, but doesn't the current hunt command accomplish the very same task? What I would love to see is the old hunt command, where a unit resumes moving once the threat is gone. I can see it being quite hard to specify what exactly qualifies as a threat being over, though, with the new and more complex spotting.

Tank riding was something that in the majority of the cases happened outside combat. At a leisurely pace. Nevermind the fact that the infantry is so high above the ground that any artillery landing nearby will shower them with shrapnel, it is also very hard for a tank to do manouvres at combat speeds if a squad of infantry is riding on top. I have ridden on the deck and turret of a Leopard 2A4 doing combat manouver training in a forest in pouring rain. After this, myself and every member of my squad was physically exhausted. Holding on to the tank at such speeds for a length of time while wearing your combat gear required quite an amount of strength and balance. Yes, we made it there faster but at a much greater risk and we were in much worse fighting condition. We asked about the risks and viability and the answer was that if the condition rises where you have to ride a tank to combat, everything has gone catastrophically wrong on such a level that personal safety is no longer a concern, you will die anyway.

Greetings and welcome to this fine club. Myself, I also dabbled with Steel Panthers and Close Combat before finding my spiritual home. The answer to your question is no. The only situation in which only the Javelin would fire is such that the soldier using it decides to fire on his own and the rest do not. Or he's the only one left standing. Talking about buildings ofcourse. If you order the squad to fire on a T-90 in the horizon, only the Jav will fire. The targeting orders are for the entire squad. It's a bit of a compromise but the game is made by a very small team, so I'll let it slide. There is always the danger that when you start adding features like this you will get swamped in micromanagement and it becomes less focused on actual tactics.

Why are you dragging nations into this? I was talking about people. The more niche a game is, the more it should avoid needless provocation that might alienate potential customers. I just don't see CM as the type of game that could succesfully ride the controversy wave. Yes, controversy is a cheap and easy marketing trick, but there are plenty of examples when it backfires. Like I said, I don't see this as a huge issue, but still...It's fun to speculate.

Unfortunately I have also run into these issues. It doesn't happen all the time, but when it does it's a bummer. I have taken the habit of saving a QB after deployment, then surrendering and taking a quick peek from the corner of my eye to confirm that the AI has deployed somewhat believably but I don't look at it long enough to see and remember what is where. If I don't see a bunch of icons clustered in one corner of the map, I load the save and play. I've had much better success in CMFI, it's a rare sight to see fumbled QB setups there. I believe it has a lot to do with the compartmentalized nature of the bocage. If some units get deployed in the wrong place they will likely be useless for the entire battle as they are trapped in some hedgerow corner. I would also believe that the game has been fine-tuned in this aspect. Also, I respectfully disagree with WynnterGreen. You can have challenging and tactical games against the AI. I always buy forces for it myself and give it a huge bonus modifier so all the units are Crack/Elite with Fanatical motivation. This helps overcome the broad brush that the AI paints with. Since the AI doesn't know what is the best possible approach or cover in a particular moment in time nor does it know how long it should stay in that cover to suppress your troops, the fact that his men will be returning fire on you from their sub-optimal positions will do wonders for the flow of gameplay. It doesn't feel too gamey, there is still that realistic touch. It is so much more fun. You can even have the AI attack you and get your teeth kicked in. It's worth a try.