WillLight
-
Posts
102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by WillLight
-
-
Well, I'm not asking for it per se, I am under the impression that that is how it works now, given the detailed C2 simulation. Just wanted to clarify if my impression is correct. But I do think it would be a great feature to have (eventually) if it doesn't exist right now. Imagine in future a feature where as part of the setup you can modify the C2 structure of your force before starting (at the designer's discretion). You can already do this in QBs right now (at least it seems that way from the video, though it might be "cheaper" to buy the platoon as a whole rather than one by one for each inf. platoon).
-
I was thinking that too. What if you had to attack over the only bridge to have a chance of winning the scenario and your opponent dropped the bridge?
I suppose it would come down to bad scenario design.
Well, I wouldn't put it down to bad design in all cases. Suppose you wanted to design a scenario where it would be beneficial to preserve the bridge but the main objective is to keep hold of the town behind it. As a designer I would like to reward the defender who manages to hold the town and keep the bridge intact, and maybe award no more than a draw if the town is held but the bridge is blown. Highway to the Reich has scenarios like that, and they can make for exciting play, especially with "hold" objectives that award points on an increasing scale with how long you hold them. (yes, I know that's less relevant for a tactical scale game).
-
I'm just reading a book about the performance of British and Canadian Armour in Normandy and one of the things it mentioned was how, as the fighting went on, Division and Brigade commanders adapted to the situation and developed methods to increase the cooperation between armour and infantry.
I was wondering how this would be reflected in the game (beyond the obvious of actually having them both in the same battle).
Say we had a force consisting of an infantry company supported by a platoon of tanks (in US terms
). In one case there would be a force structure as follows:Bn Cdr
Inf Coy Cdr -> Bn Cdr
3x Inf Pl Cdr -> Inf Coy Cdr
3x Inf Sq -> Inf Pl Cdr
Arm Coy Cdr -> Bn Cdr (in a tank)
Arm Pl Cdr -> Arm Coy Cdr (in a tank)
3x Tank -> Arm Pl Cdr
In the other case:
Bn Cdr
Inf Coy Cdr -> Bn Cdr
3x Inf Pl Cdr -> Inf Coy Cdr
3x Inf Sq + 1 Tank -> Inf Pl Cdr
in other words in the second situation the infantry and the tanks "meet" (in C2 terms) much earlier.
So, in the same tactical situation where say an infantry squad is 10m away from a tank (in Organisation 2, "it's" tank), and it spots an enemy, is there a difference in the game in how long it takes the tank to get that communicated to it and spot the enemy itself? (all other things being equal).
Sorry for the long-winded post
Thanks
-
Martyr: that's a good idea, but a second keyboard just for one key seems excessive.
Lt Belenko: I tried SHIFT-DASH but all I get is _
Anyway, just get the game out already, I can't wait and I start thinking I'm funnier than I really am, especially as I posted from the airport after about 24 hours of flying while still waiting for my next flight...
-
The underscore (_) key on my keyboard just stopped working, and I wanted to ask BFC if the download filename would have an underscore in it. Please make sure the filename is underscore free otherwise I will not be able to download the game when it is ready.
Thanks for your understanding!
-
Those are coming in the Mediterranean module, no?
Nah mate, if you buy the steel box you get some right now.
-
Well I appreciate that most of that holiday doesn't appeal to you, for perfectly good reasons, but certainly ANZAC Day duties means I don't get four days "off".
Very true, though I should care that it's passover, but unfortunately I'm not very good at the whole religion thing. Sorry to hear you don't get to be home for the long weekend. Seems with all the floods and cyclones this year, the ADF could let you guys be home a bit more.
-
4 days over here, ANZAC day is on Easter Monday, so even better
From a personally selfish point of view though, it can wait two more weeks cos I'm going on vacation 
-
Also, the prevalence of personal radios in modern western armies allows for more spaced out squads than the demands of control and communication would have allowed in WW2.
-
I think next week is Passover..
Maybe they should wait til May.
Why? I have it under good authority that CMBN does not contain any unleavened bread products.
Besides I think Moon meant to say that they'll know the size of the download next week, not that the game will be ready to download then. Call me a pessimist...
-
How do you step out of a corporal? Sounds painful (at least for the corporal)...
-
I once contracted a virus while downloading the short CMSF marine campaign. Took 5 days for my sinuses to clear up. War is hell...
-
Oh, I read you all wrong
Not a fan of the iron mode rules in CMx1 either... -
I get a kick out of the idea that people think difficulty and realism automatically equal bad controls and poor interfacing.
Way to go ad-hominem! Care to share your brilliant idea on how to implement this so it's usable with company sized forces?
-
sfhand, I think the point moon is trying to make is that once you activate, you can install and uninstall as many times as you want without activating again and using up an additional activation. Basically activating probably analyses your system, comes up with a unique ID representing your system and it's makeup (CPU, MB, GPU) and writes down an entry in the registry somewhere. You can then uninstall CMBN and install it again, and it recognises that this computer has already been activated. The distinction is that the computer has been activated to use CMBN and not the actual installation.
-
I was reading one of The Capt's posts in the long AAR thread, and he mentioned he really likes to use Stuarts. I have never had much success with them in CMAK and in preparation for CMBN would like to ask:
1. How do you use them?
2. To which purposes are they most suited?
Thanks in advance!
-
James' point (I think) is a playing style that considers casualties as a prism for the players tactical ability. To me that's the purest essence of wargaming. But sometimes I like to play... ummm... a little looser style, I JUST Gotta say it, "Man I'm in you base, killing your Dudes!"
Surely you mean "All your VL are belong to us!"
-
Hey Bil,
Send me a copy of CMBN and I will duel you instead of James
-
How young would he have to have been for you to consider him an aussie, or is the selectivity just 'cause he's a d@#khead?
-
Mate, not sure what you want Moon to say. Short of agreeing to being on Steam, is there anything he could say that would please you? He indicated that he doesn't think selling more stuff on steam would be profitable for them, are you going to challenge that? Based on what? your gut feeling? He indicated that they are striving to provide a better download service, what more do you expect him to say while not agreeing to the main premise that BFC should sell their games on steam?
This is kinda like the subscription service Apple is offering where publishers have to sell for the same price on and off the iThing. It's great for the consumers who have the iThing but is it that great for the publishers? Just think, has the standard of journalism increased since the internet became widespread? Has the standard of PC games gone up since every 18 month old game began to be on offer for 5$ on gamers gate?
-
That's why you should memorise your credit card details
-
yeah definitely better than the fluorescent green in CMSF, but I doubt these are final graphics for the weapons. I'd expect them to "paint" the silhouettes in by release time. No biggie if they don't, I'm sure someone will mod it.
-
Pre-ordered
I have a request, can you wait to release the game until I get back from a trip abroad in the middle of May? -
"What is it about the Russian front (and CMBB i guess) that players like so much?"
This may be a throwback to cardboard wargame days b4 computers when everyone wanted to play the Germans "in their prime" stomping all over other countries.
In the Western Front, other than the (incredibly popular topic for gaming) Ardennes Offensive, the Germans were on the defensive. There were a fraction of Western Front games compared to Eastern Front topics.
I am quite serious that one used to have to bribe players to play any Allied side. All the games seemed to be designed for max fun for the German side. They always had the more interesting variety of powerful units, while the Allies seemed to be composed of generic cookie counter units.
I would say that even CM1 reflects that "prejudice" to a small degree. I personally still enjoy the CM1 Axis side more. Their units are just more interesting.
I think this started to change when RT FPS's set in WW2 appeared for the non-grognard mass market. Suddenly, nearly all the games were from the Allied (primarily US) POV.
That's a pretty good observation. At the FPS level the germans don't really have anything fascinating (well except for the MG42) and US based players would probably not want to be shooting down american soldiers "face to face". At the operational level, or even squad level where vehicles come in to play, german player has lots of cool stuff and there isn't that low down and dirty feeling of an FPS.
). In one case there would be a force structure as follows:
Bridge preserve objective
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Don't know about the AI thing, but even if it can't it wouldn't be one sided. The attacker's (AI or human) mission is to seize the town, not destroy the bridge. The defender may destroy the bridge in order to prevent the town from being seized (as a last resort one presumes). This would replicate reality in that in general a defender has reason to keep bridges intact, unless their existence presents a danger to the defence itself.