Jock Tamson
-
Posts
443 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Jock Tamson
-
-
No idea how the ANZACs handled the issue.
Just a point of interest - ANZAC in a WW2 context refers to Australian 1 Corps in 1941 Greece who also had some New Zealanders under command. Once the AXIS forces had captured Greece the corps left Greece and the name was no longer used.
-
Yes good ideas.
Although the AI will probably never be as good as a human player, there is a huge advantage the scenario designer has over the player: he knows everything about the player's forces. And that compensates quite a bit for lack of situational awareness of a predetermined plan.
What about triggers that hold thresholds for their activation (trigger touch threshold: i.e. 3 tanks, 7 vehicles, 109 infantry)?
Or triggers that have the condition of friendly units as threshold (casualties [%] of AI-group, destroyed [%] of AI-group)?
AI design for scenarios could become tactically interesting in itself.
But with the current interface in the scenario editor, which already is using all available space I see a problem to expand the current system at all. Maybe a scripting language and a compiler would be the easier solution? For the easier plans, the GUI can be used. If a more complex plan is wanted, the scenario designer can write a script in a textfile which is imported and compiled.
Some good ideas in here. Would leave to see the possibility to script similar to the Arma series. But conditional triggers like the ones you suggest would also be very acceptable. At the moment, the designer has to try and think what the player might have done by certain times and trigger the AI accordingly, it would be nice to be able to set triggers for the AI based on what might have happened to their forces, or the player's.
-
On the other hand, GT:OS has a group of core design decisions that I deeply dislike, making the game a one-week-and-shelve-it wonder for me. I don't consider it in the same league as CM. It is where Close Combat might have gone, had it ventured into 3D, with a dash of Total War thrown in. Players looking for real-time, broad-stroke WWII tactical flavor at the platoon or company command level might have fun with it. Players looking for a realistic, fully-functioning WWII battlefield at a deep-sim level, at team, squad, platoon, company, battalion...or...even regimental+ command level, will only find that in CM. Yes, you have to play the role of each of those commanders at the same time. Well, getting the chance to make the juicy decisions is why we play wargames. And, allowing adequate time to play the role of all the commanders on the field, no matter what the battle size, without fundamental loss of realism, is the strength, beauty, and primary purpose of the WEGO system (of course, you're free to play real-time to the battle-size limit of your ability to adequately issue commands).
They each have their place. On some levels, GTOS offers a better single player experience, due to the operational layer and the more flexible AI. When you play single player CM and watch the AI dead pile up in the streets, squad after squad meeting the same fate in the same place, it can be very dispiriting. It doesn't happen all the time of course, but often enough that I really wish BFC would give the single player experience a bit of love.
-
What happened to the waypoints that you placed for the units when they were refusing to move? - did they "disappear" or remain in place?
-
Graviteam Tactics implements some of these ideas and it works quite well. There is a moving "window" for orders. Each order issued uses up a bit of the window, so if you start to heavily micro a particular element, it will start to eat into your ability to issue commands to other units, until the window has moved sufficiently to create more space for further orders. So the player is rewarded for planning moves and then sticking with them. Additionally, not all orders cost the same so orders to eg a radio equipped AFV cost a bit less of the window.
Obviously, it is not quite suited to CM but the point is that there are some good ideas out there that deal quite well with the "God's Eye View" issues, particularly in single player (which GT is, exclusively).
-
It is not my internet, I downloaded something off Steam earlier today and was getting 13.5 Mbps.
Ssshhhhh!!
-
Iron settings is the key, I believe.
Iron setting will certainly make controlling your forces more awkward, which could be an issue if you are playing Real Time. But none of the difficulty settings will change how the AI performs - it doesn't have an overarching command "brain", it is just following the battle designer's plans.
-
It strikes me that there are a few commonalities on all these Steam threads.
There are those who I suspect have spent time in the past defending CMx1 to people who couldn't see past the graphics. They fear the same thing happening to CMx2 on "the Steam forums". Despite the fact that CMx2 titles are perfectly decent looking. As far as I am concerned, this is not a series that needs defending.
I don't think they understand that the audience they fear is more likely to be on Xbox or Playstation. The majority of Steam users are PC and Mac users in their 30s or older, most of whom will never bother with the forums. For them, Steam is a convenient storefront which occasionally leads them to try out titles they may not have bought in a retail store - Kerbal Space Programme, or Crusader Kings for example. They may well have heard of Combat Mission, but it isn't in their favourite store, time is short, and their library has other stuff in it that they haven't played properly yet. I'm 43, 2 kids, computer gaming since the early 80s, with a bit of hobby cash for PC gaming. A decade ago, the idea of digital downloads via something like Steam would have been anathema. But now, with limited time and patience for the old days of seeking out patches and games I am much more likely to buy something on a whim on Steam during a stolen half hour of PC time, usually after browsing the strategy titles. And if I'm lucky I might get to play it within a week of purchase. I believe there are many people on Steam who would dip the toe with CMSF, either on a whim or because they half remember the series. Or because the setting is a bit contemporary and there is nothing else quite like it out there. These are the people who would be drawn in by a video in the Steam store.
A year ago Steam had 75 million active users, many of them like me. I would love BFC to get a tiny bit of that action so that we could see a bit of cash spent on bringing the CM series on.
-
I don't know what the optimum size for the audience for CM is, but at the moment it feels about right. It's small enough to feel like a genuine community yet large enough to support a diversity of opinion on a number of issues...as this thread demonstrates.
Surely this forum community represents only a fraction of the actual, largely silent, CM "community"? If not, sales must be absolutely tiny.
-
I also don't belive that someone won't buy CM games because they are not on steam...
They are a different version of those who won't buy software unless it is on CD.
-
I can't understand why people try to go on and on and on about Steam on these forums like they are 12 years old.
We here don't make any decisions. So, the topic is cluttering up forum space and wasting readers' time.
Plz write a letter with all your new info re specs and marketing points to BFC.
Or, stop reading threads that don't interest you. I do it all the time.
-
.
There are many strategy games on Steam that are a lot harder to learn and play well than Combat Mission. I struggle to remember the last time I felt the need to read a CM manual. Steam has its own forums. Graviteam Tactics, probably one of the - initially - most forbidding UIs I have come across in gaming, has 28 positive and 2 negative reviews on Steam. The negative reviews are about the performance on low end CPUs.
-
That Wargame clickfest certainly doesn't appeal to me.
No, but Graviteam Tactics does (as it does me) and it is available on Steam. The point I am getting at is that CM would appeal to a lot of the people on Steam who buy these sorts of titles. Not all of them were around to get their interest piqued by a CD on PC Gamer.
-
As for Eugene and Wargame being a big hit on Steam, what does that have to do with Combat Mission? They are hardly in the same category. I have Wargame too and it the sort of game that would appeal to the Steam crowd. Its an RTS, with life bars. Saying Wargame is grounded in realism is laughable. Its hardly realistic. Try playing a tank battle in Wargame and compare that with tank vs tank battles in Shock Force.
You are missing the point. You, me, the other poster, and probably a few other folk reading this have all got Wargame. Because we are the market for strategy games. Yes it is different to CM, but it appeals to the same type of people that buy CM. Did you find Wargame through Google or Eugene's web site before you bought it? - I suspect not.
Combat Mission is not easily found via a generic search on search engines, which is tragic. I have read so many threads on other wargaming/strategy forums where one poster has introduced CM to another who has never heard of it.
The "Steam Crowd" doesn't exist. I have been computer gaming since 1982 and I am a prolific user of Steam. Most of the titles I have bought on it are strategy.
-
Otherwise you risk being taken to task, and that would happen face to face and not just on an internet forum.
If he was "taken to task" by another forum dweller, that would be just another opinion.
My reasons for wanting CM on Steam have nothing to do with BFC's livelihoods per se. I want the kind of exposure for CM that Steam brings. Even if they only did this for CMSF - which plays pretty well these days - the exposure would bring interest to the other titles. This sort of sea change in market exposure and resultant revenue increase is the only way we will ever get really significant new additions such as a server executable, replays in real time etc as it would open the possibility of an increase in the dev team size. Crusader Kings has sold a million units on Steam for goodness sake!
This, of course, is an opinion. If someone can point to other publishers of strategy titles who regret making software available on Steam, I will stand corrected. But it seems the traffic is all the other way - Command Modern Air / Naval Operations just arrived on Steam, currently in the top 20 sellers priced 45 pounds Sterling. Niche, much?
The other reason is patches. Anyone who uses Steam knows the advantages there.
-
Steam - filter Store to Strategy, order by top sellers, coming soon, videos, etc, etc, browse to your heart's content.
Google - which of these is going to lead me to Combat Mission? -
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ww2+pc+wargame
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ww2+pc+game
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ww2+tactical+pc+game
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=pc+wargame
I would love to see BFC take a step change in the next couple of years - a server executable for multiplayer, multiple players per side, Real Time with replays, an operational layer etc but the only way I can see that happening is a significant increase in exposure, revenue and manpower additions. Steam has become the main shop window for computer gaming, if you aren't going to use it then the alternative has to be good if you wish to do anything other than rely on word of mouth and your existing customers, and accept that that is the limit of your market exposure.
I'd love to see them test the Steam water with Shock Force because even after all these years there is nothing else like it, and with the recent HD mods, effects mods etc it looks damned good.
Command Modern Air / Naval Operations - surely more niche than CM - is coming to Steam in 4 days.
-
The internets are full of other forums where people have just discovered the CM series by some fluke or other - and I mean forums where the residents are the natural customers for this type of game - but for some reason PR and/or Marketing is one area where BFC's approach is held to be above reproach. <Shrugs>.
-
If the tank is shooting from a pause on a waypoint, is it classed as stopped?
-
It is difficult to put my finger on but I find RT a bit meh. CMFI with Gustav Line is a bigger theatre with a wider variety of terrains, units and weathers (snow), but there are not many (any?) community maps built with V3 for it yet (so, specifically, the maps are not using AI triggers). However it is barely noticeable in a typical Quick Battle.
CMFI/GL doesn't have flamethrowers or tank riders. But to be honest, until flames are an entity that can spread I am not fussed about the former.
You may find these threads informative:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=116655
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=116579
-
loads more QB maps, the small/med bocage countryside ones are great but I need more!!
I recommend these. Not V3, but still very good:
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1716
-
Is there a Lizard Man mod available for CMSF?
-
BTW why cant my GIs drive abandonde Kübelwagen that could be put into action by any german soldier immediatly.
Why would anyone in their right mind drive a captured vehicle during a battle?
-
To start, these are my suggestions and desired improvements which I think would greatly speed up play, and possibly even increase realism:
.
I would add to these - being able to order a vehicle to disembark passengers at a vehicle waypoint. The logic would be that it causes the vehicle to pause until all passengers are disembarked. Passengers would then follow their own waypoints in the way they do now.
This would make it very straightforward (in WEGO planning particularly) to have your dismounts get out the vehicle and advance ahead of it while the vehicle follows at a slow pace.
-
Do mouse modes like RTS, FPS count as ergonomic functionalities?
If so, I would like a mode in which the player can view the battlefield only from the positions and height of his units. Moving over the battlefield = only possible by moving from unit to unit, no flying over the map. Kind of a hardcore mode. Very small scenarios and even playing the AI could become exciting with it.
Agree, I have suggested something similar in the past:
I would like to see more hardcore options:
Tracers only appear for weapons that historically would have used them.
Locked camera - to move the camera during planning and replay you have to select a unit and then you can't move the camera more than, say, 100 metres in any direction from the selected unit's position. I wouldn't limit it vertically.
Plotting limits - moves can only be plotted a maximum of, say, 300m from the unit's position to limit the amount of line of sight checking that can be done on the map during planning.
These wouldn't appeal to everyone but they might particularly appeal to people like me who only play the AI.
The camera and plotting suggestions might appeal to H2H players who want a game where their units can not be so easily scouted out by noise during replay, and which would introduce challenges with terrain management.
Wishlist
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Imagine though a proper Fog of War version of this, where each player can only see his own units and others - friendly and enemy - that are within LOS