Jock Tamson

I would love to have control of choppers in game, but I fear there would be all sorts of spotting/balance issues.

january 2014 50% of Steam users (5 million online as I type this) are using Win7 64Bit

Understood. Maybe in the next generation of the engine it would be seen as a worthwhile project that might extend the appeal of the series to people who are drawn to games like Men of War Assault Squad - RTS, yes, but groggier than most and with good multiplayer arrangements.

Hi Steve, isn't this where the dedicated server exe could come in? What I am envisaging is a server interface similar to that on, say, Arma to allow easy hosting of a scenario. One player hosts the dedi server and all players persistently connect to it to submit moves and receive replays. It calculates the outcome and produces files for the players to replay. As it would be an additional process, it has its own 3GB address space on a 32 Bit OS. Obviously there is a similarity to PBEM in terms of data transfer, but the significant advantage is that all players can plot their moves at the same time. Additionally, future developments might be:- - provide a means in the future for more than 2 players to take part in a mission - multiplayer combined arms scenarios could be built where the designer allocates particular units to player 1, player 2, player 3, etc - each player only has spotting info for what his units can see. But if players' units share a net then some "?" spotting info is made available between commands. - server parameters such as move submission time limits could be set by the host, to keep the flow of the game going eg 6 player game, platoon each, 15 minute limit for reviewing replays and and submitting moves - could be a lot of fun.

Hi Steve I wonder if ultimately (CMx4) the answer to this might be for a server exectuable to be shipped with the game, so that when two players play TCP/IP one connects his client game to the server locally ie running on his PC, and the other connects remotely. Then have the server executable produce the file for the clients, containing all the necessary detail for each client's replay.

oh my - "AI Triggers allow AI forces to execute actions based on other units or interaction with Objectives" If that is as good as it sounds it's a game changer for the single player game.

I started this scenario a few days ago against the Allied AI, and am about 45 moves in. Fantastic map with lots of possibilities, I'm glad I didn't read the AAR before playing it. Recon, careful probing, and using Regular or Veteran crews to spot and engage at range has been critical, as has careful scouting out of decent HD positions on the approaches. Where possible I have steered clear of trees and used lanes and hedges for covered observation. There are also some useful elevation changes within the wheat fields to allow a bit of room for manoeuvre. I've knocked out 3 Fireflys and 4 Sherman Vs and have captured Gaumesnil which provided some very entertaining moments, not least of which was stalking a Sherman V with an Aufklärung team in the woods only to see them hit a tree right in front of them with their Panzerfaust, the projectile rebounding and suppressing them. They later disabled it with AT grenades. I've lost 1 Tiger and 2 Green crewed Pz IVs, all around Gaumesil. The loss of the Tiger was early on in the mission, since then I have been more careful to keep a distance until I am sure the treelines are clear. The left flank now seems two thirds clear so I am sending three armoured platoons down there in a wide left hook in order to work my way up to Objective 2. One of the surprises has been the survivability of the Shermans, particularly when engaged by the Pz IVs' 75mms. This probably the largest amount of armour I have played with so I have seen more instances of the Shermans surviving 2 or 3 shots than I might otherwise be used to in my usual encounters. On the right flank I moved a Pz Gr platoon into the farm buildings 400m in front of their starting positions. They provided some very useful spotting of ambushing tanks in the treeline ahead, which I drove out with HE from supporting Pz IVs and then picked off with two panthers I had crept through the wheat fields. My plan for the right flank is a little seat of the pants. I am reasonably confident that the initial defences have been driven off so I have moved up another Pz Gr company supported by PZ IVs and am intending to probe into the gully half way to Garcelles which looks like it could be a useful avenue of approach provided it is not chock full of infantry. Hopefully this probe will also provide some useful recon of the middle approach up the map and allow me to move remaining armour up in a big push. I really wish conditional triggers linked to unit groups were available to scenario designers to allow the AI to pull back or launch a counter attack as the situation demands, similar to the Arma editor. It would add massively to the replayability and general dynamism of the AI. Imagine the possibilities of a trigger on Gaumesil linked to an Allied tank troop where Enemy spotted within trigger =true, Morale of troop leader > 0 , probabilty roll => 0.5.... = the AI launching an attack. It's the area of the game that needs the most love, IMO.

There is something else going on here other than the spotting asymmetry. The AFVs had contact with the Cromwells but the Mk IVs didn't. So when you move them into their flanking positions they are spotting without any prior knowledge of the existence of the Cromwells or their positions. It can be very easy to forget this as the player with the God's Eye View. In these sorts of circumstances I might try and get one unit in the troop to spot them before moving the others up, or even dismount one crew for recon. Also, given what we know about cumulative crew spotting, maybe try and get HD positions from the rear quarters of the targets so that the target loses some of its spotters? Of course if I was playing "intuitively" as Steve recommends, I might slow move them into HD flanking positions and expect to get the bounce on tanks sitting out in the open... . Intuitively, that should work. The problem is that your tanks don't know that you are sneaking them into a HD position for a purpose. Maybe setting a narrow target arc in these circumstances should load the odds slightly more in favour of the HD units? (for the avoidance of doubt, arcs don't add a spotting advantage, I am suggesting that maybe they should add a "focus" modifier).

Steve, the nature of PBEM H2H encourages this sort of absorption in the minutiae though doesn't it ? You may have a full day before your first turn is due, and you may only be purchasing 5 or 6 AFVs. In these circumstances I can completely understand the desire to have the detail available - what else is there to do ?

Steve I'm not a grog by any means, but the people who want to play these sorts of games generally want to know that there is lots going on under the hood. And they want to know what it is. And the more realistic it sounds, the better. I just don't see the harm in making the detail available - big it up! If you look at any of the big titles that fall into the strategy genre, the most popular mods - hundreds of thousands of downloads - are realism/authentic detail mods to make up for perceived deficiencies in those areas in the base game. Fundamentally that is what appeals to that market.

There is a difference between overwhelming the player with information during gameplay, and making the information available. Having the information available, and knowing that the stats are used in game, adds massively to the immersion and draws the player in. The game begs for an armoury of some sort where the interested player can browse the detail of the units at their leisure. See Wargame Air Land Battle, for example. Yes it's an RTS, but all the units and all their stats - the ones that are used in game - are available to the player.

post error

This has been a very interesting thread, but I fear the blocker to significant changes may be the implications for the TacAI - stopping to spot / shoot, stalking behaviour etc.

Tracers are done quite nicely in Achtung Panzer (now "Graviteam Tactics") Operation Star. Generally only used by LMGs and above. Different colours for German and USSR. Spotting where smaller arms fire is coming from is difficult.

I have dismounted my troop leader's tank and had the crew observe the battlefield from a crest or a building. Not against a human though. Probably a waste of a tank as I guess that takes them "off net", so it would be a task better served by a cheaper unit?

Wouldn't it be great though, Doug, if the AI in particular could exhibit some of the AFV tactics you talk about in the other thread? - stopping to shoot, overwatch etc ?

Win 7 runs very well on a Mac Air (I am using it to reply to this), however I wouldn't use it for gaming - no discrete GPU, not enough RAM. And not upgradeable on either count.

It wouldn't forbid concentration. It would modify the chances of area fire concentration in one AS, based on whether the targeting units have observed the target, or have a shared contact through their C2 chain. I think it is a good idea.

This mod has added a huge amount of immersion to my game - thank you!

I'd be interested in details of these.

Hmmm, I look back at how popular Close Combat was back in the day. The principles of pinning the enemy [remember the shaded suppression area?] and manoeuvring, recon, scouting by fire, morale, cover, command radius etc were fundamental. I don't remember people finding these ideas difficult to get to grips with, even outside of typical wargamer circles. I am not suggesting for a minute that the series had CM's depth, but successful play required a similar approach to most common situations in CM.

I said I hadn't read any posts suggesting we had too many commands at the moment. It doesn't sound like you have posted to that effect either. If that is the case, then presumably there is room for x number more up to a point where it would be felt we had hit the maximum. So the question is, what is x? As for the learning curve, I am not convinced it is steep. Generally this series attracts people who have played wargames in one form or another so most of the concepts are familiar, and it can be played in a form - WEGO or paused RT - where there is time for contemplation. The much lauded Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations has a relatively steep learning curve and yet the clamour from the community has been for more commands. Which they are getting in the next patch. Maybe that's where all the grogs are these days ;-)

There are never any posts complaining about there being too many commands Steve. But there are often posts suggesting there are not enough. Which suggests maybe that we are still well short of the tipping point ?

I've just played a few turns of one of the Huge CMBN CW battles - the application is using under 900MB.

Wargame Air Land Battle