Jump to content

InsanePerson42

Members
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by InsanePerson42

  1. I just played this mission in the demo. When the Italians were coming at me I felt invincible, I was slaughtering them. And then I started to lose the moment the Germans arrived. It really gives you a feel for the difference between the German and Italian armies.
  2. Ditto. But I don't think you will ever find a person who would disagree with that. I'm sure everyone who works for battlefront would love to put in visible air support too(I realize it's not good tact to speak for people you don't know, but this seems pretty universal). But battlefront is a very small company with few resources, so they needed to abstract a few things. If you're willing to sacrifice a bit of ground realism I recommend the Theatre of War series. They do an excellent job on air support, and anti-air ground fire.
  3. I figure the way to do it is have the operational level be turn based(probably essential). Each turn would represent 1 hour, and would be simultaneous move(wego). When opposing forces meet the game would zoom down to tactical level(like the Total War games). Each engagement on the tactical level would last for no longer than one hour(to match the operational level turns). If the engagement is not decided in that one hour it will be resumed next turn. YES!! I have frequently found myself wishing I had better ability to direct suppressing fire. They should certainly add that to the next CM engine. It really would be very useful to be able to order suppressing fire along a linear or area target like you can with artillery.
  4. I was actually thinking a dedicated medic unit would be the ideal way to do it. I know for a fact that there was casualty evacuation in WW2, but it makes sense that it may not have been the first priority of the combat troops. These days the rule is "never leave a man behind". Having never served in the armed forces I can't really say much on modern procedure, but I guess they will teach me that soon enough. I just passed the ASVAB(97%!!) and physical, all that is left is to pick a job, swear in, and wait to get sent off to basic. That last bit isn't really relevant to anything, I just feel like I need to tell everyone whether I know them or not.
  5. Okay. I'm having a thought here. normannobrot- I like your idea of combining the strategic level and the tactical level(have you played the Total War games by any chance?) but I think it might work best to bring it a level down. Combine the operational level and the tactical level. By having larger armies marching around on an operational map dozens of kilometers in all directions that makes room for c3k's fuel levels. Add in a few more logistics on top of that even. Keep the ammo limitations of Combat Mission, in addition require supplies of food(effecting the troops fitness in battle). Maybe troops can even rest on the operational map, and if they don't get enough rest that will also effect their fitness in battle. The player needs to be careful to keep supply routes open, and has a certain amount of control over reinforcements. The players also has control over which units get priority for air and artillery support. Of course this would bring up a serious problem when you get to the battles. Mainly that you cannot have scripted AI plans tailored to an individual scenario, because you have no idea where the AI troops will be or with what kind of force. But I think there is a solution. Having read many WW2 field manuals I think it might be possible to program an AI to follow real "by the book" military tactics, straight out of the field manuals. The problem with this is that real armies don't always fight "by the book", so it is not a perfect solution. But I think it would be a real step forward. Wherever possible it would be best to substitute "by the book" tactics with known common practice. The important thing is that it can be broken down into boolean logic for the computer. I wonder if it might be possible to program an AI to use OCOKA?
  6. That is true. Perhaps combining the strategic and the tactical in a realistic way would be a bit much. The player would simply have to fight far too many battles and would start to get bored(we are talking thousands of individual engagements). It would still be pretty damn cool if someone were to figure out how to make it work. It might work to go one level lower though, combine the operational and the tactical. Edit: Of course the idea here is to post interesting ideas without regard to whether it would actually be practical to implement them. The theory is that a totally free flow of ideas increases the chances of coming across truly creative and ingenious ideas. Even impractical or even impossible ideas may have elements within them that could prove valuable.
  7. (operational) + (tactical) Command ops + Combat Mission! (strategic) + (operational) + (tactical) or Hearts or Iron 3 + Command Ops + Combat Mission!!......might be a bit much, but it would be awesome anyway! Would be nice to be able to participate in the grander operation surrounding the engagements, but still be able to fight the engagements themselves. Sort of a Total War series thing, but far more realistic.
  8. I think the idea is that AI unit groups would have planned paths along which they would retreat. They would make use of these retreat paths if some condition was met(they take too many casualties, moral gets too low, the enemy has more than ?/1 fire superiority). Of course it's not my idea, so it is entirely possible that I am misinterpreting it. But I think (is someone were to figure out how to implement it) it could really enhance realism.
  9. True. I don't really like the King Tiger anyway. You can never get your hands on very many of them. And they aren't that much better than Panthers anyway. Think about it, their capabilities vs allied vehicles are only slightly better than those of Panther tanks. King Tiger- Invulnerable to any allied ATG from the front, but screwed if the allies take it from the flank(although it might take a couple shots, the crew still won't react fast enough to save the vehicle). Can kill any allied vehicle with one shot. Panther- Invulnerable to any allied ATG from the front(except the 76 mm at close range). Screwed if the allies take it from the flank. Can kill most allied vehicles with one shot, sometimes it takes two. The real difference is that there are way more Panthers than there are Tigers. I find I can do much more damage with two Panthers than I can with only one Tiger. Edit: I realize I went off topic in my own thread. Just venting my rage over being unable to keep my King Tiger alive in the Kamfgruppe Engel campaign
  10. I have this problem on occasion as well. I assume it's because I'm usually attacking and therefore my units have not observed the terrain as thoroughly. I find(if I know where the enemy tank is, and have LOS) that it often works to simply give my tank and area target command on the location I know is occupied by an enemy tank. This is naturally less effective than if my tank could actually see the SOB, but it is a useful stopgap.
  11. That would be cool. And I think it should be possible. Maybe it could be done by measuring levels of fire superiority. There must be some way to do that. I remember reading in some WW2 field manuals(as well as Jeffrey Pauldings CMBN tactics video series) the necessity for fire superiority in order for an attacker to advance. It is frequently advised that you retreat and relocate if you lose fire superiority. I think Umpire manuals(umpire in this case being someone who directs the course of training exercises) would be especially helpful for a game designer trying to determine when the AI should advance, when it should be halted, and when it should retreat. I quote from the 1942 U.S. Umpire manual. Bottom of page 7 (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM105-5.pdf) "An infantry element or any element acting as infantry should be permitted to advance only when it has decisive superiority of fire as compared with the elements immediatly opposing it. This superiority never should be less than 2 to 1, and generally should be 3 or 4 to 1. If the defender has good cover and field of fire, or it the attacker has little cover, there should be no hesitation in requiring a superiority of 5 to 1, or even more."
  12. This thread is for things that people think would be really awesome if they were to be included in a realistic wargame engine like that of the CM series. If you're really thinking outside the box then most of you're ideas should be wildly impractical or downright impossible with the current engine or technology. But maybe someone will pick up on some of these ideas and make a game engine that is more realistic for it. So here is my first thought. I think a really cool next step in realism is to require the player to evacuate casualties from the battlefield(instead of the current system where they simply disappear). That would create new tactical challenges, and you get another kind of casualty if you can't evacuate your wounded(wounded POW's). This would make certain vehicles(like humvees and transport helicopters) far more useful than they currently are to modern gamers. In addition, I have been given to understand that the first few minutes to an hour are the most critical for many battlefield injuries. So realistically, the longer a player takes to get first aid to a wounded soldier, the less likely that soldier will survive. Feel free to post any idea you have that you think would be cool if it was part of a realistic wargame engine. Or feel free to comment on any ideas that are already posted.
  13. I wish that combat mission had dedicated medics. Units who are poorly armed but better at rendering aid. It would be nice to be able to attend to my casualties as quickly as possible without reducing the combat capabilities of my forward units.
  14. I often like to give my tanks area targets at AFV's they haven't spotted if I know one is there(some other unit spots it). This does of course depend on my tank having LOS though.
  15. ok, I have a few points to make First, Its a tactical wargame, not a political message! Who is there to offend? As long as the game doesn't take sides or portray either side as "the good guys" who is going to be offended? Set the game in any conflict you like, with any set of opposing forces. As long as both sides are fairly and accurately represented and have playable campaigns I don't think there is any reason to worry about offending people. Take Vietnam(or the Second Indochina War) as an example(I realize that CM might never go to Vietnam, its just an example). American players would enjoy the game because it allows them to relive the bloodiest war for the U.S. since WW2. Vietnamese players would enjoy the game because it allows them to relive part of their (very, very bloody) struggle for independence. As for certain red forces being "too easy" to defeat, CMSF had a unique solution to that problem. Set higher objectives! Once winning is certain you start to think about doing so as elegantly and efficiently as possible. A fight can still be a challenge even if your enemy has 0 chance of winning. The difference is you have higher performance expectations. Not only do you have to win, you have to win with very few casualties and little to no collateral damage. There are scenario's in CMSF in which the blueforce must keep its casualties at below 5%! I am constantly increasing my performance expectations as I get better, the result is that CMSF remains as challenging for me today as the day I bought it. The goal of course is always the perfect mission(all objectives achieved, 0 friendly casualties, 100% enemy casualties or surrender, no collateral damage) but that still remains out of reach for me most of the time. Also, the red force remains playable by simply setting lower performance expectations. Can't defeat the enemy? well do what damage you can and try to keep some of your forces intact. But that may be irrelevant because if your NATO equipment is CONTEMPORARY with the Soviet equipment you're facing, and the Soviet equipped troops are up to Soviet training levels, and are following competent tactical doctrine, the fight will be anything but a walkover for NATO.
  16. I hope they don't just stick with WW2 games. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see more WW2 and CM does a great job at it! But the engine is just so well adapted to any modern conflict that is would be a pity for it to be isolated to a single war. Still, I can hardly wait for Operation Market Garden(there aren't a lot of games covering that campaign that I know of).
  17. I've heard a lot of people say that we are probably going to Market Garden next, which would be freaking awesome! I myself have posted a thread anticipating a move to the eastern front(some delicious, high intensity, urban combat). Personally however, I think the pacific front is severely underrepresented in video games(especially RTS), the Japanese/US Marines deserve a shot and who better to give it to them than Combat Mission? But who says it has to be another WW2 game? I hope to one day see a Combat Mission: Vietnam. Or perhaps Combat Mission should take a crack at Korea (Theatre of War 3 didn't quite seem to cut it). But nobody said it had to be a war that the U.S. was involved in; First Indochina war, Sino-Vietnamese war, Six day war, Iran-Iraq war.
  18. is there any way to do this? because I would like to pitch soviets against nato and maybe even make a few World in Conflict senario's for myself. On a side note, has anyone made a mod that adds in extra units, like the M60Patton tank, for the US? I would like to set my mod in the late 1980's and there were a number of weapons and vehicles from that era that had been discontinued by the time of the setting of CMSF(and as such they do not appear in the game). On that note, is there much difference between the T80 and T90? because I was considering using the in-game T90's to stand in for the T80's the soviets would have had in the 1980's.
  19. Well, I can't test it because my computer's broken(I'm typing this on a friends computer) but this looks like exactly what I need, thanks!
  20. Thanks It's a pity I can't be precise with the German defenses but I don't really need to be. I just want to be sure there is a high probability of the actual German defenses being similar to what I create. Also I can't get that webpage to open. Is it possible it can only be viewed in the U.K.? I'm in the U.S. And I'm serious about that utility that Japanzer made, do you know where I can find it?
  21. Any idea where I can find this utility? It sounds really useful. And thanks, I've seen some skillfully made maps, but there is nothing quite like the real thing. The best maps in CMBN are in The Road to Montebourg campaign, and I think most of those are real world locations(with some elevation changes so you can't see the enemy at the start). I was thinking I might make some custom missions for the Omaha beach landing. Can't do the whole beach in one mission(its just too big) but I thought I might seperate it out into six missions according to the designated sectors(dog green, dog wight, dog red, easy red, easy green, fox green). Of course for that I would also need some of those photos taken from spyplanes prior to the invasion(I want to get the German positions right). I know they had taken extensive photographs of the normandy area prior to the invasion but I can't seem to find them online. Also it would be cool to make sort of a cold war campaign using CMSF. I would use only the US/Nato equipment that was available by 1989 and I could set the missions in real world locations in former West Germany.
  22. Or do I have to do it completely manually? It just seems like it would be so much easier to take the data straight from google earth as it already has all of the terrain elevation and such.
  23. Ya I got the same problem. I don't think the problems is with Night Stalkers, it got to be with the next level, Ambush Alley. I tried to get around the problem by forfeiting Night Stalkers(I surrendered just as the enemy was about to surrender) and then I played Dagger Fight(which is where you go when you lose Night Stalkers) and I finished it and the game started to load the next level(Ambush Alley) and the game crashed again. I know its possible to complete this campaign because I've done it before. Does anyone have a solution that doesn't involve restarting the whole campaign? because I was kicking ****ing ass. I got 3 flawless victories so far(no casualties at all in - Breakthrough at the Berm, Route Lightning and The Screen) and I don't want to have to do it all over again. I'm particularly impressed by my performance on The Screen because last time my strykers got annihilation by those tanks, this time though I made skillful use of smoke screens, air cover, infantry cover(javalins), and pulling the **** back. Every once in a while my two strykers with ATGM's would stop, fire one missile, deploy smoke, and continue retreating. Eventually they just ran out of tanks. What is FRAPS by the way?
  24. I am absolutely loving Battle for Normandy, and I am eagerly anticipating the Commonwealth forces expansion. And whether they continue to expand Battle for Normandy or decide to move on to another theatre or another war I have to say I am really craving some eastern front action on the Combat Mission x2 engine. I want to command soviet soldiers in high intensity urban warfare on the CMx2 engine. The Battle of Berlin would be a good choice for a setting because you could depict interested formations such as the Volkssturm(and lets face it, who doesn't want to storm the Riechstag?). Stalingrad might work better though as the strength of the opposing sides is better balanced and victory is far from certain(by the time of Berlin the german army was broken and there was no hope of repelling the soviets) also it being a bigger battle there would be a wider range of missions to choose from. I appreciate that Battlefront is a bit busy for this at the moment, but can't they licence the CM engine out to 1C-SoftClub and Snowball Studios like they did for CM Afghanistan?
  25. Thats a pity they are for red side only, I like playing red but more than that I like being able to play both sides. Personally I wish I could play both red and blue in all of the campaigns(I could completely repulse the coalition invasion) I did rather well during the campaign(made it up to 6think of allah, killed over 300 coalition at the cost of 600 of my guys) But I did that by more or less sticking with the deployment and plan that was set up at the beginning of the battle(not exactly through my own genius) Whereas the attacking coalition forces didn't seem to be attacking according to any effective doctrine at all. I figured if I could play the blue side I could deploy the British in a more effective manner and more than that(since I never really made any change in the troop deployment) it would be a me vs me fight. I would be leading the Brits against the same(highly effective) troop formations that I had been using as the Syrians. Of course I did make one very important adjustment to the Syrian formations at the beginning of each battle, I told everyone to hide and to never attack British troops except in ambushes at 100 meters or less(preferably 50 meters or less) because at long range the British have every advantage, but at short range the odds are even....mostly.
×
×
  • Create New...