Thewood1
-
Posts
1,489 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Thewood1
-
-
"I wish they'd bring it back."
Ahhh, the mantra for long-term players in the transition from CM1 to CM2. In the first couple of years of CMSF probably half the threads were based on that phrase. For anyone that played CM1 and then skipped the first few years of CMSF, you'd be amazed at what was considered missing then was brought back in patches to CMSF. There were some dark times for a bit.
-
Might want to check the manual pages around 51/52.
-
AI doesn't pull stuff out of thin air. A number of my clients are working on AI-generated code and they are finding the AI algorithms are just recycling the same code available in open sources. It can just do it a little faster. AI can be a productivity tool. But its a very long way off from anything more than raising the floor on knowledge of for basic programming.
-
I have set up similar scenarios myself to sandbox stuff. I set up a series of terrain objectives as phase lines for the red side. The objectives get more points as the red team moves forward. I used a combination of occupy and touch depending on the type of objective. If I know a Blue strongpoint, I use occupy or destroy. Just use the phase line concept and scenario length as a way to force the time issue. It forces blue to make decisions around troop condition, holding terrain, and time. I know it sounds obvious, but scenario length is critical in this concept. Red has to decide on how many casualties its will trade as the point haul accelerates as they get closer to the exit.
Again, the key concept here is balancing the phase line point acceleration against scenario length. Don't just give a lot of points for key terrain. They have to be given in the framework of making the red team keep pushing against the clock and distance. And forcing blue to always be evaluating if stalling red at a phase line is worth the losses. One concept that I played with was an objective that is literally a single line across the map. As red touches the objective, they get points. Use multiple lines and even a few terrain objectives that blue has to occupy for points can work.
CM's objectives are relatively easy to use, but somewhat limited over scripting. But a little thinking on how a commander would approach both sides lets you use CM unit and terrain objectives to the fullest.
-
They can make a lot of progress by just using more modern and universal graphics libraries.
-
2 hours ago, Bannon said:
I'm not into RTS but if Armored Brigade II has a turn-based mode, you can bet I'll give it a close look.
It has a we-go mode where you can adjust the time the game runs and then pauses for orders. Or, like CM, you can run it in RT.
-
I wouldn't mind if they just filled early war out with vehicle packs, scenario packs, or even map packs. Could also give us a steadier stream stuff for the east front for example.
-
Well it created empty folders for CMFB. Its never been installed on this PC. When I installed through Steam, it created them.
-
Just an example of another game's attempt at recon missions. Where recon is the major portion of the battle. Not just scoring a body count.
https://www.steelbeasts.com/files/file/3187-recon-at-vollsjo/
-
Its very similar to the rear-firing MGs on Soviet tanks. As stated above, you used to be able to rotate the turret with back towards the enemy unit. I know in Soviet tanks, at one time, if the main gun was engaged and infantry were spotted to the rear, the rear turret machine gun would open up. I think the M10 MG is similar. I am pretty sure that if the main gun isn't engaged, the unit will just rotate its turret with main gun to the rear.
-
It is very easy to make that distinction between all of those functions. But as you say, its the designer that has to do it. And map size isn't really an issue. Again the scenario designer has to adjust what they put into the OOB and the mission parameters. A quick way to validate that...how many people have played a scenario where just spotting a unit gave you points. That objective parameter is screaming recon/counter-recon battle. I'm not sure I've ever seen that objective used.
One of the things I did way back when I played a lot more CM was to inventory my troops for experience and fitness. I kept a good leader with few of them and used them as scouts.
-
Players and designers also need to make the distinction between recon, scouting, and just looking ahead. Recon is an entire battle itself in finding info for your larger org or preventing your enemy from doing the same. Specialized units, equipment, training, and vehicles are needed and used. Scouting is taking a small subset unit made up of experienced soldiers and telling them to bring back as much enemy intel for disposition and lay of the local land. Mostly done as a form of patrolling. Its part of the local battle plan. Just looking ahead is putting 1-3 guys few hundred meters ahead and see if they see whats around the corner or if someone shoots at them. I would bet some of the more disposable members of the larger unit end up with this task.
Players and designers conflate all three of these types of information gathering exercises regularly.
-
I think the difference between BFC's customers and esim's is that BFC is used more as an informal educational tool, while Steel Beasts is used as a true training simulation at the individual and unit level in large exercises. Commercial use is secondary and thats probably the biggest issue with the game/sim.
-
On one hand, combat engineering has historically been a gap in the CM series. Its been somewhat mitigated with the Sherman Crab and some engineering troops. But its still missing a more rounded engineering capability, especially in modern titles. In fact, several combat engineering vehicles have been modelled over the years. But they really don't have the specific engineering capabilities modelled.
On the other, I'm sure the majority of players don't find sitting around awaiting a path through a minefield do be cleared or bridging/clearing obstacles to be very exciting. Add in the difficulty of programming combat engineering capabilities into the modeling and you have a a real financial drag on any investment. Steel Beasts has a fairly comprehensive combat engineering model, but that is because their military customers supported the development of it.
-
In a WW2 timeframe, its a little more understandable to not get too hung up on formations. There was a lot less discipline and until later war a lot of what we consider as formations were still not firmly established. For the WW2 era, its more about making the player grind through the micromanagement needed to play effectively.
But Cold War and Black Sea not having SOPs, formations, etc. is one the main reasons I really struggle with CM's engine in modern settings.
-
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:
Vehicle tactical spacing is a do-it-yourself affair. With the exception of CMSF desert or CMRT steppe you can't really pull off training manual formations without quickly running into one obstruction or another. I recall European LOS doesn't often exceed 1200m and is more often much shorter. So your flying wedge formation gets about 2 minutes of driving time before you hit the next village or tree line.
Steel Beasts actually does it very well. And their waypoint system allows changing formations automatically based on obstacles, terrain, spotting, and taking fire. You can set formation, speed, use cover, use roads, and spacing with all being adjusted based on waypoint settings. Its cool watching a wedge form, drift apart, then reform. Its not perfect, but is very effective.
btw, if you think its about training ground formation driving, you are mistaken. Formations are trained for and executed for a reason. Your routes are planned around what formation you'll need in transit to give you coverage and how you'll be positioned. LOS/LOF is a key aspect of what formation you'll use. It is pretty quick to set up a column with AORs in a few minutes for a company of vehicles in SB. its probably 10-15 minutes at least in CM. And even then that pathing can get screwed up pretty easily.
The point is its doable and just depends on priorities.
-
I think its been on the wish list since the CMBO days.
-
No. I'm talking about the documents folder, as was mentioned above.
-
So it appears that in Steam, the install creates the documents folders, but doesn't use them. Its the only thing I can see. Not a big deal. Just dropping things into the Steam game folder.
-
17 hours ago, David Jaros said:
Come on Thewood it is wrong location . You do not put mods in that folder . You should know after 10 years haha
How about actually contributing something useful in one of posts.
-
I'm confused. If the Pershing was in CMBO, we have been able to use it for 22 years with the Pershing. CMSF1 has been out 15 years. CMBN has only been out 12 years.
-
35 minutes ago, Kevin2k said:
AFAIK:
%MyDocs%\Battlefront\Combat Mission\Final Blitzkrieg\User Data\Mods\
or
%Game install folder%\Data\Z\
Yeah. Thats where I normally look for it. Its completely empty.
-
I checked my documents folder and its blank for CMFB. Is that where a mod would normally go?
-
So once Downfall releases, we should should finally have the full CMBO CM1 content equivalent in CM2, correct? If so, it took two full games, three modules, a vehicle pack, and a battle pack. I think with the VP, we probably have a little more than CMBO. Am I missing anything?
Low visibility missions
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
While there is always some rose-colored glasses perspective, the launch of CMSF was kind of a mess. Just read the archives around 2007/2008. It took years to get some basic features back the CM2 players take for granted today. And those weren't features that were just nice to have. They are basic game features we take for granted today that were cut out in the transition from CM1 to CM2.