Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'multiplayer'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • CM2
    • Combat Mission - General Discussion
    • Combat Mission Cold War
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 2
    • Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
    • Combat Mission Black Sea
    • Combat Mission Red Thunder
    • Combat Mission Fortress Italy
    • Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 1
    • Combat Mission Afghanistan
    • Combat Mission: Touch (iOS / Android)
  • CM1
    • Combat Mission Campaigns
    • Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
    • Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
    • Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
  • General Discussion Forum
    • General Discussion Forum
  • Repository Updates
  • TacOps
    • TacOps 4
  • Opponent Finder Forums
  • Archives
    • Strategic Command
    • CM Archives
    • T-72: Balkans on Fire!
    • Dan Verssen Games
    • Theatre of War
    • DropTeam
    • Assault Wave
    • Empires of Steel
    • PT Boats

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL











Found 16 results

  1. The concept of what determines if a particular scenario (or QB) is "balanced" or not can be a very subjective thing to try and grapple with. For the sake of this discussion I will limit this discussion to "head to head" games between two players. I'm not sure how others might define what makes a "balanced" scenario/QB, but I think of it in statistical terms: for instance, if the particular scenario/QB was played "double blind" by multiple pairs of "equally" rated players many times (ideally (though impossibly) an infinite amount of times), you would expect the win/loss distribtion to approach 50:50 ie. an equal number of Allied to Axis "wins". Any bias away from a 50:50 distrubution of wins would give grounds to indicate the particular scenario/QB is "unbalanced". The greater the bias/deviation in wis/loss distribution, the greater the "imbalance". However just considering the resolution of scenarios/QBs as just a pure binary "win" or "loss" outcome for one side may still hide an imbalance that otherwise remains evident. Outcomes of CM scenarios/QBs however aren't actually just purely binary outcomes. A degree or level of victory/defeat based on actual "victory points" gained by each side, or more specifically, the numeric differential in the victory points gained by each side at the end of every battle determines the actual victory level assigned by CM. ie. either draw, minor victory/defeat, tactical victory/defeat, or total victory/defeat. But is it that simple? Consider a scenario/QB that has an equal 50:50 win/loss distribution that makes the scenario/QB appear "balanced". Should it still be considered "balanced" if the average magnitude (or level) of victories being recorded for each side is different for both sides? eg. the Allies might win 50% of the time, with the average victory level being "total victory", yet the Axis win 50% of the time but with the average victory level being "minor victory". It could be argued here that the scenario/QB actually is not totally "balanced" but rather favouring the Allies. So perhaps considering the actual victory points differential (or VPD) of each game played may be the better metric or indicator to monitor when studying "balance". Note that when monitoring VPD (rather than just wins and losses), you would expect the average VPD of all games played to approach zero (0) if the scenario/QB was to be considered "balanced". For the purposes of this discussion and to set a convention, we can always consider the VPD: Victory Point Differntial (VPD) = [ALLIES victory points] minus [AXIS victory points] That means the VPD could be a positive or negative number, with a positive VPD typically meaning an Allied victory/Axis defeat and a negative VPD meaning an Allied defeat/Axis victory. Keep in mind that there is a range of positive and negative VPDs centred about zero that CM will nevertheless consider as being a draw. When considering VPD, the "ideal balanced" scenario/QB could be seen as one where the average VPD of all games played would follow a normal distribution (or bell curve) centred about zero (SIDE NOTE: For those of you who are more statistacally inclined, it is worth considering that I can not see reason to assume that the actual distribution of VPD for all games played for any CM scenario/QB has any reason to even assume, let alone appraoch, a normal distribution. Unless it can be pointed out otherwise, I don't think the central limit theorm (and any inherint/inevitable tendency that the VPD would tend towards a normal distriution) can be applied here. The actual distribution of VPD for any scenario/QB in question could follow one of many other types of distributions (eg. skewed or gamma, bimodal etc). Certainly, idealistically a symmetrical distribution centred about zero would probably be considered more balanced than say one that has a population VPD average (expected outcome) of zero but is otherwise asymmetrically skewed about zero. Let me know if you think otherwise.) That is all just background to what I really wanted to discuss and present however..... Having recently considered a prospective QB battle with a PBEM opponent, I got thinking about how two competing players could come to a mutualy achieved agreement on the QB parameters to ensure the QB battle was "fairly balanced". My inspiration was based on the "I cut, you choose" protocl that ensures fair division and allocation of a divisible resource between two parties. The typical example is of two brothers who want to "evenly and fairly" share a cake. The protocol proceeds as follows: one person ("the cutter") cuts the cake into two pieces; the other person ("the chooser") chooses one of the pieces; the cutter receives the remaining piece. If we consider CM QBs played H2H, I would say the vast majority of them are essentially meeting engagements (MEs) played on maps that have some degree of geographical symmetry, be it in the distribution of terrain, setup zones and/or Objective Locations, mirrored about an imaginary mid-line that would typically evenly divide the map in half between the Allied half of the map and the Axis half of the map. Of course, these ME QBs would typically be setup so that both sides get the same amount (or near enough to be close enough) of unit purchase points. I will use the term force points (FP) to mean the same thing as uniy purchase pioints. Choosing to play on an "unbiased" ME map with equal FPs each side just seems to be the easiest way to ensure the QB is "fair", so it may not be surprising why ME QBs are more likely to be played than the other types of QBs (probes (PR), attack (AT) and assualts (AS). I should also introduce at this point the concept of force ratio (or FR). It is defined as: Force ratio (FR) = [side A FP] / [side B FP] where side A is typically the "attacker" and side B the "defender" (ie side A FP is either equal to or greater than side B FP). ie. a FR of 1.25 means the "attacker" has 25% more FP to spend than the 'defender". With FR already defined in terms of the attacker FP to defender FP ratio, it does help to now simply consider the use of the global term force size (FS) as refering to just the "base" defenders FP, from which the attacker FP can be then be readily calculated by multiplying it with the the force ration (FR) The CM QB generator has pre-programmed FRs associated with each QB type. They are as follows (without any force modifiers applied): ME FR = 1 PR FR = between 1.45 and 1.49 AT FR = between 1.59 and 1.65 AS FR = between 1.76 and 1.84 However, messing around with the force modifier parameter, the range of FRs possible extends to: ME FR = between 1 and 2.48 PR FR = between 1.45 and 3.7 AT FR = between 1.42 and 4.11 AS FR = between 1.29 and 4.57 But what really makes an ME an ME, a PR a PR, an AT and AT and a AS and AS? What CM suggest are really just "guides" and broad categories to describe certain kinds of battles of various FR. FR is really just only one parameter in a CM QB that influences the "balance" of a QB, or can be adjusted to balance a QB. The parameter against which the FR is typically compared against are what I would call the QB battlefield parameters. This would comprise of the actual QB map itself (the distribution of terrain/topography/feratures) in relation to any Objective Locations (including their value) and the respective setup zones, and how they all interact together as a whole on the map. Additional to this you would also need to consider the soft factors such as weather/visibility/conditions and battle duration. The "date" and "theatre" a QB is based on may also be an influence as it may determine the availability of some units that might otherwise potentially be influential (if purchased) in the QB. I might make the assertion here that most players looking to play QBs might first start by searching for a QB map that looks interesting and suitable enough to play (size/layout etc) and typically determine these QB battlefield parameters without much trouble. With all these QB battlefield parameters predetermined and considered togther, the question can be asked: What method can players use to help determine what force ratio (FR) to assign to any QB map to make it "balanced"? I have considered the following procedure that can be used by two prospectiive players who face this question when they have already selected the map and the QB battlefield parameters: 1. Both players preview the QB map and the QB battlefield parameters and consider playing the QB from both the "attacker" and "defender" perspective in terms of force ratio (FR). They may at this point secretly record what force size (FS) they think would be suitable to use on the QB map selected (if not already agreed upon). 2. They secretly record the force ratio (FR) they think that should be applied to the QB in order to make it a fair/"balanced" contest. 3. Both players then reveal their nominated FR (and FS if required) and the average between the two numbers is calculated. This average becomes the FR (and FS) that will be used in the QB. 4. The player who nominated the HIGHEST FR plays as the 'defender". The player who nominate the LOWEST FR plays as the "attacker". 5. Players can now consult the QB Force Ratios Table that I have made available here that fully details every possible QB Force Ratio (FR) and Force Points (FP)/Force Size (FS) combination that can be achieved by the CM QB setup screen: 6. Look up the values of FR and FS determined/calculated in the previous steps that best match the "Ratio" and "DEF Points") combo values respectively in the QB Points Combo/Force ratio table. Note down these values "actual" configurable CM QB paramters. There are only a discrete number of QB combinations possible in the CM QB setup screen, so the goal in this step is to sort through all the possibilities to find the one that best matches the FR and FS parameters determined in step 3. eg. If FR = 1.70 and FS = 4750 was determined in step 3, the best match in the table would be achiveable by reading off 4500 (approx 4750) and 1.68 (approx 1.70) and configuring a Large ME with a +70% modifer in the CM QB setup screen (which will result in the Attacker getting 7580 FP and teh defender 4500 FP (FR=1.68): 7. Depending on what QB parameters get selected in step 6, players may need to use the Sceanrio Editor to open and edit the actual QB Map file to tweek one parameter to allow the QB map to actually be visible and selectable in the QB setup screen. eg. players may have selected to play a particular QB map that had previously been tagged as an "Allied Probe" map. The"actual' QB parameters determined via step 6 may have however pointed to setting the QB battle up as a Large ME (LME) with + 70% modifier. The player will need to use the Scenario Editor, Load the chosen QB map file, modify the "Battle Type" field from say "Allied Probe" to "Meeting Engagement" as per the example. Doing so makes the particular QB Map file visible and selectable when the time comes to browse for the human selected QB map. Save file as new name and exit the Scneario Editor. 8. Load the QB setup screen and and configure all the "actual" QB parameters determined from the table (typically that best matches the values of FR and FS determined/calculated in Step 6, as well as any other QB parameters: . Pressing OK will prompt the user to select the QB Map (review Step 7 if the QB does not appear in the file list). (It is important to note that when considering FR, the actual FS (force size) that is used in the QB is probably best considered a separate individual factor for consideration that just determines the number of units that appear on the map in proportions defined by the FR. We can assume that the FS are independant to and do not affect QB balance, and just determine the actual size of each of the forces. This may not actually be the case but I will assume it is fair enough assumption for simplicity unless otherwise convinced). I don't know if this method has ever been considered or used before, but unless advised otherwise, I think it is quite a simple, fair and robust means of determining how to "balance" a QB.I don't think the system can be "gamed" by either participating player to force a QB parameter outcome that somehow favours them over their opponent. Players just need to be able to look at a QB map, consider all the relevant battlefield parameters (eg setup zones, terrain, Objective Locations etc) and put a number to what they think the attacker:defender force ratio should be to make the QB "balanced", prior to even knowing whether they will be the atatcker or the defender. This may take some experience to get the right feel. It certainly will be interesting how players react to the outcomes of their QBs. If they claimed that the QB was "unbalanced" not in their favour, then perhaps their own poor misjudgment when they originally 'evaluated" the QB map and nominated their own FR may have something to do with it. Again, assigning a FR to a QB to achieve balance is not something players typically have exactly been doing. They HAVE and DO evaluate QB maps for balance however, though without ever really assigning a metric to it. Now that metric exists. It just needs tio be calibrated. I hope the "fairness" of this method is self evident by understanding the dynamics at play behind the method described. i can see that some folks might not be able to see it that way and would need some kind of explanation to convince them of how this is a "fair" way of determining QB balance. I could spend some time explaining that if asked. Happy to hear your comments/crticism/thoughts/experience with it as it really is like an alpha/beta level idea that needs some vigourous testing/scrutiny. Bull
  2. Hello, I have been playing via a Hamachi connection with a good friend for a few years now. We played a 2 player turn based game approximately 3 nights ago with no issues to report. However, this evening we attempted to play another match against one another and ran into an issue where the player joining the host is stuck on the "Loading Data" screen perpetually. We tried switching hosts, changing Hamachi networks, tweaking and ultimately shutting down firewall protection completely, all to no avail. Again, both myself and my opponent ran into this specific issue no matter who hosted when things were working just fine a few evenings prior. IP and port are both set correctly, the host can load into the match but again the player joining the host is faced with a never ending "Loading Data" screen. So odd. I was curious to see if anyone had any ideas on potential fixes or what could be going wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Pertinent? information: OS: Windows 10 (both players) Game: Combat Mission Shock Force 2 Both players have the most recently up to date version of Hamachi. We are willing to try just about anything at this point, so any suggestion is more than welcome.
  3. After some convincing I managed to convince a buddy of mine to purchase this game. Now that he has it, it goes without saying he likes it. We have played a few scenarios and I've made a few myself In the editor. But we've run out of missions to play, and as much as I hate to say it the quick battle in CMSF is cheeks. So if anyone knows of anygood human to human maps and could link some that would be awesome! Keep in mind he only has the bass game and marines. Any help would be awesome, thanks.
  4. Hi, I have been away from Combat Mission since CMFI, but I have just bought CMFB and looking for an opponent for a PBEM-battle. Were is the best place to look for an opponent?
  5. looking for opponents for CMBS and CMSF ,any of those 2 will do , not interested in World war 2 atm Game modes: 1) PBEM (4-8 turns/day) 8 is max , 4 minimum. does not need to be that strict, but basically that should be the average 2)WEGO turn based (can save and continue next day/whenever, no need to play whole battle in 1 day). cmon give wego a chance 3)Real time battles (CMSF doesnt have wego) each game mode is fun and works, just change how you approach the battle i'd preffer americans
  6. Hi, I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to explain this idea, but I haven't found any forum for generic CMx2 questions The idea is to limit the time for orders phase in turn based multiplayer games. I usually play online turn based games and I think that a limited time to play the deployment phase and the orders phases would be a good option for the players. For example, in a medium size quick battle battle, the deployment phase could last for 10 minutes, while orders phases could last for 3 minutes each one. Once two players have sent their orders or the time is over, the action phase will begin. I think It would be great for the players to freely choose the duration of deployment phase and orders phases. ┬┐What do you think obout?
  7. This is how I set up an internet game of CM:BS this evening: This assumes you connect to the internet through a home router: The PRIVATE IP address is the one your router assigns your computer for use within your home LAN that your router itself is running. The PRIVATE IP address you give the Router identifies which computer in your PRIVATE network to allow your opponent's PUBLIC computer to connect to. The PUBLIC IP is the address your router is assaigned by the interwebs and its minions, which your opponent needs in order to find your PC. FIRST. We must tell your Router to make active a very specific connection (Port 7023) to allow an outside, PUBLIC computer to connect DIRECTLY into your PRIVATE network: Log into your Router (i.e. through your browser. Type in your local (private) IP. Generally, or similar. ) Go to FIREWALL Go to FORWARDING or PORT FORWARDING ADD NEW RULE - this is a rule that tells the router to OPEN a specific port. In Black Sea's case, 7023. My finished example below: Select # Application Name Port Range Protocol IP Address Enable Public Private 1 blacksea1 7023 7023 ~ 7023 TCP/UDP add new edit delete Put 7023 into both the PUBLIC and the PRIVATE port ranges. Any box that says port number, put 7023 in. Protocol is TCP/UDP. IP Address above is what Black Sea gives you when you CREATE A NETWORK GAME. It often gives you two different end numbers, eg I had .13 and .10. In this case my router did not like 13 and only accepted (ie when I was trying to create this Port Rule). Save, Apply, whatever. Lock it in and exit your Router settings page. NEXT. We must tell your opponent which router to connect to: Go to http://www.howtofindmyipaddress.com. The Number in brackets is the IP address your router is presenting to the Internet, ie your PUBLIC IP. Give that number to your opponent. ie, Don't, do not, NO NO NO DON'T give them the 192.168.0.# number. Black Sea says to give them that because it doesn't look beyond your home network: it sees your LAN, sees your PRIVATE IP and doesn't bother to look any further. NOW: We must tell your Firewall that its OK for a Public computer to connect to port 7023. If you have a FIREWALL installed (ie Avast, McAfee, ZoneAlarm, etc) then you must also tell it to ALLOW traffic through Port 7023. Google is your friend for this. Search your firewall brand, how to open a port and bingo, a bazillion tutorials. The PUBLIC IP you got from the website above allows your opponent to FIND your home router. Opening port 7023 on your router allows your opponent to CONNECT to your computer. Adding an exception to your firewall for port 7023 allows your opponent to SEND TRAFFIC through into your computer. Tell your opponent to connect. This should work fine. It's good security to DISABLE, TURN OFF, kill, whatever, that open port once you're done with the game. I'm not responsible for your security, YOU ARE.
  8. Are there any plans in the works to make campaigns multiplayer? and im talking the whole series not just FB.
  9. looking for couple active opponents i have cmhelper and dropbox i will play till the end or conceade defeat i can play either side also interested in wego turn based gameplay, but smaller battles , up to medium replay or send me a pm
  10. im tired to fight against ridiculous hard A.I. i want to play multiplayer with other guys, and i didnt play any PBEM match in CMSF before. if anyone can play PBEM for SF, tell me. i will wait for you (maybe if i can )
  11. all details are here: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/hungry-for-battle-looking-for-opponents.21884/ long story short: large battle map and funds,i am german,mixed formations,meeting ,1 turn per day minimum* ,dropbox enabled, Hypaspist33@gmail.com,rarity standard you can start first turn and choose exact map/weather
  12. if you cannot beat them,join them i am looking for pbem opponents for Red thunder,currently have only 1 pbem opponent , goal is up to 10 Active games rules: i am playing german faction/s,always you can set rarity to strict/standard, weather is of your choice(any weather) , limitations on artilery,tanks and planes are up to you to decide , maps can be Small ,medium,large ,huge, your call , turns must be played at least once within 48 hours,bare minimum you always start the game first (or email) map preview: allowed pm me on forum if you are interested and Active player
  13. is multiplayer alive? i was thinking of buying it but theres no point if theres no alive multiplayer.for me cm value lies 90% in its multiplayer. any thoughts ?
  14. 1. Network disconnect leads to the game perma-freezing. I don't think I've yet seen it click back on and there is no way (AFAIK) to force it to recognize that the network is fine. I know most people play WEGO multiplayer, but it makes real-time a bummer since a single modem hiccup can result in an abrupt end to an otherwise fine match. 2. No way to chat to someone picking their forces. Since some people spend nearly as long purchasing as they do arranging, I think this is a pretty big oversight. 3. It would be helpful to have some form of lobby system where guest player can see what parameters the host is punching in for the scenario. If nothing else, it would make it easier to haggle.
  15. Hi, If you want to practice CMBS in multiplayer, please post your demands in this thread... PS: I hope this thread isn't against forum admin rules, if it is, I'm sorry.
  16. Sorry still not sure how search with the new forum....... Any new or unique features/improvements to your multiplayer community with CMBS? Thanks
  • Create New...