Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 628
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Steve, this bunch's hold on reality is tenuous at best. You are surely used to us by now.

Yup, and you guys are surely used to me pouring the cold water of reality onto discussions that go off in that direction :D None probably more commonly than the blur to operational level gaming. Which speaks to the need for someone to do a more operational level game system with CM's overall philosophy and attention to detail. We might be the ones to do it, too, but it won't be within CMx2's framework.

Oh, and yes... the larger map size was first thought of because of the new modern setting that's in the works. But why not make it available to everybody?

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, where does tactical end and operational begins?

That's a question worth asking. In terms of WW II combat, 'tactical' usually meant that the units involved might be anything from a platoon of infantry, or an single crew served weapon, or a single vehicle, up to a company of the above. 'Operational' usually covered the range from battalions up through regiments. Next up the ladder was 'grand tactical' which would cover operations by divisions and corps. Above that is 'strategic' which would involve operations by armies and army groups, but also would tend to involve the other two major arms operating on a strategic level (they might also be present in any of the lower levels, but for out purposes only in a supporting role). Beyond 'strategic' is 'grand strategic', which in addition to all of the above also includes political and economic factors.

So what does all this mean for a gamer? I'd say that in a tactical game, of which CM is our prime example, the units that a player would be controlling could be anything from single men to company sized, totaling up to about a battalion or two. An operational level game would primarily see units of battalion or regiment size, with maybe the ability to break down into the next lower echelon. In an operational game, the player might be controlling forces totaling a division's or corps' worth of troops, possibly an army's worth.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
None probably more commonly than the blur to operational level gaming. Which speaks to the need for someone to do a more operational level game system with CM's overall philosophy and attention to detail. We might be the ones to do it, too, but it won't be within CMx2's framework.

I would really love to see this, but for the moment won't hold my breath. I actually prefer playing on the operational level as described in my post right above. I play CM a lot because it is a near miraculous piece of game design and almost hypnotic to witness its fidelity. If you can ever get that into an operational game, I will probably will my entire estate to you. All $1.98 of it.

;)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to spend 6 months on something it's going to be for a feature that 100% of our customer base will use and probably 98% will be so happy about it that they'll insist on naming their next child after one of us :D

Steve

Hit Decals...everybody would use hit decals...'specially the guys that suck at the game...they'd use lots! Do to a mishap involving a tub of margarine and a slippery grenade I am now impotent, so you'll have to make do with me naming one of my stumps. Steve the Stump...that sounds pretty good! Ok where's my decals?

BTW any word on my PM question?

AND As it is now we can have multi-textured vehicles but they load randomly. How hard would it be to code it so only hull 1 loaded with turret 1 etc. so that we can have unique camo schemes without mixing? We are right there on the edge all we need is that extra step.

Please at least answer that last question!

Mord.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't there already a bazillion operational level games out there? How come everyone's always pushing that for CM? If BFC isn't gonna combine the tactical 3D fighting part with the unit chit movement stuff then what's it matter? What is the attraction that you can't find in all those other operational games? I've never understood this. CM is the only game out there that does what it does and people are always pushing to make it another type of game. They've said a thousand times they aren't gonna combine it with any strategic/operational layer. Am I missing something. Someone enlighten me. But make it short...my stump itches.

Mord.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Politely asking for features making it easier to make 30, 50, even 100% bigger QB games than possible right now or even asking for 2v2 battles (at a tactical level) is NOT pushing for operational level. No idea why you got that idea from...

Anyway, it's not worth arguing over it now is it? Battlefront will either incorporate stuff like increased QB limit, editor point values (useful for single player scenarios as well btw), 2v2 capabilty etc. or they won't, their decision. Simple as that and nothing we say here will probably influence it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Politely asking for features making it easier to make 30, 50, even 100% bigger QB games than possible right now or even asking for 2v2 battles (at a tactical level) is NOT pushing for operational level. No idea why you got that idea from...

I think he was probably responding to Flying Penguin's posts, which pretty much were describing an operational level game.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing over it now is it? Battlefront will either incorporate stuff like increased QB limit, editor point values (useful for single player scenarios as well btw), 2v2 capabilty etc. or they won't, their decision. Simple as that and nothing we say here will probably influence it :)

IMO this would actually be very easy to do since the tool for it is already in the game. It's the Force Adjustment modifier. It presently goes up to 150%, at which point a Huge QB meeting engagement offers over 17800 points to play with.

The problem is that you can presently only adjust the points for one side. I've never understood why this is.

So if BFC were to simply enable adjustment for both sides and increase the maximum allowed adjustment then we would be set.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he was probably responding to Flying Penguin's posts, which pretty much were describing an operational level game.

Well not quite, I have zero interest in a "pure" operational game, quite frankly they bore me to tears. My question was more focused around whether, given the possibility of much larger battles (and as some have said, the current force sizes could be lost on a larger map), whether any effort was going to be put into giving the units more AI as "crutches" to help manage larger forces.

I appreciate it's blurring the lines slightly (and some of my top-of-head possibilities may have been a bit more operational than intended), but my personal feeling was that any WW2 force large enough to "fill" the map space would be desperately unwieldy to manage. I guess the answer is "play smaller scenarios" ;)

Personally I'm looking forward to being able to use my modern tanks (yes, the M word) as they were intended in a setting large enough for them, rather than having eternal armour knife fights....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if one combines the new large maps with some eventual ability to play them with multiple coop or HtH (2 or more players for side), you will get larger "operational" sized battles without having to do anything more. The operational stuff gets worked out among players "meta game". Otherwise if you have a massive map and a million troops its still just one guy spending hours noodling through all these commands. Potentially tedious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, and you guys are surely used to me pouring the cold water of reality onto discussions that go off in that direction :D None probably more commonly than the blur to operational level gaming. Which speaks to the need for someone to do a more operational level game system with CM's overall philosophy and attention to detail. We might be the ones to do it, too, but it won't be within CMx2's framework.

Steve

For me that there is a tacit bone!!

Recall discussions about persistent battlefields anyone including a hint from Steve that this could be looked at for v3.00? PB's can only be possible if one could put load a .bts file into the editor. And that function is the basis for a possible operational layer - a non BF application naturally.

Y'all remember you heard it here first mind. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I wonder how practical these ginormous games people are imagining would be from a computer performance standpoint. BFC has made great strides in improving memory management and performance over the past year, but plopping down several regiments -- or divisions :eek: -- of troops on a detailed 30km² map sounds like a recipe for out of memory crashes on PCs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't there already a bazillion operational level games out there? How come everyone's always pushing that for CM? If BFC isn't gonna combine the tactical 3D fighting part with the unit chit movement stuff then what's it matter? What is the attraction that you can't find in all those other operational games? I've never understood this. CM is the only game out there that does what it does and people are always pushing to make it another type of game. They've said a thousand times they aren't gonna combine it with any strategic/operational layer. Am I missing something. Someone enlighten me. But make it short...my stump itches.

Mord.

Yeah, though Broadsword and I enjoy the hell out of our Op layered campaigns, it would absolutely suck to have BF lose focus on the tactical which is the whole point of our op layer.- to create scenarios at the tactical level that have consequences and meaning to the next battle.

What I would like to see is someone else come along with the same attention to detail for an op layer game. There are some good ones but they usually have an issue somewhere along the line to make them less than satisfactory.

Hopefully choppinIt's endeavor will bear fruit and resolve the problem. :D.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't there already a bazillion operational level games out there? How come everyone's always pushing that for CM?

Well, in my case there are a couple of reasons...but as per your request I will try to keep it short.

1) Only a very tiny few are available for the Mac. For me that is a Very Big Deal.

2) Most of the operational level games—on any platform—seem to be pretty mediocre to outright poor.

Like Steve said, if I may misquote him one more time, what is lacking is BFC's commitment to detail and "getting it right".

Thank you and we now return you to your regular programming.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who'll make the first 100m x 300km map? A road...a very long road. Partisans may lurk along it. Good luck as you drive your convoy along it.

Or, 300km x 100m: You have to defend the entire width with one Italian battalion. The Soviets may enter anywhere. Good luck.

I would think there will be some limits associated with how "out of square" the maps can be. Just guessing, mind you.

500m x 60 km: I plan on refighting the epic (but tragically forgotten) battle in Spaghetti Factory Nr. 3 (завод по спагетти № 3).

Link to post
Share on other sites
No idea why you got that idea from...

It had nothing to do with your requests, my man. I'd never jump on anyone for requesting stuff politely. I apologize for making you think I was aiming it at you. Truthfully, I was just thinking out loud, not aiming it at anyone.

2) Most of the operational level games—on any platform—seem to be pretty mediocre to outright poor.

Michael

So you just want an Op Level game period. Doesn't have to involve CMX2?

Mord.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if a third-party op-level game does somehow manage to be created for use with CMx2 or CMx3 -- call me a pessimist -- but I'd expect it to be more of an automated bean-counting mechanism to track units or losses across battles. Which, to me, might be somewhat useful but would be a rather sterile substitute for the operational games that already exist. I wouldn't expect the automated PC op level to account for things like Ardennes fuel dumps and traffic jams on the roads, weather, command failures, celebrating crowds of Dutch civilians, Soviet mine dogs, or any of the diverse phenomena that are already in games and are available right now. I say, let the boardgames give me the higher-level setting, the chrome and the storyline, and let CM be CM so it can do the down-and-dirty tactical fighting that it does best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I agree with everyone here that CM is a tactical wargame and should stay focused on that.

But what IMHO CM is missing is some kind of interface to connect it to the various OP games out there. Basically an im- and export of troops before and after battle.

Btw thanks for the video - I will praise you with my wallet! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...