Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 1, 2019 Author Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, IanL said: Why? By your reasoning for the 50% of a two man team, then 60% of a 10 man team should guarantee 6 guys evey time. Why mess up the maths for just one slot make them all a guarantee. I was hoping the change could be made only to two man units TBH, given the rather limited number of permutations in a unit of that size that is set to anything other than a 100% headcount. Edited June 1, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy56 Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: I was hoping the change could be made only to two man units TBH, given the rather limited number of permutations in a unit of that size that is set to anything other than a 100% headcount. Well usually military units never come in one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) On 5/31/2019 at 3:44 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said: here are a few of us who trying to push CM to the limits, just to see what's possible and what might be playable and fun.....Everything from Police Departments, Taxi Companies (in a war zone), on to Street Gangs and right through to very, very small CIA interventions are on the table: Well, bravo, but that's not what the game was ever meant to be nor will ever remotely be close to being. No offense, but the percentage of CM players who a give a flying eff about things like taxis in a warzone and street gangs is well in the low single-digit range. Edited June 2, 2019 by LukeFF 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Of course the number of computer gamers who care about WW2 or modern tactical sims that attempt to be realistic is probably also in the "low single digit range". That doesn't mean that there aren't enuff of us who appreciate what dedicated folks like Sgt S and MOS are attempting to do "re-imagining/re-energising" the CM2 game system to make the effort worthwhile. Should be encouraged imo. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 2, 2019 Author Share Posted June 2, 2019 10 hours ago, LukeFF said: Well, bravo, but that's not what the game was ever meant to be nor will ever remotely be close to being. No offense, but the percentage of CM players who a give a flying eff about things like taxis in a warzone and street gangs is well in the low single-digit range. Frankly I only find encouragement in your persistent negativity, if something offends you, it is clearly a worthy pursuit in its own right. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 On 5/31/2019 at 8:01 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said: John Rambo does! He didn't WANT to go into the woods alone, but they gave him no choice... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 2, 2019 Author Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) Sadly he doesn't, always.....The chance of him developing a twin seems pretty tiny, wish I knew what it actually was, but I just couldn't face that sort of testing! The issue naturally becomes more noticeable in something like the 'Dirty Dozen' (Actually Whitewater Security, International Division, Executive Team #3.....Led by John's French Canadian cousin, Jean Rambeau), where there are several units reduced to 50% strength. I could just set them all to 100%.....Two man teams would make sense for the broad concept too, but it loses that personal touch where each pixeltrooper has a name and an identity. The whole point of this concept is not to get any of your tiny core group killed. PS - I'm slightly surprised at some of the reactions to this idea.....How often do we see big chunks of an AAR dedicated to the adventures of 'that lone pixeltrooper'. I'm just trying to make the 'lone pixeltrooper' fun a bit more widespread and to design some scenarios that cater to his needs a little more. Edited June 2, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 35 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: PS - I'm slightly surprised at some of the reactions to this idea.....How often do we see big chunks of an AAR dedicated to the adventures of 'that lone pixeltrooper'. I'm just trying to make the 'lone pixeltrooper' fun a bit more widespread and to design some scenarios that cater to his needs a little more. I hope that I didn't come across as not liking the scenario idea. That wasn't the point of what I was saying. I was only trying to give you a realistic expectation for seeing this change and give you the reason why. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 I fully understand that every idea, every suggestion, can not be brought into the game. Some prioritations/selections has to be made. Ideas that will benefit more people...ideas that are asked by more people ought to take priority. That is perfectly fine. But even smaller, more unique ideas...LIKE THIS ONE should not be forgotten or ignored imo. The developmenttime required to add something like this to the game does not sound like a massive task.... The updates should obviously include the more important (time consuming) improvements but perhaps some of these smaller things could also be squeezed in there from time to time... as a little bonus ... This idea might not be the most important one out there but i don't think anyone would mind to get the option to do what the Sgt suggests...It would not be a negative...and if the time to implement it is rather low...why not... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 17 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: PS - I'm slightly surprised at some of the reactions to this idea.....How often do we see big chunks of an AAR dedicated to the adventures of 'that lone pixeltrooper'. I'm just trying to make the 'lone pixeltrooper' fun a bit more widespread and to design some scenarios that cater to his needs a little more. What Elvis said As I noted before I had an idea whose intent was similar - I wanted to know all my pixeltruppens names from the start as opposed to only learning them when the team leader bit the dust. It would have essentially allowed you to do what you wanted without having to alter how formation headcount was done. It was also declined. Is there no other way to work your idea short of asking for a game design change? How much impact does it have on the design if you have a few individuals whose names you don't know at start? It is one thing to push the game to come up with new and interesting ideas on design, it is another to say I want Charles to change X so I can make this one scenario. If I put that in the BF suggestion box Charles is likely to cane me.... politely. "sburke this is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you...oh nah who are we kidding, this is just gonna hurt you." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 2, 2019 Author Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, BFCElvis said: I hope that I didn't come across as not liking the scenario idea. That wasn't the point of what I was saying. I was only trying to give you a realistic expectation for seeing this change and give you the reason why. Sure fella, that's no issue for me anyway, we all have our preferences.....I'm more bothered by the unpredictability than I am by the rule, if you get what I mean. If I can't make something, I can't make it and that's that. In this instance I'm so bloody close, but I just can't guarantee that the player will start with what he's supposed to start with. I know most of the long term CMers would probably restart the scenario to get the right balance, but I'd like not to have to put them through the irritation (I'm also not sure how it would work in a mini-campaign format). 30 minutes ago, sburke said: It is one thing to push the game to come up with new and interesting ideas on design, it is another to say I want Charles to change X so I can make this one scenario. If I put that in the BF suggestion box Charles is likely to cane me.... politely. "sburke this is going to hurt me more than it will hurt you...oh nah who are we kidding, this is just gonna hurt you." While it would be disingenuous of me to say that my own ideas are not foremost in my mind, could we look at it from a slightly different perspective.....There is only so much randomness possible in a set of two. As it presently stands a designer can always select two men, he can always select a probability of one man with the possibility of two (presumably this possibility increases with the Headcount setting), however there is no way for a designer to choose a single man with absolute certainty. How does the game benefit from this situation? Surely having that extra option (at the expense of a tweak to just one setting and only for individual two man units) would be beneficial just for those instances where having a single man is necessary? Flexibility is everything IMHO. I really do appreciate you guys taking time to comment. PS - I've noticed in the course of these experiments that renaming doesn't always work properly on reduced units.....I've managed to rename some of them (different ones at different times), but some steadfastly refuse to have their names changed. Any ideas? Edited June 2, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: PS - I've noticed in the course of these experiments that renaming doesn't always work properly on reduced units.....I've managed to rename some of them (different ones at different times), but some steadfastly refuse to have their names changed. Any ideas? That is odd. I spend a lot on time creating formation OoB to import specifically so I can have the names in advance. I haven't run across that yet. I don't tend to do it with reduced size units though. I'll give it a whirl and see what pops up. Do you have any specific examples that I can trial that seem more troublesome? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 2, 2019 Author Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) I'll send you a link to the Dirty Dozen core.....You'll note I've renamed Jean Rambeau (a 50% strength unit), please try to rename any of the others (British Sniper, German Sniper & Antitank, Dutch Recce, USMC Fire Control, US Forward Observer). I've managed to rename some of them, some of the time. Edited June 2, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 On 5/31/2019 at 4:04 PM, sburke said: There are things I'd like to make more specific too, like knowing all my pixeltruppen's names from the get go. That has been politely declined. You can have every dude in the unit named if you get them all killed one at a time! But kidding aside we get up to three names per squad (when split into teams)? Something to that effect. Waaaay better than CM1, only the platoons (unless split in half) and attached teams (like mortars and MGs) had names, and the name stayed until the unit was wiped out. No replacing a CO's or NCO's name because they were always the last to drop. The current naming conventions are a nice compromise. Sgt. Slaughter gets smoked, up steps Cpl. Mord, Cpl Mord eats a grenade, up steps Pvt. Pyle. Pretty cool. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 Don't think of them in as 'twins' but 'assistants' as in Dr Who, or maybe Redshirts... ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMS Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 By the way, I really miss headcount option in QB... Most realistic Soviet formation is variant called "1944" in the game, but squads are too big. Must be 8 men. 70% headcount. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: I'll send you a link to the Dirty Dozen core.....You'll note I've renamed Jean Rambeau (a 50% strength unit), please try to rename any of the others (British Sniper, German Sniper & Antitank, Dutch Recce, USMC Fire Control, US Forward Observer). I've managed to rename some of them, some of the time. Yeah I can confirm the result. I took your file - named every team able through hotel so I could ID who changed or not. Then used that as a core unit and imported to a new test scenario. Result is when I open the battle I get different names when I open it. I think this is why. When you name them, you are designating the current leader. However when you load the game if it decides the current leader is the discard for the 50% then it gives a new name. The only way naming would consistently work is if the leader was always the one retained. It would explain why I haven't seen this - I always start with the full OoB. When I set the scenario to full strength, I always get the units as named. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 2, 2019 Author Share Posted June 2, 2019 (edited) Thought something like that might be at the root of it TBH.....It makes sense given the bigger job Headcount has to do, you can't always guarantee the CO is a survivor, after all. PS - I think for the sake of my sanity, I may well revert to 100% and two man teams.....The 'Dirty (almost) Two-Dozen' it may have to be. Edited June 2, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 On 6/1/2019 at 9:46 PM, Erwin said: That doesn't mean that there aren't enuff of us who appreciate what dedicated folks like Sgt S and MOS are attempting to do "re-imagining/re-energising" the CM2 game system to make the effort worthwhile. Newsflash: no one is ever going to give enough of a damn for BFC to change the game into a taxicab or police combat simulator. Oh, and it's spelled "enough." "Enuff" isn't a word in any dictionary I've ever read. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 5, 2019 Author Share Posted June 5, 2019 No one asked BFC to change the game into anything, we're happily doing that ourselves.....I just asked them to consider a fairly logical (but perhaps not technically feasible) alternative way of implementing one thing (that is implemented in a slightly dubious fashion at present IMHO. So if you are done ranting, would you kindly clear off.....Go read your dictionary some more, or do what ever else makes you happy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: No one asked BFC to change the game into anything, we're happily doing that ourselves.....I just asked them to consider a fairly logical (but perhaps not technically feasible) alternative way of implementing one thing (that is implemented in a slightly dubious fashion at present IMHO. Ah??? It works very well for its intended purpose. 8 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: So if you are done ranting, would you kindly clear off.....Go read your dictionary some more, or do what ever else makes you happy. Who's ranting? Re-read the first post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 5, 2019 Author Share Posted June 5, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, IanL said: Who's ranting? Re-read the first post. That's not ranting.....That's the by product of spending far too long building things, only to find that they don't work as intended for reasons that, from my perspective, utterly defy all logic. 1 hour ago, IanL said: Ah??? It works very well for its intended purpose. And with one minor modification it could work just as well for other things too, without detriment to its 'intended purpose'. Edited June 5, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: That's not ranting Forgive me, I clearly don't know what ranting is. /s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: And with one minor modification Facts not in evidence. Said modification would likely not be minor. 4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: it could work just as well for other things too, without detriment to its 'intended purpose'. And only be without "detriment" in the abstract and would instead require testing and possible bugs that need to be fixed. Therefore it is likely not going to be seen as a worthwhile endeavour. At this point I think we have gone around this a second time and you still don't seem to want to accept what we are saying. Probably time for everyone to move on to other work... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 5, 2019 Author Share Posted June 5, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, IanL said: Said modification would likely not be minor. 36 minutes ago, IanL said: And only be without "detriment" in the abstract and would instead require testing and possible bugs that need to be fixed. And therein lies the rub, I guess. 36 minutes ago, IanL said: At this point I think we have gone around this a second time and you still don't seem to want to accept what we are saying. I don't have any choice but to accept it, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that the current implementation is the optimum. I didn't actually reopen the discussion if you recall, merely provided some 'subtitles for the hard of thinking', again. 42 minutes ago, IanL said: Forgive me, I clearly don't know what ranting is. /s Sorry, I should have put an emoticon at the end of the sentence to which you are responding.....It would have been this one: If there were a more specific 'ironic wink', I'd have used that instead. Edited June 5, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.