Wolf^ Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 Why doesn't CM have random factor on turns? It's very unrealistic that you know exactly when the battle ends. What I'd like to see is possibility that the battle could end 1-3 turns before/after than was supposed. This would remove those annoying suicide attacks at the last turn and would be much more realistic. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 I've suggested this several times on this board, it's a good idea. I think Steel Panthers does the same thing, does it not? Maybe in CM2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf^ Posted February 9, 2001 Author Share Posted February 9, 2001 Yeah, I was sure that someone has mentioned this before. It's very strange that it hasn't been added to CM. It can't be very hard to code..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mika Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 Originally posted by Wolf^: Yeah, I was sure that someone has mentioned this before. It's very strange that it hasn't been added to CM. It can't be very hard to code..? Personally I'd like something even more vague. Like not showing actual turns but the length of battle. Short, Medium, Long or something like that. Short could be something from 5 to 15 turns. Medium anything from 16 to 25 etc. Or it could be something else than time too. When some percentage of enemy force is destroyed, when you have taken some percentage of the map etc. -- MS. -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt the Paladin Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 Enemy destruction is good, but it could result in long battles. As for holding a percentage of the map, I have to say that's a bad idea. It also allows for unrealistic suicide strikes, if you can overextend your troops enough, you win. However, adding an enemy destruction ender is a good idea. ------------------ "War is like a cat, it is easy to let out of the bag, but hard as hell to put back in!" -Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 Originally posted by Mika: Personally I'd like something even more vague. Like not showing actual turns but the length of battle. Short, Medium, Long or something like that. Short could be something from 5 to 15 turns. Medium anything from 16 to 25 etc. Or it could be something else than time too. When some percentage of enemy force is destroyed, when you have taken some percentage of the map etc. -- MS. -- Time constraints are a real thing in war, though - the player should have a general idea of how much time he has to accomplish his mission. You have an interesting approach to the topic though - make the end of the game dependent on whether or not the mission has been accomplished. Interesting thought... However, this is easy to abuse - a player could then take 500 game turns to low crawl his troops 100 metres, rest them, crawl 100 metres more, rest them, etc. The turn sequence creates the incentive to take risk that real life commanders would have - and also makes it more interesting in a gamey way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 I'd like to see fuzzier ending times as well. Of course, it's a tough thing to do right I guess. Turn limits are an abstraction and a game-play convenience mostly--a "real" battle doesn't usually end because the combatants look at their watches and see that twenty-five minuts have passed . Time is useful though because most engagements will have a timeframe within which the task at hand should be accomplished. We have to have time limts though because the reasons for breaking off battles in reality doesn't usually exist in games. That is, in real life someone would make a command decision that the attack was fruitless and should be called off, or that the position couldn't be held and thus it was time to withdraw. Battles tend to go on, in the absence of environmental changes like darkness or weather, until one side or the other is exhausted or chooses to stop fighting. That would take waaaaay too long for most gamers if CM did it that way <g>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf^ Posted February 9, 2001 Author Share Posted February 9, 2001 Great, I've started a fruitful conversation! Go on! Something needs to be done with the ending of battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 I like the idea of fuzzy endings. If the game ends even say 1-2 turns either side of expected end, it does help limit the last min rush. Sort of like injury time in soccer/football [for the rest of the world ] You know it will end shortly, yet totally unsure actual turn ------------------ If frogs had uzi's, snakes woudn't mess with them so much. - Hiram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 Don't want to rain on anyone's parade here but this has been discussed a lot before. BTS has commented that it's something that they will be looking at for CM2. Here's a relevant url http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014942.html [This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-09-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mika Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 Originally posted by JoePrivate: Don't want to rain on anyone's parade here but this has been discussed a lot before. BTS has commented that it's something that they will be looking at for CM2. Here's a relevant url http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014942.html [This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-09-2001).] Ah, I was thinking if this had been discussed before. But still, I must say that I'd love the idea of having bit more vague length of the battle There is of course alternative for the timelimit (not saying that timelimit is bad, it's not and about every strategy game has it ) Since the CM2 is (much waited) improvement to CMBO wouldn't it make a sense to add more 'Win conditions'? Like I proposed before, if enemy suffers some percentage of losses. Or perhaps if the enemy looses a set amount of it's infantry, of armor, of anything? I do realize that this brings up some problems, especially if we are talking about amount of losses as the games could drag on forever and forever. There could (should?) always be some sort of timelimit as well. So, if for example we'd have a battle where you'd need to scrap 20 percent of the enemy tanks you'd be given about 30 minutes to do it. If you do it faster, good. If you wont. Well, too bad for you Blah, I could go on and on for how it should/could be improved. I love the damn game anyway, now I just wait to get to play Finns and kick some Russians into arse -- MS. -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts