New Combat Mission game Announced. Combat Mission: Afrika Korps!!! Pt2

[88mm]

[ May 04, 2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]

[88mm]

Originally posted by Erwin Rommel:

@ 88mm

a) The games engine cannot handle that sort of campaign.

too bad. Would be more attractive with a descent campaign. So , basicly it's not a new game, but a "scenario-disk"? Ow well, if the price is right.

You have to manually order the tank with waypoints to go to the road and follow it.Which is just a couple of mouse clicks..No need for a special button to do this.

couple of mouseclicks... how many? 2, 3,4, 8? 1 button (stick to road would make things alot easier).

c) This is because the AI does not calculate any action until the GO button is hit. Again all you need is a couple of mouse clicks to set the vehicles waypoints manually to get around objects you should know the unit cannot go through.Again no changes needed here.

Same respons as point b. Sure; it isn't nessacary. Why make things a little easier to work with, let them click,click,click....

d) What you are seeing is just an abstract view of the true battlefield the game uses for calculations. So what you see is not nessacarily what is truly going on.

who cares; a tank boarding another, or drive throug it sucks. They should collide, you should hear the metal bouncing. And it's possible, ever seen Panzer Commander ? What is this, a static 2D map converted to "3D" or a fullscreen 3D-Game ?

2)Pure eye candy and not really needed in my opinion

The explosions are eye-candy too, gues they fall also where you don't see them. And you disagree with yourself, troops sit/stand/ly walk/run and even turn their heads. But when a armored vehicle moves, we must be glad that atleast one part of the mechanics are working (tracks). Hee, the tracks are eye-candy too, why not rip them out of the game ?

Don't get me wrong here, i like the game. But when you model a game in 3D and i see a tank (or whatever) it's just stupid too see not all the mechanics are working. Only does who cannot left out, and the tracks as a bonus. however, we are spoiled. These days are totally different then a few years back. We have invested in great VGA-cards and other hardware. It's a shame too see how many games have poor implemented DirectX functions or 3D. But yet we are allowed to pay the full load of todays prices. Anyway, if you can let a infantry-men do all that eye-candy stuff, why not a simple wheel ? or a door of a vehicle ? I don't even mention buildings

So when i ask, gimmy moving wheels and trails where the tank has touchd the ground i don't think i ask too much. It's practicly standard these days...

And all afcource increases the "being there" feeling.

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Leather Suitcase:

A more general point is that there should be a flag you can set for each tank to say whether it should stop to fire or whether it should fire on the move. The former was apparently the most common. At the moment (at least in CMBO) if my tanks are advancing on the enemy they suffer a severe disadvantage in that they are deemed to be firing on the move when, for improved effectiveness (and the sake of reality), they should be stopping before engaging, then continuing the advance once the threat has been destroyed.

Do you mean AFV or soft targets, because use 'hunt' if you want to halt to engage AFVs. Even with soft tgts, use short bounds. If the only have a 30-40s move plotted, they will always halt after that time and will engage. Use Fast Move with a long move, and they fire on the move. I do not have a problem with armour firing philosophy.

[Erwin Rommel]

[ May 04, 2003, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Erwin Rommel ]

[Tha_Field_Marshall]

What about Ninjas?

or do we have to wait for the engine upgrade?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

For the second time, the first use of the 88 in the AT role was in Spain. </font>

[William amos]

Now see I was right about Scottish Bagpipes in the Desert..

British CounterAttack

The next day, O'Connor began his attack with air and naval bombardment of the Italian camps. British surprise was complete. On the morning of 9 December, the British moved forward, troops dragging extra grenades, wearing heavy underwear and woolen sweaters in the cold pre- dawn air.

The advance was almost an anticlimax. The Italians didn't know the British were upon them until they heard the rumble of Matilda tank treads and the plaintive skirl of Scottish bagpipes. 11th Indian Brigade charged into Maleni Group's Nibeiwa Camp, defended by 20 tanks, 12 field guns and 2,500 Libyans. The tanks were caught with their crews at breakfast, and quickly disabled.

North Africa

[ May 08, 2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: William amos ]

[Jim Boggs]

Okay, this is the Sound Off About CMAK Thread, so here goes:

I don't give two squats about the desert, everything I've read describes it as similar to naval warfare and I ain't no swab.

Now then: Sicily and Italy. Now there's WWII at it's most equal and intense.

Troina, Salerno, Ortuna, San Pietro, Monte Cassino, Anzio, tough, determined, fanatical resistance on one side and dogged, unrelenting, determination on the other.

Rooting the enemy off of mountains and out of caves. Clearing old villages built onto the mountainside. No room to deploy armor, oceans of mud, an attacker's nightmare.

CMBB's engine is excellent, and now we get to play the Allies again. The fire in the stomach will grow when those squads are American (or British, or Canadian, or Polish, or Kiwi's, etc.) that are advancing triumphantly or being cut down mercilessly by the determined German foe.

But then again, this is just one man's opinion.

[ May 11, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

[Firefly]

Originally posted by William amos:

Now see I was right about Scottish Bagpipes in the Desert..

Fair enough William, I stand corrected .

[SFJaykey]

I agree with "88mm" that driving on roads, or trying to, is more difficult than it should be in CM. I am playing a PBEM right now with a lot of winding mountain roads, and spend most of my Orders phases "driving." A "Follow Road" command would be very welcome, along with some kind of "Follow Vehicle" feature, perhaps automatic, so that convoys don't get all stacked up.

No idea how tough these would be to code but figure it doesn't hurt to ask.

- Matt

[Thomm]

Originally posted by SFJaykey:

A "Follow Road" command would be very welcome, ...

If, indeed, following the road is the most advantageous form of travelling then the pathfinding algorithm will put the waypoints on the road automatically. If you find that this is not the case then maybe the cross-country speeds have to be reduced?! Also, the pathfinding may take into account exposure to known threats, thereby reducing the likelihood of road-travelling.

Regards,

Thomm

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SFJaykey:

A "Follow Road" command would be very welcome, ...

If, indeed, following the road is the most advantageous form of travelling then the pathfinding algorithm will put the waypoints on the road automatically. If you find that this is not the case then maybe the cross-country speeds have to be reduced?! Also, the pathfinding may take into account exposure to known threats, thereby reducing the likelihood of road-travelling.

Regards,

Thomm </font>

[MikeyD]

Actually, "Follow road" would've come in handy in wooded CMBO a LOT more than the open desert terrain of CMAK. But I get the principle. If you can tell your tank to 'shoot & scoot' why not a 'Follow road' command as well? Perhaps like 'shoot & scoot' you'd place an initial 'follow road' waypoint (of course on a road), followed by a destination waypoint.

Of course I can hear people squak when they try out the command on some crazy-quilt road network and are surprised by the route the AI chooses for them! Do I think the command will show up in CMAK? No.

[McAuliffe]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

(...) Do I think the command will show up in CMAK? No.

No, indeed, but you will have waving palm trees!

Ha, this is my favourite subject...or better, my

main critic on the game. I hardly play the game anymore, except for some PBEMs, because I find it becoming so tedious, to plot all these waypoints for every single unit.

I don't mind to plot the whole itinerary for one tank or unit, but if, I want to move a whole column or company through the same waypoints, why should I plot over and over again this same itinerary.

Quite boring actually. Especially when you know that this is a computer game and computers were invented to free people of repetitive and boring tasks.

I will only be playing again, I guess, when there is a command that enables to order a designated group of units or vehicles to follow in the steps of the leader for which you have plotted a number of waypoints. Maybe you could add the options, that the units should follow the "leader" in column, in a skirmish line or advance in column but deploy at point of arrival.

The designated units would automatically be directed by the AI to the starting point of the "leader". IOW The AI would plot the shortest and most suitable way (terrainwise) to this starting point. Quite simple, I quess, since the AI corrects now already your waypoints when you plot over unpassable terrain.

When your column comes under fire, depending whether you used hunt, fast, or move to contact mode, the vehicles would stop and return fire, speed their way through the ambush or cower away, just like when the AI forces now your vehicles to do this, when they encounter a threat, that they probably can't match.

This command would speed up gameplay significantly and gameplay would focus on the action and the tactical decisions, not on the execution. Imagine the time you would save while playing a TCP/IP game. And of course you would be able to play bigger battles by TCP/IP.

I don't need no moving wheels, crashing sounds, waving trees or bullets kicking up dust. I need a ... follow the leader group command!

[Boo Radley]

Just curious, now that tanks will have dust clouds from racing around, will you be able to "spot" tanks this way? Say if a tank were behind a low rise, in real life you'd be able to see the dust plume behind it, more than likely.

[Boris Balaban]

How would it look to have a desert battle with an oasis in the middle? :cool:

[General Bolt]

How would it look to have a desert battle with an oasis in the middle?

Yeah, someone could write the oasis scene from the Bogey movie "Sahara". One tank holding off a whole company just for a canteen of H2O.

:cool:

[Blow2]

Never mind bagpipes, just give them some Scottish accents. I am tired of hearing Cockney in CM when I am battling with Scottish units in some of the many excellent scenarios!!

Having said that, I admit (before anyone pounces on me) that so-called Scottish divisions in Normandy were filled out with drafts from all over Britain.

B

[Xenophile]

I don't give two squats about the desert, everything I've read describes it as similar to naval warfare and I ain't no swab.

All conventional warfare is concerned with supply, but it's less obvious at the tactical level CM models than at higher levels. At this tactical level you are concerned with carrying out a mission - defending positions or capturing positions - not ensuring that your forces can resupply (although this can be modelled by requiring flags to be held in your rear or start areas). The assumption must be that the ground concerned will affect your or your enemy's supply at a higher level (since this is usually the most efficient method of defeating your opponent).

At CM's level of modelling, all the tactical elements of geography which apply to Normandy or the Eastern Front apply equally in North Africa. Just as most CM:BB scenarios have less cover than CM:BO scenarios do, I imagine CM:AK will have less still, emphasizing the importance of relative elevation of ground.

With luck, designers of battles for CM:AK will also better model the attempts commanders in every theatre made to enhance defensive postions by use of passive obstacles - particularly extensive minefields and anti-tank ditches.

In short, I don't worry that in North Africa I will be faced with turns of manouvreing to gain an advantage - that's a theatre or operational command decision - in North Africa, I expect to meet the enemy and to have to defeat them.

[HarryInk]

So yes, Yunfat, this is just passing time til CMAK comes out, but here's another feature I'd like (sorry if it's been covered):

Being able to click/activate a unit and the map will colour itself into the areas the unit can see and the areas it can't (say...shaded). This would make setting up a defence much quicker. It's a feature you find in games like Sid Meier's Gettysburg and similar series.

Cheers

[Lou2000]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

......SNIP..........

CMBB's engine is excellent, and now we get to play the Allies again. The fire in the stomach will grow when those squads are American (or British, or Canadian, or Polish, or Kiwi's, etc.) that are advancing triumphantly or being cut down mercilessly by the determined German foe.

But then again, this is just one man's opinion.

Errr ........ correct me if I'm wrong, but were the Russians not 'Allies'.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Lou2000:

Errr ........ correct me if I'm wrong, but were the Russians not 'Allies'.

Well...sort of. They were included in the Grand Alliance, but they weren't allies in the quite the sense that the Western Allies were. That is, they weren't close allies. Unlike the US and the Commonwealth, they were rarely on the same battlefield as the Western Allies, and when they were they usually didn't work together too well. They were more like cobelligerents.

Think of it this way if you like: you might have somewhere a 16th. cousin once removed, so you would be kin but you wouldn't necessarily think of that person as "family" exactly.

Michael

[Sergei]

"The Allies" in this case refers IMO to the... well, the big alliance that included USA, Commonwealth, USSR, several Latin American countries, Free This-and-That, and had also armies like the Romanians and the Finns at their disposal from 1944 on. At least I think so. In 1944 the Allied Control Commission came to Helsinki to supervise fulfilment of the interim peace, and it consisted of representatives of USSR (chair) and UK. USA wasn't included because it wasn't in war against Finland at any stage.

So maybe USA wasn't one of the Allies?.. After all, it was the last of the big three to join the alliance. Just when was the name "Allies" coined into use?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

"The Allies"...had also armies like the Romanians and the Finns at their disposal...

But that didn't make either country Allied. This was an important legal point because it decided who would attend the post-war peace conference, define boundaries, sit on the International Military Tribunal and many other points of international law. For instance, it was carefully spelled out that Italy was never an Ally, it was a cobelligerent in the strictest definition of that word. The same applied for instance to Bulgaria.

Michael

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

But that didn't make either country Allied.

Yes. I just was illustrating how Soviets were part of the Allies in the very sense, despite the lack of operational cooperation. Yet there were things like the timing of major offensives to coincide on both fronts, etc.

Any information on what the role of the Allied minors was in the aftermath? Like, did Brazil get any spoils of war or special positions in international organs?