Ex Bellator Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Jon, I don't disagee at all, there is plenty of precedent for infantry only attacks, but CMAK infantry only attacks in open terrain won't be any fun at all for anyone using the CMBB engine. What I'm already tired of trying to get across is that Combined Arms QBs are a very common (the commonest?) way in people which play CM games, and it's going to need UK armour and Commonwealth infantry to be chosen together, which is something the present engine cannot handle. The AI has to be able to purchase them combined both for itself and for those of us who let the AI pick forces. I'm not talking TOEs or specific actions, I'm talking about CMAK the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Rex, what I was trying to get at is that figuring out how the CW managed to get them to work in RL™ is, IMHO, a key part of figuring out how to get them to work in CMBB/AK. Of course, with everything set to random in a QB you are deliberately eschewing the advantages that the CW sought to give themselves, so maybe you shouldn't be surprised at the result (Spot the guy who always plays scens ... ) It occurs to me that in the desert, perhaps, the saying "strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight" was never truer. I think I can concur with your point about British armour being available with any CW force type. Regards JonS [ July 22, 2003, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergerbitz Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Rex, what I was trying to get at is that figuring out how the CW managed to get them to work in RL™ is, IMHO, a key part of figuring out how to get them to work in CMBB/AK. It must be because I just finished an 18-hour work day -- but that is the most fascinating sentence I've read in a while. And I don't know why. I mean, I just finished staring at it for ten minutes and it seems so...so...acronymicious. Is that a word? Maybe I should just go to bed...? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Rex, You didn't thought of the Brittish Infantry trying to make their way to a minefield in Tunesia ? In the open field, in the middle of the night, on their hands and knees, sticking their knifes into the ground, every 10 cm checking for mines, the whole night long... and in the morning get mowed down by German MG's... ??? That's real war! Eichenbaum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Originally posted by Rex Bellator: ROTFLMAO - have you ever actually played a CMBB QB with infantry over flat open terrain? If you think that infantry in the CM system can be used to 'to seize and hold ground' on a flat open map then I doubt it Out of a matter of interest, have you ever, ever, actually visited a desert like North Africa's? If you had, you'd realise it is not "flat open terrain". It is undulating terrain, riven with watercourses ("wadis"), features ranges of hills and has outcroppings of rocks. I'd also suggest you read a good history of the Western Desert battles. You might find out infantry were utilised a great deal to do exactly that, "seize and hold ground" and they did it quite effectively too, often without support by armour. For the whole of the Desert War, the theory was that UK armour would support Commonwealth troops. I'm sure that theory would have been news to the British and other Commonwealth Armoured units. Apart from the "I" tank units, British and Commonwealth armoured theory believed that armour operated independently of infantry - that was one of the problems with it and why the Germans were so much better than the Commonwealth and British armoured units. That was the theory, I'm sure you know that practice frequently differed, but for historical accuracy and gameplay it needs to be incorporated. I can think of only a handful of occasions when British armoured units were attached to Australian units during the Western Desert and in most cases, they were set piece battles or a siege. If there are no Desert Combined Arms actions then BFC might as well not bother with anything prior to Sicily as no one will play it anyway. Why? I think you under-estimate CM's audience. [Edit] Heh - OK on second thoughts possibly not for the whole of the Desert War. When Monty took over he had the good sense to try to make Divisions fight as Divisions and not scatter the armour in all directions to soothe the infantry commanders anxieties. Monty was not the first to do that. He was though, the first to make an effort at a combine arms doctrine (not terribly successfully, as 2nd El Alamein showed). [ July 23, 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallybob Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Hey, BFC! Throw us some Frikkin' BONES! Taunt us! Screenshots, OMG commentary, somefink! Thank you for your consideration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzBaby Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 Bump... perhaps a 25pdr and Quad combo...2pdr portee [if it will be modelled?, will it be like an unarmoured SP gun]. Maybe a screenie of a hitched or dug-in 88, going to be interesting with the trailer... [ August 10, 2003, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: HeinzBaby ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 10, 2003 Share Posted August 10, 2003 Originally posted by HeinzBaby: ...2pdr portee [if it will be modelled?, will it be like an unarmoured SP gun].It would be nice, but Madmatt has already announced that it's no go. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Really? Huh, must of missed that one. On the surface it seems like an odd decision, given that we already have truck mounted guns in CMBO and CMBB. I could understand not allowing them to mount or dismount during a scen as being too difficult to code or represent graphically, but ruling them out altogether also rules out the way the 2-pr was mainly used during Op Crusader, the Gazala battles, and early Alamein, with all the attendant advantages and disadvantages. Oh well. Regards Jon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: On the surface it seems like an odd decision, given that we already have truck mounted guns in CMBO and CMBB.I know. That was my precise thought as well. I don't remember exactly what reason MM gave. I suppose you could look it up as it hasn't been more than two or three months since he posted. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 I couldn't find anything on portees not making it into CM:AK Are you sure you din't mistake what was said about limbered guns not being allowed to fire (this related to 88s) and I recal a thread where it was said it was unlikely that Portees would't be allowed to unlimber/dismount their gun. Portees were so widespread I don't believe BFC would leave them out. They appear to be fairly easily implemented. A flak vehicle like treatment for the 2pdr and something similar to the archer for 6pdr variants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 While on the subject on what vehicles will make it into CM:AK I would like to enquire which armoured cars might make it into the game. CMBO limited our choice of ACs(Brits mainly) but CM:BB had oodles of the buggers. Will we see AECs, Humbers, Daimlers, Staghounds, Marmont-Herringtons and Rolls Royces this time around? Wich Marks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 11, 2003 Share Posted August 11, 2003 Originally posted by Tweety: I couldn't find anything on portees not making it into CM:AK Are you sure you din't mistake what was said about limbered guns not being allowed to fire (this related to 88s) and I recal a thread where it was said it was unlikely that Portees would't be allowed to unlimber/dismount their gun.Since I can no longer claim an idetic memory, I have to concede that there is an outside chance that you might be right. Frankly, in this case, I'd rather you be right than me. Portees were so widespread I don't believe BFC would leave them out. They appear to be fairly easily implemented. A flak vehicle like treatment for the 2pdr and something similar to the archer for 6pdr variants. I'm sold. Let's hope it works out that way. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex1 Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 looks interesting. Am keen to see what the new CMX2 engine offers. I presume it not going to give real time? Most people here would hate that I imagine (huge stereotypical generalization . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted August 16, 2003 Share Posted August 16, 2003 Not with the "we-go" system so successful. Making CM real time be a step back. Ok not a step, it would be like falling off Everest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 I'd like to have a Steel Panthers -like encyclopedia of the units in CMAK. But it should be done in the style of the data base in many flight sims, ie. you get to see the unit in 3D, rotating around. Fun to play with? Yes sir! Handy for modders? Yes sir! Good for checking out what kinds of units are available at different time periods? Yes sir! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Something I would like to see come back in AK is the opening movie. My son (age 7) doesn't like BB as much as BO because there is no movie to watch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 In CMAK we should have remote control (automatic) flamethrowers. They were quite widespread in the Gustav Line german defenses system, according to my sources. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Olesen Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Not sure if this is the right place to post wished for CMAK, or if it is too late. But why not I came upon three needs when making ROQC: 1. Allow import of reinforcements with a map into the QB generator. In CMBB, reinforcements are simply ignored. 2. Allow import of exit zones with a map into the QB generator. In CMBB, exit zones are simply ignored. 3. Allow import of a map from any file that has one into the map editor in the scenario editor. I don't need to import units, and in fact it would be safer not to. I can't do it the other way around (open the map/scenario, delete any units, add new units) as it is the unit file that is persistent in my campaign. Besides, it seems like a generally useful feature. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Kruger Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Originally posted by Destraex1: looks interesting. Am keen to see what the new CMX2 engine offers. I presume it not going to give real time? Most people here would hate that I imagine (huge stereotypical generalization . Let us hope no CM game ever goes real-time! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Amen! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterGoodale Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Don't change the gameplay formula maggots!! :mad: GRAGRAGRGRAGRAGRAGRAGRGRA!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 If they make CMx2 Real Time, well, I'll never come back, maybe. The current CM play style is what keeps me coming back, over and over. Every time people think I've vanished from the CM world, I get pulled right back due to having no, nadda, nothing, zilch, of any other strategy game out there that comes close to CM gameplay. Not that I would be against changes, to the better. But the basic mechanism works too well to opt for the over crowded "me too" RTS business. I'll play something else to get variety, but I've never returned and played a game as many times as the CM games. They have always exceeded my expectations. Now who ever suggested such a thing, wash your mouth out with soap. The prodigal forum lurker... [ August 26, 2003, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: kump ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Hi, Gary, nice to see you again. I agree with you and [ugh] MG about wego. Interestingly, the only other game that I have played as much has been TacOps which is also in wego format. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 -- deleted -- Got to learn this forum all over again. Oh, and hi Michael. Long time! [ August 26, 2003, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: kump ] 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.