von Lucke Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 A circle is merely a series of infinitesimally small straight lines attached in a series of infinitesimally small angles to each other. I hope that clears up any confusion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 The QB engine is extremely well capable of simulating the operational-level encirclement effects on tactical level battle: give the encircled side less than 100% ammo, lowered fitness, and some casualties. And the problem was...? Oh, BTW, many of these new aspects were introduced in CMBB, not in CMBO, so if this is the prime criteria of success for tactical game then CMBB indeed is truly new and successful game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj Soshtokovich Posted February 9, 2003 Author Share Posted February 9, 2003 yet another baby being thrown out with the bathwater thread. Is it a full moon out or something this week? I just responded to two threads which indicate that CMBB was a complete failure because it doesn't have IS-3 or 251/22 models in it. Good, just who I hoped would reply. I am only doing so now since I read the new engine is being re-writen as of "recently". The point about "what is missing unit- wise" will concern only a few. Now I come into this thread and find out that this is incorrect. The game is a failure because it doesn't simulate things which are outside of its scope. What is a poor game company to do I had to laugh at that . This is what I hoped not to hear . Better ways to model perimiters and therefore placement after the first battle of amn operation is extreemly important in operation design. For me , once you get this working the game will stand alone ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonBae Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Normally I am a quiet person and mainly lurk, but boy I am confused now....CMBB (notice not CM2, which indicates it is not an engine rebuild, but rather a tweak, although a pretty hefty tweak) can show perimeters, encirlcements quite easily on a platoon, company scale...the TACTICAL level. Just set a map to the largest setting, go for an attack or assault. Defender is no bigger than a company sized element for example. This leaves lots of flanks for bypassing and what not. But the East front "feel" the misquided Major desires, where large unit concentrations are bypassed to be isolated and dealt with later, is beyond the DESIGNED scope of CMBB (and CMBO, those things happened on the West front too). Those OPERATIONAL level maneuvers used the Division and Corps, Independent Brigade as the main unit of maneuver, not the TACTICAL level Platoon and squad that CMBB/CMBO deals with. Now CMBB does deal with one aspect of the "feel" the Major wants...what happened to those isolated forces, someone had to go in and dig them out. That type of TACTICAL Level operation is more in line with what this TACTICAL level game can do in a fantastic manner. From my point of view it gives the best TACTICAL feel for East Front warfare that I have ever seen. Job well done BFC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Why don't you change the thread title to "Where I think CM2 went wrong" or sumfink? You have been deliberately irritating and provocative and your actual point might be interesting but your silliness has caused it to be overshadowed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 2nd that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Right. I'm now going to have to make an operation scenario for... let's say 1941, July, Army Group South. It will be fictional, but hopefully representing an engagement of that time. I'll post in here again when I've finished it, in case anyone wishes to play it. In the meantime, I've got one scenario ready for playtesting, sept.1944, AG center. Both should provide... interesting perimeters to deal with. Anone interested? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich: CM 2 is pretty much CM 1 in a different guise with a few ( ie: limited) changes. Interesting. Did you happen to be able to take a look into a crystalball or something? I bet Steve and Charles would just love to know what they will be releasing in the future game engine,and exactly why it willbe considered a failure by some so that they can avert that by doing things differently (but then it wouldn't have been the future which you were seeing -aaarg, paradoxon's striking again). seriously, are you like CDV or saomething? Or is it me who is off - mind you it's been some time since I got involved into dicussions over future CM versions. The big CM rewrite/(new write) hasn't even begun yet, or? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by von Lucke: A circle is merely a series of infinitesimally small straight lines attached in a series of infinitesimally small angles to each other. I hope that clears up any confusion. No that's just a polygon infinitesimally likened to a circle and sold as such. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Ugh! First off stop saying that this is not how this is done or was done blah blah without backing it up with sources, Andreas just showed you how to do it. (Andreas we are agreeing again ) Second while an opinion is fine, there is still right and wrong and while it is perfectly valid to say "Ah I do not like (insert noun here)" it is not okay to then spout out all kinds of reasons that are beyond the scope of the situation or outside of the intended parameters or expectations set. That is not rationale. So far you have stated nothing of value other than your opinion which apparently is based on absolutely nothing (which I suppose is fine for an opinion but an unsupported opinion that is not constructive is not reason to create a thread on the forum). Me thinks you are trying to get some attention and rile some folks. I also think that you are either a Grog-lite or Poser Grog, with just enough information to form poor unsupported opinions on things such as combat on the Eastern Front. Personally I am a Grog Padawan. I am still learning and as thus recognize that I should listen more and speak less at times. That is when you get free knowledge and that is always a good thing. To practice find a Rexford thread and just read. At the end thank Rexford for the info. See real easy. As far as your ideas in this thread, I would not apologize for your opinion (again nothing wrong with them) but I would apologize for your poor judgement thinking this was meat for the forum or that it was in any way true at this time (since you have no facts to support it). Just my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Maj Soshtokovich This is what I hoped not to hearWhat, that you are confusing operationaly with tactical engagements and that since CM is a tactical game you have no reason to complain? For me , once you get this working the game will stand alone ...Until you can show me a game that even comes close to simulating what CM does, as well as it does, I say that it already stands alone. Priest, Second while an opinion is fine, there is still right and wrong and while it is perfectly valid to say "Ah I do not like (insert noun here)" it is not okay to then spout out all kinds of reasons that are beyond the scope of the situation or outside of the intended parameters or expectations set. That is not rationale.Correct. And coupled with the admission that he purposefully made this thread offensive and irrational to get my attention... well... I'll just leave it at that. So far you have stated nothing of value other than your opinion which apparently is based on absolutely nothing (which I suppose is fine for an opinion but an unsupported opinion that is not constructive is not reason to create a thread on the forum).Well put. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Bah, Maj Soshtokovich's post is but a poor troll. Falls almost to the "peng" category. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 My Comment to those who think BFC has made a product that is "Significantly Flawed" in any way Go Make your Own WWII Tactical WarGame, Make it Better than the Combat Mission series Market it so it outsells BFC products Provide Better Customer Service Then feel Free to return to the Forum with criticism on how BFC has failed I seem to recall one person who made the attempt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by SonBae: Normally I am a quiet person and mainly lurk, but boy I am confused now....CMBB (notice not CM2, which indicates it is not an engine rebuild, but rather a tweak, although a pretty hefty tweak) He might have the CDV version, which is called "CM2." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Oh, I just saw this. Let's see, this brings the total to what, half a dozen give or take a couple, out of some 12,000 registered forum users/lurkers, that think CMBB is broken. Criminey, Al Gore had better odds than that! [ February 09, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 I see you've been reading your Mathew Cooper Mr D. Good read eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by Londoner: I see you've been reading your Mathew Cooper Mr D. Good read eh? 1978, though....has anyone approached the topics Cooper discusses since then? Or did he nail it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrapin Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich: I did NOT say it was a tatal failure - not do I. By definition, failure is total. Reminds me of Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men: Lawyer: "Would you say he was in "Grave" danger?" Jessup: "Is there any other kind?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 I wouldn't say that. Look at Afghanistan. An obvious abject failure, but never-the-less great progress was made in urban demolition of what would otherwise be unsafe and comdemned structures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 if a gamer wants to model encirclements, they should try a divisional or corps-level - a strategic level game... ... there is a thread in the general discussion forum with links to a company which is doing this, both with the 'europa' series (perhaps 'sub-divisional' yet still sweeping in scope) and the 'wwii' game(s)... even an 'operational' game, at the level of tank platoons and infantry companies ala 'panzerblitz on the computer' would not represent the hystorically grand sweeping encirclements of the 'east front'... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Who said that you couldn't manage to surround or get surrounded? I've been surrounded several times. The type of surrounded scenarios that the original poster describes are generally seen at a much larger scale than CMBB was intended to deal with. I've had great fun being surrounded. Usually happens when I'm up against a good human opponent. By the way, I love CMBB but I'm none too good at it. 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.