Schoerner Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 At the moment i'm playing '6th Army Probe' from the excellent Stalingrad-Pack against the AI, and i'm wondering more and more about the unrealistical time-limit in all CM-battles. Especially when advancing over open terrain with deep positioned AT-guns the time limit seems very unrealistically to me. My wish for CMAK, or at least CMX2 would be to add the option for open-ended battles, where the enemy needs to be wiped out (global morale; every leaving unit decreases global morale) and not a time-limit forcing you to risk your men and equipment, because you want to be finished until tea-time. [ June 03, 2003, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfedoroff Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 As long as a scenario is not "tournament saved", you can throw it in the scenario editor and add some turns. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoffel Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 you might need ammo supplies to every now and than with such a large battle..... hmm good idea,can we have ammotrucks to resupply our troops??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Stoffel: you might need ammo supplies to every now and than with such a large battle..... No, it depends on the commander, how and when he orders his troops to spend the given amount of ammo. I mean, due to the gamey time limit in most scenarios, there's usually not enough time for knocking out defensive positions in a realistically manner. If you have a 81mm mortar available on the battlefield but it would take 3 minutes to order it, would in reality a commander risk tanks and crews instead of waiting 3 minutes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 A small warning. I've played a few scenarios where the combatants have exhausted themselves long before the game's end, and you mostly wind up with both sides hunkered-down with depleted ammo taking occassional pot-shots at eachother to keep their heads down. If you want longer games, believe me those types of game seem a LOT longer! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFJaykey Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Schoerner- I agree some scenarios seem too time pressured. I think part of the reason for the time limits is to balance games vs the AI: since the human player is a lot "smarter" than the AI the turn limit puts some more pressure on and helps the defending AI out a bit. Also, the AI is not as careful with its ammo as a human player can be. Scenarios for two human players often benefit from a few extra turns. Re: realism, in some situations I'm sure it is realistic to rush the attack....units were often ordered to advance to certain phase lines by a given deadline in order to keep up with the rest of the front, or to open the way for follow-on forces. Timing was very important in many battle plans so yes I think they would have to rush it sometimes. But I also agree that the turn limit is sometimes _too_ restrictive. Maybe it would be better to provide an option of removing the turn limit, and instead give the attacker points for accomplishing the mission quickly? [ June 03, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 SFJaykey writes: "...and instead give the attacker points for accomplishing the mission quickly?" I do belive you have hit on an entirely original idea! I can't recall anyone suggesting that idea before. It has its merits, the only problem I can foresee it how the AI will judge 'accomplishing the mission'. Capturing the flags only? Capturing and holding? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belaja smert Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: A small warning. I've played a few scenarios where the combatants have exhausted themselves long before the game's end, and you mostly wind up with both sides hunkered-down with depleted ammo taking occassional pot-shots at eachother to keep their heads down. If you want longer games, believe me those types of game seem a LOT longer! Maybe an automatic cease-fire could be forced on the players if most/all of his units are low on ammo? IMO this should be a good solution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Schoerner: If you have a 81mm mortar available on the battlefield but it would take 3 minutes to order it, would in reality a commander risk tanks and crews instead of waiting 3 minutes? Then do that. You might lose the scenario, but that's not everything. You just were unable to accomplish the mission in given time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Belaja smert: Maybe an automatic cease-fire could be forced on the players if most/all of his units are low on ammo? IMO this should be a good solution. That is already the case. If your ammo or global morale gets below certain level, you are forced to offer ceasefire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: Then do that. You might lose the scenario, but that's not everything. You just were unable to accomplish the mission in given time.Sergei, Sergei. You missed the point, Towarisch. I don't want the unrealistical time-limits become removed - ofcourse not. I just want this option for scenario-designers additionally. IMO the time limit gives way to much information what can happen during the battle. I'm sure, unlimited-time battles, would become very popular, too. [ June 03, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Err, you have tried the operations, haven't you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belaja smert Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: That is already the case. If your ammo or global morale gets below certain level, you are forced to offer ceasefire. Are you sure? I remember reading from the manual that if morale drops too low this happens, but I don't recall it mentioning anything about ammo levels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFJaykey Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: SFJaykey writes: "...and instead give the attacker points for accomplishing the mission quickly?" I do belive you have hit on an entirely original idea! I can't recall anyone suggesting that idea before. It has its merits, the only problem I can foresee it how the AI will judge 'accomplishing the mission'. Capturing the flags only? Capturing and holding? Well, you throw enough of them out there, one's bound to be new. For "accomplishing the mission," you could define one, some, or all of the large VL flags as the "mission" flags. Other flags would still earn points as secondary objectives. Perhaps the "mission" flags could display the number of turns left to take that particular flag...when this counted down to zero it might not disappear, but change to a small flag. There's your penalty for slow-pokes. When playing with dynamic flags, the attacker could choose the mission flag from among the large flags placed by the designer. The other flags might still earn small-flag points as secondary objectives rather than being "Bogus." Yes I guess you should have to hold the flag until game end, which would occur a variable number of turns after the mission flag(s) was captured, to allow for counterattacks. There should also be a fixed turn limit, like we have now, to keep battles from dragging on forever, but with the mission-based scoring system it could be substantially longer than we typically have now. On a related issue, I think flags that are captured, then moved past, should still count as "held" unless the opponent retakes them. The game already calculates a "front" in between battles of an operation. Why not have this calculation take place each turn, and flags that are behind the attacking force's front count as captured? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 About extending the battle further, I know you can import scenarios plus alloted troops into Quickbattles, but I can't recall -- can you import half-finished saved games as Quickbattle maps? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Roxanne Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 If I'm not mistaken, low ammo triggers an involuntary ceasefire request. The threshhold is different for probes, attacks, meetings, and assaults. Low global morale will trigger an involuntary SURRENDER! I think low morale will also increase command delays, making it more difficult to maneuver. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 I can't tell you how many times an opponent and I have been sitting there around move 35+, trading bursts of fire during the first few seconds of the move and then sitting there with LOW ammo for the rest of the move. Gets to be a big drag. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFJaykey Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by Boo_Radley: I can't tell you how many times an opponent and I have been sitting there around move 35+, trading bursts of fire during the first few seconds of the move and then sitting there with LOW ammo for the rest of the move. Gets to be a big drag. That's what "Ceasefire" is for. There's no dishonor in it! I think if the games were longer, people would pay more attention to limiting ammo consumption by setting arcs, and by keeping some troops in reserve for the later turns. The AI (and trigger-happy players) could be "helped" in this regard by having more forces arrive as reinforcements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Roxanne Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 I agree with Jaykey. If both sides are out of ammo it's time for a ceasefire. This would be a natural ending to a battle, and much preferred over an abrupt, artificial end. If both sides run out of ammo, the time the designer chose to allow the combatants was well thought out IMO. Ammo conservation is the player's job. When you think about it, there really isn't any need for a time limit in CM unless a specific time-critical situation is being simulated. All battles will end in a ceasefire or surrender eventually. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 There is a way to get close to an open ended game. Open the game in the scenario editor and move the scenario length to max. I can pretty well guarantee either everybody will be dead or you'll be bored silly long before you reach the last turn. Those 'variable ending' games show you, most scenarios really don't like to stretch much more that 10 turns beyond their allotted time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Roxanne Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 I think players would agree to a ceasefire before boredom set in to any great degree. I guess we do need time limits against the AI. I don't play the AI so I didn't think of that. 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.