ok maybe it should have been- how operations fail.

[Maj Soshtokovich]

If you are happy firing away at a FRONT line location then CM2 as it stands will be sufficient. You will no doubt be happy that this will be your strict diet. :cool:

After all, despite the fantastic detail into weapons data ( frankly I think it was if anything overmodelled) why introduce further complexity by modelling a linked battle ( aka a campaign) by actually modeling a proper outcome.

Perhaps campaigns should be abandoned ?

Although my initial heading was a little extreem I am just trying to impress that the engine re- write should I respectfully address really important issues and not the inclusion of a JS -3.

Thank you

( A frustrated scenario designer)

Please note a recent discussion on artillary also......

[Sergei]

I think operations should function something like this:

a) during the battle, one side or the other takes ground

after the battle, the computer will calculate "supply connections" (yes, my term sounds rather operational levelish...) to all areas based on features such as if the enemy can overwatch it (especially from high ground), the visibility level (it's easier at night or in storm) and concealment level

c) now player is presented the map with possessed areas highlighted per their level of "supply" as drawn from the friendly map edge

d) player has some "supply points" in his use. He must now "buy" land with those, buying being more costly the harder it is to draw a supply route.

e) Unsupplied areas either become neutral and troops are withdrawn to supplied areas, or the troops there remain partly cut-off, receiving only limited replenishments, suffering weariness (because you need more runners to bring food, ammo and other supplies) and extra command delays early on the next battle (because they haven't been briefed on the battle situation to the same extent as others).

What I think this would achieve, would be a greater esteem on highly valuable tactical positions such as hills and tall buildings. It would also be impossible to supply something right in the front of the enemy's trenches. If you can watch the only route your enemy can use for supplying his front line, then you can make him withdraw or starve of supplies.

[Nick Schieben]

What's with this trolling!? Hasn't this issue been beaten to death - although I'm sure, not to your satisfaction.

The only failure I see is in your lack of social skills - you seem to have the inability to get your point across without causing annoyance to others.

[jwxspoon]

This thread reminds me of those cars you see driving down the road with the turn signal constantly on as the car drives straight for miles. You follow people like that thinking, "What is this guy's problem?"

Maj. Shostokovich, prepare youself. Here is the truth:

CMBB IS NOT AN ENGINE REWRITE!!!! IT IS AN UPGRADE OF THE EXISTING ENGINE!!!! MANY GAME IMPROVING TWEAKS WERE MADE, BUT IT IS STILL THE SAME ENGINE AS CMBO!!!!

This has been quite clear to most of us for some time. The next Combat Mission game WILL incorporate an engine rewrite.

Please turn off that damned turn signal.

jw

[ February 11, 2003, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: jwxspoon ]

[Bruno Weiss]

jwxspoon wrote:

You follow people like that thinking, "What is this guy's problem?"

Unfortunatley, all to many just follow the blinking light in constant right angles.

[Schrullenhaft]

As noted previously CMBB/CM2 is not an engine rewrite. It is an improvement on CMB0, but it still has some of the original engine's limitations.

Regarding your specific problem with the 'front line' code in Operations... It has been noted before. In fact a different system that you would have liked was intended to be included with CMBO, but there were bugs found in it which would annoyingly detract from play in a number of situations (moreso than your disappointment with the current model). Charles spent a long time trying to figure out a solution, but nothing seemed possible. I assume even the permutations you suggest had problems. Thus the most efficient method ended up being the 'straight lines'. Not ideal, but at least it works.

To my knowledge there wasn't enough time to try to get any other methods working with CMBB. Outside of the new 'static' operations most of the front line determining code is similar to CMBO's.

Even an engine rewrite may not fix this particular limitation. Charles might figure out a different method with the engine rewrite, since he may have more time to spend on the problem this time around. However there is a good chance this particular limitation may remain in the game even with the new engine (the problem is that complex to solve). A simple as the problem seems to you logically, it is many times much harder to code up (computers and their code don't think like humans).

[ February 11, 2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I think people too easily forget that BFC is a very small outfit. There is just one programmer. The CM series of games model company/battalion v company /battalion battles at the level of the individual squad and AFV as the manoeuvre unit. That is it.

“Operations” in CMBB, in my view, really just model the continuation of one single “battle”. They do this very well, again, in my view. In the real world a battle for a given village would often take 2-4 hours even if it went well. Static operations model this very realistically, but not perfectly. However, BFC make no claim to model what many would call “operations”. That is engagements that are separated in both time, and space from one anther, but where the outcome in one engagement affects the outcome in the other. To use the real world Soviet definition of operations.

As it happens I am one of those who would very much enjoy the marriage of a true operational game, as given by the Soviet definition of these things, and a CM game. However, it is unreasonable to expect the guys at BFC to build such a game as well as a new version of CM. Happily, all is not lost.

What I am after, and what others seem to hanker for, is the ability to place individual CM battles in context. From the geographical point of view the new Mapping Mission from Leland makes this possible. It is now possible to construct 20km by 20km CMBB maps, and copy and paste into the CMBB editor the portion you wish to use in any individual CMBB contact battle. So true Operations can be tracked quite easily.

If in the new engine BFC add the feature to be able to Save your forces from any given CM battle, combine this with the use of a new version of Mapping Mission to go with the next CM engine, and you have your true Operational game to go with CM. The same forces tracked over a large geographical area from engagement to engagement.

I take the view that I am unbelievably lucky that BFC wish to build exactly the type of tactical simulations that most appeal to me. i.e. the same scale, niche as Squad Leader games. They do this to truly unimagined quality. Yes, in the prefect world I would wish to see the marriage, welding together of a quality operational game and the next version of CM. However, I realise it is totally unreasonable to expect such a small team to both develop a completely new version of CM, and build a true operational game to go with it.

The use of a new version of the Mapping Mission to go with the new CM engine, if Leland it able and willing to find the time , plus the ability to Save ones forces from a given CM battle, will more than do the job. Its then up to those who wish for operational games, to put the two together. Not really asking very much.

All the best,

Kip.

[ZealotBurner]

Perhaps campaigns should be abandoned ?

Although my initial heading was a little extreem I am just trying to impress that the engine re- write should I respectfully address really important issues and not the inclusion of a JS -3.

Thank you

[/QB]

To all the real trolls on this thread, first of all, if you don't like the turn signal blinking, don't look at it, or change lanes. No one made you enter this thread. Also if you will re read the above quote I think you will see that he mentioned the engine rewrite SHOULD include a campaign feature. Not that CMBB SHOULD include it. This is a forum to discuss ideas about the game, just because everyone here hasn't read all the posts, for all time, is no reason to flame the guy.

I think he has good ideas, obviously few of us are coders on this site so we can't appreciate the difficulty in 'Why can't the AI Attack, defend, make me coffee, suggest good music to play to, and make the game hard, but still let me win everytime, while modeling the fact that my 3rd squad's seargent just had his boots untie and bent over and therefore was not wounded by that shrapnel.'

Just don't make this one of those, "I'm scared to post because I don't know the standard OOB for the read army durning the Kursk Offensive." or whatever.

Sorry if this post is a little flamey (hypocritical even) I am still only halfway through my first cup of coffee this morning.

[Priest]

Play CMMC.

[-E]

Originally posted by Sergei:

I think operations should function something like this:

d) player has some "supply points" in his use. He must now "buy" land with those, buying being more costly the harder it is to draw a supply route.

Will we still be able to buy hotels?

[WWB]

I would say the operation front line determining code is vastly improved from CMBO, especially for assault and static operations. You can now get isolated strongpoints cut off in a relatively realistic manner. The defender is not invariably pushed back. If you can write code that will reliably determine front lines from all angles in all cases then do it and send it to BFC.

In addition, I think your understanding of the nature of tactical vs operational combat is flawed. Many of the operations were encirclement battles. Of course, said operations involved entire corps or armies and are far beyond the scale of CM. Given that you cant really do a map much wider than 3.5 km with enough depth to work, I cannot think of any battle of encirclement that took place on that small a front. I can think of alot of breakthrough operations in order to create pockets which did occour on that scale. These operations would be linear, much like your normal CM operation. If you want to do encirclement operations, you really need to look at a different scale of wargame.

WWB

[mike the wino2]

*kicks dead horse*

Can we move on now? :confused:

[Maj Soshtokovich]

CMBB IS NOT AN ENGINE REWRITE!!!! IT IS AN UPGRADE OF THE EXISTING ENGINE!!!! MANY GAME IMPROVING TWEAKS WERE MADE, BUT IT IS STILL THE SAME ENGINE AS CMBO!!!!

I think I included that in my original post. My point is either fix operarations so they work sensibly or forget about them altogether.

I notice American's here seem to have a fair ol' attitude.

By the way if Steve gets pleasure from posts such as yours ,,,,,,

[hardcampa]

Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich:

I think I included that in my original post. My point is either fix operarations so they work sensibly or forget about them altogether.

So your point is to remove operations which works fine just because you don't like them?

[WWB]

Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich:

[idiotic ranting]

I think I included that in my original post. My point is either fix operarations so they work sensibly or forget about them altogether.

[more idiotic ranting]

I think you are missing the point entirely. Operations work alot more sensibly now. They are too small scale to simulate true encirclement operations, which covered tens if not hundreds of kilometers and involved Corps and Armies, not companies and battalions.

I have pestered Steve as much or more than most regarding scenario design & battle type issues. In the end, CM has a limited scope and a limited toolset. Instead of whining about the limitations you can do nothing about, why not try and use creativity to maximize the usefulness of the current toolset.

WWB

[ February 13, 2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

[Other Means]

how about melding Airborne Assault with CMBB? give your forces represented by the tiles commands to move where, pass that plus the map & opponents into a qb, with the entry points being where they join. voila.