Please close this topic.

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

A motorcycle with a sidecar is almost the same as a halftrack. You have a driver and a gunner.

I don't see any difirence in the programming.

The same as a horse. It's nothing more like a vehicle with only a driver and no gunner.

[eichenbaum]

If you take the HQ system with those lines that display the connection between them. If they get out of reach the lines turn to black. This system already track the parameters such as the distance between the units, if there's a communication device available and the status of the unit (shocked, routed etc.)

I believe its a small change to suppress the borg spotting if the units are not ordered by the player.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

A motorcycle with a sidecar is almost the same as a halftrack. You have a driver and a gunner.

I don't see any difirence in the programming.</font>

[sigh]

Even if you do not wish to engage your imagination, you might recall that this too has been gone over.

The difference is that the crew of a halftrack does not leave the vehicle unless abandoning it, whereas two infantry on a motorcycle will get off their machine as a matter of course when in contact with the enemy.

The same as a horse. It's nothing more like a vehicle with only a driver and no gunner.

See above.

Michael

[Ruthless]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

If you take the HQ system with those lines that display the connection between them. If they get out of reach the lines turn to black. This system already track the parameters such as the distance between the units, if there's a communication device available and the status of the unit (shocked, routed etc.)

I believe its a small change to suppress the borg spotting if the units are not ordered by the player.

Actually, I don't think eliminating Borg spotting is a small change for BFC.

Many many aspects of the program change when you change the way things are spotted and communicated, and BFC only has the one programmer...

But I do think it is one of the most important issues to be corrected in CM:AAK (Combat Mission: After Afrika Korps).

[eichenbaum]

The difference is that the crew of a halftrack does not leave the vehicle unless abandoning it, whereas two infantry on a motorcycle will get off their machine as a matter of course when in contact with the enemy.

So ? You can order the crew with disembark to leave the motorcycle and go back anytime with the order embark. While the crew is away the status of the motorcycle will show 'abandoned'.

I can't see any major changes in the game-engine except that specific vehicles need to be altered in a way that the crew can return after abandoning it.

[Abbott]

I don't see any difirence in the programming.

BFC would differ with your opinion.

[Michael Emrys]

Never mind. I should have read more closely. (Was a response to Ruthless.)

Michael

[ August 16, 2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[eichenbaum]

Ok, point taken. The motorcycle goes off the list.

<HR><table width="80%" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"><tr> <td width="10%"><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox" value="checkbox" disabled></div></td><td width="90%"><s>Horses (with or without wagons)</s></td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox2" value="checkbox" disabled></div></td><td><s>Motorcycles</s></td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox3" value="checkbox" disabled></div></td><td><s>Bicycles</s></td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox43" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Antitank objects (Concrete Pillars, Steel Crosses etc..)</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox42" value="checkbox" disabled></div></td><td><s>Bulldozers</s></td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox4" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Closed trucks (with canvas)</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox5" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Train Station</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox6" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>2 meters tall stone walls</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"> <input type="checkbox" name="checkbox7" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Telephone poles</td></tr><tr> <td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox8" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Stairs for slopes</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox9" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Dirt tiles</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox102" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Abby's / Cloisters</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox103" value="checkbox"></div></td><td>A Real dropping of paratroopers (falling out of the sky)</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"> <input type="checkbox" name="checkbox10" value="checkbox"></div></td><td>On map artillery (for use with target referention points)</td></tr></table><HR>

[reinald@berlin.com]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

OPERATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE (Operative Aufklärung)

Heck, Eichenkoffer, get it: CM is a TACTICAL WARGAME. If you want to play general with supply management, operational recce n stuff head somewhere else. You are in the wrong game.

[todd]

the tank dozer can and were used for clearing minefields along w/flails or rollers. not real handy for anything so far but in n africa they would certianly have purpose.

todd

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by reinald@berlin.com:

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

OPERATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE (Operative Aufklärung)

Heck, Eichenkoffer, get it: CM is a TACTICAL WARGAME. If you want to play general with supply management, operational recce n stuff head somewhere else. You are in the wrong game. </font>

[reinald@berlin.com]

Ok, ok, to be constructively critical of Eichenbäumchen's demands:

May I sugest that a great many good strategic and operational level games are actually available for free like e.g. "War in Russia" by Matrix Games:

War in Russia

WiR does get strategic implications of supply and air power quite well. I'm sure there are other hex-based games that fill any grand-scale special interests one may have.

Don't see why a perfect tactical simulation like CM should be forced onto the operational level. I actually see CM fail at it many times when scenarios grow too big, i.e. IMHO over bataillon. Soon degenerates into a chore to micromanage all those teams. Now add horseback messengers, supply carts and mine dogs and you have a game nobody will want to play.

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by reinald@berlin.com:

Ok, ok, to be constructively critical of Eichenbäumchen's demands:

May I sugest that a great many good strategic and operational level games are actually available for free like e.g. "War in Russia" by Matrix Games:

War in Russia

WiR does get strategic implications of supply and air power quite well. I'm sure there are other hex-based games that fill any grand-scale special interests one may have.

Don't see why a perfect tactical simulation like CM should be forced onto the operational level. I actually see CM fail at it many times when scenarios grow too big, i.e. IMHO over bataillon. Soon degenerates into a chore to micromanage all those teams. Now add horseback messengers, supply carts and mine dogs and you have a game nobody will want to play.

If CM is forced in any way, nobody will force you to play it that way.

Any one is free to pick the gameplay they like.

So, if you see this kind of gameplay pop up anywhere, just ignore it.

Nils

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by reinald@berlin.com:

Don't see why a perfect tactical simulation like CM should be forced onto the operational level. I actually see CM fail at it many times when scenarios grow too big, i.e. IMHO over bataillon. Soon degenerates into a chore to micromanage all those teams. Now add horseback messengers, supply carts and mine dogs and you have a game nobody will want to play.

There is always somebody eager to play such a game. Usually somebody with no social life but lots of paranoid delusions of grandeur who will spend an entire sleepless weekend hunkered down in front of his computer.

But I'm in your camp on this. I'm even starting to find battalions a bit much to handle and still enjoy the game. I think I will soon go back to playing reinforced companies.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

So, if you see this kind of gameplay pop up anywhere, just ignore it.

I think that is wise. CM actually accommodates a wide variety of playing styles. That is one of its strengths. Since BFC developed that strength pretty much on their own, I think we should leave them to their own devices in the trust and hope that they will continue to do so.

It doesn't hurt to ask for desired features, but it needs to be done in a friendly and respectful way, not like a child who is going to throw a tantrum if he doesn't find every toy he asked for under the Christmas tree.

Michael

[JonS]

I've come (back?) to this late, but I have a few comments on previous discussion-points nonetheless.

Motorcycle Battalions: Do those proposing them realise just how few m/c's there were in a German m/c bn? They didn't all run around on dead butch motorcycles, like some sort of prequel to James Dean. Have a look here for a 1941 inf div m/c bn and here for a 1942 panzer div m/c bn. You'll see that bugger-all of each bn was actually mounted on m/c's. Most of the fighting power and strength of the bns was in the armoured cars.

Abbeys/Cloisters: I fail to see why a mix of factories and tall heavy buildings couldn't be used to create an excellent reproduction of Cassino or any of the other abbeys in Italy. There is no need for a new building type to model these somewhat rare circumstances. The same general comment applies to train stations.

One thing I don't like about the modelling of buildings in CM is their general fragility. It is too easy to rubble buildings IMHO.

Telephone Poles & Stairs: I doubt you will find anyone saying that CM couldn't use more "doodad's" to add graphical intest to the maps. The split is in their relative importance. Oh, and what exactly is the point of the stairs anyway? I must have missed that bit. There aren't footpaths anyway.

Enclosed Trucks: Eh. Why? Why waste effort on something that would only be used in a game way? Currently units on trucks are too easy to id (esp FOs), but that is a problem with the way trucks and their passengers are handled, not because of a lack of a piece of canvas.

Dirt Tiles: What are these for again? Functionally, what would dirt tiles do that can't be simulated with open ground, paved ground, or dirt road tiles - especially if any one of those are modded to give you a 'open muddy field' visual effect?

Antitank Objects: These are already in - what do you think a road block is? If you don't like the way they look, well, mod them! Discussion on these objects wandered off onto engineers in general and specialised vehicles. I agree that engineers have been given short shrift, and in discussions with BFC here they have essentially said the same thing. However, they also said that was deliberate because of the intended scale and focus of CM. In other words, engineer operations just aren't part of their conception of what CM is about. With their fairly limited resources, they chose to focus on getting infantry and armour to 'work' properly, with other aspects (engineers, artillery, air, etc) getting lesser attention.

Sunshades: Some of you have a weird idea of what these were used for. Sunsheilds weren't used in any kind of tactical situation. They were part of the deception scheme to disguise tanks and the movement of armoured formations from aerial observation. That's it. If you think that fits into CMs scale, well ... I have a lovely bridge here you might be interested in. BTW, they were used in both Op Crusader in Nov 1941, and before/during Alamein III in October 1942 - so Monty did 'use' them.

Tall Walls: These would be nice.

Realism: Well E, I tried your Storfang operation, and dropped it after playing two or three turns. Having those paras drop in like that ruined it for me. All I can say is that I don't like your version of 'realism'. No dout there are others who do, and good luck to them, and to you for putting the time and effort in. Seriously.

Photographic Evidence: A photo of a massed motorcycle victory parade down the Champs Elysee is exceptionally poor evidence if you are trying to convince people that they were used in combat. We all know the Germans had and used m/c's.

Regards

JonS

[ August 16, 2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[eichenbaum]

I'm not forcing anyone. Nor you nor the BFC team. I only asked some opinions about objects that might be interesting or not. I respect the comments that are given.

CM is the only game I play. It's a great game and BFC really did a good job!

Thanks.

[eichenbaum]

[ August 16, 2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by Ruthless:

...I do think it (borg spotting) is one of the most important issues to be corrected in CM:AAK (Combat Mission: After Afrika Korps).

another high priority issue might be the modelling of small arms, particularly the 'fire lanes' of the machineguns... instead of 'point to point' between firer and target, checking all points in between (and beyond if necessary)...

[manchildstein (ii)]

about the buildings... the one thing i would recommend would be basements... beyond that, being able to edit the 'strength' as to how quickly they rubble and/or how well they protect from various types of incoming fire....

edit: i mean add basements as optional...

then for buildings in general be able to edit their strength (and 'ideally,' dimensions)

[ August 16, 2003, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: manchildstein II ]

[Private Bluebottle]

Having read the arguments, I've come to the conclusion that indeed, instead of adding new unit/vehicle types to the game it would be better to fix the games other obvious errors that have been mentioned.

In particularly, I'd like to see some sort of method where I can stop being an NCO and become an Officer. I've mentioned it before, the game turns players into NCOs. It makes them plan and carry out every little movement to ensure success of an overall plan whereas if we were Officers, we'd merely designate an objective and the manner in which it was to be attacked and off would go the troops and do it. Perhaps I'm unusual in that respect but I'd prefer to give orders to my troops rather than play the NCO and tell them how to carry those orders out.

I'd also like to see some sort of effort to make the game integrated with sort of campaign manager. Make it easier to play campaigns with perhaps a game finish report which can in turn form the basis for the preliminary planning for the next battle?

Finally, perhaps just for cosmetic sake, the "skins" I mentioned earlier, to allow individual vehicles to be seen, rather than having one type only of each vehicle.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

another high priority issue might be the modelling of small arms, particularly the 'fire lanes' of the machineguns... instead of 'point to point' between firer and target, checking all points in between (and beyond if necessary)...

In line with that, since this thread has clearly turned into a wish list, I would like for it to longer be possible to fire through friendly units with impunity. Depending on such variables as relative height of firer, target, and intervening units, the program should check to see if there have been any friendly casualties. This would also apply to units beyond the target, though perhaps less forcefully.

Michael

[reinald@berlin.com]

Originally posted by eichennudler:

Any one is free to pick the gameplay they like.

What furthermore irritates me is your oscillating between a mission oriented snatch-the-General FPS and a grand strategy game. No game can fill both slots. I got the impression your wish list is not well thought over.

Whinnie!

[General Bolt]

What we really need is a BROTHEL. All troops that move thru that building get a morale boost of 1000%. Routing is imposssible except back to a upstairs room of the brothel.

[manchildstein (ii)]

on the topic of 'becoming an officer instead of an nco,' hopefully the 'standard operating procedures' (sops) of the new game will create just that effect... i'm thinking that with sops, the 'operational' level that some of us have strived for in cmbo/b will then be within easier grasp... in other words it will be possible to have less micromanagement - aside from setting up the sops 'beforehand' - and thus command more units... admittedly, in cmbb the 'battalion-level' (and beyond) stuff can be a 'bit much' when trying to manage all of the units... so the new game will hopefully allow micromanagement but at the same time allow reliance upon sops 'instead'...