gibsonm Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 So are we looking at some sort of OPCON, TACON type matrix where different elements have differing command and control relationships? E.g.: Your combat team has 2 x Eng Squads to improve the crossing at Blah. Whilst they are “yours” you can only use them for this task, not as “super infantry” to reinforce some assault. Perhaps Arty could have the same with Direct Spt, Reinforcing etc. so you knew which fire units could be relied on and which would require superimposition to guarantee fire on tgt. A Task Org matrix in the briefing would help with this (so you knew how much control you had over what and for how long). Also it would be good to be able to include a sketch map (trace if you will) with the briefing so you know a lot more before you get to the map (and don’t need to remember / refer back to the briefing). Sorry but I must have joined just after / avoided the great crash of ’99 (didn’t need to get a new number). [ February 21, 2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: On the other hand, when I see the Registered Dates I find myself saying "my God... where has the time gone!". Steve Well I was thinking the same thing. Its been almost five years in CMBO came out. Its good to see all the ideas you guys are putting out here. The more I read the more I'm looking forward to CMx2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Tom, We clearly are of the same CM generation… quite few more sad, old hands here too All good fun, All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrold Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 When is the first CMx2 patch coming out? Good discussion on this detail. I am definitely getting that familiar feeling of anticipation as mention of new features and possibilities get tossed around. It's also good to see Steve so active in the back and forth although I still picture Charles when I read his posts. I don't know why. It could be a tumor. BDH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrD Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Tanks leaving?! I don't like that, sounds like it's no fun and needlessly complex. Besides, how often this happen at CM's scale? Remember, a CM battle represents an actual firefight, often only 10-15 minutes or so. Would tanks really bug out in the heat of a firefight? I'd think they'd wait for a lull then leave. Seems like this would be significant in operations but not battles. Variable arty is more interesting and accurate, but may add too much variability to a scenario and make balance difficult. Time does fly, it seems like the night of the refresh monkeys was just last week, but since then I've been married, had 2 kids, and moved to a whole different part of the country! I haven't gained any weight, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Originally posted by Barrold: It's also good to see Steve so active in the back and forth although I still picture Charles when I read his posts. I don't know why. It could be a tumor. BDH Could be a 50mm shell in the noggin too - I just played a little QB and got Sgt. Moylan's tank brewed up by my carelessness. Sorry Charles! -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Originally posted by DrD: Tanks leaving?! I don't like that, sounds like it's no fun and needlessly complex. Besides, how often this happen at CM's scale? Not rarely, from what I've read. Remember, a CM battle represents an actual firefight, often only 10-15 minutes or so. Would tanks really bug out in the heat of a firefight? Yes. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Originally posted by DrD: [...] I'd like to see the ability to assign variable points for casaulties (by side) in a scenario. Thus, the briefing might be "take this town, but keep casualties down." In this case, the defender would receive more points for casualties than the attacker. An outnumbered defender can win by causing such casualties then withdrawing. Alternatively, the briefing might be "take that hill at all costs!" In that situation points for casualties would be minimal, objectives all. The variations are endless[...]I agree. Steve did hint about possible removal of points altogether, but I think what you suggest would be an interesting option. Panzerman did something like this in his excellent CSDT-Hilly Graveyard, where you must keep casualties below 10%. Maybe not the crazyest feature of all, but a smart addition IMO. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Examples for tanks buggering off: a) open almost any page in 'Roll me over' by Ganter. Well, any page after the Ardennes battles. Stug support for 101. Jaeger decided to not want to participate in the divisional attack during the May 1942 Kharkov battle when one Stug ran on a mine when moving out. The unit commander decided that he could not risk his Stugs in a minefield, and left the infantry to do the job by themselves (they later captured a few T34s and immediately pressed them into service). One presumes there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the infantry. c) Nashorn SP ATG repulsed a Soviet tank brigade attacking GR683 while it was moving back towards the Dnestr river. After the battle they were withdrawn, because they were needed elsewhere, despite strong indications that the Soviets would not take 'no' for an answer at GR683's position. The next day, with no AT support worth mentioning, the regiment was overrun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrD Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: Examples for tanks buggering off: a) open almost any page in 'Roll me over' by Ganter. Well, any page after the Ardennes battles. Stug support for 101. Jaeger decided to not want to participate in the divisional attack during the May 1942 Kharkov battle when one Stug ran on a mine when moving out. The unit commander decided that he could not risk his Stugs in a minefield, and left the infantry to do the job by themselves (they later captured a few T34s and immediately pressed them into service). One presumes there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the infantry. c) Nashorn SP ATG repulsed a Soviet tank brigade attacking GR683 while it was moving back towards the Dnestr river. After the battle they were withdrawn, because they were needed elsewhere, despite strong indications that the Soviets would not take 'no' for an answer at GR683's position. The next day, with no AT support worth mentioning, the regiment was overrun. But aren't these events taking place between the CM type "battle?" Tanks not participating in an assault would just mean no tanks available in the CM battle. I haven't read "a," so I'll take your word for it. "B" could easily be assumed to have taken place before turn 1, as it sounds like they were not yet in contact. "C" specifically state "after the battle." Also, wouldn't balance suffer? How does one write a balanced scenarion in which tanks are either randomly withdrawn or worse known to withdraw on a certain turn? Again, I like the idea overall, but let's keep in operations and out of battles. You'll still get the excitement of having no tanks in a battle when you thought you would, without the nitty-gritty of having them have to exit the map under fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 DrD - I tend to agree with you. Hence my previous post on the matter. As a scenario designer, I would only very very rarely use this feature if it was not much more sophisticated than the current reinforcement feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrD Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Ok then. BTW, I'd like to know more about that book. Do you recommend it? EDIT: I found it on Amazon, it looks great, so I ordered it. [ February 21, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: DrD ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: [...]a) open almost any page in 'Roll me over' by Ganter. Well, any page after the Ardennes battles.[...]I concur. I was thinking about the same book. Time and again tankers were rather anxious to keep a low profile. Often they would simply stay behind and refuse to expose their vehicles. In CMx2 terms, it's not exaclty the reassignment that was evoked earlier. Rather a reluctance to advance. This get us back to C&C concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Wittman Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Still here and still playing,"CMAK" and looking forward to more of the good stuff coming down the road! Just thought i'd say that. CheeZ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Assuming vehicles bug out outside the scope of the twenty-five minute engagement, perhaps a way to simulate this is to have two set-up phases instead of one. You set up. Nothing changes. You play as usual. The alternative is you set up, get a message that you're now missing that tank platoon, you redo your setup, you play. If the time-frame covered by CM battles runs longer, however, that approach does not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: DrD - I tend to agree with you. Hence my previous post on the matter. As a scenario designer, I would only very very rarely use this feature if it was not much more sophisticated than the current reinforcement feature. It would probably be best used in very long/large scenarios (if they exist in the new game) or for 'campaigns' or whatever campaigns are in the future. So on the second leg of a campaign game, you might start the game with a tank platoon recall, how fast you act on that will be in the back of your mind that whole 'scenario' of the campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Another variation is the Minor recall. Instead of the Total Recall (sorry) where tanks (assets) must leave, a minor recall might be the ordering to not lose any more tanks. This is modeled by doubling or tripling the victory point hit from any additional tanks that are lost in the scenario after the order is recieved. The tanks will be needed later but are still able to be used by the player but he must be extra careful. Again, forcing the player to take on a different character with those units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kipanderson: The Triple Digit Club I had a number in the 400s, but Steve brutally vaporized me in the Great Crash of ’99. (Tried to post when the system was down.) I have never recovered for the trauma of the sudden loss of status. All the best, Kip. yea! Me too SAME thing I am pretty sure I was one of the first 999 sign ups but my "good" triple digit number got smoked the same way. tried to post...... ...and poof! I needed a new number too. (but I am happy with 1515 its easy to remember!) -tom w </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 There was a major crash and I am sure a minor one (either before or after the major one). All members who survived the Great Crash of '99 had new numbers issued to them based on their name (alphabetical). Hence why our number is not #1 Actually, we do have another account that is #1 since it turned out it was a test account from when we moved off of the old shareware BBS software. But when I tried to switch this account's profile over to the #1 slot UBB had a fit. Oh well, at least it is a double digit Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Steve, time for a new bone to honour of the start third tread ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbell Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 This has probably already been mentioned, so I'll throw in another vote for it. An expanded briefing where you can put in images and maps, make the whole briefing experience richer and more creative. After all, if it CM was just about the technical aspects of battle tactics they wouldn't worry about the cool graphics. But those details do matter, and I think a richer briefing would add to the CM experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by willbell: This has probably already been mentioned, so I'll throw in another vote for it. An expanded briefing where you can put in images and maps, make the whole briefing experience richer and more creative. After all, if it CM was just about the technical aspects of battle tactics they wouldn't worry about the cool graphics. But those details do matter, and I think a richer briefing would add to the CM experience. Yep. Have a look at the top of this page (and perhaps earlier too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willbell Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Well then, it's aonther vote in support. Unfortunately, although I am an avid CM player, love the game and like to contribute ideas, I don't have the time to read all these posts. I'm just lucky to be able to keep some games going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McAuliffe Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: In general you will move units much the way you do in CMx1. Not exactly... but that gets into other areas that aren't as easy to explain at this stage. And as stated before, no 1:1 control allowed. Steve I wish I could read this as: "Plotting of waypoints stays. Not exactly...but we will implement some elaborated group commands in order to move your platoon – or bigger - sized units or vehicles around in various formations (diamond, wedge, line, echelon, column) by just plotting the waypoints of a designated "leader". The rest of the selected units will follow this "leader" in his footsteps or as per chosen pattern. This command will help you also to sort out the all jumbled up reinforcements with a couple of mouse clicks." Or am I wishful thinking again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Quick! Lock this thread and start a new one before we have another forum crash and I lose my three digit member number. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts