yacinator Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 well michael no disrespect but this forum is called what we want in the next combat mission game so i'm talking about the next combat mission game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 **** double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Originally posted by yacinator: well michael no disrespect but this forum is called what we want in the next combat mission game so i'm talking about the nextcombat mission game Well, no, the forum is called Combat Mission: Afrika Korps. The thread is called "What do we want in the next Combat Mission game". The point being IMO that a non-WW II game might likely carry a different name in order to signal to the buying public the fact that it represents a significant break with the existing line of games. But the hope is that before they choose to go down that road, BFC will upgrade its line of WW II games to the best possible based on the experience accumulated through the production and playing of the existing three games. Anyway, that was my thought on the subject just in case you were wondering. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by yacinator: well michael no disrespect but this forum is called what we want in the next combat mission game so i'm talking about the nextcombat mission game Well, no, the forum is called Combat Mission: Afrika Korps. The thread is called "What do we want in the next Combat Mission game". The point being IMO that a non-WW II game might likely carry a different name in order to signal to the buying public the fact that it represents a significant break with the existing line of games. But the hope is that before they choose to go down that road, BFC will upgrade its line of WW II games to the best possible based on the experience accumulated through the production and playing of the existing three games. Anyway, that was my thought on the subject just in case you were wondering. Michael </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 20: Covered already by AP mines 25: Covered already by; Fords, marsh and soft ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 whatever i meant thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 i'm just saying what i think should be in the next cm game. i'm entitled to my opinion and u r entitled to yours. this is just brainstorm and hopefuly bfc will consider what we r saying and put in the game. plz don't supress any ideas they r all good (most of them anyway). a game in the modern time or nam would add many new gameplay possibilities and tactics and that's why i'm lobying for it. most of what i'm suggesting applies to a ww2 game too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Meanwhile, back here in CMAK, I'm bored sh**less by having to choose from the limited range of Allied options, while my Axis-loving buddies are down at the supermarket confronted with a zillion different choices of equipment and troops. In the next re-incarnation of CM, could the Gods in charge try to make the Allies a bit more interesting to choose from? Good God! Every last Commonwealth Force has the same crappy anti-tank rifles (or PIATs later on) and the same useless, ****ty little mortars. Every last nationality. At all times! BORING. BORING. BORING. BORING!!!!! Look, guys. I know you're military grogs and all that crap. But was it as bad as you make it seem!!! No variety at all? None whatsoever? Do the Axis lads and their incredibly infinite variety of choices ever get penalised for a lack of spare parts and supplies? Not that I can notice! Do the Allied lads and their stupefyingly dull range of choices ever get any sort of practical benefit for having to choose from only a couple of models of highly standardised gear. Not that I can notice! Of all the reforms I'd like to see in CM2, should it remain a WW11 game, is some kind of reflection, or reform, of the ludicrous gulf between Axis variety (and its problem with supplies) and Allied conformity (and its benefit with supplies). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurtzDonut Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 I WANT GREAT FUNERAL PYRES, IN CORNFIELDS, MADE FROM TELEGRAPH POLES, WITH DEAD COWS PILED ON TOP, SURROUNDED BY LOCAL FARM LADS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 REVS, you're mistaking the tactical level, which CM represents, to the operational or strategic level. (again?) You could always agree that German forces have less than full ammo or less than full headcount in all your QBs, or simply play scenarios. The 2" mortar isn't as bad as all that, and it was issued at the platoon level in every Commonwealth army. The British army still uses the 51mm mortar, which is a modern version of the same thing. A couple of issues that could be addressed; The smoke in CM seems a little undermodelled, compared to wartime documents on it's use. Amounts of SMGs in Commonwealth battalions should be nearly infinately variable by the end of the war, IMHO, as these weapons were kept in pools at infantry HQs for use when required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Originally posted by dalem: So does this mean "no claymores"?Not necessarily. As I recall, there was a Scottish commander of Commandos (forget his name at the moment) who always went into battle swinging one. The original kind of course: a BIG basket hilt sword. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Originally posted by yacinator: plz don't supress any ideas...Who's supressing anything? Did you have any post censored? Were you threatened with banning? If so, let me know and I will protest it. As it seemed to me, you had your say and I had mine. That's what the board is for. I thought your ideas should not be suppressed, but just expressed in a more appropriate forum, and I said so. But that's just my personal opinion. I don't represent any official voice of BFC. And I would not presume that I speak for every other poster on the board either. Coming back to the game, neither you nor I will decide what form it will take. That's solely in BFC's hands, and they aren't divulging any details yet. ...they r all good (most of them anyway).Heh, that might be debated. But actually, I thought so myself, in the proper time and place however. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 Apart from the obvious improvements to the AI, 3D modelling and artwork, I'd like to see QB Operations. I think that's an overdue addition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 i was just trying to say : don't tell ppl to go move to other forums. maybe "supress" was a too powerful word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinetree Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: So does this mean "no claymores"?Not necessarily. As I recall, there was a Scottish commander of Commandos (forget his name at the moment) who always went into battle swinging one. The original kind of course: a BIG basket hilt sword. Michael </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by yacinator: i was just trying to say : don't tell ppl to go move to other forums.Why not? It was a "good idea" (in your words.). Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 no it wasn't. how bout from now on we just talk about what should be in the next cm game not that other crap. ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Ninjas who wail on guitars. Ninjas who pork hot babes whilst wailing on guitars. Ninjas who flip out and kill everyone. Frisbee-eating suicide ninjas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Flamingknives wisely wrote REVS, you're mistaking the tactical level, which CM represents, to the operational or strategic level. (again?) You could always agree that German forces have less than full ammo or less than full headcount in all your QBs, or simply play scenarios. Well, I'd like million dollars every time an Axis opponent agreed to lower ammo levels! It ain't gonna happen. I do happen to comprehend the difference between tactical and strategic levels, but the point is that the whole point of strategic advantages is that they do trickle down, sometimes flood down, to the tactical level. I'd say that this game pays a bit too much respect to the tactical notion of what various forces should have had, in theory, and turns a Nelsonian blind eye to the grim reality of what the strategic situation forced upon them. Strategy and tactics ARE related. Strategy is designed to filter downwards to the tactical in its many applications, time and again in every situation. That's what strategy's purpose is – to affect tactics again and again. Where the two concepts meet in Combat Mission is the supermarket: the allocation of costs to unit purchases, rarity, ammo levels, etc. At this point in time, I don't think they've got it right. One example: fuel shortages. Where is there any limit on how far Axis boys can drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by Soddball: Ninjas who wail on guitars. Ninjas who pork hot babes whilst wailing on guitars. Ninjas who flip out and kill everyone. Frisbee-eating suicide ninjas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 What I'd like to see in the next CM game... * Railway cannos, ( offboard ) * Remote controlled vehicles like the Ladungsträger "Goliath", * Motorbikes for recon units, * "Smart" behaviour of soldiers under fire, I don't want to see any more of this "Hey, we are under fire, come on, let's panic and crawl towards the enemy instead of staying in our foxhole / trench / whatever." - behaviour...please! * I would like to see a little more detailed info about casualities. Example: 9 soldiers killed/wounded <---- ? Why can't it just be: 4 soldiers KIA / 3 ligthly wounded / 2 serious wounded ? Regards, Sven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by REVS: Flamingknives wisely wrote </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> REVS, you're mistaking the tactical level, which CM represents, to the operational or strategic level. (again?) You could always agree that German forces have less than full ammo or less than full headcount in all your QBs, or simply play scenarios. Well, I'd like million dollars every time an Axis opponent agreed to lower ammo levels! It ain't gonna happen. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 OK, Flamingknives, agree to disagree. No Axis opponent is going to agree to self-weakening. It ain't gonna happen. I know what you mean about Axis lads only committing to a fight when they've scrounged X litres of fuel and miraculously found the spares for the Mk IV and the ammo for the shrecks, but nowhere in the QB side of Combat Mission is this ever-so-slightly acknowledged. Scenarios are one option, but that's only one part of the Combat Mission thing. I'm not into scenarios. I'm into buying my own gear, fighting another guy who buys his own gear, and this game is imbalanced for that situation. The German shopper in a "buy-your-own" game, one of the options often used in CM, is given a major advantage over his opponents. As they say in the classics, please fix or sumfink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 You're not seeing it in QBs because you're not using the fitness, headcount and ammo level settings. while the points cost doesn't change for ammo, and it should, it does for headcount and fitness. The whole " I'm into buying my own gear, fighting another guy who buys his own gear" is enormously ahistorical. How often did a battalion or company commander get to choose what he had available? Your entire argument on this aspect revolves around weakening the Axis player. The points values, as far as I can tell, are balanced, so it wouldn't be a fair game if you penalise one side. There's got to be a million and one ways to sort out your percieved Axis imbalance. Try playing random force mixes or random maps. In addition, there's a great many people out there who just might take up the challenge of a weaker side - beating the odds, if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 Originally posted by REVS: Flamingknives wisely wrote </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> REVS, you're mistaking the tactical level, which CM represents, to the operational or strategic level. (again?) You could always agree that German forces have less than full ammo or less than full headcount in all your QBs, or simply play scenarios. Well, I'd like million dollars every time an Axis opponent agreed to lower ammo levels! It ain't gonna happen. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts