Guest grunto Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: to be more like a Company Commander game Combat Mission would have to be changed into an entirely different game than it is now. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> hey maybe i can help you out here. i've got the beginnings of a company-level game. perhaps i could code it up and sell it on battlefront.com. it wouldn't be 3d but it would represent company level ww2 actions. it would be 'panzerblitz on steroids.' i had a board game prototype and it was quite the experience. a buddy of mine and i were playtesting all of these boardgames i was inventing. one was a theatre-level wwii to replace axis and allies. that was a trip. then we got off into the 'company commander' thing. (is there an actual game called company commander? we called our prototype that.) the 'coco' prototype was interesting because it came together as a 'realistic feeling' wargame almost immediately to the point where my buddy had almost no complaints. he even mentioned that it was strange - almost too good to be true. on the other hand, that dude was complaining all the time about my axis&allies replacement game. that thing went through several iterations. the best was where all the dice were taken out and chits were used so it was complete strategy and no luck. with 'coco' i've got an almost finished unit editor and lots of data to sort through and enter and the mapboards and terrain types are prototyped . who knows if i'll ever actually get around to it. would there be any demand for such a game on the computer? i figured if the system were good - and it uses 5-minute turns as murx was asking for - a graphics team could come in and turn the 2d into 3d. that was why i asked when i first started posting here whether you had a 2d version of combat mission because that was how i'd envisioned the ultimate development of coco. the thing is that on a company level i don't know if 3d is even interesting enough to be warranted. you guys have hit the sweet spot with the force levels you have combined with 3d. in any case if you would encourage me to write something for release on bts i might be up for it in my 'spare time.' have you ever thought of a meta game played on wireless devices? it could go from the politicians and generals down to the grunts. the grunt players could have combat mission and play out the actual battles at gaming combat mission gaming clubs with nothing but combat mission set up on the pcs. it would be the ultimate wwii re-enactment. andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto: for instance if you have a fast-move-crawl order and you get rid of the -move-crawl but keep the fast, then you can tack on another fast-move for example. has anyone else noticed this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you watch carefully you should see a pause between the old orders (that were given previously) and the ones you gave after you deleted several waypoints. It's pretty noticable when units are out of C&C, but if they're in C&C it will be the typical 8-13 seconds that you get for a new order on a healthy unit. It took me a while to notice it, but it is a pretty cool feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 You might find this intertesting: Scott C reports that this happened all in ONE minute: "Scott C Member posted 06-17-2000 01:14 PM I just finished a game of CE vs. the AI. AI was Germans with +75% forces. They only got 4 StuGs, though they did end up with a grand total of 15 infantry platoons. I nailed 3 of the StuGs for the loss of 1 Sherman. The final (buttoned!) StuG came into sight right at the end of a turn. During the orders phase, I check LOS for all my (unbuttoned!) Shermans. Range is about 250m. All 4 are hull down with at least 60% hit chance and OK to Good kill chance. The results after one turn: Shermans fire 10 shots. Closest miss ~20m. StuG fires 4 shots, brewing 4 Shermans. ------------------ Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories?" All that happened in ONE minute! I can't imagine this game the way it is in 5 minute increments the fate of the entire scenario could very easily hinge on one good or bad luck streak in ONE 5 minute turn. No, I like the one minute turns and think the WHOLE package works really well together as a GREAT WW II squad level, single tank turn based sim-move wargame. Its the BEST AI I have ever played. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aka PanzerLeader Posted June 18, 2000 Share Posted June 18, 2000 I also disagree about the longer turns. Not because "expect the unexpected", but because already the friendly Tac.AI has been very much criticized. If it's not even good enough to cope with armor that doesn't block LOS, then it definitely cannot compete on 5 mn turns. The friendly AI, even though it is great compared to other wargames, is just too weak to handle "the unexpected"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted June 18, 2000 Share Posted June 18, 2000 Hey Grunto If you need someone to do some 2d Graphics for "CoCo" - give me a buzz, I may be able to do something ------------------ Check out my CM mods, Music and artwork www.geocities.com/coolcolj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Pattison Posted June 20, 2000 Share Posted June 20, 2000 I'd agree to longer turns, if I could get my Squad Leaders together and explain to them in plain English/French/German/Polish/Celtic/Welsh what I wanted them to do. Until that happens, I think the command delay is more than enough penalty for not having a comprehensive 5 or 10 turn plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrD Posted June 20, 2000 Share Posted June 20, 2000 I just had an idea on how to simulate C+C dificulties in the Russian (or any) army. How about making it so that platoon leaders have to be in command of company commanders who in turn have to be in command of battalion etc? This would represent the lack of initiative of junior officers in the Soviet army. In game terms it would mean less flexibility in that all platoons of a certain company would have to be kept togethor. If a commander was out of command then all his subordinate units would be out of command too. Obviously higher commanders would need larger command radii. What do y'all think? [This message has been edited by DrD (edited 06-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murx Posted June 20, 2000 Author Share Posted June 20, 2000 Comandstructure up to Bt. HQ is a cool idea, but there should be only a additional delay for the sub HQs out of command. That way A company as one can still operate but with some restriction cause it's not aware of Bt.HQs higher plans. That would mean for example a Cp.HQ out of Commmand gets 15 sec delay and every Pl. gets that too, but the Pl. of that Cp. out of command would get 15 secs + another 15 secs. Still the delay should show the level of experience of the units. Thus a green team will need longer to figure out what next, a elite team will know what to do anyway. But then units should tend to get near their HQ when command is broken. murx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted June 21, 2000 Share Posted June 21, 2000 Trust me guys, in real life 60 seconds does feel like 5 mins in a battle. I think since it ain't broke, don't fix it!!! Ray ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." MantaRays 5 Pages Hardcore Gamers Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts