kipanderson Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Hi, This is a more straight forward one than my request for the ability to edit saved games. In CMX1 we cannot use fortifications such as trenches, nor more generally have troops dug in, as the attacker. Given that in the real world many battles will have taken place with both sides starting from foxholes and trenches this is unrealistic. No doubt a small price you pay for CMX1 being a first generation game of its type. In CMX2 will we be able to start a game with both sides in foxholes and trenches? Hoping we can… All good fun , All the best, Kip. [ February 11, 2006, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Hi Kip, In CMX1 we cannot use fortifications such as trenches, nor more generally have troops dug in, as the defender.Shouldn't that be as the attacker? Oh, and I agree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 flamingknives, thanks for the heads up on this . All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Good idea it makes sense to me. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Yeah, I'll vote for this too. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Fortifications for the Attacker- trenches, mines, etc - are already possible with the current engine, except for being dug in(fox-holes). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 But not in QBs. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Alright when I first read this I thought 'sure, why not'. After I thought about this though I think this would make quick battles even more unrealistic. As Flammenwerfer pointed out it can be done in scenarios, so not really talking about that, just the quick battles. One of my biggest problems with quick battles has been the question of "How did the attacker get there." I can just picture my soldiers. "Sir, there is what looks like a full company moving towards us." "How far are they away private" "About 1000 meters sir." "Ummmm ... and we are just noticing them now?! There are huge open fields, and I put all those spotters and guns up on the hills tops. What happened!" So I have always had the above problem but can get by it. Maybe spotting was poor. Maybe they were spotted the defenders just couldn't engage them at range. Maybe it was nap time. Whatever, it is a minor flaw that doesn't really seem correctable. But now I am trying to think about this with your suggestion. "Sir, we are being attacked by another company." "Let me guess, they are almost on top of us." "Yes sir. Oh, and they have dug a line of trenches by the road and built a couple concrete bunkers." "What! That must of taken weeks. Are you saying those guys have been down in that valley over there building bunkers? I can see a howitzer of ours right on that hill that can blast them at any time? What were you guys doing that you missed all that!!" "Well to be perfectly honest sir we saw them and thought about firing but decided that wouldn't be very sporting so we let them finish up building." Of course Kip is right and that both sides would have their own fortifications for their defenses. But most CM quick battles take place at relatively close ranges that it seems ridiculous to think the defenders would have given the attacker time to construct the fortifications. And while I am sure there are many specific instances of forces with relatively close fortifications I think that, for sake of realism, they are better handled in only scenarios. I think fortifications for the attacker in quick battle would create more gamey and unrealistic situation then they would realistic ones. On the other hand if they did a WWI game then I would say both sides should have fortification options. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: But not in QBs. Michael In QB's I doubt anyone misses having mines and roadblock on attack because Quick Battles are generic in nature. In scenario building, where you might want to do something very specific that doesn't adhere to the usual mission types, being able to have foxholes for both sides would be nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Well there are obvious ways round this and even explainations. "Soldier, how did those guys down their get all those trenches and bunkers"? "Eh they are the ones we dug last week sir, that they kicked us out of yesterday, Sir" In terme od QB's I see no reason why the available fortifications for the attacker can't be different or even have different costs. So only "quickly" layed mines, and no bunkers or pillboxes for attackers, and trenches at tripple cost. Oh and what about attacking units that start in foxholes having their fitness reduced by one level to handicap them for having just dug in.... Just some thoughts. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted February 12, 2006 Author Share Posted February 12, 2006 Hi, Yes… I had forgotten that one can have attackers in trenches but when building games I miss the ability to have both units fully dug in with foxholes and such. Which would be the way many battles, in fact probably most battles at this scale, will have started in the real world. Always one for self made operations, hence my ranting about the ability to edit saved games , I particularly miss the feature when building longer games and games for inclusion in operations. Where realism matters most. But of course realism always matters. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: But not in QBs. Michael When you play QBs the Terrorist win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.