Two small "not for the first game" notes

[flamingknives]

No, no. It's Combat Mission: Nastrovia! (Vodka drinking simulation)

[Bamse]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I noted the "CMNx2" typo but decided to leave it in for the fun of it. Sometimes it is fun to throw chum at the sharks (like when you're in a large, steel ship and not the Orca II )

Ermm!

Sorry Steve, but that was a realy lame excuse!

I would have bought it if you said "shrugg" N is close to M. But you noticed and then decided to let it in. For the fun of it?

I like Normandy. A good first choice for the first game with the new enginge. Arnhem for the expansion? Hope you decide to take some less comersial conflicts in later games.

Any new words on the campaign? Please let the first screnshoots show some sort of campaignmap or somefink.

/Björn Elfström

[Thomm]

Sorry to disturb the party, but:

How can the height increment on a 1x1 meter grid be as large as 1 meter!??! Think of the terrible steps that would be produced by that!

Certainly there is some misunderstanding here.

Charles numbers indicate that he uses 2 bytes for coding in the local elevation, giving 65,536 possible height values. Since it does not make sense to allow for 65 km high mountains, the local terrain level can be resolved much finer than 1 meter, not?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Cpl Steiner]

I've read all the above and am a bit surprised that no-one has mentioned the problem of small vehicles carrying passengers. I routinely split squads in order to fit them on vehicles that can only carry a team.

Is this considered gamey too?

[Kwazydog]

Thomm, yup, its a misunderstanding

The height grid is set at a 1m resolution across the map, but the actual height at each point on that grid can actually be set down to the millimetre I beleive. Does that make more sense?

Dan

[Thomm]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Does that make more sense?

Now I shall sleep like a baby!

Good night (Middle Europe),

Thomm

[Battlefront.com]

Rollstoy,

No, what it means is there can only be a height indicated every 1m in any direction. The actual hight specified can be anything you want down to a millimeter. This means if you want a gentle slope for 100m with a max height of 1m, you can do this. Each meter the height would go up by a single mm so that every meter traveled would only increase your elevation by 1mm. That make sense?

Cpl Steiner, in a sense this is gamey. Small capacity vehicles are not meant to carry Squads, but small Teams. Taking a 12 man Rifle Squad and splitting it up into 4 pieces so it can fit in 4 Jeeps is in theoretically possible in the real world, but how many times in a CM style battle would you expect to see something like that?

Steve

[junk2drive]

In my Vietnam battles I use Stuart Reeces to simulate M113 APCs. I have to split squads to fit them all in. Rejoining them adds to the challenge IMO.

[junk2drive]

Since we don't know the timeframe of CMx2

From globalsecurity.org

USA Bradley

"The M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle [iFV] is a fully tracked, lightly armored vehicle that offers significant improvements over the M113 series of armored personnel carriers. The M2 possesses greater power, greater acceleration, and an advanced suspension for a significant increase in cross-country speed. Like the M113, the primary purpose of the M2 is to carry infantryman on the battlefield, and transport and support them with fire if necessary. The M2 Bradley carries a crew of three (Commander, Gunner & Driver) and a six-man Infantry section into combat.

The M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle [CFV] is exactly the same chassis as the M2 IFV with some minor internal differences. The M3 is a cavalry/scout vehicle, instead of carrying 6 dismounts in the payload compartment, the M3 carries a pair of scouts, additional radios, ammunition, and TOW and Dragon or Javelin missile rounds. In fact, the only noticeable differences between the M2 and the M3 are that the external firing ports for the squad M16s are absent on the M3. "

IOW less than a 10-12 man squad.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Rollstoy,

No, what it means is there can only be a height indicated every 1m in any direction. snips

Is it possible to get the map edditor to interpolate the height between 2 locations? So, over here I set the height at 2m, and over there I set it at 4m, and the engine works out the intervening heights to get a smooth slope in between? Simple concept in 2 dimensions, trickier in 3 I suppose. Setting contour rings explicitly, then having the engine interpolate between those would be absolutely wonderful though.

Regards

JonS

[Cpl Steiner]

Cpl Steiner, in a sense this is gamey. Small capacity vehicles are not meant to carry Squads, but small Teams. Taking a 12 man Rifle Squad and splitting it up into 4 pieces so it can fit in 4 Jeeps is in theoretically possible in the real world, but how many times in a CM style battle would you expect to see something like that?

Steve

I think this rules out tanks that only have room for a team on top. They aren't dedicated to the transport of specialist teams. They just carry what they can. Panzer II for instance.

[Philippe]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Cpl Steiner, in a sense this is gamey. Small capacity vehicles are not meant to carry Squads, but small Teams. Taking a 12 man Rifle Squad and splitting it up into 4 pieces so it can fit in 4 Jeeps is in theoretically possible in the real world, but how many times in a CM style battle would you expect to see something like that?

Steve

I'm not going to argue this point one way or the other, because I haven't thought enough about it to have convinced myself that I have an opinion worth airing in public.

That being said, it probably is gamey. That's why the French did it in 1914. The taxis of the Marne won't show up in a CM scenario very often, but when they do don't be surprised if you get overrun by a bunch of pissed-off poilus.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:

The only think I'll miss under those new conditions is the ability to split off a small team to act as a picket or scout.

Yep. I think the game really cries out for something like this. In the past I have used sharpshooters and anti-tank teams for this kind of thing, but that's really a jackleg makeshift workaround that leaves me feeling dirty afterwards.

Michael

[JonS]

You are dirty.

[David Chapuis]

This quote

First of all, Squads now behave as teams (2-3, depending) which removes the "leapfrog" problem associated with CMx1's solid Squads. In our opinion this was the biggest problem with CMx1's Squad modeling, and now it is fixed.

and another by Dorosh

a squad with an LMG team and a rifle team would generally send the rifle team forward with grenade and bayonet to close with any enemy positions in the final seconds of an assault; hope they do this in game as well.

Those really make me wish I had an explanation to how the squad footprint will look. Asked previously here:

footprint thread

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

In my Vietnam battles I use Stuart Reeces to simulate M113 APCs. I have to split squads to fit them all in. Rejoining them adds to the challenge IMO.

But they weren't intended to be used that way - most countried design their infantry sections around the latest model of APC, not the other way around. In Vietnam, they usually rode on top of the M113s because they were so vulnerable to B-40s and mines.

The infantry sections in Canada have always been laid out to correspond to the latest APC - be it the Grizzly, the LAV III, or what have you.

Steve is correct; splitting a squad up between vehicles - can't think of anyone that actually did that.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

Since we don't know the timeframe of CMx2

From globalsecurity.org

USA Bradley

"The M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle [iFV] is a fully tracked, lightly armored vehicle that offers significant improvements over the M113 series of armored personnel carriers. The M2 possesses greater power, greater acceleration, and an advanced suspension for a significant increase in cross-country speed. Like the M113, the primary purpose of the M2 is to carry infantryman on the battlefield, and transport and support them with fire if necessary. The M2 Bradley carries a crew of three (Commander, Gunner & Driver) and a six-man Infantry section into combat.

The M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle [CFV] is exactly the same chassis as the M2 IFV with some minor internal differences. The M3 is a cavalry/scout vehicle, instead of carrying 6 dismounts in the payload compartment, the M3 carries a pair of scouts, additional radios, ammunition, and TOW and Dragon or Javelin missile rounds. In fact, the only noticeable differences between the M2 and the M3 are that the external firing ports for the squad M16s are absent on the M3. "

IOW less than a 10-12 man squad.

What I get from this is that they simply re-organized the infantry section from 10 men down to 6, to fit inside the IFV.

[stoat]

You wouldn't necessarily need any reorganization. You could just divide and load by fire team.

[stoat]

Actually Dorosh, you were right. The dismount teams of the mechanized platoons consist of six men.

[Battlefront.com]

The current Bradley M2A2 takes a 7 man team + 3 man crew. Still less than a 9 man Squad, but it's pretty close.

Phillipe

That being said, it probably is gamey. That's why the French did it in 1914. The taxis of the Marne won't show up in a CM scenario very often, but when they do don't be surprised if you get overrun by a bunch of pissed-off poilus.

Yeah, but those taxis did not show up on the battlefield. That's why I clarified my point above by saying " how many times in a CM style battle would you expect to see something like that"

Steve

P.S. I'm locking up this thread because I need to start another one. You'll understand