Denwad Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 say you've got the regular Sturm platoon in CMBB HQ has 1x MP-40 and 3x MP-44 squads have 2xk98 4x MP-44 1x MG-42 or something like that looking at the real KSTNs you see that each Sturm squad has NO lmg but rather EVERYONE has an assault rifle. would we be able switch between each depending on the situation, at differing cost or am i reading you wrong Battlefront.com? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 One of the threads in here has TsO&E not changeable This one [ August 27, 2005, 04:27 AM: Message edited by: flamingknives ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 The reductions of MP44s was on purpose... the Germans didn't have enough to go around to fill out TO&E. So if the real TO&E called for 9 we did not give them 9. Other than that we stuck to the real TO&E in every case. So if there is an LMG in a unit, then we have documenation that says it should be so Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 ... However, I am hoping that there is a *little bit* of flexibility off of the strick paper TO&Es. Giving Sturm squads less than the full complement of MP44s was, IMHO a good choice in CMX1. But there are other well documented departures from TO&Es. For example, US Army Units in the ETO borrowing SMGs & Carbines for extra close range firepower before heading into urban combat. I certainly don't want to see player ability to monkey with TO&Es with impugnity, but a little bit of flexibility around the edges (or even just the inclusion of "unofficial" TO&Es when and where supported by the historical record) would be nice. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Yes, we can certainly be more flexible with this, but the TO&E will still be hardcoded into the game and not user editable. Using your example of an urban reorg, we could simple create such a force and have it be purchasable for urban battles. That way you won't get gameybuggers using them in every other setting. People were pretty gamey with standard TO&E... just think about how many more miles they'll take if we give 'em another inch Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Works for me! Thanks for the response. I brought it up because I believe the Germans have an advantage in CMX1 that I suspect was unintentional, and is certainly unrealistic - because there are so many different German TOEs, there's much more choice for the German player in terms of matching his TOE to the battle conditions. Of course, RL German commanders rarely had the opportunity to chose from a wide variety of Platoon and Company types for a specific assignment. . . While it varies with the specific nation, time period and theatre, Allied TOEs tend to be much more "one size fits all", with fewer options to chosse from. In the RL big picture, I think this was actually a tremendous advantage -- it made logistics much easier. But on a tactical scale, smarter Allied commanders did show the perception to get more useful weapons, like SMGs, to front line troops when they were needed, and it would be great to see this reflected in the game. But I agree, no player editable TOEs; it would be way to open to abuse. But it would be absolutely great to have a few "unofficial" TOEs available for certain terrain/time periods like you describe. Thanks again! YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 If only an ounce of this BF philosophy was evident in the current WWII FPS genre, it would make for a much more interesting game. As it is, to escape the entire divisions of Thompson toting US infantry, you have to stick to CM.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Hehe... or worse, an entire division of guys toting Thompsons, Garands, Carbines, and Colt pistols... plus whatever enemy weapons they happen to pick up Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Hehe... or worse, an entire division of guys toting Thompsons, Garands, Carbines, and Colt pistols... plus whatever enemy weapons they happen to pick up Steve Are you saying that soldier in CMx2 can pick up enemy weapons DURING the game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Any chance you could hard code TO&E's for Quick Battles but make them flexible in the editor? That way scenario designers could make realistic scenarios for situations that you won't want to release games on, like the Chaco War or WW I. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McClaire Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 It would certainly be nice to get the ability to edit individual vehicles and soldiers (and set the CoC) in the scenario editor. That way scenario design grogs and campaign GMs can get exactly what they need to reproduce a specific battle, but it wouldn't affect the hard-coded TO&E available to the quick battle players. Seems sort of silly NOT to allow the scenario designer this sort of flexibility, to correct TO&E errors (like in many of the US units in CMAK) and to create unit types that BFC doesn't choose to implement as hard coded TO&Es (US Cavalry Squadron, for example, or even 4 tube 105mm batteries). Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Panzer76, I was simply continuing with the example of other games. In particular I had a specific WWII FPS game in mind when I made my last post. No, we have no desire nor ability to make an open ended "wargame construction kit". They never work right and are a development project from Hell. We're as apt to do that as we are to put bullets in our heads Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by Steve McClaire: It would certainly be nice to get the ability to edit individual vehicles and soldiers (and set the CoC) in the scenario editor. That way scenario design grogs and campaign GMs can get exactly what they need to reproduce a specific battle, but it wouldn't affect the hard-coded TO&E available to the quick battle players. Seems sort of silly NOT to allow the scenario designer this sort of flexibility, to correct TO&E errors (like in many of the US units in CMAK) and to create unit types that BFC doesn't choose to implement as hard coded TO&Es (US Cavalry Squadron, for example, or even 4 tube 105mm batteries). Steve You're apparently not a businessman. So if I buy the St. Lo game, mod all the TO&E to replicate the Polish Armoured Division at Maczuga - will I really be likely to buy the Maczuga game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 (watches his dreams of recreating the Chaco War fade into the dust and mirages of the Gran Chaco)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 If it IS WWII, and it involves U.S. forces, I personally hope we get more varied and more accurate OBs and TO&Es. But I suspect that a lot of that might get taken care of with 1:1 and different "portage capacities" for vehicles. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McClaire Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: You're apparently not a businessman. So if I buy the St. Lo game, mod all the TO&E to replicate the Polish Armoured Division at Maczuga - will I really be likely to buy the Maczuga game?There's a slight difference between being able to accurately depict a unit that the game developer chose not to include and being able to change the entire force to use the weapons and organization of an entirely different army. I didn't ask for Brens and Stens in my US units. I only asked to be able to create a US unit that was TO&E and/or situationally accurate, rather then being locked into the 'stock' TO&E. If I am given this ability in CMx2 I am much more likely to keep buying the various modules. I'm also much more likely to run / be involved in multi-player campaign games involving CMx2, which is a sales multiplier. Yes, give the customer a minor feature they want. What a poor business decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by Steve McClaire: You couldn't join a campaign with stock TOE? That's a bit of a stretch. They had plenty of multi-player campaigns with the abysmal TOEs of CMBO. Seems they had some with CMBB and CMAK also. *shrugs* I bet you buy the first CMX2 release regardless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Steve It's a 'minor' feature when BFC says it is, since they do the coding. From what you are asking it looks not minor to me, but I would not presume to know better than Charles what qualifies as minor. You are also presuming that BFC are going to repeat errors in TO&E that they made in the past. Maybe. But there are two things I would hope work against that happening. First, it has been rumoured that even Steve is capable of learning from mistakes (the jury is still out on Matt, but he is more skilled in the use of the BAN button, so let's not go there), and secondly, with a much reduced scope, there is more of an opportunity to get it right. So instead of having to research the Romanian Mountaineer organisation of early 1943, Steve and others can go to town on the exact organisation of US squads in the assault on St. Lo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McClaire Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 If CMx2 has a 1:1 representation of each soldier the data on a per-soldier basis has to be present at some point. Unless there's some limitation of the design (like they don't generate the individual soldier data until you start to play the battle) it's not rocket science to let the user edit it. As Mr. Dorosch so brilliantly argues, I probably will buy CMx2 even without this feature. And I am sure people will still make campaigns using it (In fact I've been involved with the CMMC for years and am quite familiar with the limitations of the current CM/BB/AK scenario editor). But neither of these is a reason to NOT allow users to edit unit compositions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by Steve McClaire: If CMx2 has a 1:1 representation of each soldier the data on a per-soldier basis has to be present at some point. Unless there's some limitation of the design (like they don't generate the individual soldier data until you start to play the battle) it's not rocket science to let the user edit it. But it maybe much more complicated to create a code that lets you edit it only for scenarios, and not for QBs. There is no point arguing about it here, since neither of us knows. It maybe dead easy, it may not be. I was quite involved in CMMC as well until the point when the lack of non-user edited rules did it in for me with the development of CMMC2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McClaire Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by Andreas: ...It maybe dead easy, it may not be.So either way, what's the harm in asking for it? Either they will do it or they won't. But if no one says they want it, it's a lot more likely they won't, neh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 29, 2005 Share Posted August 29, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Yes, we can certainly be more flexible with this, but the TO&E will still be hardcoded into the game and not user editable. Using your example of an urban reorg, we could simple create such a force and have it be purchasable for urban battles. That way you won't get gameybuggers using them in every other setting. People were pretty gamey with standard TO&E... just think about how many more miles they'll take if we give 'em another inch Steve You know, Steve, it's a different thing to have gamey purchases in Quick Battles (God I detest QB's!) and having flexibility in scenario design. You don't need to allow Quick Battlers to go cherrypicking to give more freedom to scenario makers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Originally posted by Steve McClaire: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas: ...It maybe dead easy, it may not be.So either way, what's the harm in asking for it? Either they will do it or they won't. But if no one says they want it, it's a lot more likely they won't, neh? </font> 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.