Normandy question

[WillyPete2171]

No! Do not "take your time" with CM:N. I'm sincerely happy for the modern warfare guys, but some of us are disinterested in CMA and NATO but still want to give you our money.

So with the release of the latest products, I hope it's full speed ahead with Normandy. Bring on the dedicated forum!

I dont know why, but Combat Mission Nato/ SHockforce never caught my attention. Ive been coming to these forums because Im into Theatre of War. However, I noticed the Nato Demo and downloaded it earlier today and WOW, it is a very nice game! I think I like it more than Theatre of War now... However, like you my real interest is WW2. I would rather see a WW2version of CM Nato! MG42s, Panzerfausts, Panthers, Shermans, BARS, ect ect!!!

[vincere]

Dealing with POWs is even more difficult to do as dealing with casualties. CMx1 didn't deal with first aid or mobility problems at all, CMx2 does to some degree. CMx1 had abstracted prisoner escorting, CM:SF had none. CM: Normandy has something inbetween. There is no prisoner escorting, but there are conditions which must be met to successfully capture enemy soldiers.

All of these things are incredibly difficult to simulate for one or more reasons. Over time I would like to see us evolve the system to be far more literal. Including having to specify collection points and what not. But that's for another day.

Steve

Nice bone. Does that include an aspiration to evolve the buddy aid/casevac system?

The mention of intel remind me of an idea that occured to me. That is that it would be nice to have triggers for a mid point brief or two. This could simulate new orders or information from higher formations. There are loads of variables, and I think it could add something to the immersion, simulation, and feedback. For example, a mid way brief ass-chewing for being sluggish on the objectives and then adding another objective to cover an area where En reserves are anticipated. A mid brief like this could be more realistic in simulating immediate prisoner intel.

Just an

[Michael Emrys]

The mention of intel remind me of an idea that occured to me. That is that it would be nice to have triggers for a mid point brief or two. This could simulate new orders or information from higher formations. There are loads of variables, and I think it could add something to the immersion, simulation, and feedback. For example, a mid way brief ass-chewing for being sluggish on the objectives and then adding another objective to cover an area where En reserves are anticipated. A mid brief like this could be more realistic in simulating immediate prisoner intel.

The problem with that is that it almost never happened in the time span covered by a single CM battle, especially during the WW II era. Maybe in a campaign between battles, but I am uneasy about how simple it would be to set that up technically. In short, I wouldn't expect to see your idea implemented any time soon if at all.

Michael

[umlaut]

No! Do not "take your time" with CM:N. I'm sincerely happy for the modern warfare guys, but some of us are disinterested in CMA and NATO but still want to give you our money.

So with the release of the latest products, I hope it's full speed ahead with Normandy. Bring on the dedicated forum!

Hear, hear!!

It´s great that you´ve released the NATO module, so you now finally will be able to focus on important matters.

So BFC-guys: Quit wasting precious time reading these irrelevant NATO threads and get on with the REAL work. There will be plenty of time for dealing with CMSF minutae once the CM2 Normandy through Ostfront series has been completed.

Now, get on with it

;-)

[Lethaface]

There are more than enough ww2 games already and who would want another hasty release?

Keep that idea in the box to ripen, these young kidz are so utter enthusiastic, they don't deserve it yet. There's a .303 in CMA already for that matter. Let them wait, that'll teach their impatience.

[vincere]

The problem with that is that it almost never happened in the time span covered by a single CM battle, especially during the WW II era. Maybe in a campaign between battles, but I am uneasy about how simple it would be to set that up technically. In short, I wouldn't expect to see your idea implemented any time soon if at all.

Michael

I agree with your point of interference likely being less in WW2, but it happens and at times in the time frme of CMSF. Personally I take CM time as abstract. 2 hr assault in CMSF could easily be 6 in RL. In that time Batalion and even battle group command have poked their nose in by accounts.

Currently you have the mission brief at start and it doesn't change as the battle is shapped. Don't get me wrong I aint complaining about SF, or lobbying. Just sharing a thought about getting more dynamic orders. Oh, nearly forgot, there's so much more on my wish list ahead of this sort of an idea.

[LJFHutch]

Personally I take CM time as abstract. 2 hr assault in CMSF could easily be 6 in RL.

You think? I've always thought it was 1:1 like the units.

[ASL Veteran]

You think? I've always thought it was 1:1 like the units.

Generally speaking, your ability to control your troops is much more .... "efficient" than how things would work in the real world. This is the cause of the in game time compression. It's not that your troops are walking any faster or your tanks or firing any faster than they would IRL, but rather it's that with the gamer in total control of moving everything the gamer can decrease the speed of the decision cycle pretty dramatically. The gamer is also not going to be worried that their next move will be the last one on this earth and will tend to value the lives of their pixeltruppen much less than real soldiers would value their own lives or the lives of their buddies or subordinates.

[scottie]

The gamer is also not going to be worried that their next move will be the last one on this earth and will tend to value the lives of their pixeltruppen much less than real soldiers would value their own lives or the lives of their buddies or subordinates.

This is why i feel being able to obtain as much information about your troops as possible is important , having the ability to name each squad member , showing kill stats. I helps build a relationship (for want of a better word) between that troop object and the user. Completely understand the argument against in game experience and promotions etc and im not suggesting that. But a half way house would help build that relationship , IMO this really adds to the whole game experience. Makes you care if they get shot !

[Rayak47]

I feel more like an old vet, why learn the new guy's name if he's gonna get wacked on the next mission!

[Michael Emrys]

I don't know. I always played this and other wargames to win at minimal or no losses to my own forces. That's just been an integral part of my style. As a result, I don't need any further prompting to get me to identify with my troops.

Michael

[Erwin]

Many consider it unrealistic to have troops become better (or worse) during a campaign. But, from WW2 reports at least it seems like one battle can turn one into a veteran. fter that it takes longer to get a lot better.

So, coupled with the ability to name troops so as someone said, one can have a "relationship" with core units at least would be a huge enhancement for the average wargamer market.

I know that DoD sims folks would not want that, but I think it's established that BFC has been very wise to NOT go after DoD contracts (those are a bitch).

[vincere]

Generally speaking, your ability to control your troops is much more .... "efficient" than how things would work in the real world. This is the cause of the in game time compression. It's not that your troops are walking any faster or your tanks or firing any faster than they would IRL, but rather it's that with the gamer in total control of moving everything the gamer can decrease the speed of the decision cycle pretty dramatically. The gamer is also not going to be worried that their next move will be the last one on this earth and will tend to value the lives of their pixeltruppen much less than real soldiers would value their own lives or the lives of their buddies or subordinates.

Yes that's the biggy. Off the top of my head other stuff would include, dealing with caualties, fire support, general confusion, lulls in the fire fight, fag and tea breaks for some nations.

[Battlefront.com]

This is what we call the "time compression" problem and it's pretty standard for most wargames. Part of it has to do with turn based thinking... which is to optimize each 60 seconds as its own battle, where in real life 6 minutes could easily go by with no action at all. This is where RealTime Mode in CM is a wee bit more realistic than WeGo. The inability to micromanage to the same extent as WeGo inherently reduces the quantity and complexity of Commands given. And with no cleanly chopped up time slices there's no artificial pressure to pack as much stuff as possible into any particular 60 seconds of the battle.

This is not to say that WeGo doesn't have its positive realism points and RealTime some weaknesses. They both have pros and cons. But in terms of time compression, I think it's pretty clear that RealTime offers some inherent solutions to this age old wargaming problem.

Forcing commanders, or low level units, to deal with casualties and other things also helps out. CMx2 has some of this in it, but obviously there is theoretical room for more.

Steve

[scottie]

I feel more like an old vet, why learn the new guy's name if he's gonna get wacked on the next mission!

Yeah but even vets wouldn't needlessly throw away the lives of his troops. I guess the CMSF new casualty win parameter helps a bit.

Not tired a CMSF campaign yet , not sure of the time frame of the battle after battle games. But say battle 1 loses a company commander ... should you going in to the next battle be able to pick a replacement ? in this circumstance surely an in company of battalion replacement would be put i place i.e in the confines of an operation. All im saying is let me pick the guy , would add to the game IMO.