Lt Belenko Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 I planned hooking up my old CRT monitor as a second screen. Opening CMBO and CMBN to translate the oldies favorite scenarios to the new system. I hope my machine can run CMBO and CMBN at the same time...Where the heck is that CMBO disk? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Springelkamp Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 They both run full screen. I doubt they can each use a screen separately. Aren't both screens part of the desktop? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staffan Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 I'd propably start with the baby steps in the editor (Never really mastered the editor in CM:SF). My goal would be designing some defense scenarios, company sized units or less for defender, my main objective being realistic, playable but not necesarily historic battles. playability and replayability would be the key here. Staffan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 They both run full screen. I doubt they can each use a screen separately. Aren't both screens part of the desktop? You are correct. <ALT><Tab> is the solution on a single monitor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Another warning to the overly-ambitious scenario designer, bigger is not always better. For an infantry battle especially a 2x2km+ map often means going on a long dull walk before finally fighting over the usual 500mx500m patch of ground. Its especially embarrassing when the two maneuvering armies entirely miss eachother! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic viking Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 I am tinkering with a CMBN scenario based around one of my favourite Avalon Hill Panzer Leader scenarios (Situation no. 8, Marieulles), one which has a very uneven force balance, but balanced victory conditions. This scenario gave me a taste for "play the cards you are given", which I miss in most war games. The interesting thing for me when starting to do the research on this was that the scenario was a lot bigger than I thought it was, as in Panzer Leader each marker is a platoon. So three 88 anti-tank markers turn out to represent 12 guns and the scenario becomes a lot bigger than I originally anticipated. So I'll be investigating taking a piece of it and see if I can't make a good small scale scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 My PanzerLeader still has hand-drawn markers on the reverse of each counter displaying "reduced" units of a single vehicle or gun since if that happens to be an 88 it can still tilt a battle. Loved that game as well as Arab-Israeli wars, better than ASL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 Still have all the Advanced Squad Leader map boards and battle sets. Analog gaming at its finest.. when a cat walking across a table could change the course of a war. I have the books and reference materiels in boxes somewhere to make historical scenarios, but there are folks out there that would blow me away at design and implementation. I will let them at it and enjoy the fruits of their labors of love. Maps, maps and more maps for me for now. Already working on sketches and trying to find my CMBB disc so I can look at my old maps. I prefer making larger maps that can then be chopped as needed by the consumer. Once the tools are fully understood I will probably make a full-monty max-size map with various terrains and possible objectives just for fun. Small unit numbers on large maps is nice if the set up zones and objectives are placed intelligently. 4km x 4km map with objectives in the center and the set up zones are 2km+ in from the edges in small boxes at 45 degrees may be fun. Keep the timer short, forces small, and objectives clear. No one will wander off for a "flanking attack". Doing this all but eliminates any calls of gamey bastageness, as the edges are too far away from either setups or objectives to be meaningful. It also helps with the small map visual disadvantage, where everything gets plain and green so close to anywhere that immersion is lost. larger maps just look nicer for the people in the fight. Knowing.. just like a RL commander... that you "could" go off in any direction is not the same as being able to do it with the forces and mission at hand. * 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Small unit numbers on large maps is nice if the set up zones and objectives are placed intelligently. 4km x 4km map with objectives in the center and the set up zones are 2km+ in from the edges in small boxes at 45 degrees may be fun. Keep the timer short, forces small, and objectives clear. No one will wander off for a "flanking attack". Doing this all but eliminates any calls of gamey bastageness, as the edges are too far away from either setups or objectives to be meaningful. Knowing.. just like a RL commander... that you "could" go off in any direction is not the same as being able to do it with the forces and mission at hand. The problem with that approach if I understand what you are getting at is that in Normandy the front was pretty much continuous and unit boundaries were pretty clearly defined. Straying across a boundary was sternly discouraged as it could lead to blue on blue incidents as well as traffic jams and units becoming intermingled. If "edge hugging" is a problem, I wonder if there isn't another fix. Would it be possible in the current engine to have friendly forces on the map that are completely out of control of the player? If so, the way it would work is that they would serve as adjacent units or parts of units. So it an attacking unit strayed into their zone while trying to flank the defenders under the control of an opponent, it would come under fire from these defending units not under control. I don't know if such a gambit is possible, but if so it would make matters more interesting. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 The problem with that approach if I understand what you are getting at is that in Normandy the front was pretty much continuous and unit boundaries were pretty clearly defined. Straying across a boundary was sternly discouraged as it could lead to blue on blue incidents as well as traffic jams and units becoming intermingled. If "edge hugging" is a problem, I wonder if there isn't another fix. Would it be possible in the current engine to have friendly forces on the map that are completely out of control of the player? If so, the way it would work is that they would serve as adjacent units or parts of units. So it an attacking unit strayed into their zone while trying to flank the defenders under the control of an opponent, it would come under fire from these defending units not under control. I don't know if such a gambit is possible, but if so it would make matters more interesting. Michael This could be abstracted by simply defining the unit boundaries with dense linear minefields. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 This could be abstracted by simply defining the unit boundaries with dense linear minefields. Now that would be gamey. :eek: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted April 23, 2011 Author Share Posted April 23, 2011 I like the 'bot' edge defenders idea. Probably won't see it for a while, but it does seem to be a more realistic way to abstract the battle boundaries. Random 'bot' off-map mortars land on units too close to edge, HMG fire comes in from off-edge or something. I already have fixes in my designs to stop edging. The "force field" of mines has been done, and yes, gamey to the max. My preference for larger maps in smaller battles is based on the graphic immersion factor more than anti-edging or historical realism. Two short Companies meet at a crossroads, with the roads and terrain stretching out for kilometers... but the objective and the enemy is right there near the center. It's prettier than the postage stamp in the field of green, even if it takes longer to make. Plus, if your artillery is way off you still get to see where it lands. * 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosseau Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 There is great pleasure in designing an historical engagement to a "T". And then, you find it utterly boring to play. There are ways around it like Plastic Viking's "play the cards you are given" strategy. I don't think CMBN will ever be boring. But with most wargames now, I am designing the most fun and challenging (if ahistorical) situations imaginable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Nothing more than a reinforced Company on large map with RT/pause. Not a lot of vehicles either, just enough to support. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 In CMx1 you could use a plethora of locked-down bunkers to represent flanking units. They were (fairly) hard to kill, and your opponent couldn't move them. It's still an option for CMx2, just not as good because of the different way bunkers are handled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Excellent! If the idea of using bunkers occurred to me, the thought didn't stick long enough to make it onto the page. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tactical Wargamer Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Where is your RT/WEGO line? How big is too big to handle on the fly? Well in MP games I find more than a platoon somewhat harry. With NO pause and all. HEy and I am a FPS guy also 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 As purely as I can get...true-life historical, without a thought to "balance". I'll probably focus a bit on Mortain. Looking forward to it. I thoroughly enjoyed your Stalingrad operations for CMBB and the Anzio op for CMAK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Ferrous Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 From my experience with CM1 I'd say the best way to reduce edge effects is to make sure they're relatively open compared with a little way into the map. In other words don't anchor an edge with a thick wood which is just asking to be 'edge' infiltrated. And at all coasts do not put a road or lane along a mapedge! If/when I get this I hope to design a few things for historical/semi-historical players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic viking Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Still have all the Advanced Squad Leader map boards and battle sets. Analog gaming at its finest.. when a cat walking across a table could change the course of a war. I hadn't thought of it before you mentioned Squad Leader, but the scale of CMBN seems a lot more ASL like than I thought it would be. Which is fine, but it was just news to me (have stayed away from CMSF, as the period doesn't interest me.) I like your thoughts about map making. I'll try putting that into practice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normannobrot Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 fealing a saving private ryan scenario comng along..lol. gotta hold that bridge.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 If you guys are used to CMx1 map sizes and haven't tried anything in CMSF yet, then I think you will find that the map sizes in CMSF are much bigger in game relative to a similar sized map in CMx1. A 1km by 1km map in CMx1 doesn't seem all that big when you look at it in game, but in CMSF a 1km by 1km map seems absolutely massive. I've made some partial SL maps in CMSF and the difference between CMx1 and CMSF is striking. The maps also take a lot more work because there is more detail in the new maps with the 8m squares. A map that might take me a week to do in CMx1 would probably take me three or four weeks in CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 (moved to its own thread) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normannobrot Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 its a shame when making realy lage scenarios that you get the failed memory msg, believes its been brought up before on a thread somewhere on here, basicly due to the game engine not being able to support too much, with scenery and vehicles n all... main point im trying to make is that that is gona be worse in CBMN, as the terrain is far more detailed and built up than in CMSF.. we'll have to wait n see 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Build We Fight Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 To bad they didn't build a 64 bit version too, for more applied RAM. 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.