Main Menu

CM 4.0 released

Started by RyanE, December 24, 2016, 09:24:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Dorosh

#120
Quote from: RyanE on December 24, 2016, 06:59:38 PM
Now that I can run it...

This a very subtle transformational change.  When CM2 started out, there were issues with defensively placed MGs not being able to effectively stop a small group infantry from approaching in the open.  They didn't fire often enough, the infantry didn't get suppressed fast enough, etc.  BFC made some good changes to fix that.  But one thing that was a disadvantage for the infantry is they clumped up and and always moved in a pretty straight column.  This allowed the fixed MGs to fire straight down the length of a squad and, once they had the range, mow the infantry down.  It was the one glaring issue in straight up open field infantry combat.  This upgrade seems to have fixed that now.   

I have an old MG test scenario in CMBN and now find that infantry approaching on a run will be stopped, but only after approaching within 300m.  My scenario has a simple HMG M1919 firing on a platoon on the move.  In the original CM2, the platoon could get within 150m and then gun down the MG crew.  In the fixed MG scenario, the MG stopped the platoon outside 500m, basically almost wiping out squads before they got pinned.  Now, the platoon gets to within 300m and then get gets pinned.  Now a real firefight develops at longer range.

I think this is a game changer for infantry combat and will push players to use real tactics against MGs and they can be effective.  The main change is squads a little more spread out, but mostly they don't move in straight columns.  Its fabulous to watch.

I also think some of the AI changes for scenario building will open scenario building up to players that have fewer skills with the tricks to get the AI to be a skilled opponent.

Great info, thanks.

Per your last though - while I agree the addition of more tools for scenario designers is a great thing, it also has the ironic effect of making an already complicated process that much more labour-intensive. Scenario design for CM is not for the faint of heart. I don't consider myself any great shakes at it, but I've put an honest effort into a few designs and have started considerably more than I've finished. The first basic step, designing the map, is difficult (unless one undertakes the dubious practice of just rehashing one of the quick battle maps) and lengthy. And it's easy for the designer's enthusiasm to fizzle as he's reminded just how much work it is going to be to get to the end zone.

Once that hurdle is climbed, creating a plausible AI plan is complex, and more so with the last couple of rounds of improvements which provide the creator more flexibility. Unless you design it solely for human vs. human play, which seems to be a guarantee that few if anyone will bother playing it. Multiple AI plans are better than one, so then, having worked through the timings and problems of an AI that gives the appearance of being reactive, you go back to the top and get the AI to do something else.  And then there is the problem of testing it all to make sure it works as advertised.

These aren't complaints, just noting that every action has a reaction. There is actually a benefit in making the process this laborious, namely, I think you get a higher percentage of well thought out, entertaining scenarios. Compare to CMBO where the online hosting sites archived a lot of mediocre work through which to wade. And not everyone plays scenarios in any event, given the fairly robust quick battle generator and the number of excellent maps for it.

But if you're suggesting that more tools for scenario designers will mean more people designing them - I kind of think it might have the opposite effect. Speaking for myself, I feel a bit behind the curve as far as the new AI programming tools which is a *disincentive* to sitting down to go through the process - more tools means more to learn, if one wants the work to be any good. And the learning is a process in itself too, particularly with the very brief documentation that the game ships with. There are other ways to learn - reading the forums (which have some good tips and guides) - but all of this goes back to how much *work* is involved.

Yskonyn

Great post, Michael and one to which I can relate bigtime;
I've made the effort to start getting involved in CMx2 scenario creation now on several occassions. Printed out various tutorials I could find (GeenAsJade's old Shock Force one is still a nice primer) as well as the Scenario Design AAR document that is bundled with the game.
Enthousiasm sky high in the 'planning phase' where you dream large about potential of your scenario, but waning once you get to the technical bits and realise its going to take a considerable amount of time.
In that, it's a whole seperate hobby almost!

Still, I think CM players deserve a lot more, good quality scenarios and I hope I can find the dedication and time to contribute some day.
"Pilots do not get paid for what they do daily, but they get paid for what they are capable of doing.
However, if pilots would need to do daily what they are capable of doing, nobody would dare to fly anymore."

RyanE

I disagree.  More tools that provide flexibility for good AI reactions is very welcome.  The problem with the first version of the scenario editor is limited groups, limited AI actions, and limited AI reactions.  Using that same format made it easy to make bad and incomplete scenarios.  But it made it very difficult to make very good ones.

It is that limited feature set that I think has limited scenarios.  But with that said, the CM2 editor is the opposite of intuitive.  It takes a lot to get the most out of it.  At least now, some of those weird tricks a scenario designer had to do to make a good AI are now built into a few new tools.

Michael Dorosh

Quote from: Yskonyn on January 07, 2017, 10:40:43 AM
Great post, Michael and one to which I can relate bigtime;
I've made the effort to start getting involved in CMx2 scenario creation now on several occassions. Printed out various tutorials I could find (GeenAsJade's old Shock Force one is still a nice primer) as well as the Scenario Design AAR document that is bundled with the game.
Enthousiasm sky high in the 'planning phase' where you dream large about potential of your scenario, but waning once you get to the technical bits and realise its going to take a considerable amount of time.
In that, it's a whole seperate hobby almost!

Still, I think CM players deserve a lot more, good quality scenarios and I hope I can find the dedication and time to contribute some day.

I hope so too! Will keep watching the scenario depot.

Elvis

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on December 30, 2016, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 30, 2016, 02:59:56 PM
What Manual ? I got an engine 4.0 manual with my download with all the new stuff in it so what are you talking about ?

The printed manuals that aren't coming out for several weeks. I ordered hardgoods.

It's not "bashing" to suggest the release was rushed, particularly since they say as much on their site. You should find better things to be outraged by.


Real life has kept me away for a while.

Not saying this in an effort to argue or support a position. Strictly FYI. BFC has not produced manuals or physical disc before digital release since they started releasing their products digitally. It's always been that way. Because they can offer their products immediately when they're finished with digital releases that's what they've always done. Sometimes things get added or removed not long before release so if you send the manuals to be printed before the release is complete it may have incorrect information in it. And, if the release is considered to be done, there is no reason to hold off the digital release until the manuals are back from the printer. Again, this is not new. They've never had the physical discs or manuals made before the digital releases.