View Full Version : Has Gamesquad become irrelevant
Noticed this at another site when trawling the forums
With GameSquad Successfully Becoming Completely Irrelevant...
I am new to this board but not new to CM. Glad I found it. If any would like an email game of either BB or AK feel free to drop me an email at my profiles contact address.
I was wondering if anyone else felt the same. I dont normally play here unless playing at WaW and my opponent is registered here too. I do think this place has become very quiet though.
Is the site too big to attract many guys to a little niche game? Do we need to tell our friends about the Forum? Maybe both I suspect.
Blackcloud6
19 Sep 07, 18:32
Has Gamesquad become irrelevant
Not for guys play a man's wargame: ASL! :p;):laugh:
Don't you mean an old man's wargame!
Blackcloud6
19 Sep 07, 20:25
Don't you mean an old man's wargame!
Nope! :devious: My 15 year old son and a few of his buddies are becoming mean ASLers! :bite:
If we can move past the fluff in this thread. :p
"With GameSquad Successfully Becoming Completely Irrelevant..."
What section of GS were they refering to exactly?
It's not hard to see by the date of new threads in CM that this forum has become a lot "slower." But then most places drop off in activity during summer months. I've noticed other site forums have also slowed down this summer as well.
Any "niche" game has just so many players to go around and it's up to the specific forum/site to keep them interested enough to hang around and get "active."
Nemesis Lead
20 Sep 07, 00:02
If we can move past the fluff in this thread.
"With GameSquad Successfully Becoming Completely Irrelevant..."
What section of GS were they refering to exactly?
It's not hard to see by the date of new threads in CM that this forum has become a lot "slower." But then most places drop off in activity during summer months. I've noticed other site forums have also slowed down this summer as well.
Any "niche" game has just so many players to go around and it's up to the specific forum/site to keep them interested enough to hang around and get "active."
One can still get a good game here without much fuss. That makes it very relevent.
CMBO/CMBB/CMAK are very old, however. It is only natural that these games will draw a smaller and smaller crowd.
CMBO/CMBB/CMAK are very old, however. It is only natural that these games will draw a smaller and smaller crowd.
There is certainly been a big letdown due to CMSF's troubles. Now the hope for a better WWII on the new engine erodes.
Some will continue to enjoy the first 3 games but Jay is absolutely right that the numbers will drop.
Maybe, IF BF can dig their way out of the CMSF debacle there will be renewed interest in playing WEGO with CMSF and a brighter future may appear for the WWII crowds.
Mad Russian
29 Sep 07, 01:36
One can only hope so.
Good Hunting.
MR
Personally I dont think that any site that still has at least 2 posters who enjoy the game and posting is irrelevant. I was just interested in the statement that caught my eye.
Long live the CM rooms at GS.
Michael Dorosh
01 Jul 08, 17:37
I'm hoping to see an upswing of traffic here in this forum in the weeks to come.
Would there be any interest in a campaign? I see a lot of tourney interest, but wonder if a meta-campaign would appeal to the crowd here? Summer is a bad time to do such a thing, and finding a format and way to adminster it that was painless is always tough, but I have some ideas in the back of my head if there is interest out there. I always loved the context of campaign play, role-playing aspects, intelligence aspects, etc.
Im interested in a campaign :)
Michael Dorosh
02 Jul 08, 10:10
Im interested in a campaign :)
It's really too bad that CMAK never had King Tigers in it because the two most popular settings I can think of on the Western Front - Ardennes and Arnhem - included them.
I have some interesting information on a lesser known theatre - South Beveland in October 1944, including period terrain maps and orders of battle - but I think the interest in that might be much lower.
It's really too bad that CMAK never had King Tigers in it because the two most popular settings I can think of on the Western Front - Ardennes and Arnhem - included them. True, but it would be Ardennes and Arnhem with billowing dust clouds and a landscape littered with rocks. Still, that would be better than nothing.
Michael Dorosh
02 Jul 08, 10:18
True, but it would be Ardennes and Arnhem with billowing dust clouds and a landscape littered with rocks. Still, that would be better than nothing.
Why do you say that? Set it to Italy, Dirt cover, and for the Ardennes use ground snow. Dirt clouds exist anywhere dirt roads do - they were prevalent in Normandy, for example, and many photos of signs and troop movements show that it was a problem in the dusty summer conditions there.
Actually, there were many battles in the Ardennes fought without KTs, but I haven't researched any of them.
You can make some nice euro-looking maps in AK. Numberz and I are playing a game on a map I generated by just selecting non-desert settings and it looks like something out of France or Germany.
Dirt clouds exist anywhere dirt roads do - they were prevalent in Normandy, for example, and many photos of signs and troop movements show that it was a problem in the dusty summer conditions there.
I don't recall BB showing massive dust clouds in heavy tree and grass settings like AK does. Western scenarios could probably be mocked-up without excessive dust with damp or wind settings. I haven't put that to the test though.
Yup. Play some scenarios that are set in Europe with AK there isn't much problem with dust. I don't mind the dust effect for realism, I am just disappointed how poorly the AI handles units when dust is involved with sighting and such.
To eliminate the dust clouds in AK- you do use "damp" settings, I've used this before to simulate non-desert settings.
But the "damp" ground settings makes causes more vehicles to bog, and the bog chances are pretty high in that setting.
But the "damp" ground settings makes causes more vehicles to bog, and the bog chances are pretty high in that setting. I was concerned about that but it's another test I haven't run.
So then the options are kill the dust and chance a higher bog rate or live with the dust and give away every vehicle movement throughout the entire map. Aren't there any other alternative dust killers? What about high wind? What's the detriment there?
I remember the dust disappears when you set "Italy". Might be wrong.
The high wind just makes the dust clouds wander off faster. Same amount of dust.
I remember the dust disappears when you set "Italy". Might be wrong. I'll have to test that, but I thought the dust was the same.
Dust appears in Italy under normal ground conditions (e.g. dry/not wet). It is not nearly as much as in the desert and sometimes you have to make a point of looking to see it.
Dust appears in Italy under normal ground conditions (e.g. dry/not wet). It is not nearly as much as in the desert and sometimes you have to make a point of looking to see it.
Damn. It'll still break FOW that way.
But the "damp" ground settings makes causes more vehicles to bog, and the bog chances are pretty high in that setting. Are you sure it's damp that causes high bogging? I could see wet doing that, but damp would be over kill on the designer part if that's true. Not that such over kill hasn't happened before.
Are you sure it's damp that causes high bogging? I could see wet doing that, but damp would be over kill on the designer part if that's true. Not that such over kill hasn't happened before.
I'm sure.
Unfortunately, all the bogging chances are overkill in CMBB and CMAK. They have been tuned down from CMBB to CMAK but that doesn't make "damp" usable.
I'm sure.
Unfortunately, all the bogging chances are overkill in CMBB and CMAK. They have been tuned down from CMBB to CMAK but that doesn't make "damp" usable.
Maybe then one should stick to light tanks and armour in damp and wet conditions...the high ground is good if CM mimics that also?:smoke:
No, CM doesn't have higher bogging chance in low ground either.
This is one of my main complaints about CMx1: most of these things (bogging chances, turn rates, weapons damage) are always pessimised, they are at whatever the lower end of realism is, and then some. A Tiger on a history channel documentation can turn in place about twice as fast as the CMBB one - the real one in mud, the CMBB one on a road.
Actually I always thought the bogging chances in CM are very generous in certain conditions, eg wet mud. Basically, in Italy during winter/spring you simply couldn't traverse many pieces of otherwise perfectly flat countryside in a tank without instantly bogging as soon as you got off the road.
It's been kept low for playability, but of course there's always the odd bogging on a paved road to keep people infuriated :)
Michael Dorosh
04 Jul 08, 09:36
Actually I always thought the bogging chances in CM are very generous in certain conditions, eg wet mud. Basically, in Italy during winter/spring you simply couldn't traverse many pieces of otherwise perfectly flat countryside in a tank without instantly bogging as soon as you got off the road.
It's been kept low for playability, but of course there's always the odd bogging on a paved road to keep people infuriated :)
Don't forget though that mechanical reliability is not modelled at all, nor is low fuel conditions, so chances of breaking down in-game may arguably be lower overall than in some other tactical games. If a vehicle "bogs" on a paved road, it's easy to rationalize as a thrown track, which should happen in other terrain but doesn't (i.e. scattered trees for instance or rocky).
Don't forget though that mechanical reliability is not modelled at all, nor is low fuel conditions, so chances of breaking down in-game may arguably be lower overall than in some other tactical games. If a vehicle "bogs" on a paved road, it's easy to rationalize as a thrown track, which should happen in other terrain but doesn't (i.e. scattered trees for instance or rocky).
I agreee 100% to be more accurate different tanks and even the same tanks of different models would throw tracks more often then other models.:crosseye:
One question that comes to mind is how much realism do you want to put in a game? Bogging tanks is one I could easily do without, and MG jams is another. For me these do not enhance game play and I can see how they could factor into losses. There are enough unrealistic aspects to the game such that adding a few unnecessary bits of RL is not going to overcome these other deficiencies or make it more enjoyable. IMHO.
I believe the more realism the better.IMO:p:smoke:
I dunno, folks.
In CMBB you can't get a perfectly normal tank to reliably cross 20 meters of damp ground between two roads. Half your tanks can get stuck.. That's within a 40 minute timeframe. If real world tanks had been that prone to bog the idea of armored forces would have died sometime in 1916. CMAK improved the situation, but not much.
And the turn rate are straight proven wrong by historical video footage.
And the turn rate are straight proven wrong by historical video footage.
I once asked one of the BTS fellows, as I'm sure you did, what data they used for their tank turn rates. IIRC, I was given no definative answer. I've seen footage of tanks rotating in place, let alone driving in a tight circle and it was much faster than you see in CM.
No, CM doesn't have higher bogging chance in low ground either.
This is one of my main complaints about CMx1: most of these things (bogging chances, turn rates, weapons damage) are always pessimised, they are at whatever the lower end of realism is, and then some. A Tiger on a history channel documentation can turn in place about twice as fast as the CMBB one - the real one in mud, the CMBB one on a road.
Completely agree. Especially the damage system is very 'soft', too much based on suppression. In ASL (from where CM borrowed a lot) moving in open ground was suicidal, even the weak firepower shots were dangerous.
Michael Dorosh
04 Jul 08, 19:29
One question that comes to mind is how much realism do you want to put in a game? Bogging tanks is one I could easily do without, and MG jams is another. For me these do not enhance game play and I can see how they could factor into losses. There are enough unrealistic aspects to the game such that adding a few unnecessary bits of RL is not going to overcome these other deficiencies or make it more enjoyable. IMHO.
The Jams do seem to take too long to clear. I think I agree with you - either include the whole range of "bad stuff" or nothing at all.
I agree with Redwolf on turn rates too - a Universal Carrier could spin around 360 degrees in a couple of seconds; in CM it is agonizingly slow. It's not even close to realistic. You could also push one out of the mud (ditto a Jeep or halftrack) with a squad. Hell, you could LIFT a jeep out of the mud with a platoon of guys. If you don't model all the fixes, why model the problems?
But you gotta start somewhere. Which is why the field engineering stuff was so disappointing too - you can set a roadblock before the game, but you can't blow one in place or create one during the game by felling trees or rubbling buildings. I really wanted to see CM expand in that direction with CMX2, and instead, they started from scratch and took out features (barbed wire, etc.) and went in another direction (RT) rather than simply building on what had already gone before and kept going to make it better. Which is another reason CM:SF is so pitiful sad. Think of all the backwards steps.
Barbed wire - in CMX1. CMX2 could have included bangalore torpedoes, different types of wire (plain, concertina), different densities, modelled it in smaller chunks (no more 10 metre strands), got rid of the Borg spotting to the wire. What happens instead? They removed it altogether.
Foxholes - in CMX1. CMX2 could have modelled different levels of fortification, allowed the digging of shell-scrapes during the game, got rid of the Borg spotting to foxholes. What happens instead? They removed it altogether!
Trenches - in CMX1. CMX2 introduced a bug where you can't hide them and so they are always visible at game start. So much for competition play.
etc.
Ok,
So some of you think “Damp” is a bad setting & just live with no FOW– I did test this long ago to see if it worked & below is why I use “Damp” instead of just having to live with “dust trails” in AK for non-NA locations. I think it works out just fine.
All tests over 800m, all bogged tanks were ordered to angle “reverse” 20m to get out of situation. For groups of “5” tanks I ran 2 Fast 3 Move then switched on second test- for scattered trees I ran just 1 test since it’s near pointless to try & move thru 800m of trees & I think the case was made after 1 test. Nearly every “bogged” was on a tank on “Fast” orders.
Movement tests in “Damp” ground on:
Clear terrain thru 800m:
Test 1
American
5 M5A1 = 0 bogged
5 M4A1= 0 bogged
5 M4A3(w)76= 0 bogged
German
4 Hetzers = 0 bogged
5 PzIIL= 0 bogged
5 PzIVH = 0 bogged
5 PzVIE = 0 bogged
Test 2
American
5 M5A1 = 1 bogged – cleared self (on Fast)
5 M4A1= 1 bogged – cleared self (on Fast)
5 M4A3(w)76= 1 bogged – cleared self (on Move)
German
4 Hetzers = 0 bogged
5 PzIIL= 0 bogged
5 PzIVH = 0 bogged
5 PzVIE = 1 bogged – Immobilized (on Fast)
Brush terrain thru 800m
Test 1
Americans-
5 M5A1 = 0 bogged
5 M4A1= 1 bogged – cleared self (on Fast)
5 M4A3(w)76= 0 bogged
German
4 Hetzers = 1 bogged– cleared self (on Fast)
5 PzIIL= 0 bogged
5 PzIVH = 0 bogged
5 PzVIE = 2 bogged - both cleared self (1 on Fast, 1 on Move)
Test 2
Americans-
5 M5A1 = 1 bogged – cleared self (on Fast)
5 M4A1= 1 bogged – cleared self (on Fast)
5 M4A3(w)76 = 1 bogged – Immobilized (on Fast)
German
4 Hetzers = 0 bogged
5 PzIIL= 0 bogged
5 PzIVH = 0 bogged
5 PzVIE = 0 bogged
Scattered tree terrain thru 800m
Test 1
Americans-
5 M5A1 = 0 bogged
5 M4A1= 2 bogged – 1 Immobilized 1 cleared self both on Fast (IM after moving 350m)
5 M4A3(w)76= 2 bogged – both cleared (both on Fast)
German
4 Hetzers = 2 bogged - 2 Immobilized (both on Fast, IM after 376m & 550m)
5 PzIIL= 1 bogged - cleared self (on Fast)
5 PzIVH = "4" bogged all cleared (all 3 on Fast /1 bogged twice )
5 PzVIE = 0 bogged
FYI- Time it took to cross 800m of “Scattered trees:”
Americans-
M5A1 = 12 turns (on Fast) 14 turns (on Move)
M4A1= 30 turns (on Fast) 404m (on Move)
M4A3(w)76= 550m on Fast & 450m on Move. Neither speed was quick enough to cross the 800m of trees in 30 turns.
German
PzIIL = 12 turns (Fast) 14 turns (Move)
Hetzer = 14 turns (Move) (both on “Fast” were immobilized)
PzIVH = 21 turns (Fast) 26 turns (Move)
PzVIE = made it 480m on Fast & 380m on Move. Neither speed was quick enough to cross the 800m of trees in 30 turns.
So that makes 170 total movement attempts in "Damp" terrain over 800m with only 5 IM's, I can live with that.
This test was only to see if & how long it took to bog on damp ground in "X" terrain. All tanks were ordered to either "FAST" or "Move" with no turns unless bogged then they angled a 20m "Reverse" & reordered forward. I just hope this doesn't end up like PoS' MTC test.... :crosseye:
Thanks for the effort. If these tests were on damp ground do you know if the bog results were any higher then on normal dry ground for the same distances?
Michael Dorosh
04 Jul 08, 20:52
Good test; I also don't see a problem with dust in NW Europe or Italy, for reasons mentioned above - it doesn't strike me as all that unrealistic. Even if the dust clouds aren't realistic, sound spotting of armoured vehicles is probably undermodelled anyway, so it evens out, no?
Yep, the results of Very Dry / Dry movement tests over 800m are:
Not 1 tank US or German bogged in either
Clear (FYI- dust clouds) or
Brush (no dust clouds)
Scattered Trees: (no dust clouds)
American:
Zero tanks Bogged
German:
PzIIL = 1 IM after 530m (on Fast)
PzIVH = 1 IM after 450m & 1 IM after 610m (both on Fast)
FYI- in scattered trees on dry ground:
M4A3(w)76 = all 800m in 28 turns on Fast (550m in damp)
M4A3(w)76 = 700m on Move (450m in damp)
PzVIE = 760m on Fast (480m in damp)
PzVIE = 600m on Move (380m in damp)
Even if the dust clouds aren't realistic, sound spotting of armoured vehicles is probably undermodelled anyway, so it evens out, no?
Dust is ok but thick clouds of impenetrable dust rising hundreds of feet in the air no. As far as sound = dust clouds, I'm not sure that one tank on MOVE going 50m into an ambush spot could be heard 800m away. But that 50m long dust cloud showing the exact direction of movement & stopping point will be seen. This of course applies to cross country / dirt road movement only.
My problem is not with dust in regards to spotting vehicles. Just with half a dozen hummVs and a couple of Duece and a halfs, when we route marched into our assembly area along a dirt road, I quickly couldn't see the vehicle in front of me and this was in NY state. How far this dust cloud could be seen, I don't know, but it was considerable.
My issue is with how the TAC AI handles the process of shooting at something with dust effects. The target becomes obscured by an near instant plume of dust from either the shooters shot or the shot hitting close to the target.
Hans just shot at a tank 2 seconds ago, 200 meters away. He loses sight of the target due to dust. For some reason Hans thinks the mean tankie is gone because he can't see it any more, so he traverses his turret back to center on his ACA. But wait! Mean tankie is still there because the dust just cleared and silly Hans can see it again. Ok, lets rotate the turret back to take another shot. Mercifully, the mean tankie misses its shot and Hans lives for another moment. Damn. More dust again. Mean tankie has disappeared. Hans thinks it really must be gone this time, so he rotates his turret back to center on his covered arc. What!? The mean tankie has appeared again...
Right, these are the two problems with dust clouds:
1) they are not subject to FOW at all. The enemy doesn't need a unit in LOS to the cloud to spot it, and accurately by the meter, including the narrow point on the ground where the vehicle is. I real life you wouldn't even know how far away a cloud is even when you see it, but you can't see the bottom. In CMAK no such problems.
2) they provide Star Trek Enterprise energy shield class protection against both direct and indirect fire.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.