Jump to content
Red2112

Wargames

Recommended Posts

Not sure I'm going to get CMO, since I still play CMANO and like it a lot. One argument is that CMANO will no longer be developed, I guess.

Have you gents anything to say about the new release in comparison to CMANO?

I'll get 50% discount until January 31, so there's some time to make up ones mind :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 12:42 PM, Red2112 said:

Do you mean he did the counters art work, beta tested and some more?

Yes, I did the counters for 4CMBG. Didn't have time for the play test and should have a copy soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ingolf said:

Not sure I'm going to get CMO, since I still play CMANO and like it a lot. One argument is that CMANO will no longer be developed, I guess.

Have you gents anything to say about the new release in comparison to CMANO?

I'll get 50% discount until January 31, so there's some time to make up ones mind :)

I was a beta tester back in the closed beta days. I'll definitely get it as soon as possible. The new features are ones that I wished from day 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good stormrider_sp!

One of the features I suggested (was a betatester for CMANO) was adding hypertext links from the message window to the actual event. It seems it has been an attempt to implement it?

 

Do you know anything about adding custom GIS data (shape-files) to the scenario editor?

This was another request/suggestion I had 5 years ago :)

 

I'll get it sooner or later, I guess it is not "dumbed-down", rather made more accessible?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2017 at 5:06 PM, CalAB said:

I was doubtful of VR at first but not anymore. 

A brief VR episode:

 

Do VR on PC and then try Google Earth VR and Streetview VR.  You will be in loss of words. Unbelievable. For me this alone already justifies buying VR. I travel with this a lot.

 

A good racing sim, Eleven, Racket FX and Subnautica are others musts one should try in VR. Box VR and The Thrill of the Fight are two excellent workouts.

Virtual desktop allows you to play just any game on huge screens: that of a Cineplex movie screewnk, if you use that mod for it. But not every game works well with that, some are more prone to VR sickness this way than others. You do not get stereoscopic viewing this way,lk but a damn huge, detailed screen.

 

I lioke to weatch movies in a virtual cinema with VR. Works wonderful. Peopel are afraid of the resoltuion. You must not be, you get comopensation for it, and it is not that prominent an issue as you think.  Skybox works well, or sdaid Voirtual dersktop with cineplexx mod (copies a cineplexx in Sydney that meanwhile was shut down).

 

VR will stay a niche for more time to come, I thinl not everythign works well in VR, but it definitely has come this time to stay and not go away again. VR can do real wonders, but one has to be rrealistical in assessing what goes and what not, what works with it, and what not.

 

Okay, back to the program. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a usability standpoint, CMO is a huge leap forward.  The clickable message logs, bubble pop ups, hit buttons, etc. make a big difference in situational awareness.  I am less of a fan of the hi def terrain overlays, but they are optional and do help in certain areas.  The radar LOS tool is a huge add for planning SEAD and strike missions.  The overall user interface is much better.  The fact that all content from CMNAO carries forward to CMO and CMO is only $40 if you own CMNAO makes this a no-brainer for anyone interested in naval and air operations.

 

The 3D window is interesting, but not very useful in my opinion.  Too much effort put into a small minority of players who wanted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am read up on the dev's comments, forum posts, and the various FAQ links, but does anyone care to share their own personal honest thoughts on the 'improvements' to the ground warfare aspects of CMO over CMANO?  I've had CMANO for years but never gotten into it (less than an hour played) because my interest in Naval and Air Ops (beyond CAS/Naval surface fires) is pretty low.  Always been intrigued by the sim nonetheless, and the discount for owning CMANO is appealing.  Is there a scale where a scenario emphasizing the ground components might shine?  Division, Brigade etc.  Mostly I'm interested in knowing if it's possible to make fulfilling scenarios where air/naval actually becomes ancillary to ground.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thewood said:

The 3D window is interesting, but not very useful in my opinion.  Too much effort put into a small minority of players who wanted it.

Not so much effort, the TacView option was asked by the Pro users some years ago. 

For me it's not useful since:

  • it's only real-time (unlike the Pro version) with God view
  • the 3D models are based on free models so they are only few (only 2 volunteers are converting the 3D models)
  • each 3D model is about 100 to 800Kb so if you have a lot of units in a scenario it can take a lot of memory.
10 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

So I am read up on the dev's comments, forum posts, and the various FAQ links, but does anyone care to share their own personal honest thoughts on the 'improvements' to the ground warfare aspects of CMO over CMANO?  I've had CMANO for years but never gotten into it (less than an hour played) because my interest in Naval and Air Ops (beyond CAS/Naval surface fires) is pretty low.  Always been intrigued by the sim nonetheless, and the discount for owning CMANO is appealing.  Is there a scale where a scenario emphasizing the ground components might shine?  Division, Brigade etc.  Mostly I'm interested in knowing if it's possible to make fulfilling scenarios where air/naval actually becomes ancillary to ground.  

 

Did you see this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ooG9waUiWk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

So I am read up on the dev's comments, forum posts, and the various FAQ links, but does anyone care to share their own personal honest thoughts on the 'improvements' to the ground warfare aspects of CMO over CMANO?  I've had CMANO for years but never gotten into it (less than an hour played) because my interest in Naval and Air Ops (beyond CAS/Naval surface fires) is pretty low.  Always been intrigued by the sim nonetheless, and the discount for owning CMANO is appealing.  Is there a scale where a scenario emphasizing the ground components might shine?  Division, Brigade etc.  Mostly I'm interested in knowing if it's possible to make fulfilling scenarios where air/naval actually becomes ancillary to ground.  

No on ground combat being a focus.  Its still heavily abstracted.  Its better, but its still secondary to air and naval.  The devs will even say that.  Don't buy it just for ground combat.  The new ground combat model is a lot better, but its still a complement to the main focus of the game.

 

One area that appears to be interesting is amphibious warfare.  They have expended a lot of effort for support of landings and such.  That part is very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just buyed CMO last saturday.

After a quick test, not in depth at all, I have to say that I´m not impressed at all. Regarding the main new features:

- new interface: it´s great, yes, but the truth is that for old CMANO users we are so used to keyboard shortcuts that it does not feel natural to click for most of the things. Nevertheless, is a great improvement for atracting new clients, IMHO.

- new layers: I have mixed feelings about this. I was really looking forward for this specific improvement, specially for when you are planning attacks on installations, but for me it has more darks than brights right now. It is sloooooow. Every time you do zoom it takes almost a second to reload the background. I don´t know if it is the graphic engine or the internet access, to be honest, but the experiencia is less than ideal. Added to this, it is kind of dissapointing, although understandable, that the maps are the modern versión of the terrain and kills the mood somehow when you are playing missions in the past, which are most of the ones that I play, btw. I tested a Shifting Sands mission and some of the airbases were not there, because I guess they don´t exist anymore, and some áreas looks way to modern for the seventies.

- I really don´t like the new way of managing play speed. It´s confusing as now you have two sets of buttons which function are not clear. It is a typical example of the saying " if something works, don´t touch it".

- Land forces improvements, yet to be tested. I´d be a nice touch to release a scenario designed to portray this new capability.

- Tacview…… it´s a nice touch, but not enough to buy the full tacview license, which is quite expensive.

 

Said that, I think you have to purchase it if you like CMANO because future campaigns will be based on CMO and because I believe in the Warfare Sims team, and I have no doubt that they will continue improving the new game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battle of Midway:

any advice pls on a PC- or boardgame to “play” this?

 Thx!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advice for a specific boardgame, or advice how to shape the game experience?

One trick I saw for a Coral Sea wargame was that each team was supposed to prepare their plans after the briefing, but what they didn't know was that at the start of the actual game session they would switch sides, and had to make do with the few sightings of each other. Obviously such a trick can be used only in case of chance encounters. Midway wasn't a chance encounter, but one where the US achieved operational surprise on two points - knowing in advance that the Japanese were coming, and getting the Lexington battle ready in time when Japan actually believed that they had sunk it at Coral Sea. Finally, the US was also lucky in that all the bungled counterattacks, as ineffectual as they were, prevented the IJN from launching a major strike assembly.

 

I'm not sure how one would replicate the two major operational surprises unless you pitch a highly competent naval battle wargame player with absolutely zero knowledge of the WW2 Pacific campaign and convince him that the rules of the game are that the Americans can have only two carriers, and that they can't attack him until the next day. The "can't launch while evading attack" kind of rule OTOH seems to fall very well into the domain of rule sets to shape a game mechanic. The question is however if it is supposed to be played by just a single player per side, how do you educate the players about the logistics constraints and timetables to present them the kind of decision dilemmas that were so masterfully demonstrated in the video above, or do you actually make it a staff vs. staff type of wargame where each commander of a party can rely on subordinates to do the calculations for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

and getting the Lexington battle ready in time when Japan actually believed that they had sunk it at Coral Sea.

Don't you mean the USS Yorktown or has wikipedia been rewritten again

 

I believe the Lexington was sunk at the battle of coral sea

 

https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/youve-got-three-days-repairing-the-yorktown-after-coral-sea/

 

MD

Edited by Major duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...