Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Today
  3. Hero of the Soviet Union gongs all round for that tank crew.
  4. I'm play testing a FR battle and this guy is my guitar hero right now. His engine, tracks, radio and optics are gone but he's still alive and still getting some kills. I counted 34 hit decals in the screenshot. There are another half dozen on the other side.
  5. I'm sure I clicked (or did not click) a button somewhere, but I requested artillery support but then "oh wait, not that guy!" quickly issued the Cease Fire command. The stationary U.S. motorized mortar unit still shows its full ammo complement and still shows as Cease Fire when anyone else (including the requesting unit) clicks on it. It's been that way throughout the entire battle and I'm not sure if it's a known glitch (my apologies) or if I've made another mistake. Thanks!
  6. Interestingly some attitudes toward the class expressed here are identical to the feelings of American Commanders after their experiences with mounting the 75mm pack howitzer and M1897 gun on half tracks. "This doesn't seem too useful". For the Americans it was simply that the emergency was less acute. They didn't see any need to bother with awkwardly trying to fit a howitzer to a half track when they had plenty of Stuarts and Shermans around to fully equip Armored Divisions with ready vehicles, reserve vehicles, and still have enough hardware left over to disperse Tank Battalions among Infantry Divisions. On the other hand, American Commanders had a distinct tendency to push the M10 and M18 into the Assault Gun role. Certainly they were better protected than a half track but not much better, and certainly no better off against a Pak 40 or an 88. They were also huge, as vehicles based on the Sherman's hull tended to be. Not sure if anyone has seen one in real life before but the StuG is ridiculously short. Shorter than a Jeep Grand Cherokee. I'm sure this enabled it to-literally-squeeze into some curtain calls other AFVs would have had trouble with.
  7. As long a one uses it like this, it's a great asset IMO. Also in urban terrain. Have it hide behind some buildings close by your infantry. When a target is known, give it a shoot and scoot orders. For overwatch duties it is generally also fine against infantry, but it can certainly be overpowered by things like a .50 on a jeep if it opens up first.
  8. The Operation plans for an attack and defense by both sides through the Fulda Gap were perfectly sound. What else matters?
  9. The idea is this. Take the already developed Soviet TOE in CMRT and port it over into CMFB. May 1945 would be the end date. NO extra work. Just use what is already there. Maybe something to think about: CMFB starts in October 1944 and CMRT start in June 1944. Would the entire CMRT June 44 to May 45 be ported over or just October 1944 to May 1945? Both titles will at some point have the same end date but will have different start dates. I vote for which ever is easier / quicker / simpler to do.
  10. It could be argued their 'mission' is to eyeball the enemy. Going to ground once rounds start whistling overhead is something conscripts, green or broken troops would do. QB players tend to select 'veteran' troops or higher and fanatics in order to keep them from breaking. A downside of that is... they don't break.
  11. As an example of how complicated a title like this can get, here's a pict of a cast hull M4A1 76mm with HVSS suspension. First shipped to Europe in April 45 but never saw combat. There's also the HVSS M4A3 105mm howitzer version that also never saw combat. Then there's the really obscure American Hybrid hull Sherman mounting the British 17 pounder! (GASP!) Also sent into the theater too late to see combat. On the Russian side there's the IS-3 of course but also the T-44 which was being produced but didn't seen combat. If this title were to start May 1945 then things get very complicated very quickly.
  12. That looks like good design imo. I want the designer/AI to surprise me so I keep on my toes. Predictable/obvious = boring. That's a reason I appealed for the forger to do a v3 with more ambushes as currently it seems much too easy and quick to reach Stoumont and the other southern objective by driving along the roads with little/no resistance.
  13. Well, things change. After CMFI R2V 'One road too much' (they still ended up in Rome though), I guess a more simple project would be a nice challenge for a change 😉.
  14. We've had experience before of Steve 'simply' doing projects. CMSF2 was originally 'simply' going to upgrade the CMSF1 game engine... except he completely redid the TO&E, reworked all the graphics, introduced new soldier models and animations, updated all the scenarios, and threw in an additional 200 QB maps, besides. He was 'simply' going to extend CMFI to war's end and wound up juggling eleven different nations and several subgroups, besides. In this case I'd imaging Steve would 'simply' port over The Russian to fight the allies... then he'd start thinking about the geopolitical ramifications, start researching weapons systems that were in the pipeline and war's end, and the whole project would snowball.
  15. One thing that annoyed me. The player's reinforcements arrive by and large in column. And when looking for a likely area for an enemy counter-attack I set my troops up in good ambush positions along the road. Only for the counterattack force to arrive all in one go spread out over a fairly large area pretty much surrounding my troops, with predictable results. I was not a happy bunny, and hit Cease Fire.
  16. Ack now you are making it hard. The whole point of making the WW2 just kept going scenario is that BFC would have *all* the necessary models and formations because they would have to complete end of WW2 TO&E for the Soviets and the Allies already to go. If we just create a strategic back story for fighting to continue for six more months all that would be required would be the creation of the game and the amalgamation of resources from the CMRT and CMFB plus the creation of scenarios. Once you start adding new cool units and reorganization of armies then it becomes a whole big thing
  17. But that's happened unsurprisingly in CMBS but Battlefront did it anyway.
  18. It's a known issue; at least I see it happen often. Sometimes, infantry will duck down quite fast after shots go past them, but at other times, they will keep walking around even after several bursts of MG.
  19. Was it the increased temperature or the body armour that made the difference?
  20. Backstory? Strategic objectives? Counterfactual? ........... Why? The more complicated this is the less likely it would be worth while to do. Port over CMRT Soviet TOE into CMFB. Then sell it.
  21. Sad but true. I'd say it has already transitioned to that model. We also increasingly live in a "gotcha" economy. Unless one is always on top of deliberately confusing rules and regulations that can change with little warning, one easily finds oneself liable to unexpected penalties and fees. The airline industry is a great example of that with their air fares and baggage regulations and fees.
  22. This is very interesting. After WW2, ACW has been a favorite subject for me. Not sure why I never got into the European theater wars of the 18th and 19th centuries. Perhaps I know more about the ACW, the leaders, some of the challenges, politics etc. I think Grigsby did some good ACW games but that was many years ago now. And before that I enjoyed playing many ACW cardboard games - ACW works best at the operational-strategic levels. My Gold standard for this sort of Operational/Strategic game is the original ROME: TOTAL WAR. I loved that game and would still enjoy playing it more than its newer incarnations. As with this new ACW effort, Rome featured leaders and advisers with important personal characteristics as well as a detailed economic game. This new ACW game is far more detailed and "realistic" but I worry that it may be too complex in terms of the economy sub-game. (I recall there was a similar game set in Europe that I could not get into due to that economic game complexity. Not sure if this is the same developer.) Rome was fun as one made strategic/operational decision and then could fight out the battles in 3D environment. Am not sure if this new ACW game will feature a 3D environment. I really liked the 3D battles in Rome as they started very small with a few units and later in the game one would have all sorts of new units and the battles became large. ie: There was a lot of variety since advancements over decades and hundreds of years were depicted. Since the ACW is only 5 years, and weapons and units didn't change significantly not having a 3D battle feature may not be important. I found that after playing a few dozen battles on Minuteman's ACW tactical level games they all started to feel the same and I got quickly bored with those tactical-level ACW games. So long as the player doesn't have to get bogged down in too much minutiae (ie the AI can handle most of the economics... as much as the player does not want to control) I would buy this game.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...