Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/12/2018 in all areas

  1. 11 points
    These Tactical Problems designed by Todd Justice ( @ScoutPL ) and myself are designed to give small scale (Platoon to Company (+)) and short (around 30 minute) games for two players to test and explore tactical solutions to unique situations. They are Head to Head only in order to provide the toughest challenge. Each side in these scenarios is designed to provide a challenge, though some sides may be tougher than others, refer to the scenario complexity ratings for the difficulty rating for each side. Post your solutions in the comments section for each scenario, or on the Battlefront forum. We might in the future add AI to each side of these scenarios based on the best submitted solutions for each side. Links below: PBEM Tactical Problems Introduction PBEM Tactical Problem 01 - A Rifle Behind Every Tree PBEM Tactical Problem 02 - Strongpoint! (Coming Soon) PBEM Tactical Problem 03 - The Last Hundred Yards (Coming Soon) It had always been my intent to provide Tactical Problems like these on my blog to allow you to learn and test tactical situations. Please leave your feedback below. I would suggest that if you have an AAR or a solution to one of these scenarios that you start a new thread and post a link to it in this thread to keep spoilers to a minimum. Bil
  2. 10 points
    It sure is funny how most of the people who complain about price and why is the games not on sale for bargain prices are people who have a handful of comments on the site and are recent new members. In other wards I see them as typical gamers expecting the same thing they see with most of the rest of the industry. Expecting to get something for almost nothing after a short life span of the product , with a newer version out and selling again for that company. They have never played any game for any extended period of time and are just waiting for the next thing on the market that they can consume. The concept of a game with depth and years of endless playability is not a possibility in their thought process. Let alone a fact that the company is not capable of putting out new versions in a year or two with staffs in the hundreds to do such things. A product with only a handful of guys working on and making adjustments to and no ability to try and push the graphic limits of the present home computer each and every year. They see it as a unknown logic in the world that they live in and cannot accept it. I find it funny. BF is two guys that came from that world and hated it, created their own way to run and manage their game and have done what they wanted and made the life they wanted for themselves and provided us with games no one in the all powerful industry want to do. So Bf keep selling and doing business how you want. I appreciate the games too much to care about sales and how they do business.
  3. 8 points

    Black Friday or Cyber Monday Sale?!?!?!

    But why not, if it turns out to be the best game you´ve ever purchased? I have bought scores of games during the last couple of decades - and CMBN was surely the most expensive single purchase. But most of the cheap games I´ve bought were probably cheap because nobody wanted to pay full price for them. So in some cases I have paid 10 $ for a game I have scrapped after two hours. 10 $ might be cheap for a game - but is 5 $ an hour cheap? The 60 $ I paid for CMBN has given me thousands of hours worth of enjoyable gameplay for the past seven years. So in terms of cent pr. hour it is the cheapest game I ever bought.
  4. 7 points

    Order completed!

    The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
  5. 7 points

    Concept: Forum Operational Campaign

    The idea is to make a turn-based (WEGO) operational layer campaign here on the forums (or potentially a different platform like roll20). It will be on a square or hex-grid graph of a map -- depending on game and theatre. You will be able to make your own units (companies or platoons) and move them around once per turn. Whenever two units (or more) on the map bump into eachother, the GM will post parameters for a Quick Battle you can put into your game and play out. The player (s) then would report the results of their Quick Battle and the operational map would be updated accordingly. A turn can be a week, or bi-weekly, to allow everyone to declare their move, play their Quick battle and report their results on the forum. I had this crazy idea while messing around with my roll20 RPG campaign. Instead of making a character sheet, one could make a company/platoon sheet. Recently I saw a lot of people wanting an Operational Layer and someone even mentioned a system that they came up for themselves. It's all still very much in concept phase. At first, I was thinking the campaign should be cooperative and all enemies be managed by GM and be played by AI in-game. Though, I'm sure a lot of people would like to play OPFOR and provide an opponent for those who do not enjoy sparring with AI. I'm curious what you guys think! Interested? Not interested? Comments? Concerns? Ideas of your own?
  6. 6 points

    CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2

    special dedication
  7. 5 points

    Hello and intro from me

    Hi to all the Battlefront community members. I am a little embarrassed to say that I have been a lurker here for a long time, too long. Hopefully moving forward I can change this by being active and contributing here. I will start by providing a little bit of background about myself and my gaming history. I am a male as I guess almost all members are in this genre of games and entertainment. Unfortunately I haven't come across too many female wargamers in my time and that extends to my wife who hasn't embraced this passion of mine. Oh well can't win them all. I am Australian but also are a British citizen and lived in the UK for over a decade which is where my wife originates from. We now live back in Australia and only a minutes walk from the beach. 😎 I first started getting into wargaming in my early teens having developed a significant interest in military history. The board games and publishers with varying levels of accuracy and or just fun that I played were included Panzer Blitz (Avalon Hill), Panzer Leader (Avalon Hill), Axis and Allies (Milton Bradley), Drive on Stalingrad (TSR), Red Storm Rising (TSR), The Hunt for Red October (TSR), Assault - Tactical Combat in Europe 1984 (GDW) along with extra modules Boots and Saddles, Bundeswehr, Chieftain, & Reinforcements. In addition I played role playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness TMNT (Paladium Books). As far as my PC gaming history the first wargame on any electronic device that I played was a WW2 one covering battles on both the East and West fronts at the battalion level on my Apple IIc computer back in the late 80's so forgive me if I cannot recall the title. Also had some John Tiller titles in my collection on PC I was a big fan of the original Total War series and played Shogun, Rome and Medieval Total War. Also played heavily Silent Hunter III a WW2 submarine simulation. Also been heavily into flight sims such as European Air War back in the 90's, Falcon 4, and now Digital Combat Simulator. I was I guess a fairly late arrival onto the Combat Mission scene and my first purchase was the new engine 2 Combat Mission - Battle for Normandy back in mid 2011. Since then I have purchased every module for it along with then Fortress Italy, Red Thunder and Final Blitzkrieg. I intend to purchase the final module for Fortress Italy and the follow up module for Red Thunder. I do not own Black Sea or any of the other modern titles. For some reason I prefer the WW2 titles and the modern ones have just not captured my imagination and excitement like the historical titles have. What do I love about the CM WW2 titles? Firstly the accuracy as far as TOE is outstanding. The maps are very well done and the variety of those maps is excellent. I also feel that the command and control elements are well done. The granularity and level at which you can issue specific commands to individual vehicles and squads/sections is excellent. Yes there may be the occasional frustration with your pixel troopen and path finding but I simply explain this away as part of the unpredictable nature of combat. Artillery is also well implemented in my opinion and it really can be incredibly satisfying when you manage to execute a well orchestrated combined arms operation. And the actual content in terms of campaigns and single missions along with the Mission Editor provides an mass of re-playability. Sure the graphics are not AAA title but the actual vehicle models are pretty good and things like the hit decals have added to the immersion. And sure the development pace is not fast but I think it is important to have realistic and grounded expectations as wargaming is such a niche market and Battlefront is not some massive team of dozens if not hundreds of people working on a title. It is what it is and I am grateful to be able to play such titles as Battle for Normandy, FI, RT, and FB. There are also some great You Tubers that help to promote the Combat Mission series such as Usually Hapless (following his vids right now Heavy Hitters defence and attack), Few Good Men, Panzer PJ's, Real & Simulated Wars blog, Ithikial (fellow Aussie), General Jack Riper, and Ts4EVER. Now looking to the future I only hope that once the addon module for RT and the final module for FI is done that Battlefront will look at North Africa for the next WW2 setting as the early to mid years of the war are I think very interesting. So that is my story and I hope that I can contribute to these forums and to the community and perhaps play online against some here. Gosh that was longer than I anticipated. ☺️ Anyway back to my FI campaign Conrath's Counterattack.
  8. 5 points

    Newbie DAR/AAR: ncc1701e vs JoMc67D

    @Josey Wales is the expert on this stuff. My understanding, mostly based on tests by Josey Wales, is the following: Fatigue has no effect on a unit’s accuracy or on its morale state regardless if the current morale state is a result from either Combat Stress or Combat Shock or a combination of both. Fatigue will only affect your movement options: Tired troops cannot Fast Move. Fatigued troops cannot Fast, Assault or Hunt Move. Exhausted troops cannot Fast, Assault, Hunt or Quick Move.
  9. 5 points
    A number of revamped CMSF2 scenario briefings did get condensed to be more concise. I'm one of those who get intimidated by 'wall of text' orders, myself. Other orders got expanded. The purpose of orders is to differentiate the scenario from a QB. 'You're on one side of the map and the enemy is on the other side' is insufficient info. About scenario times. I've got an old habit of adding 5 min to the runtime... then another 5 min... then adding variable extra on top of that. An added 5-10 min rarely affects the battle but helps the initial approach-to-contact feel less burdensome. Sometimes a scenario needs the opposite. Two hour+ battles where AI movement orders run out after 15 minute. You either have to shorten the runtime or expand the AI orders or both. There's also cleaning up maps. Its easy to make maps a bit more convincing. For first generation basegame CMSF1 , a standard hadn't been created to measure your work against. Nobody had made a game engine 2 map before! Map makers can work wonders but you first need examples of what a good map should look like to aspire to. Discussion about ideal scenario design can sound a bit theoretical, more players should be playing in the editor (which is fun, BTW). Try your hand at creating decent AI orders sets, try constructing your theoretical 'ideal' scenario. Then share the results with the community. You might come to see a difference between an 'ideal' scenario and 'achievable' scenarios
  10. 5 points
    For purposes of my argument below I'm defining the following terms as: Tools - Units given the player to fight the engagement. Parameters - Map size, time limits, objectives etc, the variables that can be adjusted by the designer to promote a certain type of play. Purely my opinion but the best scenarios in CM are the ones where the designers give the player a clear objective (and secondaries if applicable), a set of tools to use and then let them loose to solve the problem in any way they see fit. When designers start reducing parameters like time allocation and map sizes/design in certain ways they are promoting a certain type of play. This usually means designers are restricting the player to follow a linear path to completing the objectives. Inappropiate map sizes for the forces provided to both sides and restrictive time limits are the usual things I've noticed that designers turn to increase difficulty or try to push the player to follow a historical pathway. Even with some of the stock scenarios I've played, I've come away thinking did they just reduce 30mins from the time allocation to up the difficulty? That's not to say time shouldn't be a factor for scenarios and racing the clock is certainly viable in some situations, however design and narratively speaking it has to make sense. If you are assualting an entrenched enemy position and you as the player are told you are commanding the main effort, your superior officer is not going to care if it takes you an extra 30 minutes to take that final position. This is where my victory points allocated by time taken comes into play and frees up designers to be more flexible when setting a scenarios parameters. If you take that final objective but you required those extra 30 minutes you won't get the additional victory points that would of made it a total victory... but please keep fighting the battle until you complete it. Oh and if you are designing a campaign and force me to rush a large map within an hour and then expect the same force to do it all over again with no replacements... @George MC is still the master of getting the balance between tools and parameters right in my opinion. If you haven't played this one yet, you've been missing out... http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-red-thunder/cm-red-thunder-add-ons-scenarios/der-ring-der-5-panzer-division/ My thoughts above also do not mean all battles need to be battalion(+) affairs to give the player variety, however the time allocation and map size should be adjusted based on amount of and the type of forces involved in the battle.
  11. 5 points
    Two reinforced companies, 320mx320m of urban Mosul, an hour & a half to clear it: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wfjnp2xy78c1e2g/Ashsh al-Dababir.btt?dl=0 Give it your best shot.
  12. 5 points

    CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2

    Bonjour, full in the gun at 550 m ! i do the same face that gunner
  13. 4 points
    I agree with you totally as to your view of these types of request and as to how well they would work as to creating new scenarios and content. I like to play around with the editor myself and am always looking for different types of tactical situations to set up. So I have found it possible to set up pretty much any of these types of missions to some extent. Now did I find these interesting - yes. Did I find it hard to get the game set up to mimic realistic results from real life events. (very hard at times, but generally it was possible) Would many of these battles make a good scenario. No - seldom and getting victory conditions that make it a challenge and possible victory for both sides is really a hard task to achieve. Personally, I think the magic to scenario design and battle building is looking for ways to create and reflect different battles and somehow show or reflect a direct challenge in that situation. There really is no one type of design that is better than others, so when people ask for scenarios be designed a certain way, I see that as their preference, likely because it matches their style of game play. But I don't think designers should think they need to restrict themselves to such request. I do think designers should stretch themselves and try to create unusual battles, just for the sake of providing distinct tactical situations. As for having the game model the units for those limited situations, its not a good usage of the companies time. But the game can do it, I wish I had the time where I could provide some quality scenarios in some of these type of situations. But I find I don't have the time or desire to do it. But anyone who own the game can learn to create their own wishes with some effort. and when you are doing it for yourself, it takes much less time. because there is so much more that does not need to be done to meet expectations of a scenarios to release to others. I find I can create a map and get troop types to reflect what I want pretty easily. I don't care if the troops don't look correct or wear the right clothing, I care about their setting so they act appropriate for the abilities that I think they have. I don't need to worry about AI limits or programming it. I either play both sides or I find someone to play one side and off we go. The game is a excellent tool for reflecting combat - learn to use the tool and you don't need to hope others provide you the battles you want to play, its within reach of your own finger tips
  14. 4 points

    More drama in Ukraine--Sea of Azov

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46340283 "Under a 2003 treaty between the governments in Moscow and Kiev, the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov are shared territorial waters." Obviously the Russians are not honouring this, and for the apologists who think Russia has done no wrong ROFL at your excuses!!! Pathetic.
  15. 4 points

    Gauging Combat Mission Interest

    No Bil, that is just a map of your fan club membership. 😁
  16. 4 points
    Going clear back to when CMBO was in development, there has been a lot of effort put forth trying to properly understand the nitty gritty of Panzer armor, an effort which I believe far eclipses far harder to get info on the Soviet side of things, though quite a bit of work went into understanding terminal effectiveness of vs Russian AP projectiles and their various limitations and causes thereof. Happily, while looking into T-34 books, this popped up, and am I glad it did! This thing is gold clean through. It looks at gun barrels, armor plate and shells. It's got such things as US analyses of armor samples taken form a T-34 and KV-1 sent to the US by the Soviets and some of the scariest live fire comparison tests ever. If you think I'm exaggerating, take a look at what happened when the Soviet cast iron 82 mm mortar projectile went against our own steel 81 mm mortar projectile. Tests against 1" thick pine witness boards found the Soviet mortar shell put out an almost incomprehensible 9 X more hits and 8.1 X more total perforations at 40 feet as a result of a hurricane of shell fragments our 81 couldn't begin to match. No wonder Ivan was in love with mortars! Artillery shells using cast iron or steel bodies are also covered. As for tanks,, coverage is much more than the early T-34 and Kv-1, in fact extending through the IS-2,. It delves into AP shells and shot, including arrowhead, where direct comparisons are made between it and US HVAP down to the level of tungsten carbide core weights. This paper can be read readily, but the level of technical information is eye watering, a condition worsened by the fact that the text was typed and that this was microfilmed, making reading fine print in the tables exciting and making the photos hard to see in the bargain. This was originally SECRET, with a distribution which was a Who's Who of American military ordnance. If Herr Tom loses his mind reading this paper, I'm not responsible! http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/011426.pdf Paper Presented at Meeting on Trends in Soviet Metallurgical Developments Central Intelligence Agency Washington 25, D. C. I! 16 April 1953 Regards, John Kettler
  17. 4 points
    Good news for you Dutch armor fans, an improved texture for CV9035 just slipped in under the wire. MUCH better looking than the original CMSF1 texture, and better looking than the texture in the game a week ago.
  18. 3 points
    I don't care. Fight me.
  19. 3 points

    10 Myths about Afghanistan article

    Not sure if this is sarcasm or not. If it isn't then no worries. If it is sarcasm then, my three tours of Afghanistan and a female comrade KIA suggests you should pull your head in.
  20. 3 points
    Ok - I've actually just run a quick test on this in CMFI because that was the quickest test range I had to hand: 1 x US Regular M2 HMG crew per lane @ 100m. Each lane contains a single building type as per the table below. Skulking behind the building in each lane is a German Regular Average motivation Panzergrenadier squad with the exception of the commercial building which had the platoon HQ lurking behind it. Here are the results of a single turn firing: Clearly I'm not going to plan the next shot to Mars on this data, and my reading of the suppression bar levels is based on a lot of squinting because of their small size, but the reasonable deduction seems to be: Firing HMGs at buildings from a range of 100m suppresses troops behind them.
  21. 3 points
    I think that adding the comment on armor really muddies the discussion... of course the presence of armor complicates everything, however that doesn't really make the text book tactics useless. I always preach to learn the basics first in isolation, only then can you adjust them to your situation and keep them in your back pocket for when the situation arises to apply them in a text book fashion. This happens in many games whether tanks are present or not. Tactics are nothing but a bunch of tools that you can use or ignore as the situation demands... they are not a set of rules, but should be used as guidelines. I'm not sure this is unrealistic... it could take a while even in a real firefight for an overwatching unit to adjust to the sudden chaos and get a handle on where the fire is coming from and the fire's volume.. again this does not mean the basic tactics are ineffective. Seriously, adding these specific situations really don't add much to the conversation... unless the OP asks specifically for how to handle that situation, then it would make sense to me. Besides if you need to add a second MG to provide effective suppression then of course you should do that, don't really see the problem with that. Well it really depends on the size of the enemy unit and the proximity to the suppressing team/squad, etc. If you are having trouble with keeping the enemy unit suppressed than chances are that you are not applying enough suppression fire, add another team or a full squad. There is a lot of misunderstanding on how these tactics are supposed to be used, they are made up of just a few basic elements: SUPPORT ELEMENT - Provides suppression on the enemy position - this element should be as large as is required to actually provide effective suppression - from a single team to multiple squads if that is what is needed MANEUVER ELEMENT - the Support Element is the anvil and this element is the hammer. The Maneuver Element should ONLY attempt to assault the enemy position when it is effectively suppressed.. the Maneuver Element will probably be smaller than the Support Element but should at least be about the same size as the enemy unit being acted against.
  22. 3 points

    Demo Feedback

    Thing 1: The Blue units on the board at the beginning of the game are to have something to do besides slugging down beer and eating pretzels... Really! The Amphibs are reinforcements. The FO is a MUST for Human Player 1st turn arty- air strikes. Thing 2: The Engineers were used against wire and mines when I was doing the original scenario. Also They were a compact unit which allowed fewer order slots. Thing 3: As the author of A Day at the Beach I made a decision NOT to be realistic so much as fun. Honestly - No Marine would plan such a hap hazard beach assault with No intel, a couple of Helo's and pretend Naval Guns . The Scenario was designed to display the New game features and to blow stuff up.
  23. 3 points

    New Schmuck in need of advice

    Ha! I was wondering how long it would take those 60 seconds to pop up as an example of how not to do things. My own fault entirely for not covering the basics- one scout team out on that flank and I would have heard it coming and not been caught with my pants down. But that's combat mission: make mistakes, get punished. The trick is learning from it. You can be damn sure that's never gonna happen to me again.
  24. 3 points
  25. 3 points
    Sitrep @ 9:46 Wow, I am amazed by what's happening right now. The way my Marines handle the firefights is just majestic! Even though quite a lot of them are regular level troops, and many being morally depressed (cautious or scared, borderline panic). 1st Platoon entered the Obj Vasquez compound without any resistance. No contacts so far. But their AAV was attacked by an RPG guy from the Obj Phelps. The RPG gunner missed though, and was killed by AAV's quick return fire. The vehicle commander was up on the turret, unbuttoned. 2nd Platoon meets very small resistance as it moves through Obj Rick. Just a couple of guys that were dealt with surprisingly well at a disadvantageous situation for my Marines (they were out in the open, while the enemies were inside the building and fired at them at almost black range. But the Marines killed both and then cleared the house completely. Remember that compound at Obj Jones that my LAR Platoon dismounts were about to storm? The one where I created additional entry points in the walls. I am specifically forbidden to fire indiscriminately at the buildings if I'm not fired upon from them. So I was not firing at the buildings, just made some holes in the walls, nothing dangerous, let me assure you. However, the enemy might not even be aware of this. He opened up early and fired at one of my LAV-25s. It was a near hit (not direct). Small damage to LAV's wheels, but everyone's OK. LAV commander was unbuttoned when the RPG hit nearby, and he immediately closed the hatch afterwards and directed the gunner to open up on the building with 25mm. And I think we've killed the guy who fired the RPG. Also, now I can freely hose the building with lead before entering. Now unto the most action heavy part. 3rd Platoon's adventures. Remember the plans I wrote on the previous page? So far I'm sticking to it. 2nd and 3rd Squads have reached the northern end of the planned route, the one with a burning car in the yard. They've uncovered multiple enemy groups and are in the middle of a vicious firefight. They are to stay there and will cover 1st Squad's movement. 1st and Assault Squads are crossing the road, moving to the southern side of the Obj Phelps. They will blow a hole in the wall and will proceed clearing the southern side of the Obj Phelps. It might take a while, and I'm afraid that I'd need additional manpower to be sent to the southern side, but we'll see. The fighting is going very well so far. I'm proud of my little pixeltruppen. 2nd & 3rd Squads of the 3rd Platoon exchange lead with the enemy: