Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/12/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points

    Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread

    Yup I agree it definitely does. Since making video compared to screenshots I've really noticed how wonky infantry movement still is, even after BF's patch. In other news, I got a new microphone. Be sure to tell me if you miss the fishbowl effect! Why 7 minutes? I thought I found a nice breaking point compared to the 5/10 minute points I had before.
  2. 2 points

    How CMBN made me enjoy WW2 era

    I never liked WW2 era in gaming. Mostly due to its overuse for decades and how games, namely of a strategy genre, represented it. Vehicles were little more than variations of same stats and shared the same function, be it a light tank or a heavy tank, they just dealt a different amount of damage, chipping off those health bars or armor digits. Most were just destined to be discarded as you raced for the best tier to rule the battlefield. Yes even Men of War was quite guilty of this. Same very much goes for Steel Panthers, Close Combat and CMx1 games - because of all the abstractions, even grounded in reality, but still abstractions, that these games had. Sure enough Graviteam Tactics made WW2 just 'acceptable' to me, mostly due to its awesome representation of tank combat, but I always felt like something was amiss. That's why I like a modern era a lot more. Even in simpler games like Wargame series or Call to Arms due to era's sheer difference in weapon design and technological imbalance every side always felt like it had its own style. I was always playing Steel Panthers MBT and hardly ever touching WW2 versions. Even mediocre Close Combat Modern Tactics was interesting to me. And CMSF and CMBS just set the quality bar absolutely high. But then I got CMBN. And for the first time in my life I felt excited about WW2 era in games. Due to a sheer realism and precise representation of everything - every single vehicle, or even every firearm soldiers carry feels unique. No "better tiers", even light tanks can have their moments of glory versus bigger and meaner brethren when lucky or used cunningly. All the weird looking armored cars, these boxes on wheels can contribute a lot to battles. If it takes part in a mission - it can and will be used and it will matter. And due to all the variety of OOBs that a full CMBN bundle currently offers - it delivers what Graviteam Tactics does not: countless ways to have the same battle in - and an amazing infantry gameplay to boot, making tank battles actually feel superior in Battle for Normandy compared. Furthermore CMBN is, because of how many WW2 games are there and what they are, an example of why realism matters, why just having an abstract "frontal armor" receive less damage before an invisible health bar runs out, or just shrug off hits from calibers below some predefined penetration threshold - will never make an important difference that makes a game truly memorable. Exactly that difference between 75mm tank cannons of USA, Germany and UK. Damn it, I'll have to buy all WW2 CM titles now, right?
  3. 2 points

    CMBN weapons effect tests

    Okay, I just did it in CMFB on the second attempt. Three man scout team. 1 x M1, 1 x M3 Grease Gun and 1 x Thompson. January 1945. Typical. So you are probably right that it is more common in CMFB.
  4. 2 points
    It could be done as part of the Fantasy Vehicle Pack Steve alluded to in the other thread. You don't really need a new game family. With all the models, artwork and TO&E already done it could be patched into RT and/or FB. Then it just comes down to how ambitious BFC wants to be with it and the corresponding price point. If there is no new content aside from the "fantasy" units then it's essentially a vehicle pack. Or they could go balls to the wall with new scenarios, QB maps and campaigns and price it as a module.
  5. 2 points

    Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

    Yes, please! Hummm. Perhaps we should pitch an idea to create a CM game that combines the late ware CMFB, and CMRT forces into a new game family. Once the end of the war module of CMRT and Commonwealth module for CMFB are done all the units will be there with the appropriate TO&E.
  6. 2 points
  7. 1 point
    Drifter Man

    CMBN weapons effect tests

    Over the past few weeks I've been extensively testing the firepower of different American, British and German rifles, SMGs and LMGs in CMBN 4.0. I originally wanted to make a complete series of tests before 'publishing' the results, but I understand that there is an update in the making that will, as a minimum, adjust the rate of fire of some weapons, so for my work to have any impact, I should show them now rather than later. I am posting in general CM discussion. Although the tests were CMBN-specific, I believe that the same patterns in weapons effectiveness will be found in other titles as well. Method 13 lanes, target troops in foxholes (4-man U.S. medium mortar ammo bearer teams, regular, fanatic, no ammo). Walls are used to separate the lanes over the last 40 meters only, to prevent ricochets from affecting the results. In each lane, one firing team (regular, normal motivation, no leadership modifier) engages the target troop unit using a target arc order. The firing team is so set up that there is only one man in the team with the tested weapon, and he is the only one firing. Ample ammo is provided from supply trucks so the firing unit does not run out of ammunition during the test. There always is a leader in the team with binoculars to aid with spotting at long distances. 13 firing teams with the same weapon are tested in parallel at distances from 40 to 600 meters. The test runs for 10 minutes or until all target troops are eliminated, whichever comes earlier. The total time in action for the 13 teams (between 0 and 7800 seconds) and the total casualties (between 0 and 52) is evaluated. Each test is repeated 26 times, therefore each weapon is tested 338 times at each distance. An example of the test file is found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d5b7qoex6cmigm0/Weapons effects BAR (Gunner) 400m.bts?dl=0 In total, there are 106 files like that one, each run 26 times for up to 10 minutes. About 10,250,000 rounds were fired by the firing teams and 72,530 casualties taken by the target troops. Distance to target is the average distance of the 13 firing teams to the target action spot (as the firing team's action spot is 8 m wide, this needs to be adjusted for) Firepower is here defined as the average number of casualties suffered per unit time by the target troops. Minor wounds do not count. The unit is bpm, "bodies per minute". Rate of fire is taken from ammo consumption during the test, averaged from 26 instances. The unit is rpm, rounds per minute. Accuracy is the number of casualties per round fired. It may not fully correspond to the number of hits per round fired as one casualty may receive multiple hits, especially with automatic fire. The unit is bpr, "bodies per round", multiplied by 1000 to make the numbers easier to interpret. Tested weapons MP40 (Leader), Sten Mk II (Leader), Sten Mk IV (Leader, Soldier), M1A1 Thompson (Leader) - distances 40-192 m MP44 (Leader), MP44 (Soldier) - distances 40-320 m Karabiner 98K, Gewehr 43, Lee Enfield No 4, M1 Garand (all Soldier) - distances 40-320 m Lee Enfield w/scope (Marksman) - distances 40-600 m MG42 LMG, Bren, B.A.R. (all Gunner) - distances 40-600 m [I am going to break up this post here, results come next]
  8. 1 point
    Amazon served this up to me, and I was unaware of its existence prior to that. Looks great and is on my snag soon list! The free sample shows small arms only, but even so, shows how the writer, who's an accomplished technical illustrator, does his work. World War II Soviet Field Weapons & Equipment: A Visual Reference Guide (Datafile 1939-45) Paperback – January 5, 2017 by Keith Ward (Author) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1909384992/ref=rdr_ext_tmb Regards, John Kettler
  9. 1 point
    His first post said "I've been playing around with my CMBN and made a few observations along the way... I'll dump them here in case they could help polishing the game. Nothing game-breaking really." We've established that one person's nitpick is another person's major issue. The guy seems to be trying to be helpful by pointing out these items.
  10. 1 point
    +1. I would be excited about and buy any product BFC produces that has Soviet TOE and Allied TOE in the same game. I think I read somewhere that when CMFB is completed it will contain the Commonwealth forces. So the Final Blitzkrieg + Red Thunder TOE would allow for many post WWII real world and hypothetical conflicts. The above, as outlined by Vanir, may be the easiest way (so most likely?) for BFC to make this happen. This would be very cool.
  11. 1 point

    How CMBN made me enjoy WW2 era

    You're damn right you will - and you won't regret it one second. You have years of content to immerse yourself in. What I like to do is read a book about the battle or setting I play to really appreciate how CM can be a realistic reenactment of those battles. It has come to the point that when I read about WWII to my imagination, the "inner eye" - it is most times in the form of CM.
  12. 1 point

    Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

    Have an expansion each for RT and FB so it covers each way the direction it could have gone - & sell double the hotcakes! Or if BFC is generous and clever if it was installed in one game and it could could somehow detect the game libraries from other installed games to draw upon when making the battlefields and forces...
  13. 1 point

    Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

    I doubt that the allies would start a conflict with the russians in 1946 but perhaps the ruskies would be a bit more agressive ...If the russians did try to expand the communist ideas further west i'm sure they would have gotten the same treatment as the japanese...A nuke or two ! End of conflict... But if BFC decided to make this possible...I would be more then happy to 'forgett' about the american nukes...Let the conflict begin ! An east-west war in 1946 would be very cool indeed. And Fulda gap...any timeframe....yes,yes,yes...bring it on...
  14. 1 point

    HerrTom's explosions

    lovely. thank you...
  15. 1 point

    Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

    Eh, but when it comes down to it, you're just fighting against British troops playing pretend Japanese forces with that mod. No thanks.
  16. 1 point
    I've always been of the opinion that if you are moving/deploying AT guns in sight of the enemy, you are using them wrong.....This isn't the Battle of Waterloo! just saying.
  17. 1 point
    Yes, CMSF2 is an upgrade of CMSF to 4.0 engine. See the first post of this thread.
  18. 1 point
    Drifter Man

    CMBN weapons effect tests

    I agree and I should have included that in my comments. The parameter I measure is not a complete picture of firepower because it does not include suppression. Suppression could be also measured with my method but it would be incredibly time-consuming. Sniper rifle is exactly the example where suppression is completely out of match with the ability to hit and kill. Maybe "killing power" or something like that would be a better term.
  19. 1 point
    Drifter Man

    CMBN weapons effect tests

    Rate of fire Not that much to see here, bolt-action rifles have the lowest rate of fire (including the scoped Lee-Enfield), semi-auto rifles have a higher one. You can see the difference between the Bren and B.A.R. as a result of magazine capacity (30 vs 20 rounds). MG42 has about 2-6 times higher RoF than everything else. Accuracy I want to highlight again that we are talking about kills per round, not about hits per round. The green line on the top is the scoped Lee-Enfield. It's accuracy is super-high but does not increase that much with decreasing distance, so there is little advantage in getting close. Bolt-action rifles are more accurate than semi-auto rifles, although this cannot be confirmed at long distances (sample size issue, I believe). Bren and B.A.R. achieve more kills per round than over 240 m. The SMGs are at the bottom but as you can see, their accuracy is flat or even rises with distance above 120 m! Excel file link (individual data is on hidden sheets if you need to see them): https://www.dropbox.com/s/qeltpvi732w91bt/CMBN weapons effects.xlsx?dl=0
  20. 1 point
    Drifter Man

    CMBN weapons effect tests

    First of all, some more notes: there is no discernible difference in MP44 and Sten effectiveness whether it is fired by a Leader or a Soldier. I am showing Leader data only. similarly, there is no conclusive evidence that Sten Mk II and Mk IV are any different. I am showing Sten Mk II data only. MP44, Bren and B.A.R. switch from full auto to semi-auto fire above 150 meters, so there is a step change in the results between 120 and 160 meters where I ran the tests the statistics may still not be good enough for weapons achieving few kills at long distances, so the results for rifles at the edge of their range are indicative rather than accurate. Firepower First note: the vertical axis is in log scale, otherwise the drop in firepower with distance would drown out all detail. I'll post the excel file so you can make any graphs you want. Bolt-action rifles are at the bottom, Lee-Enfield appears to be superior to Kar 98K. Semi-auto rifles are better, both M1 Garand and Gewehr 43 are on the same level together with the MP44 (when fired in semi-auto mode). All SMGs are better than all rifles over their entire range up to 200 m. MP40 and Sten have very similar performance, Thompson is the most powerful SMG. MP44 is less powerful than SMGs but is in the same league with them until the 150 m mark. Bren and B.A.R. are generally in the league with SMGs as well but, of course, keep going beyond 200 m. The B.A.R. is inferior to the Bren, apparently due to its smaller magazine, and therefore lower average rate of fire. MG42 beats everything by a wide margin except the sniper rifle. The scoped rifle benefits much less from closing the range than the other weapons. The only problem from my perspective is that SMGs keep their high performance out to 200 m. Their firepower does not fall much with distance in the outer part of their range, and as we will see, their accuracy (on "bodies per round" basis) is constant or even rises between 120 and 200 m. [more to come]
  21. 1 point
    George MC

    Panzer tactics video

    Great wee video that covers training, crew requirements, Panzer Formations, Organization, specific combat scenarios like fighting anti-tank guns, combat against tanks and bunkers - early war but still interesting stuff.
  22. 1 point
    CMRT has some, in my eyes, classic battles to offer: - Studienka - Carius at Malinava - Der Ring der 5. Panzer-Division - CMRT Fester Platz Polozk The first three are Panzer-heavy affairs on great maps with lots of room for manoeuvering. Fester Platz Polozk is a great defence scenario against the AI, it really works quite well. Also, as already mentioned, Kampfgruppe von Schroif is a great campaign to be played, featuring German Panzer / Panzergrenadier forces in a counterattack. So, together with the change of the theatre and the Soviets as a completely new army, my vote would go to CMRT, definitely.
  23. 1 point
    As usual with these kind of questinons...I would say that the biggest question is...what settings do YOU prefer ? The western front ? or the Eastern front ? As far as quality goes i would say that the two games are fairly equal if you include both stock and comunity made stuff... Kampfgruppe Peiper (CMFB) have been highly praised in the comments on these forums...So have Kampfgruppe von Schroif (CMRT) for example... Both games obviously include far more content then these two Campaigns but as far as quality goes if feel that they are fairly equal...CMFB is a newer game and the stock scenario designers learns new tricks with every release they make but CMRT have had far more content released post release compared to CMFB. What is yor prefrence...CMRT will give you an entirely new country to play with...entirely new units...etc. CMFB is a continuation of the fighting between the americans and the germans on the western front...It will not give you as a unique experience as CMRT will...but if the western front 'lights your fire' to a greater degree then the east does...I'd say...go for CMFB ! If you do not strongly prefer the wetsren front...Go for CMRT !...Way more scenarios and Campaigns to chose from. An entirely new country. A new CMRT module is about to be released soon. CMFB is in for a longer wait it seems...
  24. 1 point

    A Video Worth Watching

    I think the Hapless Stavelot AAR's do a nice job of showing Combat Mission game mechanics and processes. While I like his Air Support, Indirect Fires, and Armor parts, I do not think he shows effective infantry tactics. His whole approach to securing his right flank was too lackadaisical for my tastes. I suppose that helps show how overwhelming this game can be in Huge battles at Battalion level. However, I think its a mistake for any player to underestimate or neglect the importance of closely managing your infantry in taking and holding ground or using it to deny ground to the enemy. Call me "Posh" (or any other "P" word which suits you ), but I agree with the comment which observed that it is unfortunate when the number of expletives constantly exceeds the number of casualties. Hapless's AAR shows a lot of time and effort. Kudos for that. I just wish it were more suitable for a younger and general audience. The Josey Wales vid's are exceptional.
  25. 1 point

    Artillery rate of fire

    I found a comprehensive chart of German arty stats in my old CMBN files dated November 2011. GERMAN LIGHT/MEDIUM ARTILLERY 81mm Mortar 120mm Mortar 75mm Inf Gun 150mm Inf Gun 75mm Howitzer 105mm Howitzer 150mm Howitzer Barrels 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 HE Rounds 100 60 70 50 140 140 120 Smoke Rounds 8 0 20 10 40 40 40 FAO Response Time (mins) Normal 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 TRP 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 HQ Response Time (mins) Normal 8 8 13 13 13 13 13 TRP 4 4 8 8 9 9 9 Mission Harassrnds/min p/Barrel 3.3 2.1 1.8 0.9 1.8 1.3 0.9 p/Unit 6.7 4.1 3.6 1.8 7.2 5.4 3.6 Max 15min 15min 20min 18min 20min 26min 34min Shortrnds/min p/Barrel 10.0 4.0 2.7 1.4 2.7 2.0 1.3 p/Unit 20.0 8.0 5.4 2.7 10.8 8.1 5.4 Max 5min 8min 13min 19min 13min 17min 22min Mediumrnds/min p/Barrel 20.0 5.0 4.4 2.2 4.4 3.2 2.1 p/Unit 40.0 10.0 8.8 4.3 17.5 12.7 8.4 Max 2.5mins 5mins 8min 12min 8min 11min 14min Heavyrnds/min p/Barrel 25.0 5.0 4.4 2.2 4.4 3.2 2.1 p/Unit 50.0 10.0 8.8 4.3 17.5 12.7 8.4 Max 2min 5min 8min 12min 8min 11min 14min Duration Quick p/barrel 4-7 3-4 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 2-3 Short p/barrel 11-16 8-11 5-10 5-8 5-10 5-10 5-8 Medium p/barrel 27-32 14-17 11-16 8-11 11-16 9-14 8-11 Long p/barrel 41-53 23-30 20-28 15-18 22-28 19-24 15-18 Maximum p/barrel 100 60 70 50 140 140 120 GERMAN HEAVY ARTILLERY 210mm Howitzer 170mm Gun 159mm Nbwfr 215mm Nbwfr 280mm Nbwfr 301mm Nbwfr 88mm Flak Barrels 4 4 6x6 6x5 6x5 6x5 4 HE Rounds 80 100 180 150 108 108 80 Smoke Rounds 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 FAO Response Time (mins) Normal 21 12 12 12 12 12 12 TRP 17 9 9 9 9 9 9 HQ Response Time (mins) Normal n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a TRP n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Mission Harassrnds/min p/Barrel 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.1 p/Unit 0.9 1.6 5.8 4.5 3.6 3.6 4.2 Max 89min 62min 31min 33min 30min 30min 19min Shortrnds/min p/Barrel 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.6 p/Unit 1.4 2.4 8.8 6.8 5.4 5.4 6.3 Max 59min 41min 21min 22min 20min 20min 13min Mediumrnds/min p/Barrel 0.6 1.3 4.4 3.4 2.7 2.7 3.0 p/Unit 2.5 5.1 26.3 20.5 16.2 16.2 11.9 Max 32min 20min 7min 7min 7min 7min 7min Heavyrnds/min p/Barrel 0.6 1.3 4.4 3.4 2.7 2.7 3.0 p/Unit 2.5 5.1 26.3 20.5 16.2 16.2 11.9 Max 32min 20min 7min 7min 7min 7min 7min Duration Quick p/barrel 1 1 6 6 6 6 2 Short p/barrel 36 Medium p/barrel 36-72 Long p/barrel 72 Maximum p/barrel 80 100 180 150 108 108 80 NOTES: MISSION = RATE OF FIRE · p/barrel = rounds fired per min per single barrel at selected rate of fire i.e. Harass · p/unit = rounds fired per complete unit i.e. all barrels in action · Max = time to expend all rounds when firing all barrels at selected rate of fire · Apart from 81mm Mortar then all other weapons appear to have the same rate of fire for Medium and Heavy... Maybe further testing needed DURATION = TOTAL ROUNDS PER MISSION · p/barrel = rounds fired per barrel over duration of mission. Nebelwerfers fire by multiples of its salvo. Here is a much briefer US Arty chart dated the same: CMBN US Artillery Characteristics Rate of fire is 1 round per x seconds. Duration is in rounds, or minutes if m suffix. US 60mm M2 mortar onmap Mission: Harass | Light | Medium | Heavy Rate of fire: 18 | 6 | 3 | 2 Duration: Q S M | Q S M | Q S M | Q S M Rounds: 6 7 7m | 3 20 30 | 3 19 24 | 3 16 US 81mm M1 mortar onmap Mission: Harass | Light | Medium | Heavy Rate of fire: 18 | 6 | 3 | 2 Duration: Q S M | Q S M | Q S M | Q S M Rounds: 5 10 15 | 6 10 28 | 3 10 25 | 6 12 22+ US 105mm M2A1 Howitzer Mission: Harass | Light | Medium | Heavy Rate of fire: 46-48 | 28-32 | 16-19 | 10-12 Duration: Q S M | Q S M | Q S M | Q S M Rounds: 3 6 14 | 2 7 12 | 3 6 12 | 2 6 12