Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/14/2018 in Posts

  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. 6 points

    CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2

    special dedication
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 4 points

    Gauging Combat Mission Interest

    No Bil, that is just a map of your fan club membership. 😁
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 3 points
    Here is the generic scenario description for PBEM Tactical Problem 02. For best results use the CMRT Floating icons referenced in the post above. STRONGPOINT! ~ Russian Defense ~ German player must assault and clear the heavily mined enemy strongpoint through very restricted terrain, time is short as enemy reinforcements are close. Russian player must defend at all costs and counterattack with reserves, if they arrive in time. Time: 30 Minutes. Complexity: Russian Player: Moderate German Player: Advanced Game: CMRT Author: Bil Hardenberger Download Link: PBEM 02 - Strongpoint!
  17. 3 points
    Full disclosure - I’m friends with WriterJWA in real life. I’ve been watching this and his other topic on scenario design for a while. I’m also really new to the game, having only played CMFB for a couple months and CMBN for much less. I started out with a few campaigns and scenarios and vacated them, although I plan to once I really master the mechanics of the game and the interface. Quick Battles are a great way to train, and there seems to be more freedom to accomplish your mission however you see fit as the commander. In the few campaigns I did play, I did badly. I suspect it’s because I’m so new to the game, but I got the sense that they were *very* difficult. Some are meant to be (Sing Sing comes to mind). In any that I attempted though, I think the clock made most of the difference. There was little time to be careful - to probe, work the flanks, and prep - adding a degree of pressure for which I can’t quite grasp the real life parallel. An idea: Would it be possible to make the factor of time something more open ended but with consequences for follow on missions? It’d be something like a penalty or bonus system for subsequent missions. For instance, Col Joe Snuffy lollygags his way through the first town. If he takes more than X hours he misses link up with his reinforcements for the next mission, or he sacrfices an off map arty battery for the next mission because they’ve got another tasking. This would perhaps reflect the real life consequences of time on the battlefield. (Please keep in mind that this novice suggestion without fully grasping what’s possible to accomplish on the scenario design end) Anyway...This is one of the most fantastic games I’ve ever played. It is really close to an all-out combined arms simulation. I appreciate the work that’s gone into it
  18. 3 points
    Open your NVIDIA Control Panel > Manage 3D Settings (under 3D Settings) - Under program settings - 1. Select a program to customize: ADD - find the CMSF2 executable and select it Find the Anti-aliasing FXAA setting and turn it OFF That should fix your fuzzy text.
  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

    Demo Feedback

    AFAIK, there is no default 7-man squad with a 3-team structure. IIRC, UKR has a mountain motor rifle platoon with a 10 or 11 man squad which would require the 3-team structure to still be capable of a 2-man split off (1 team cannot have more than 7 men, and the total number of teams is hard-coded to the squad). Such a squad that is understrength or has taken casualties might appear as 7 men in 3 teams. Personally I'd prefer that US squads did have a 3-team structure, with the SL in his own team alone and 2x 4-man fire teams, but I believe Steve does not like putting only 1 man into a team. (He really worries about his pixeltruppen creations getting lonely and lamenting their creator.)
  21. 3 points
    Had a couple more thoughts on this. Not really responding to anything in particular. Difficulty is, naturally, subjective. I did see a post on Reddit the other day, coining the term "not BGG Balanced" referring to Root. Root is a great asymmetric COIN game, with woodland creatures. A furry insurgency, if you will. Very impressed with the Designer since his work on Pax Pamir and especially John Company, so it comes highly regarded. "BGG" refers to Boardgamegeek. Root (and the GMT COIN series that inspired it) tend to be asymmetric, with multiple factions that need to bounce off each other to make the whole thing work. Asymmetry implies imbalance, but the point of the games are that if Player A doesn't perform his role, Players B and C might not be able to stop D winning. This means that all players need to be invested and understand the underlying situation, which is asking for a fair bit of commitment from them. Not an unreasonable amount, but more than the average eurogame. The point of the "BGG balanced" remark was that the balance in Root is something that all parties need to work towards to achieve. They need to be aware of what they're doing, and what everyone else is doing, and to control the imbalance in the overall context, and of a specific turn. Getting this right is a huge part of doing well at the game. A forum like BGG is inevitably a melting pot of people with different backgrounds and expectations, playing groups and experiences, and so a game which asks a lot from the players may not be suitable for everyone in every situation. In fact, you're more likely than not that the consensus will be tilted towards the mean - so any outliers will be emphasised. A "BGG Balanced" game would take that issue away through careful balancing that is player independent. The issue is that this also tends to make it bland, or at least homogeneous. Combat Mission asks an awful lot from you. It's a brutal and long game. A given mission may take many real-world hours to play out, and you can screw it all up in minutes. It's certainly true that CM scenarios tend towards the difficult, but "balance" is something that's so fickle and subjective that it's incredibly hard to define, let alone implement.
  22. 3 points
    LukeFF, Have been on the CM Forums since January 2000, during which there have been all manner of discussions NOT on the GDF about various military and civilian people, not to mention multiple threads and a fair number of OPs regarding military books. Yet there is only one person being singled out by you for posting such, and that's me. This is twice in one week, and I'm tired of it! The GDF is, by Forum activity standards, practically dead, so it makes sense to put posts where they will be read. I deliberately made this post to what I felt was the best Forum for it that WASN'T the CM GDF, but you're still on me about it. Face it, you want me gone. Only then will you be truly at peace, yet I am NOT the one causing an uproar on the Forums. You are. You're the one acting like negative vibe Moriarty here, not me. This is harassment under color of authority you do NOT have. Stop! Regards, John Kettler
  23. 3 points
    The Sgt mostly works in CMSF so you may not be familiar with his work, but he has done some really creative fun stuff that has imho pushed design for that title up a notch. He is a very good example of someone who has decided what he’d like to see and then applied it. Now keep in mind his work just like anyone else’s may not appeal to everyone. However it is damn good work. As to being a customer, well that only applies if you paid for it. That is true for one that comes with the game, but not for user created stuff which will be the vast majority of content over time. For those in effect you are getting something for free and then complaining about it as if you have some customer rights. You don’t. You can only 1decide even at free it isn’t worth it to you or 2 provide specific feedback/suggestions to the designer in a manner that is productive and collaborative. #change your tone. 😁
  24. 3 points

    Newbie DAR/AAR: ncc1701e vs JoMc67D

    Meeting Engagements in CM are frequently a problem - rushing to grab the centre is neither particularly authentic, nor particularly satisfying - attack/defend scenarios are often a little better. The more interesting meeting engagement setups tend to have distinct "mine" and "yours" objectives - both sides then have to consider their attack and their defence, which produces something much more reasonable.
  25. 3 points

    CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2

    Bonjour, full in the gun at 550 m ! i do the same face that gunner