Jump to content

Redmarkus

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Redmarkus

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm playing Road to Nijmegen using patch 4.02 and squads have been rushing through hedges towards enemy machine guns on a regular basis.
  2. Ha ha. You're right. I must get myself an avatar.
  3. Yes it was. I'm sure they'll fix it too, assuming it's a bug and not a design choice.
  4. I've had a few problems with this too. Troops running towards the enemy makes no sense at all.
  5. I was experiencing repeated crashes after updating to 4.02. Eventually, I uninstalled fully, deleted all residual files (including mods), reinstalled to a different location and patched all the way to 4.02. I've had zero crashes so far this weekend after several hours of play.
  6. I've been under small arms fire a small number of times. I never got up to run in any direction, or even crawled to better cover - I just tried to press my body as deep into the ground as it could go, eyes closed and whimpering to myself, 'God, God, God.' I wasn't special forces or SWAT; just a basic infantry soldier. Might be better if the game sprites just froze in place like me; 'suppressed', as the old infantry tactics manual describes it.
  7. I'd really like to play a campaign of this nature. A couple of comments. My focus is on a historically convincing experience: Why not go for a series of Platoon-sized (ish) 'Byte Battles' with a PDF map to put them all in context? The CMRT Byte Battle tutorial scenario is a perfect size IMHO. Let the campaign follow a historical narrative. So your most recent platoon-level fight was a disaster, but overall the Division has advanced. Onto the next battle with another platoon. As the campaign progresses, both sides will start subsequent engagements with platoons that have suffered a degree of attrition - again, historically based. You don't win or lose a campaign in this model; you experience it. You know from the outset which side won or lost and now you'll get a better sense of why. I find the standard CM victory conditions to be a bit strange. Rather than declaring victory based on taking this hill or having that loss ratio, is it possible to configure things so that all battle outcomes result in a draw and the player is left to look at the situation and come to his own conclusions about success? I've played scenarios in which I destroy 16 enemy tanks to my one and still lose because there's still an enemy HQ unit sitting in a hut. What's missing from CM is the 'mopping up' phase of combat. Victory is generally not won outright in real life and may not even be apparent to the troops engaged.
  8. Question: How do you spell 'dyslexic'? Answer: dis-lex-ik?
  9. Oh boy... Mission 2 and I was going great guns, in the middle of a two-platoon assault on the second objective, when my Stuka support conducted a Blue-on-Blue strike in the very centre of my main effort. I took about 30 casualties. That was the end of that battle! Realistic though...
  10. Absolutely brilliant Mod and campaign! Many thanks.
  11. Hi George, I certainly didn't mean to cause offence. I will hold my tongue and give the first scenario another go. I have done a fair bit of modding and even some scenario design for a number of games over the years but for some reason I've found scenario creation in CM2 challenging. Maybe you're right and I should focus on learning how to build stuff to suit my own tastes.
  12. This is a valid point. Military briefings are designed to be as brief and to the point as possible. The modern form has become longer, but a WW2 Orders Group at Company or Bn level had a very simple orders structure. I recall the 1970s form: Ground Situation Mission - short and simple, as in "A Company will seize hill 123 by 2200hrs." Execution Atts and Dets Admin and Logistics Command and Signals Few parts of this were more than a paragraph and some bits were just skipped, as in "Gentlemen, the situation is unchanged."
  13. I've been around a while and I've owned every title in the series. I used to make a lot of my own CM1 scenarios. I have made several attempts to build CM2 scenarios that cater to my wants, but I have failed every time. Make my own campaign? Probably never. Call me stupid, but I find it just too difficult and complex a task.
  14. Personally, that would be my preference. I play in order to get a better appreciation for the reality of historical or plausible semi-historical engagements, unbalanced as they might have been. I sorely regret not having a campaign or two to fight in which a well supplied Allied force wears down a smaller Axis force during a series of unbalanced engagements. There are two philosophies to consider here: CM battles should be finely balanced and complex problem-solving challenges. CM battles should reflect reality, even when reality involves one side having a major advantage over the other. I don't think that these are mutually exclusive approaches, but at the moment the balanced problem-solving mindset seems to dominate. The question is, is there an audience for the alternative?
  15. So I've been giving this some thought. What I certainly don't want to do is disrespect the energy and devotion you put into creating your wonderful scenarios and campaigns. So, this is certainly not intended as criticism. What I do want to explain are the things I personally look for in any CM action. I might be the only one with this mindset, so please just take is as one man's chain of thought. As a former rifle company OC, my recollection of training and ops 35 years ago (some of my senior officers at that time were WW2 vets), is that the tactical situations we were required to assess were relatively straight forward; the enemy is dug in on that hill in platoon strength. Are you going right flanking, left flanking or straight up the middle? What's your fire support plan? How will you employ your attached elements? A campaign was a series of such actions, taking various forms; advance to contact, hasty attack, reconnaissance patrols, ambush/fighting patrols, defensive night actions, deliberate attack, breakthrough and pursuit. The actions themselves were simple; suppress and close, reorganise, defend the ground taken. The complexity arose when attrition and low morale took effect, or when ammunition ran low while objectives still needed to be taken. I guess that what I personally seek from any campaign in CM is a series of smaller actions that form a part of the whole but which are not necessarily designed as chess-like challenges. I don't believe that a majority of combat unit leaders have to make that many problem-solving decisions, or that many real-world actions hinge on finely tuned point scoring systems. What I am really saying is that while smarter and more game-savvy players than I will waltz through a campaign like this, using all manner of highly intelligent ploys and moves, a more simple-minded player like myself, who employs conventional combined arms tactics, tends to lose on points. I'm not questioning the quality of the campaign or the massive effort that's gone into the documentation; I am proposing a different philosophy for campaign design. Just ignore me if this sounds like babble...
×
×
  • Create New...