thejetset

I was just about ready to post with the same question. I would like to purchase Red Thunder and Final Blitz. .... but am wondering if those are now 4.0 from the original download.

@JonS Yep. We have the newest version ... And shyte, I'm playing the Germans. @Placebo. Thanks. Please feel free to give it a play-test and post comments if you have an open PBEM slot. The numbers and modifiers and setups are purely "shoot from the hip" at the moment. We need some boots on the ground!

Hello Steve, Chris and company. I have not been active for a while and am starting to get re-familiarized with the "new" forums. One thing I've noticed from an outsider's perspective is that with the release of so many new titles in the past 3 years, that the forums have become somewhat fragmented. I think this could be hampering good discussions and participation. I would suggest that there is a "Master" Forum for all "CMx2 WWII" Titles. Then, you would have the sub-forums for each respective title (BN, RT, FI, FB). The same could be done for the Modern Warfare Titles. This would allow the community to discuss "General" issues inside of the Master Forum. .... Items specific to a particular title would still be available to discuss inside of that "Sub-Forum". This would help your team for tracking bugs or tweaking for a future patch. Anyway. I'm happy that time is permitting me to play again and get back involved. Looking forward to seeing what's on the horizon in 2017. Cheers

Thanks Jon. BTW, playing your Seven Winds scenario in PBEM right now. Still early, but looks to be quite vicious!

Hello everyone. I haven't posted in a long time and had to actually stop playing for about 2 years due to a project I was starting in "RL". I've been playing some casual H2H games with an old opponent and have been kicking an idea around in my head that I would like to present and get some feedback on. Then, I will start to play-test it. In short, it is a "Unbalanced Scenario Maker". The first page of the rules I will post here as it describes the overall objectives. For those that would like to read the full set of rules, complete with graphs and pictures, here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hOp47nNwMofaVM57eFdJE_W7zlRYLCgwmxzCaxl5Xuc/edit?usp=sharing COMBAT MISSION Unbalanced Scenario Maker / Unbalanced “Mini-Campaign” Maker Objective Tired of playing “Perfectly Balanced” H2H scenarios that are basically a contest to see who can capture the most flags? Worried that there is really no way to do otherwise without at least one of the two players knowing what advantage/disadvantage the other player will have? Wish you could decide to “hold the line”, “retreat”, “attack”, “probe” or just “defend” and have that decision affect future battles? This set of rules and simple tools will allow two relatively honest players to “blindly” create and play unbalanced scenarios and simple campaigns without the need for a 3rd party monitor. Players will be unaware of the amount and composition of the enemy forces. Decisions made in one scenario will affect the makeup and positioning of forces for the following battle. Players will have to decide whether it is worth more to “hold the line”, regardless of casualties or, fall back and sacrifice defensive posturing for the next scenario. PLEASE NOTE Objectives will be somewhat ambiguous for scenarios. Each commander will decide what objectives are best for their interests depending on the lay of the land, enemy resistance, and force composition. In the end, the objective is to capture territory … but that may not always necessarily mean “attacking” in each battle. The underlying concept is to attempt to provide more realistic objectives under varying conditions rather than a “perfectly balanced” scenario with “flags to capture”. The online Play by Email “Dice Rolling” site: http://www.pbegames.com/roller/ will be used to keep players honest. What a Player will Need: H2H Gameplay: Experience with PBEM. Quick Battles: Experience with setting up Quick Battles and unit selection by points. Basic Scenario Editing: Only the basics. Like how to set Deployment Zones, Terrain Objectives, Exit Zones and things of that nature. Honesty: The Unbalance Scenario Maker is designed to “Keep Players Honest” and verify their integrity, but there are ways to cheat. Please make sure you find a player whom you trust and whose main objective is to have dynamic, fun play … not just to win. Setup Steps: The setup for each game is divided into two parts. One part will be known and agreed upon by both players. This includes the map, deployment zones, etc … The other part is “secret” and only known by the player using those forces. Each of these steps is discussed in detail in it’s own section. Open Part of Setup: These steps are known and previously agreed upon by both players. Basically, this is the map that will be used for the scenario. Map: Select a Map. Zones: Agree on deployment zones, exit zones and objective zones and edit these onto the map. (More on this below) Sides: Once the map has been set with all zones and VOs, flip a coin to see which player deploys in which zone. Again, via pbegames.com can be used to provide an “honest” coin toss. (More on this below) Secret Part of the Setup: This part is only known by each player. Start Force: 2 six-sided die (2d6) are rolled for the “Start Force” points allotment. These will be the forces that each player starts the battle with. Reinforcement Forces: 2 six-sided die (2d6) are rolled for the “Reinforcement Forces” points allotment. These will be the forces that will enter the battle at a later time. Arrival Time: 2d6 are rolled to see at what time the reinforcements can be activated. This will be the “later time” that the reinforcements will arrive. These are the basic "outline" rules that show the overall idea of the system. The mechanics and details are fully explained in the complete Rules set in the above link. Please feel free to comment, question and suggest. I really enjoyed playing some of the Tiller Campaigns that Noob hosted a few years back. I would really like to capture that style of playing dynamic while still keeping the overall game an easy two-player PBEM system. Cheers!

@Moon - Will some of these scenarios be geared towards H2H play? I guess that would mean basically no AI and just listed as "H2H Play Only"??

Hey Umlaut, Looks like a cool scenario. I've downloaded it and will give it a try starting tonight!

Pretty poor taste of your opponent to hit your setup zone with an artillery strike. ..... In meeting engagements they should not be allowed. In Attack/Defend circumstances, only the attacker should be able to have a pre-planned strike into the defender's, much larger, setup zone. ..... anyway .... I prefer to use the "Move Quick" order with split-squads and fairly frequent stops if I think they could come into contact. If I'm just moving troops from one end of the map to the other and am not worried about combat, I will use a combination of "Move" and "Move Quick" to keep their condition at "Tiring" or "Ready".

And I have nothing to add to that.

Oh yeah!!

It should work out great. Zombies love craft beer ... sheesh. ... I thought everyone knew that.

Or maybe that "something nice" thing that Steve mentioned a couple of weeks ago? Perhaps not the actual release, but maybe the official announcement. However, trying to predict what BF will do next is like trying to read chicken bones to predict the weather.

Well Steve, I hope you have a good stock-pile of beer at home to weather this one out! (I home-brew ... so if the apocalypse hits ... I'm good in that department ... I figure I can just trade for whatever else I need with beer! )

I've only had success assaulting tanks when there is a building that totally blocks the tank's LOS. My guys ambush the tank from around the corner of a building. Other than that, I've managed to do it a couple of times when hiding guys in fields or behind a wall and letting the tank come to them. It's not easy ... and I imagine it wasn't easy back in '44 either.

OKOK ... I'm uploading my setup files to a cloud-based locker right now. Something that's always been in the back of my head ... but this post finally put enough fear into me to make it happen. Big files! ... It will take awhile ... but it's worth it. btw ... the Setup files can't be compressed with WinZIP or WinRAR. I just tried it .. the zipped file is the same size as the original .exe file.

+1 ... or even a +2 to that! ... I would love to have point values again for doing quick battles. (And make the Tigers cost 900 points too! ... I think a Tiger only costs about 1.8 times the value of a PzIV. But I have a feeling a Tiger costs many times more than a PzIV in real life .. taking into consideration manufacturing, maintenance and just the logistics of getting those beasts to the battlefield.)

I understand what Sublime is saying regarding tank crews leaving the vehicle and having the tank still be viable. (I've been on both the delivering and receiving side of this several times) .... but you can tell if the tank is manned or empty by just looking at the "Units" box. If the crew has bailed out, the tank shows up as "Empty" in the units box. If the tank is manned, the face of the commander will show up with some basic info. (btw ... I always play in either Iron or Elite ... so it has nothing to do with that setting) I think what we all are looking and hoping for is that feeling of seeing 3 or 4 tanks on the horizon ... maybe hull-down .... having a shootout with them .... and really not knowing what their status is. .... I mean unless it's burning or has it's turret laying on the ground a few meters away or is basically blown into pieces .... It would be great to simply not know. You would only know based on the graphical information you are presented with and have to make your own decisions based on that. (AI would 100% take over and "tag" the vehicle as KO'd only in the case of "obvious" KO's .. such as a burning vehicle or a vehicle that is clearly blown apart in some significant way) .... Other than that, you would only have "clues" ... Maybe the track is off? Why are the hatches open? The gun barrel is hanging down. It has 4 visible holes in the armor ... is it KO'd?? Also, it would be great to have more variable time on the "Death Clock" that MikeyD mentioned. In CMx2, I don't think I've ever seen a crew stay in their tank for a significant amount of time after it's been KO'd and is not burning. They just take the hit and either stay or immediately bail out. The AI seems to make the decision within about 1 second of taking the hit. I've never seen a case where an AP round hits a tank and the crew decides to bail out 20 or 30 seconds later when they realize that some critical system is out and it's a hopeless case. .... Or maybe they have an internal fire that they are trying to fight ... but after 20 or 30 seconds they realize it's time to get the hell out because the fire is winning! I think some changes in this area would be great ... especially for the Eastern Front.

I agree Erwin. And because of this, it is a great case for making this added level of graphics lend to an added level of game play. .... It is not just "Eye-Candy" ... you would need to look at the vehicles and make some decisions ... Should I tag it as "KO'd" so nothing will shoot at it?? .... ... Should I order some guys to keep firing on it?? ... Should I focus on other targets and let the AI decide?

Yeah ... I'm sure that BF has thought about it. I think it would especially be difficult to program the AI. .... Right now, your guys shoot at a tank until the "Red Cross" appears indicating that it is KO'd. With no "KO" indicator, something else would have to tell the AI when it's KO'd. Maybe a programmed % depending on the amount of visible damage?? .... This is totally out of my area! ... But I agree, some programming and serious thought would have to go into this in order to get it to behave well. The other option is that you could over-ride the AI and "tag" a vehicle as "KO'd" ... That would prevent your units from firing on it. But vehicles that are burning or ripped in half etc .... anything that is blatantly obvious ... those would be tagged automatically by the AI. The only problem when putting that into code is: "What is the definition of obvious!?"

I like these two points that Umlaut brought up. I fully agree that the most important reason we play CM is "Game Play" ... the graphics are a nice afterthought. But in the area of Buildings and Vehicles, I think some things could be done that would both enhance the graphics AND gameplay. Vehicles: It would be great to not really know 100% if a vehicle was KO'd or not. What if the driver and crew were killed in a half-track by small-arms? ... and the vehicle in some cases just keeps driving forward for a while? What if an AP round holes a tank and kills the crew or destroys some critical sub-system? There would be very little outside evidence of the tank being KO'd .... (or maybe you can't really see the tank in that much detail from your position) ...... You would have an incentive to keep plugging rounds into it until you are sure that it is KO'd. ..... For vehicles, external damage would replace the "Red Cross" to indicate that you have destroyed it (and it would remain a "valid" target for the remainder of the game until YOU indicate that it is "KO'd" ... at that point the AI will stop targeting it ... and yes, you might make a mistake and tag a vehicle as "KO'd" when it is NOT KO'd!). And in many cases, you would not know with 100% certainty if you have been successful! ... This would both enhance the gameplay AND look great graphically. Buildings: It would be great if buildings had some additional "components" to them to have them be destroyed in a slightly more organic way. Then, Cover and Concealment would change accordingly as the building's state deteriorates. Also, basements would be great. ... you would have lower LOS ... but excellent Cover and Concealment. ... and finally, fire ... Seeing buildings going up in smoke. This looks great graphically and also adds interesting gameplay enhancements. I guess that what I'm trying to explain is that I hope team BF focuses on graphical areas that have the added benefit of enhancing game-play. ... because game-play is what Combat Mission is all about.

I've been up there a couple times! Boat trips, passing through the Belmont locks and power plant. It's always a small world in West Virginia!

Hi Pord. Welcome to the forums. I'm originially from Parkersburg, WV. What town do you live in?

LOL! Too funny!! ... but so correct. In a recent PBEM battle, I managed to KO a Sherman with an AT grenade ... only to have the tank crew that bailed out kill about 8 of my guys in the nearby vicinity! ... I would not want to be in a drunken brawl in Paris back in '44 with a bailed out tank crew!!

Thanks Umlaut ... btw ... email me when you are ready to do some PBEM! Like the article said, I'm really excited to see what BF does graphics wise in the 3.0 engine! That's one of the reasons I have no problem shelling out some cash for all the new Modules and Upgrades ... I hope they invest it into some kick-ass graphics guys. Just the player-uploaded, jaw-dropping, videos on Youtube would get them a pretty quick return on their investment! New people would try and buy the game that would not have previously. (IMO)

Thanks Sublime and c3k. I think we're going to go with an extra 5 minutes for anything under 150mm. We are going to resolve 150mm+ assaults (if there are any ... these guns are pretty far up range) on the Operational level. Also, we are going to give an OOB to the gun batteries that includes roughly a platoon of infantry and the HQ units and things like that. This should make any assaults on the batteries pretty interesting.