Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


domfluff last won the day on September 9

domfluff had the most liked content!

About domfluff

  • Rank
    Junior Member


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Interesting, the one I got from the Scenario depot didn't. Perhaps they're on variable reinforcement timers, and I just kept getting unlucky? In any case, what you start the mission with didn't match the briefing. Doesn't matter, really.
  2. Yeah, the scenario depot version. The one there is one of a series of "randomised" scenarios, that have additional AI plans and less deterministic reinforcements - chap did the same thing for "CMFI In For a Pound".
  3. The alternate version is actually missing some things - you don't have air cover, for a start, and you're missing some artillery and drone assets.
  4. It didn't ship with CMBS. It's probably worth uploading to the Scenario Depot though.
  5. Oh yes, that's going to be true for reality, but I wonder how CM models the difference. In particular, I wonder if the Garand has better bocage or wall penetration, and how that's accounted for. It'll definitely have a longer effective range, which tends to be more important in CMFI or CMFB than CMBN, given the average terrain. Obviously a carbine solider can carry more ammo too, which isn't nothing.
  6. I think having two squads without an LMG (on that Excellent generation), or zero at all (on Typical) is pretty huge for anything WW2 - arguably the US LMG is less important than the equivalent in a German or Commonwealth unit (since the BAR isn't really a light machine gun, or particularly good at pretending to be one), but losing that automatic firepower is a losing large chunk of why the squad exists by doctrine. I haven't really played around with the Carbines enough to know if there's a major difference in practice - obviously it's a smaller, less powerful round, but I don't know if that actually matters all that much in actual hedgerow-to-hedgerow (or house to house, or whatever) combat. Essentially, without the specialist kit, what's the intended role? They don't have the comms or transport to be effective scouts, they don't have the firepower to be effective infantry - they're a stop-gap and expedience, which seem appropriate to me for "stragglers".
  7. Setting up two platoons to "Typical" in the Editor - The Infantry Platoon consists of: 39 dudes w/ 3x Thompsons 3x BAR 3x M7 Rifle Grenades 2x Bazookas 3x AT Grenades 2x Carbines +Rifles Each 12 man squad (something close to) 1620 .30 cal rounds 180 .45 cal rounds 16 Grenades 3 66mm HE The Straggler section consists of: 51 dudes w/ 4x Thompsons 10x Carbines +Rifles Each 12 man squad (something close to) 1056 .30 cal 180 .45 cal 150 .30 cal Carbine 12 Grenades Soft factors were generated identically in this test. Setting this to "Excellent" gave me two BARs on this test, obviously there's a die roll involved here for all of this, but I think you usually won't get BARs. Speculating, but I wonder if "Typical" is lower than "Average" for Straggler sections? Obviously there are the aforementioned differences up the org chart as well. They're definitely a weaker formation, and very different to the mainline infantry.
  8. Straggler sections tend not to have BAR's or other specialist equipment (they don't get bazookas, BAR, rifle grenades, etc.), and have a mix of Garands and M1 Carbines. Typical settings seem to give them lower motivation and possibly lower leadership, although I'm not confident about that one. They also have fewer grenades and less ammunition per soldier. Infantry battalions also have integrated AT, Engineers, Jeep transport , etc. Having access to integrated Jeep transports will mean access to more ammunition. The infantry HMG's are part of the Weapons company, along with the 81mm mortars, which the Straggler formations also don't have access to. With how comms work in the game, having weapons integrated into your command structure is more effective than attaching them ad hoc. With any points-buy system, there's always a possibility that you can break things by min-maxing, picking and choosing elements from A or B to produce something ahistorical, that's just the nature of the beast, but the main thing is that these are worse units, and ones you can't create in the editor.
  9. domfluff

    CMSF2 Demo

    You could check the forum four times a day.
  10. domfluff

    IED Mechanics?

    I've tried this in CMSF 1, and couldn't get anywhere - it was all or nothing. Now, "unfun" in multiplayer? Maybe. A lot will depend on points values, and especially rarity. This is something which we've never really had the chance to test in CMSF 1. Insurgent forces don't really have many other advantages, so I suspect it'll be fine.
  11. Is there actually any reason why the pre-planned artillery can't be "x minutes", rather than 5/10/15 - having "danger turns" seems incredibly gamey, given the information you can derive from it.
  12. domfluff

    How much do you roleplay?

    For me, the whole point of simulationist games (computer or otherwise) are that you create a feedback loop with real-world information - i.e., with Combat Mission I want to play CM, find an organisation, battle or piece of equipment that I'm unfamiliar with, and play with it in-game. Frequently fail, which encourages reading around outside the game, which should feed back into using the equipment more successfully. As a recent example, although I was pretty familiar with the British CVR(T) designs, I'd never really understood the Scimitar, or why that survived longer than the Scorpion in service. It took reading about the development of the family to finally grok that the intended purpose of the design was to take on enemy light armour - which will mean BTRs and BMPs in context. With earlier understanding about BMP usage - BMP mechanised infantry are intended to use their BMP as fire support, since it's supposed to be a fighting vehicle, albeit a weak and explodey one. In that sense, a BAOR vs Soviet fight may well have had Scimitars neutralising BMP support, whilst the infantry deal with their counterparts. That's a role which is equally applicable in 2008 Syria and 2017 Ukraine, whereas the Scorpion's more anti-infantry role is less relevant. So... I'm not sure I'd call it "roleplaying" per se, but I certainly attack these kinds of games as simulations first and games second - I'm more concerned with what it can teach me than how to exploit game systems to win.
  13. domfluff

    s h o c k f o r c e 2

    Last word on that was that Shock Force 2 would be an entirely new game, but would have a discount for current owners.
  14. (Whoops. I might have had a little to do with the post being changed...) In computer game terminology, "strategy games" is the correct genre for CM. In military/grog terminology, CM is a 'Tactical' game. At best it might be a "grand tactical" game, on massive maps. It doesn't really have enough logistical nuance to really be considered an 'Operational' game, even in the campaign system. You can fiddle around with that to a certain extent (e.g., branch a mission into two options with different reinforcement rates, depending on whether a supply cache was blown up or not), but it's crude and not terribly satisfying. CM is certainly not a 'strategy' game in the military/grog sense, since there's none of the political/diplomatic concerns that define that. The definitions are pretty vague, still: The Australian defence force defines them as follows: Strategic Level of War The strategic level of war is concerned with the art and science of employing national power. Operational Level of War The operational level of war is concerned with the planning and conduct of campaigns. It is at this level that military strategy is implemented by assigning missions, tasks and resources to tactical operations. See also campaign. Campaign A controlled series of simultaneous or sequential operations designed to achieve an operational commander’s objective, normally within a given time or space. See also operational level of war. Tactical Level of War The tactical level of war is concerned with the planning and conduct of battle and is characterised by the application of concentrated force and offensive action to gain objectives. CM is a tactical game, and it can be a Campaign game with... campaigns. It's not an Operational or Strategic game at all. As far as computer games are concerned, 'Strategy games' is a shorthand, nothing more. That serves a purpose. If I was after deep comparisons of wargame titles, I wouldn't go for a top ten list like this. I'd much rather see something like that Armchair General series on CM, or an article a while back that was using CMANO to model the F-35 and try to understand it's role in some plausible contexts. 'Wargames' is a similarly dodgy shorthand - there's a reason why 'Consim' has been preferred for a while. 'Conflict Simulation' is a term which more accurately covers most simulationist games.
  15. domfluff

    Clear target

    Hide doesn't entirely stop them from firing, it's more of a "get down!" than an "ambush" or "hold fire" - they'll still fire if enemies are close enough. In a lot of situations, Hide will break LOS. The best way to "Hold fire" is to set a short covered arc, circular or otherwise. It's a really useful thing for scouts, HQ units, or anything you want to be watching more than fighting.