Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Abdolmartin

  1. Even though ICM munitions aren't in CMBS, I still think (as has been mentioned in the forums before) that artillery doesn't do as much damage as it's supposed to. I once called in two 3-round 122mm precision strikes (from a Gvozdika platoon) on two Bradleys, both of which were hit at least once on the weapon mount. However, none of their guns were disabled. I may be able to believe that it wouldn't completely destroy the vehicle, but seriously, a 122mm HE round directly hitting the weapon but not disabling it doesn't sound that realistic to me.

  2. This was a very engaging DAR. I've been lurking this thread since day 1 and guess what, I'm very glad I followed it. The screenshots were pretty awesome too, with their effects giving them a rather gloomy atmosphere quite fitting for this scenario.

    Keep up the good work. I'm really looking forward to your next piece of art. :) 

  3. 1 hour ago, Hilts said:

    That is the correct order which Battlefront released the games but if you want to play in WW2 chronological order you need to swap Italy with Normandy. Most of Fortress Italy is set in 1943. 

    You will notice a big difference between all these and Black Sea!

    As someone who bought CMBS first and CMRT second, I have to emphasise that "big difference". Don't expect the same fast-paced long-ranged fights in the WW2 games.

  4. 11 minutes ago, Baneman said:

    In WWII titles, you need ( as alluded to above ) to develop your attack. Choose a point for your attack and take the time to assemble the force so that you can bring a lot of firepower to bear at that point. Isolate it from assistance with smoke ( no thermals in WWII ;) ).

    Remember, in Modern context, he who spots first generally wins ( due a lot to the lethality of the weaponry ). In WWII, it's he who gains fire superiority ( because often the weaponry is largely similar and not as lethal ). So in the WWII context, you're not expecting to "wipe them out", you just need to stop them ( largely ) from shooting back ie. pinned and/or cowering so you can get close with a couple of squads and then wipe them out. :) 

    Direct fire mortars are your friend because of their speed, although remember to keep them well back - crawling them into a good position in cover may take time, but can pay off bigtime.

    And yes, patience is needed. Admittedly some scenarios are short of time, but that's because the AI needs the help. In a PBEM against a human opponent, you can easily spend half the battle or more, jockeying into position. Sometimes that's most of the fun and the Big Push, when it happens, can be over just as fast as in the Modern title.

    Yeah, got it. Change of paradigm. :) Actually an important part of my CMBS tactics centered on spreading hunter-killer teams with overlapping fields of fire to increase the chance of spotting the enemy first, especially from unexpected directions. Looks like I'll have a lot of re-learning to do here. :D 

  5. 1 hour ago, IanL said:

    Good point about the availability of HE. On map mortars can be used in direct fire (the US 60 and British 50mm mortars provide the best quick application of HE in WW2). Keep them safe behind your front lines but close so that they can be brought up to drop some HE in the right place.  Otherwise you do have to plan your artillery use more in the WW2 titles.  On the offence I find it slows things down and sometimes I even try to break contact while I wait for the artillery to arrive.  Just be aware the the other guy could be lining your attacking force up too.  On the defence I try to pin the attackers and slow them down while calling in the artillery.  It is just harder in the WW2 era because the call times are longer.

    Thanks, I'll use my on-map mortars next time.

    55 minutes ago, Erwin said:

    My take is that WW2 takes more patience in that all arty fire (and air support) usually takes much longer to arrive, and it is a lot less accurate.

    In my WW2 games, there is a lot of "get into position and wait for the arty to arrive" periods.  Yes, that is boring.  But, CM2 games generally require a lot more patience than other games.

    WW2 firepower seems reduced compared to modern era, and AFV's can often absorb a few AT hits b4 being KIA.

    "Infantry die much more easily to small arms and grenades. Modern infantry are more resilient to these."   Can't agree with that.  I often find the opposite.  It is a factor of tactics and understanding of the relative lethality of the different era's weapons.

    To obtain good spotting results one needs to get a good quality spotter (higher experience and binoculars) into a good spotting position with good LOS and let it sit there quietly with a very small arc for several minutes.  It usually takes time to spot.  The challenge is usually that the designer has given limited scenario duration and it can be very hard to just sit around for 3-5 minutes not doing anything.



    Re: Infantry

    In the modern era, I usually get a "yellow" soldier after a movement order goes wrong. But in CMRT it's almost always a kill. Actually I've rarely seen anyone get wounded, they always become casualties. But my greater experience in BS is definitely a factor here.

    Yeah I don't see how I'll be able to manage time constraints while having to move forward so slowly, but looks like there's no escape.

  6. 14 minutes ago, Erwin said:

    It would be helpful if you list specific challenges that you have problems with.


    IanL already listed some of them: reaction times, vehicle situational awareness, and survivability. A couple others are weapon system accuracy and reach. I'll explain the issues below.

    13 minutes ago, IanL said:

    Interesting.  We have had a few people post about moving from the WW2 games to CMBS and having trouble with the transition. Honestly I have not thought alot about this but of the top of my head I think there are three main differences: reaction time, survive-ability and crew awareness.

    In the modern area AFVs have faster reaction times and better situation awareness. Troops and AFVs have higher toughness but of course weapons are more leather too. What I am referring to under the heading of survive-ability is that in the WW2 titles sending tanks ahead without an infantry screen is very hard on your tanks but in the modern game it is very hard on your infantry.

    So my advice on the transition is to go slower - takes longer for crews to spot the enemy and react to them.  And lead with your infantry - your tanks need an infantry screen and your half tracks are not up to taking any fire and need to be much further back.

    Thank you Ian. I think I've been treating tanks as their modern counterparts (especially US since I usually play them in CMBS); I have implicitly assumed a relatively high level of independence in spotting and survivability that simply doesn't exist in the WW2 context. And in the modern era, I don't usually move infantry through the open except if they're to go somewhere stealthily because of the lethal airbursts (BMP-3s and arty), so thanks for your advice to lead tanks with infantry.

    Another issue I've been facing is that the infantry fights seem quite different. I've noticed several things:

    1. Infantry die much more easily to small arms and grenades. Modern infantry are more resilient to these. So I don't know how aggressive I can be with them.

    2, There are plenty of explosives in the modern era and I've always relied on them (one of my favourite things about the US is their grenade launchers) and suddenly there are no explosives here and no "I will use this ATGM to kill that strongpoint". People make up for that with arty, but I don't know exactly when and where to call arty especially given the long response times and lack of precision and airburst arty.

    3. The Soviets suffer from a lack of infantry firepower at range and I can't really move thinly armoured stuff like SUs forward too early, which makes me clueless about assaulting defensive lines (I'm not very well-versed in the use of massed artillery so tips are welcome here).

  7. Greetings, Ladies (if any) and Gents.


    I've already created a ticket about this, but I thought I'd also share the issue with you guys in the hope of finding some solution.

    I've been trying to purchase the game using a Visa card. Once I press "confirm order" on the last page, after taking a while it gives me a "name lookup timed out" error. I googled it and what I'm seeing is that this is a DNS problem. So, I tried using a VPN (I'm in Iran, plenty of goddamn net filtering and stuff), but again, the same error. Any ideas what I could do and what could be the source of this issue?


    Thanks for your time and happy URAing.

  8. 39 minutes ago, sburke said:

    This is a point worth delving into a bit more.  When you look at the period up until the collapse of the USSR, who were it's friends in the Med.....

    Libya, Algeria, Syria .....  This isn't to say Russia is responsible for the current situation, but it is also not innocent.  Those regimes were explicitly supported by Moscow and their arrested political development is what fed the Arab spring.  Add Iraq to that long list and you begin to understand what Russia's political alliances helped develop.  The middle east is an extremely complicated mess that has taken literally centuries to reach it's current messed up state.  No one state actor owns it and the resolution of the issues there will likely take decades.  The answers have to come from the people of those nations.  The continued intervention of outside parties isn't really helping anything.


    I agree with you on everything here except Iraq. Although Iraq was theoretically considered a third-world state supported by commies, as soon as it invaded Iran and started fighting on behalf of several Arab states against Iran, it also got a lot of support from the West, especially once the war took a turn against Iraq and the West wanted to maintain the balance of power. I'm not exactly debating that war itself, I'm saying that Iraq may actually be the site of some of the greatest Western geo-political blunders for not a decade, but almost three decades.

    In addition, I believe that in the case of Arab states, the USSR merely exploited the available situation: Israel vs the Arabs, Israel's backed by the US, so the Arabs were the natural choice for the Soviets. Although it is not "innocent" (and I use that term very loosely, it's not like we're discussing seven deadly sins here), the vacuum was bound to be filled some way or another.

  9. 8 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

    The Battle Type in the QB must match the Battle Type set in the editor. For this map it is "attack" by default although you can of course change it.

    Note that on Windows machines its will probably not be possible to play a game on the full map because the map plus units will take up too much memory unless you only have a small number of units.

    I would need to know your system specs to be sure, but I suspect you have a 32-bit operating system.

    Oh, I see. Thanks. :) 

    Actually I have 64-bit Windows 10 and 16 GB of RAM, so I was pretty surprised to see a memory error. :D

  10. 6 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

    Same deal as the EW settings, given that they're both strategic level impacts on your battlespace.  I've put this forward before, but you'd basically have four conditions (loosely based on how the US defines airspace conditions).  

    Off: As is, unless there's an anti-aircraft system on the map, aircraft are totally safe

    Air Parity: The airspace is dangerous to everyone's airplanes.  Both players face a small to moderate chance of losing air assets committed (either through an off map shoot down, or the air asset has had to go evasive to the degree it is not returning).  This well simulates an environment in which both sides have functional air defense networks, and access to fighter cover.

    Air Superiority: The player with air superiority has a much reduced chance of losing his air assets, while the player without has a much higher chance of losing that asset.  This simulates an environment in which one side has started to suffer enough losses to air defense or fighter assets to grant the other side a distinct advantage.

    Air Dominance: One player's air assets are virtually safe (still a very small chance of loss), while the other would be silly to commit air assets.  Think of this like if the NATO air campaign goes stunningly well, and Russian air defense is effectively out of commission outside of isolated pockets.  

    This sounds exactly like stuff that can be added in a patch or something (devs should comment on how easy or difficult it would be to implement).

  11. 8 hours ago, Erwin said:

    I have been surprised/dismayed how easily my drones, as well as Apaches AND even F15's seem to get shot down.  If RL combat is like this, we'd lose our entire AF in a few days to G2A missiles.

    There was a pretty long discussion about this many months ago, and the conclusion was that the effectiveness of SHORAD (SHort Range Air Defence) is exaggerated in the game, because the air modeling isn't detailed enough to model the effects of longer-ranged air defences and also fighter-based AD. In short, the air game in CM is too abstracted for us to draw any real world conclusions based on it or even to realistically compare it with RL.

  • Create New...