Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'qb'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • CM2
    • Combat Mission - General Discussion
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 2
    • Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
    • Combat Mission Black Sea
    • Combat Mission Red Thunder
    • Combat Mission Fortress Italy
    • Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 1
    • Combat Mission Afghanistan
    • Combat Mission: Touch (iOS / Android)
    • Combat Mission 2 Archives
  • CM1
    • Combat Mission Campaigns
    • Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
    • Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
    • Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
  • Repository Updates
  • Strategic Command
    • Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
    • Strategic Command - Assault on Communism
    • Strategic Command - Assault on Democracy
    • Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
    • Strategic Command - PACIFIC THEATER
    • Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
    • Strategic Command 1
    • StratCom Design Challenge
  • TacOps
    • TacOps 4
  • General Discussion Forum
    • General Discussion Forum
  • Opponent Finder Forums
  • Archives
    • CM Archives
    • T-72: Balkans on Fire!
    • Dan Verssen Games
    • Theatre of War
    • DropTeam
    • Assault Wave
    • Empires of Steel
    • PT Boats

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL











Found 7 results

  1. First off, let me say that for the most part I'm satisfied with the fortifications in the CM series. I think in scenarios the fortifications are great (although some Osprey titles could be more closely consulted in designing historically appropriate set-ups for given nations, formations and terrain). In QB, the AI defenses are generally okay, although with obvious and understandable limitations. However - the placement of player fortification in QB is tedious. It would be time-consuming enough to manually place obstacles, but they are scattered all over the map! Not only do I have to place all the wire by clicking individual pieces, but unlike units which are intelligently grouped at the bottom of the map, I have to pick the wire out from the clutter of the mines and other fortifications spread everywhere, and either place one piece at a time and then find the next or place them all into a pool where at least they occupy the same place on the screen, though I still have to place them, move the camera from where I was looking, click a link and then place it. An infantry team occupies one foxhole, with a section occupying between 2-4 so to have just a company dug-in results in a huge amount of foxholes scattered all over the map, and sometimes an hour or more of set-up. It's very very frustrating and time consuming. I think there are a few ways this could be improved: The first, and I think single most important would be to place foxholes like CM1 titles and SPWW2. When defending units are placed in the set-up phase of a QB, their foxholes are automatically placed under them. For trenches, mines and wire, ideally a system like SPWW2 would be used where fortifications other than foxholes would be purchased on the purchase screen, as now but would not appear on the map initially during the set-up phase. Instead, they would be placed with a click, maybe from a tab like air support and artillery. This keeps everything organized, there is no clutter on the map, and no on-map item needs to be located to place a fortification. As above but with click and drag placement of wire and trenches. From the tab suggested above, a "place line" option would appear. This would act exactly like linear fire missions - On-map the cursor would appear with the "strike target" cursor used for artillery maybe with the fortification symbol in the middle rather than the crosshairs. Clicking would draw a line, terminated again with a cursor reading "set end point". Once the line is set, trenches and wire objects would be placed along the line by the game. If this can't be done during the set-up phase, placing the lines and having the fortifications appear during the start of the battle would still be great, so long as the glowing lines remained viable after placement, like when selecting the FOO of a linear fire mission so the general layout of fortifications would be visible while placing units. If these suggestions are too difficult, at the very least grouping fortifications by type and placing them together at the start of the set-up phase would be a big improvement over the random scatter.
  2. It seems to me that the available RPG ammo for Syrian forces in QB's is most of the time very limited, and similar to the amount of ammo that the editor provides when supply is selected at 'limited' or 'scarce'. For example: when buying a SF company in a QB almost all Special Forces squads have only 2 AT rounds for the RPG-29 launcher, no thermobaric rounds at all. In the editor a full load gives 3 AT + 2 Therm, while an 'adequate load' gives 2AT + 2 Therm. Only at 'Limited' or 'Scarce' there are just 2 AT rounds available. I have tried changing the 'excellent/good/fair/ etc equipment status and playing with soft factors, but that doesn't seem to make much difference. I found this out while going through the available forces in CMSF2 QB's. I was trying to build a force with Airborne troops or Special forces, but they seem very underwhelming equipped with RPG rounds. The only force that I have found to have reasonable stable availability of RPG ammo are the republican guards with 2 AT + 2 HE rounds. Yes I do know that a lot of vehicles have RPG rounds available, but still I'm surprised at the standard loadouts. For the special forces I don't know anyway of aquiring extra RPG-29 rounds, so they are not as effective in QB's as they could or should be imo. I don't think this is intentional?
  3. By setting setting unit purchase or map selection to automatic/random, the game consistently almost always crashes. Here is an image showing the settings that seems to crash it most often. By only modifying less than these 4 changes, say 2, the games crashes less often when pressing OK, but still the most common outcome. I just upgraded to CMSF2 and are not using any of the expansions.
  4. Doesn't look as though you can select Technicals, Transports or VBIEDs in the QB force selector as Uncons. You can choose them in the Scenario Editor, where Combatants and Fighters are separated as different "branches" (they're all mashed into one big group in the QB Selector). No idea if that, or that Uncons can only be picked as "Infantry Only" has anything to do with it. I've got all the modules.
  5. Hi Folks: Can anyone help? I've got CMBN v 4 w no extras. Sometimes there's no enemy present in a Quick Battle. I've seen this twice - once with v 3.12 and once with v 4.00. On both occasions the enemy was the USA, but there's not enough data to know if that's any kind of pattern. Both times it was the defender who was not there. Both times the attacker and defender forces were chosen automatically. It's disappointing to spend 30 minutes slowly creeping up to a village only to find it, and the rest of the map, completely empty. The statistics at the end screen clearly show there is no USA force at all - no men or vehicles. I love this game and would love to hear of a solution to this issue! Many thanks in advance for any help.
  6. When the expansion is released or for a subsequent patch, what about being able to choose mixed forces in QB, or at least have the option to do so. It could better reflect US advisory teams working alongside Ukrainian formations and bringing superior air power to bear, or Russian led separatist forces if militia are added, without having to go into the editor and create specific scenarios. It would also allow representation of the mixed composite BTGs that where a VDV BTG will deploy with attached armour from a tank or motor-rifle unit, of course you would pay extra points for this in game but bring needed armour to an otherwise light VDV ORBAT.
  7. I think I know what the answer will be but I would love to see BFC spend some time on reworking the Quick Battle automatic unit purchase logic. I played a QB yesterday with the "mixed" force setting and got given dozens of "Igla" surface-to-air missile troops, sniper teams, and engineers, but no regular infantry. To my mind, any setting that might logically include infantry (such as "mixed") should have a regular infantry unit as its core, and specialist teams like Igla missile and sniper teams should be a tiny proportion of the whole. I have got bored of playing the same battles over and over again so QBs are becoming increasingly appealing for a quick game - but the present force selection logic just makes you want to rage-quit and play something else.
  • Create New...