Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lcm1977

No KV-1 tanks?

Recommended Posts

I mean really all the designers do is give it the ability to shoot further...

 

Why do I get the feeling there's some BFC staff face palming right now if they're reading this. :P (Assuming it's not sarcasm :) )

 

I really hope they start going back into the mid->early war years once 1945 is done and dusted. Flipping it around to when the Germans had the overall stategic advantage to launch large offensives and the like would spice up the CM WW2 series with very different challengers for the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look forward to some day playing the German commander and having to figure out how to handle the counter-attacking KV-1, 2 and T-34's with my PZIII's and short barrel 75mm armed Pz IV's.  I think the real hold up is BFC needing to figure out horses.  As you go earlier in the war they become much more 'on map' both in moving guns around and old fashioned cavalry.  Motorcycles too were much more common earlier.  Both would be a pain in the tush to get right graphically and in game mechanics, I would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howeer I reallyy want to see Kursk as the next Russian Front family. Very unsubtle hint to BF :D

 

wouldnt hold your breath Lucas. IIRC - and I disctinctly remember Steve saying this - BFC will continue forwards on the Ost Front to End of War, then begin I assume to work its way backwards. 

 

As far as I understand things, these aren´t mutually exclusive:

 

Yes, BFC will continue to the end of the war, before releasing any new families. But unless BFC has made changes to their release plan, every family will cover one year - from summer to summer. That means that the next modules in the Red Thunder family should cover from fall 1944 until may 1945.

 

The next East Front family (with all subsequent modules) would then be summer 1943 - summer 1944 - and then presumably begin with Kursk.

 

That´s how I understand BFC´s release plan.

Edited by umlaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah.. now that you mention it I think you are correct on that aspect. so modules to Berlin - next family Kursk to Bagration. Interesting.  Personally Id LOVE early war.  But Berlin and the final few months are of particular interest to me, especially Seelow Heights and Berlin.  I cant wait to do Berlin. Im also reading Buttar's excellent  Battle of East Prussia and its nearly got me foaming at the mouth for some Konigsberg action.  Along with several other Ost Front books I can recommend if theres anyone interested..? One on Kiev, another broad history (probably best broad Ost Front history I've ever read)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should stipulate we're talking KV-1s, not the KV-1 of the early war years, fighting in mid-44. That KV-1 tank was a mechanical nightmare and the Russian knew it. Besides the lighter turret KV-1s got a whole new transmission. You're never going to see an old KV-1 in the Bagration game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I count but I agree with 7thGalaxy on going with generic fronts. This is really getting confusing the way it's going. IMHO.

 

I am inclined to agree. . And to a certai extent it means B?F re-inventing thwe wheel and having to think of a new family title.  I hink Red Thunder happens to be a great title for the Russian Front as a whole. Some tank types such as the T-34/76. the Panther, Tiger etc lastedover more than a year  These models would be available in 1943 at Kursk for example. Using a somewhat more generic Russian Front modular approach would clearly have advantages for BF, reducing the graphic design workload for example and thereby concentrating more on tanks that are new for the next yearly module in the Red Thunder series. We also know they can upgrade the game to the latest version as was done with 3.0 recently. Eventually BF might even add the 1939 Polish campaign and the 1940 Finnish campaign to Red Thunder as they don't really fit very well anywhere else and are not worth producing as their own family of games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well all I can say is while not trying to change BF's minds or plans ( Which I can't ) I would just like to experience tanks before they became the awesome machines they became ( IS -2 & tigers come to mind ).  I particularly enjoy 

less powerful tanks because I like lots of ground troops and fewer tanks which to me adds enjoyment due to the fact that tanks don't rule.  And yeah I know I'll pay for saying that because they did but not in my games they don't as I play

almost strictly quick battles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were still Soviet units with T-26's in 1944!

This T-26 belonging to 176th Rifle Division was destroyed in August during the battle of Ilomantsi with a Panzerfaust. What an overkill, a 149mm HEAT warhead against 15mm of steel!!!

 

Nothing is overkill against a tank. Make no mistake, a tank of any kind presents a serious threat to infantry. Because 95% of the weapons the infantry have are worthless against even the lightest tanks. That T-26 got unlucky, but what if that Faust had missed? What if his infantry screen was nearby? Their is an awful lot that can go wrong for the guys fighting that tank and an awful lot that can go right for the tank. That's why even "obsolete" vehicles were rarely taken 100% out of service.

 

Even panzerfausts could be hard to come by at the worst possible time and chances are if you're on a secondary front (along with this unfortunate T-26 crew) a Panzerfaust may even be the best anti-tank weapon you've got. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee McLaughlin,

 

If you like, you can play part of the Petsamo-Kirkenes Strategic Operation, where you can have

 

(Fair Use)

 

General Meretskov also personally requested a fifth armoured unit from STAVKA, voicing the opinion that this should include a regiment of heavy KV-1 tanks to break through the German defensive positions. STAVKA approved the request and assigned: 

• 73 Guards Heavy Tank Regiment 
 o 21 KV-1 tanks 

to the Karelian Front.

 

The above is taken from a first rate two part military analysis reported here.

 

(Breaks away to check some more)

 

Regret to inform you you're screwed. The KV-1s listed are KV-85s, as described in James Gebhardt's The Petsamo-Kirkenes Strategic Operation, p. 20. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember CM:Barbarossa to Berlin and how it was just one title? I do. I'd trade all the pixels and polygons for some of that tactical crunchiness and vast scale we all loved; but wait - I don't have to, because I have CM:BB, and I'm not buying RT.

 

I still haven't gotten over CM:BN without French tanks or realistic USAB TOE (not gonna have that argument again, I proved it last time, and nothing happened). And earth-pimples.

 

I might buy CM:RT - Stalingrad/Summer-1942/whatever, if they code hand-to-hand combat. So few of the flaws of this engine have been rectified over multiple years and titles, why do you guys keep buying it?

 

It's nice they got flamethrowers in there, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...why do you guys keep buying it?

 

Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is fun. And because of all the amazing things that did make it in. And I am not a big fan of tactical level games, so it takes a lot to draw me into one.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is fun. And because of all the amazing things that did make it in. And I am not a big fan of tactical level games, so it takes a lot to draw me into one.

 

Michael

 

Fair enough, value-for-money is a personal, subjective thing - I'm not saying I don't like the game, just that the improvements to the engine over the course of several games has been mostly superficial - I've been loitering here trying to inspire myself to purchase RT, but really have just ended-up disappointed that so little progress has been made on the issues which I felt were detracting from the tactical fidelity of the engine. The CMx2 engine still exists in a world of 45 degree angles, which is both awkward and unrealistic for a 1:1 sim, and it's not the only sim-breaking problem which persists after years of development.

 

I criticize because I care, I want the game to be better; new vehicles, TOEs and map elements are nice, but for my part not worth the expense when the games are almost identical mechanically to vanilla CM:BN.

 

Where I get irritated is when BF are bringing out this and that 'new' title, for full-price, and associated modules for not much less, when I consider vanilla CM:BN to still be incomplete in a number of ways... why should I have to purchase CM:MG to access the TOE that the USAB was already using during Overlord? How can a game encompassing the US ops during and after Overlord be considered complete and representative of the campaign without French tanks, which made more appearances in the first weeks of combat than German tanks? Where are the buildings to adequately represent the castle-like Norman houses which featured so prominently in the bocage fighting? I can't help but feel that BF has given-up trying to expand and improve their engine in favour of nickel-and-diming their loyal fanbase for as long as possible.

 

The news that the eastern front will consist of up to four separate games and associated modules just seems crazy and indefensible to me, and the comparison with CM:BB is not a good look. Each to their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing about this 'vast scale' of CMx1 games. Funny how I can't remember that. There were two or three multi-battalion scenarios that my computer simply refused to run.

 

Barbarossa > Berlin, in one game - vehicles, weapons, TOEs etc - compared to June/summer 1944. Do you remember that? Maybe 'scope' would be more to your liking? Semantically, that is.

 

What exactly is it that RT offers that BB does not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is it that RT offers that BB does not?

Battlefront staying in business is probably the most important thing if you think about the module approach. I like their games and I want new titles. If they were to sell every theatre as a complete game there would not be much in it for them. Perhaps not enough to continue.

CMBB is a great game. So is CMRT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is it that RT offers that BB does not?

 

If you must ask that sort of question, it shows you just want to have an argument, rather than to somehow be convinced to buy CMRT. The evidence is plenty and right before your eyes about the advantages CMRT offers over CMBB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is it that RT offers that BB does not?

 

The ancients said that there is no disputing taste. If you don't like CMx2 you don't like it and that's okay, the world has not ended. But I think you might make more headway if instead of slamming a game that most people here are delighted with, you undertake to describe exactly what kind of game you would like. You might get some support. You might also get an explanation for why what you want is not practical for BFC to try to produce. They have already explained in several places why they opted for the path they are on. I don't know if you have followed any of those discussions, but they are not exactly a deep dark secret.

 

You know, it might be the case that one day before we are all dead and gone that some company will in fact produce precisely the game you are looking for. Isn't that something to look forward to?

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ancients said that there is no disputing taste. If you don't like CMx2 you don't like it and that's okay, the world has not ended. But I think you might make more headway if instead of slamming a game that most people here are delighted with, you undertake to describe exactly what kind of game you would like. You might get some support. You might also get an explanation for why what you want is not practical for BFC to try to produce. They have already explained in several places why they opted for the path they are on. I don't know if you have followed any of those discussions, but they are not exactly a deep dark secret.

 

You know, it might be the case that one day before we are all dead and gone that some company will in fact produce precisely the game you are looking for. Isn't that something to look forward to?

 

Michael

 

Eh, I said I liked it - just not enough to buy the same game five times over.

 

What do I want? This game, plus:

 

- curves, on roads etc

 

- hand-to-hand combat

 

- deformable terrain, specifically subterranean fortifications (yes, I know - they couldn't work it so that the forts weren't viewable without eyes-on, maybe we shouldn't be able to see anything we can't see? You can't tell me that's impossible, many games do it)

 

- satisfaction of the particular conditions of the campaigns they purport to be simulating

 

- AI that shows more initiative and sensible decision-making

 

Can you guys not get in behind that? Maybe if the fanbase made a bit more noise about it they'd try harder, and we'd get more. Maybe if the game wasn't so obscure (which the arcane sales strategy ensures will persist) to the world at-large more people would get on board, and BF'd have more money to plow into giving us the good stuff.

 

Take hand-to-hand combat, far from being impossible, all I ever saw from BF was that "it wasn't common enough to bother including". I wish they'd bother, I don't think it was all that uncommon. Certainly I'd have made use of it many times - pulling hair when guys post-up a meter from the foe to shoot with their bolt-action.

 

I also clearly recall proving USAB squads had BARs when CMBN came out, yet was this relatively simple change patched-in? No, one had to buy MG to get the TOE that the USAB had instituted (unofficially at that stage) by Overlord - it might seem petty, but that's what being a grog is about really - I spent a long long time making a La Fiere scenario, agonizing over Google street to include every tactical aspect of the terrain, painstakingly researching USAB order of battle - but I was ultimately foiled by the absence of French, or even light German tanks to depict the German counter-attack across the causeway; the houses included in vanilla were pitiful with almost zero protection from light-arms fire, La Fiere manor is a little castle - riflemen rooted-out Germans sniping from the top windows by entering the house and firing up through the floorboards, but in CMBN - no need, a few bursts of automatic fire blasting through the walls and the Germans would run away (to somewhere not remotely useful, and probably facing in the wrong direction) - it was impossible to accurately represent the battle, after all the effort I put in it felt like nothing but frustration.

 

So I figured - ok, take a break, the game just came out, lots of really good content, it's still fun, they'll get around to it - and here I am years later, faced with the world's most confusing and un-user-friendly marketing and sales strategy, and only superficial changes to the engine. Sorry for expressing myself, I know what it is 'round here - Steve condescending, and sycophants  blindly lashing-out at dissenters (not you Mike, you're a good sort who at least engages earnestly).

 

To repeat - I criticize because I care, because despite its flaws it's still a really enjoyable tactical sim, maybe the best there is... but then why do I find myself playing a lot of the venerable CCV engine, or the awfully-titled, but very enjoyable Achtung Panzer from Graviteam? I'm annoyed - somewhere between these three games is the perfect WWII tactical sim, but for one reason or another none is fully satisfying - CC is 2D, AP doesn't have PvP or a sophisticated scenario creation tool. And they've all got ghastly AI, with CM's being the worst by virtue of being non-existent.

 

I don't blindly accept the excuses offered for why this or that can't be done - 90% of the time this translates to "too much effort, too little reward", and while I understand the logic, forgive me if I don't get in behind that cynicism whole-heartedly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 To repeat - I criticize because I care, because despite its flaws it's still a really enjoyable tactical sim, maybe the best there is... but then why do I find myself playing a lot of the venerable CCV engine, or the awfully-titled, but very enjoyable Achtung Panzer from Graviteam? I'm annoyed - somewhere between these three games is the perfect WWII tactical sim, but for one reason or another none is fully satisfying - CC is 2D, AP doesn't have PvP or a sophisticated scenario creation tool. And they've all got ghastly AI, with CM's being the worst by virtue of being non-existent.

You are very difficult to satisfy. Perhaps you are a "glass half empty type of person".

I can enjoy some games despite their imperfections. If I waited to play a perfectly constructed game........well you know.

In my experience CM is the best tactical wargame available. Although I have enjoyed APOS, and the Close combat games, they are not on the same level as CM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are very difficult to satisfy. Perhaps you are a "glass half empty type of person".

I can enjoy some games despite their imperfections. If I waited to play a perfectly constructed game........well you know.

In my experience CM is the best tactical wargame available. Although I have enjoyed APOS, and the Close combat games, they are not on the same level as CM.

 

I wouldn't say that - I'm more a "50% of the volume of the glass is water, and 50% air" person. I know a thing or two about software programming, particularly AI logic; I don't subscribe to the 'no can do' philosophy of coding, there are always solutions - I would not accept that attitude from a subordinate, you would be replaced by somebody with a better attitude. One should strive for excellence, always - why settle for less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lemuel, perhaps you don't want to pay the $20 for it but the R-35 is available along with some 21st pnz division improvised vehicles as part of the CMBN Vehicle pack. Your posts seem to indicate you weren't aware of that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do I want? This game, plus:

 

- curves, on roads etc

 

- hand-to-hand combat

 

- deformable terrain, specifically subterranean fortifications (yes, I know - they couldn't work it so that the forts weren't viewable without eyes-on, maybe we shouldn't be able to see anything we can't see? You can't tell me that's impossible, many games do it)

 

- satisfaction of the particular conditions of the campaigns they purport to be simulating

 

- AI that shows more initiative and sensible decision-making

 

That's not a bad list and I could add several items to it (SOPs constitute one of my favorite drums to beat). Hopefully we will see most of them in due time. But it does take time and the designers are all humans (well, with maybe a few exceptions  :lol:  ) who have to eat in the meanwhile. So CM is a slowly (but not all that slowly) evolving project that improves at a certain pace. Too bad that we can't have it all at once, but I for one believe I understand why that is, and it isn't because BFC has a nefarious project to gouge all our disposable income out of us. BTW, were you to actually purchase and play the more recent iterations, you might notice, as I have, that the AI has become noticeably more adroit in its behavior. It could stand more improvement, which I hope to see, but at present I am not made miserable by it.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lemuel, perhaps you don't want to pay the $20 for it but the R-35 is available along with some 21st pnz division improvised vehicles as part of the CMBN Vehicle pack. Your posts seem to indicate you weren't aware of that.  

 

No I wasn't - I also figured I should stop whinging until I'd actually upgraded the engine to 3.0 so I bought it - but that did not work out too well. If you guys thought I was mad before...

 

Sometimes - I get things, you know? I see why fog-o-war and AI might get neglected, but other times? Like the time I tried to buy 3.0 only for the download to fail at around 9Gb and reset to nothing whatsoever... what is this? The 90s? Can BF join the rest of us on planet Earth? It's like they're just not thinking...

 

Sometimes there's just no excuse. I think I just have to turn my back on BF after buying and playing their games for many happy years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...