Any modules ? National Family extensions or patches in the works ?

[TheForwardObserver]

@Sublime raises a good question @kinophile-- why don't you like WW2 games?

[Kinophile]

Well, the cost is pretty prohibitive. And going back to a less capable engine would be maddening. 

Other than that,  I'm pretty saturated with WW2. I've played a lot of it through my life,  but CMBS was the most realistic modern game I've seen in a  long long time. It intrigues me. 

WW2... Meh. Oh look a panther. Oh look a tiger. Oh look a Sherman. Oh look panzergrenadier. I know those vehicles and the units inside out (for me at least) and it all feels a little pointless -  we all know the ship sinks, right?

The story line is known, you could win every battle as the Germans ever and yet you know in your heart they still lose,  so.... What's the point? 

After that it just becomes a technical exercise,  I'm not emotionally involved in the story,  I know how it ends and no matter how tactically clever I am every victory will be hollow. 

Now,  all that said, I loved the hell out of WW2 games, CoH for example. I specifically avoided spam players and had some crazy good games. I still find their Arty explosions superb and make a complete mockery of CMs,which are pathetic little farts of air in comparison. But eventually, the novelty wears off and it's really just another ****ing Sherman v. Panzer IV duel. 

So I'm basically done with WW2. Time to move on. 

With CMBS it truly is open-ended; we literally have no idea how it will pan out. We can speculate,  with strong evidence and reasoning,  but it's really a total question mark because we don't know just how far Putin will push it. Also the sheer speed and lethality of the firefights is crazy good,  especially in RT. I'm working on a campaign that could possibly, in a crazy extreme, reflect actual future events. It's that uncertain, and that mystery fascinates me.

The story is still being told. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by kinophile

[TheForwardObserver]

Yeah I feel you @kinophile.  I don't play anything but real time and I think if I hadn't started with Normandy I'd find it a bit unsatisfying to go back to the WW2 titles after Black Sea, and I haven't picked up Red Thunder because my pro-western bias is apparently deeper than I'd ever suspected.  There are things about them though- particularly the Brit Paras in Holland and Normandy and the high ground fights in Italy that are keeping me occupied till we see movement on Black Sea.  

I do think you'd be impressed with some of the maps and terrain in Fortress Italy and the CMBN market garden module compared to Black Sea-- lots of big cities and mountainous landscapes.

[Abbasid111]

4 hours ago, kinophile said:

By working backwards... What do you mean? They'll start porting the older tokes over to CMx2/x3? 

The WW2 titles are all basically set in 1944 right now, next pushing things to the war's end in '45. Then a march backwards in time: 1943, 1942, etc

[Sublime]

Yes once they get RT FB and FI to end of war with modules then theyll do east front year by year backwards  probably in several month segments with modules. 

There.ll probably be a couple surprise western front earlier war n africa oraybe poland and france or balkans but thats years away.

The older titles are kept apace with developments already.  Sometimes theres a month or 3 lag from say FB  being released and some new button being added to every other CM game but it does happen. And BS isnt the latest title its FB anyways.

The engine isnt less than for the ww2 titles. Cmbn patches full up to what BS is if you pay the dinky 5 bucks or whatever to get the 2.0 upgrade and no other modules.  In the end in BS theres no way you could singlehandedly win the war anyways. I could say the same about a Ukr game its only gonna end with NATO retaking UKR ( no invasion of Russ cuz nukes) or Russ takiing UKR.

All the games minus Shock Force and Afghanistan have kept pace with the improvements to the engine. I routinely use stuff that came out 3 yrs after BNs release in BN.

I think you.d be pleasantly surprised because you can do stuff you cant in BS. Like real tank stalking. Its all over in BS for real inf tank stalking. US thermals kills inf teams not in bldgs or US has javs and you dont need a tactical mind to use those to kill armor.

In the WW2 titles you literally can have a faust team or whatever crawl through a wheatfield and stalk churchill tanks or schrecks ambush things. And the oh look a panther  is actually a disastrous sighting and its tough work fighting basically any German armor above a Mk IV especially with US equipment.

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Sublime

[womble]

While I can understand you being jaded with WW2 "as of old", Kino, the CMx2 engine really does open up a whole new world of detailed tactics that wasn't available before, and shines a fresh light on things (Panthers are both better and worse than most previous gamist portrayals paint them: they're hell on tracks in some situations and kitty on toast in others, and it's you that decides which cat you get. Well, you and your opponent, if you're  playing HvH...

[Vergeltungswaffe]

The great thing with CM is that after a couple months (or more) with BS, you'll be ready for some WWII.  Variety is a wonderful thing and I definitely went through a modern only phase for a while.

[Abbasid111]

The only problem with going back to WW2 after a lot of time playing Black Sea is getting used to the effective ranges of the kit. I have to keep telling myself that 1k is not an easy shot anymore and things don't automatically go 'BOOM' when you hit 'em. 

[Ivanov]

1 hour ago, Abbasid111 said:

The only problem with going back to WW2 after a lot of time playing Black Sea is getting used to the effective ranges of the kit. I have to keep telling myself that 1k is not an easy shot anymore and things don't automatically go 'BOOM' when you hit 'em. 

Weapons are definitely less deadly in WW2 games but IMO it actually helps to enjoy the gameplay, at least in my case. Modern warfare is so unforgiving, that it becomes frustrating at times. With increased weapon range and lethality, the BS maps are just too small for modern combat.

[Abbasid111]

That is the reason I always use a map at least one size larger then the force size.

But it is fun to roll up your sleeves and go hiking over the hills of Sicily for a change of pace.

[Ivanov]

Currently in CMBS, a company size force works fine with the biggest maps available. But there are no maps big enough to reasonably accommodate a battalion size forces.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Ivanov

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Ivanov said:

Weapons are definitely less deadly in WW2 games but IMO it actually helps to enjoy the gameplay, at least in my case. Modern warfare is so unforgiving, that it becomes frustrating at times. With increased weapon range and lethality, the BS maps are just too small for modern combat.

This. 

BS maps need to double in size,  but I believe there's an engine restriction. Is it max 4Km x 4km? 

The unforgiving lethality is actually a huge draw for me. It makes the game  HARD.and that challenge,  where screw ups can be disastrous so quickly, is a big plus for me. 

I am actually quite interested in the Commonwealth forces, and a variation in elevation from Ukraine's pancake lands would be nice. 

But the cost. The COST. Their prices are mental. 

[HUSKER2142]

32 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

Currently in CMBS, a company size force works fine with the biggest maps available. But there are no maps big enough to reasonably accommodate a battalion size forces.

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-black-sea/cm-black-sea-add-ons-maps/chernova-hirka-mastermap-v1-0/

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-black-sea/cm-black-sea-add-ons-maps/map-crossing-the-dnieper-master-map/

 

Maps are have, then the question to the performance. Maps for over 5x5 km begin to lag in many, I do not say that it is necessary to withstand the Radeon owners. Remember the card crossing the Dnieper River, itself a great card but many complained. When I played it in PvP, size reaches 35 MB.

 

_{Карты есть , тут вопрос к производительности . Карты уже более 5х5 км начинают у многих лагать , я не говорю что приходится выдерживать обладателям Радеон . Вспомни карту переправу Днепра , карта сама отличная но многие жаловались . Когда я в неё играл в ПвП , размер достигал 35 мб .}

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by HUSKER2142

[Ivanov]

The Chernova Hirka map looks cool. I will take a look 

[Kinophile]

Oooo yes I'd forgotten those! But so few big ones. Haiduk made the point that CMBS maps are often still laid out and force structured with a WW2 mindset. 

Now,  I'd consider the Donbass AO very unusual in its low density. I suspect a proper modern fight between  Tier 1 peers would not be so thinly arranged. 

[womble]

11 hours ago, kinophile said:

But the cost. The COST. Their prices are mental. 

Per hour of entertainment, you're talking cents (of whatever currency you operate in). CMx2 represents some of the best gaming value available, IMO. Whatever theater(s) you choose. O'course, if you don't actually play a given theatre, it's pretty expensive, so I'd recommend poking the demos (bearing in mind that they're not all current engine, but you'll be able to see the differences, being familiar with BS which is engine v3) to see the delights available in earlier settings. The role of infantry, particularly, seems to be, according to all accounts, most altered between mid-C20th and early C21st high-intensity combat.

[Sublime]

Dude im guaranteeing you you.ll like the ww2 combat

I played BS pbem exclusively from release to about feb and i had to stop i was over it. Im back on BN and FB and habing a blast.

I feel ya on the money though man an ATM ate 50 dollars of mine last night and I wouldnt have owned any CM games at all since RT because of a disaster in my life if it wasnt for some really good guys around here.

 

@abbassid. Genuinely curious did you read a ppst of mine where i said thats almost always a house rule of mine or did you also come up with map size always plus one for force size if possible on your own? Do you also only do probes for the attack defense realism but closer parity in points?

Edited June 15, 2016 by Sublime

[Kinophile]

I've heard that price/hours line before,  I don't buy it. Ive played many sub-$50 games and played a LOT of hours. If I like a game I'll play it a lot, price immaterial. 

If a game is too expensive I won't buy it. Drop the price and I will.

Simple as that. 

[Abbasid111]

HI Sublime, it just seemed to me after a few games where the map size matched the battle size that an increase in map size was in order. More room for the forces to move around and not always a head to head slugmatch.

I have done quite a few battles in assault and attack modes. That seems more realistic for an attacker/defender urban fight. For more open, ie non-MOUT terrain, I do like probe but I will do Meeting Engagements if that is what my opponent wishes.

[Sublime]

MEs are unrealistic. They dont often happen.

I find in US vs Russian fights assaults the defender will always lose. I forget the exact ratio but you basically get like say double the defender. For attack you get 1.5. Probe 1.25

The only difference is in points and in assaults the defender may have a bigger zone.

I play probes because you have attack defend and the attacker still gets noticeably more than the defender but the defender has a chance.

Interesting we came to the same conclusion vis a vis battle size then map size is plus 1.

I disagree abt the company statement though. Huge maps easily accommodate all the points for a huge attack. A BMP bttn tac grp and tank bttn 31 parsed down with bmps also parsed down plus TRPs and FOs.

[Kinophile]

They accommodate, but I believe @Haiduk was pointing out that the density of a modern battlefield, especially one as fluid as the Donbass, is far less than we might assume. Going by his example of a company,  and Steve's own numbers even a huge map could conceivably be a Company battle. I'm building another scenario that is exactly that; it's a very strange dynamic. 

All that said,  when assaulting an important town I'd naturlly assume a higher concentration. 

It's more that out in the countryside things are much more open than usually expected (especially if WW2 games are the prior experience) and are a valid battle type. 

Edited June 15, 2016 by kinophile

[Sublime]

Actually companys or reinforced companies on a huge map is good anyways. Because if you play small or medium maps and use more than a platoon its really just a frontal attack.

In a huge map with a company you dont know where the enemy defense will be and have to at least have some OPs for flank security and you move. The enemy can make it a series of ambushes or make a hard stand somewhere. But with the map size you wont know where almost right away like you do on a medium small or tiny map that the enemy has to be in "x" area.

[Blazing 88's]

On 2016-06-13 at 6:35 PM, kinophile said:

WW2... Meh. Oh look a panther. Oh look a tiger. Oh look a Sherman. Oh look panzergrenadier. I know those vehicles and the units inside out (for me at least) and it all feels a little pointless -  we all know the ship sinks, right?

This is one of the main reasons why I will not be purchasing any more of the late war WWII stuff.  Since I only use the German units (for the most part) I do get that "ship sinks" feeling with the late war stuff.  I love the early time line period of WWII (40 to mid 43) the most.

The story line is known, you could win every battle as the Germans ever and yet you know in your heart they still lose,  so.... What's the point? 

After that it just becomes a technical exercise,  I'm not emotionally involved in the story,  I know how it ends and no matter how tactically clever I am every victory will be hollow.

Once the Operational layer being developed http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html is completed (hopefully soon), that hollow feeling will be gone.  Along with an earlier time line in the different theatres (Barbarossa /Kursk and North Africa, France)...  I would be in CM heaven.

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Blazing 88's

[Abbasid111]

Sublime, I have had success as a defender in an assault or attack QB. Hard to pull off but satisfying when it does happen. 

I agree with you, using a large or huge map requires you allocate resources to actual recon work and or setting up of OP/LPs. I think the intensity and lethality of modern combat leads to a lesser concentration of men per kilometer then certainly WW2.

 

[Kinophile]

@Blazing 88's very nice, I'd certainly pay,  but I'm not holding my breath. 

@Sublime @Abbasid111 exactly so,  I'd agree.