Jump to content
Captain Reyes

Combat Mission Red Thunder Tanks and Vehicles Showcase

Recommended Posts

(As I posted elsewhere), it's amazing to see how many vehicles are available - and how FEW are featured in all the RT scenarios.  We seem to see the same dozen or so over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is my main criticism of the Red Thunder game (as someone who avoids the quick battle system). Many of the scenarios get a bit samey. "Take that bridge with your T34s / T70s"! Sometimes some SU76s as well. I don't think I have seen one of the heavy assault guns or the SU85 ever, and the IS2s only in one campaign scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, by Bagration the Soviets had narrowed production down to a few types and had pretty uniform organization of units as well.

It's a far cry from the bizarre array of equipment and formations of 1941, but it also worked much better. There were not many tactical missions that would require anything other than a tank or infantry formation with typical equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is why have BF work on such a large variety of vehicles for every title when only the same few vehicles selected from a "pool" of maybe only a dozen vehicles seem to make it into all scenarios and campaigns?  I can only recall maybe one scenario that featured a Brummbar... or a JagtTiger... and am pretty certain that there are many CM2 vehicles that have NEVER been featured... ever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Erwin said:

The thing is why have BF work on such a large variety of vehicles for every title when only the same few vehicles selected from a "pool" of maybe only a dozen vehicles seem to make it into all scenarios and campaigns?  I can only recall maybe one scenario that featured a Brummbar... or a JagtTiger... and am pretty certain that there are many CM2 vehicles that have NEVER been featured... ever...

The mission editor is always there for you to use and fill in this perceived gap you see.

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am simply saying that all designers tend to use only a few of the available vehicles - we see the same dozen or so, and that's all.  Am wondering why does BF waste so much time providing so many dozens of different vehicles that are never seen in games.  Seems like a waste of precious time that could be used for other issues.

(As mentioned elsewhere many of us do not have the hundreds of hours it requires to create a decent scenario.  And we do not get any enjoyment from designing.  We enjoy playing, not designing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick Battles, and especially playing them by PBEM are always possible.

I do get your point though - this was one of the main criticisms of the vehicle pack, since you can buy all these neat toys but can't do much with them.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Am simply saying that all designers tend to use only a few of the available vehicles - we see the same dozen or so, and that's all.  Am wondering why does BF waste so much time providing so many dozens of different vehicles that are never seen in games.  Seems like a waste of precious time that could be used for other issues.

(As mentioned elsewhere many of us do not have the hundreds of hours it requires to create a decent scenario.  And we do not get any enjoyment from designing.  We enjoy playing, not designing.)

So a bit like wasting precious time providing a scenario editor then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:

That is why I only bought that pack after the battlepack came out. IMO the quick battles do not offer the best CM experience.

Quick Battles against the AI, certainly. Quick Battles against humans can be a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

So a bit like wasting precious time providing a scenario editor then.

As someone pointed out if it takes hundreds of hours to make a good scenario and even more man-hours for a good campaign, it's really only the professionals and fanatics (bless em all) amongst us who have the time and motivation to get to be really good with the editor.  Some great designers do have that time and motivation.  But, for the average player, no...

Personally, am happy to pay for professionally developed product.  I have spent hundreds of man-hours play-testing designs for other folks.  But, have no desire to design or mod.  It's wonderful that some folks love modding and designing.  I suspect those folks have little time for playing.  One can't expect others to share enthusiasm for all aspects of the hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Erwin said:

As someone pointed out if it takes hundreds of hours to make a good scenario and even more man-hours for a good campaign, it's really only the professionals and fanatics (bless em all) amongst us who have the time and motivation to get to be really good with the editor.  Some great designers do have that time and motivation.  But, for the average player, no...

Personally, am happy to pay for professionally developed product.  I have spent hundreds of man-hours play-testing designs for other folks.  But, have no desire to design or mod.  It's wonderful that some folks love modding and designing.  I suspect those folks have little time for playing.  One can't expect others to share enthusiasm for all aspects of the hobby.

I take the point because it is your standard defence when someone reacts to a comment you make about scenario design.

The message I, and others, hear over and over again from you are words to the effect of 'scenario designers don't do x, don't do y. It is a pity that there aren't more scenarios with x or y in them. Scenarios seem to be set on small maps'.

If you have no skin in the designing game then perhaps you should consider whether it is advisable to voice opinions as persistently as you do that can be (and are) construed by scenario designers as an attack on their efforts. If you haven't worked it out yet, every time you make such a comment, someone reacts to it. Whether you think the comments are made in good faith or the best of intent, the fact that you persistently get a negative reaction is a pretty good indicator that the comments are not taken that way.

There seem to be three courses of action:

1. Keep on doing what you're doing and accept that you'll get a negative response.

2. Get into scenario design and knock out the missions that you want to play on the size of maps you earnestly desire with the equipment you yearn for.

3. Consider the effect that your comments have on people who provide content for your enjoyment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erwin (and others) did neither attack somebody nor did they ask for something unreasonable. I also agree with him. He just pointed out that they would love to see more of the assets in scenarios and campaigns and even mentioned that he admires everyone spending his time to design scenarios.

And still you have to explode. There was no reason for it really.

I do not see anybody here attacking scenario designers nor do I see a comment here that should leave a negative effect on any individual designing scenarios. I just see paper-thin skin and one that can´t take different opinions.

 

Edited by Mattis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We buy this game to PLAY not spend countless hours WORKING on it. 

I tried creating a huge campaign in CM1.  After about 3 months I gave myself a minor breakdown and vowed never to try that again.  And the CM2 editor is waaaay more complex for regular folks imo.

When a designer creates a scenario or campaign am fine with spending hundreds of hours playtesting it and pointing out its problems and how it could be improved.  MOS's Tactical Ops Centre is an example of a truly brilliant design that has advanced the state of the art in scenario design.  If you haven't yet played TOC then shame on you.

However, some designers don't want to hear anything negative.  Al they want is reinforcement ie: "Wow, your design is so brilliant."  And then when you state otherwise, we hear the same old tired refrain "Why doncha do it yourself?"

Like why doncha repair your own car, and why doncha do all your own decorating or house building, or why doncha build your own computer, or why doncha grow your own food..?   If there is someone here who does do everything themselves and don't rely on specialized folks who can do the job better and faster, then my hat is off to you.  But, hopefully you (finally) get the point and we don't have to go over and over and over this same old tired issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly played QBs against the comp for CM:RT.

Really enjoyed using the ISU-152. What a beast! BIG boom! Turns panzers into confetti.

Curious: is the MG at the back of the IS-2 functional?

Edited by DerKommissar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Combatintman said:

There seem to be three courses of action:

1. Keep on doing what you're doing and accept that you'll get a negative response.

2. Get into scenario design and knock out the missions that you want to play on the size of maps you earnestly desire with the equipment you yearn for.

3. Consider the effect that your comments have on people who provide content for your enjoyment.

He seems to be too happy with #1 and #3 so why bother with #2. I recommend don't feed his desires and place him on your ignore list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Curious: is the MG at the back of the IS-2 functional?

That's really hard to test, I've been trying to force it, but since it's on the back of the turret, it rarely sticks in the same direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mattis said:

Erwin (and others) did neither attack somebody nor did they ask for something unreasonable.

Yeah, you are theoretically possibly correct. If this were the first or third time he made such a comment but it starts to feel a lot more unreasonable when its over and over and over. And is he really correct? Cause the real issue that people have is with the assertion that BFC wasted their time (which feels like it includes scenario designers) creating vehicles that aren't used. There are nearly 400 scenarios in CMBN I have a feeling that the number of unused vehicles is a lot less than implied. But even if he is right the arrogance that creating these vehicles is a waste is difficult to swallow since he is assuming that only scenarios of the various kinds he likes is all that counts. Lots of people love QB and use all kinds of interesting vehicles in that pursuit. Hardly a waste of anyone's time.

 

1 hour ago, Mattis said:

I also agree with him. He just pointed out that they would love to see more of the assets in scenarios and campaigns and even mentioned that he admires everyone spending his time to design scenarios.

No, he didn't point out that he would like to see more use of the assets. He said they were a waste of time. And yeah I know he says stuff like he admires everyone - but it sounds more like the drunk annoying uncle that says he loves his nephews but belittles them constantly for the smallest stuff.

So, @Mattis please offer suggestions and pitch in when designers want feed back but please do not follow people like @Erwin's example. Set the bar higher for yourself - way higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Curious: is the MG at the back of the IS-2 functional?

 

21 minutes ago, domfluff said:

That's really hard to test, I've been trying to force it, but since it's on the back of the turret, it rarely sticks in the same direction.

If you give the tank Target Light to the rear it will fire as the turret first starts to rotate.  Now trying to get the main gun and rear facing MG to both fire at the same time is more challenging :D :lol:

GOz6jbeh.jpg

xnbwhAXh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Fanatic crew with Open up and an Area Target to the front.  Then ran a German scout team around behind the tank.  The IS-2 continued to fire the main gun forward and the rear facing MG at the German team. 

cnNUGOSh.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IanL said:

but please do not follow people like @Erwin's example. Set the bar higher for yourself - way higher.

I am better of by making my own picture of how I perceive and categorise people and do not need your questionable advice so don´t try to draw me onto your side.

I have been to these forums only for a couple of months but in this time I just saw legit comments and great activity by Erwin. Nothing that justify the aggression here. But let me guess, once in the past he dared to voice slightest critique about Battlefront, Combat Mission, or your job as self-appointed moderator and forum dictator, is that about right?

On the other hand in this short time this is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I´ve seen you suggesting everybody to put a guy onto the ignore list just for the sake of not agreeing with you. How often I´ve seen you going for such and other ad hominem attacks I´ve stopped counting. Is that the high bar your talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

A Fanatic crew with Open up and an Area Target to the front.  Then ran a German scout team around behind the tank.  The IS-2 continued to fire the main gun forward and the rear facing MG at the German team. 

cnNUGOSh.jpg

Ha-ha!

You see, Ivan. When you shoot a DT on the front turret and the back turret, you get a recoil-less MG!

Always regarded the IS-2 as a superior heavy tank of the war. However, it always puzzled me why the designers felt a demand for a rear MG. That's so crazy. Did someone go back in time and show Fury to them?

Is it removed from later production models? Or will we need Berlin 2 Victory to find out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mattis said:

How often I´ve seen you going for such and other ad hominem attacks I´ve stopped counting. Is that the high bar your talking about?

You've been on the forums for a few month's and you have lost track of my ad hominem attacks? Sigh, I don't get it but OK. My point was simple - in order to not respond to trolling comments I recommend people ignore the people they find troublesome. That way instead of arguing about how annoying person X is we can talk about the game. I will follow my own advice.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×