What makes this module worth buying?

[JM Stuff]

3 hours ago, Ales Dvorak said:

Than we can simulate some pieces of battles of Sutjeska and Neretva ... and others.

I see that you were not tired from my talk

 

How do you think to do it ?

I will check on the net, and will send you a pm, if somebody is interresting let us know,  "Union is strength" !

[Thewood1]

12 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Problem is whatever decision BFC make someone will slag them off for it.

That's true of almost any business that has any connection to the internet or social media.  You can't be in business today in the US if you have thin skin.  You do what's good for your business.  If you are too concerned about what people think about you, your business's days are numbered.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Thewood1

[danfrodo]

I suppose the way to do it at this point is to do east Front (or if one prefers Russians, I guess that would be west front) 1943, then 1942, then 1941.  That way each module has the minimum new OOBs.  Get 'em out the door w 80-90% of the stuff available in theater and I'd be plenty OK.  Heck, I'll pre-pay for that right now.  

Then head for sunny N Africa.  Then make new game engine.  Then start back over again w Normandy.  That's my dream for BFC.

Oh, and in between all that they have to make new modules for the modern games.  Dang, they'll be busy.

[DougPhresh]

I'm very happy with my purchase. RTV adds a whole lot of content, maps, the timeline etc. I can only imagine how much work went into that, and I especially appreciate it because I know for many people interest in this theatre ends on June 6, 1944. It shows a commitment to the community, and is likely not driven just by sales figures.

I would like to say that I would be happy with a vehicle/troop pack to bring in Commandos, 1st Special Service Force, Greeks, Jewish Brigade or whatever odds and ends would fill out the roster. Those French troops come to mind. I understand why they didn't make the cut for such an ambitious module, but I can see the value in them being added later on like the BN vehicle pack.

More than that, I would make the argument for a whole other module, similar to Market Garden to add the RSI, Co-Belligerent Italians, Partisans and to fill the Italian roster in Sicily. I would argue for this to be a full-size module rather than a pack because of the large scope and also I would appreciate seeing those campaigns and scenarios designed by the pros, especially where partisans are involved.

I hope that Battlefront doesn't see FI as finished just because the timeline is full because I see a lot of interesting directions to go here, and commandos and partisans could easily fit in over in BN and RT, in the same way that the vehicle pack from BN has made it to the other titles.

Look how far BN has come: With Commonwealth troops from that module, Funnies from the BN Vehicle Pack, now the Free French in RTV, and hopefully a pack adding Commandos, we are 3/4s to being able to see Sword Beach scenarios, something I don't think anyone could have imagined in 2011.

Edited December 19, 2019 by DougPhresh

[Blazing 88's]

6 hours ago, danfrodo said:

...Then head for sunny N Africa.  Then make new game engine.  Then start back over again w Normandy.  That's my dream for BFC.

This is my fear BEFORE they get to earlier time periods and theaters. I would be done with it all if that is the case (WWII wise)... starting the new engine with 'Boring'mandy and ignoring N. Africa and Barbarossa /Kursk AGAIN would really suck imo.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Blazing 88's

[Warts 'n' all]

5 minutes ago, Blazing 88's said:

 'Bore'mandy 

It wasn't a bore for the poor ****ers who died there. And your argument for BFC to concentrate future efforts on other theatres might carry more weight if you took that fact into account.

[Blazing 88's]

2 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

It wasn't a bore for the poor ****ers who died there. And your argument for BFC to concentrate future efforts on other theatres might carry more weight if you took that fact into account.

In game terms, never was meant for the real thing, spin it how you want.... 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Blazing 88's

[danfrodo]

In this holiday season, let us all remember that we are just grown men (mostly men?) playing w little army men and toy tanks.  No one is right or wrong in which army men they want.  

[Attilaforfun]

12 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

That's true of almost any business that has any connection to the internet or social media.  You can't be in business today in the US if you have thin skin.  You do what's good for your business.  If you are too concerned about what people think about you, your business's days are numbered.

Or if you display too little concern...

[Zveroboy1]

5 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

I hope that Battlefront doesn't see FI as finished just because the timeline is full because I see a lot of interesting directions to go here, and commandos and partisans could easily fit in over in BN and RT, in the same way that the vehicle pack from BN has made it to the other titles.

Look how far BN has come: With Commonwealth troops from that module, Funnies from the BN Vehicle Pack, now the Free French in RTV, and hopefully a pack adding Commandos, we are 3/4s to being able to see Sword Beach scenarios, something I don't think anyone could have imagined in 2011.

Adding more stuff to FI and BN sure but there is a pretty big imbalance right now. You have three games with 2-3 modules each and RT, FB and BS have no extra content. It would be nice if battlefront focused on these a bit more instead in my opinion.

[Aragorn2002]

4 hours ago, Blazing 88's said:

In game terms, never was meant for the real thing, spin it how you want.... 

He usually does...That's what makes him so annoying.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Aragorn2002

[Artkin]

I was very happy with the monte cassino master map. seems like the fine details were skipped (not 100% on this) but the map is gigantic. And it is impressive. 

AND theres no handicap like the Normandy Linnett map. I was playing Monte Cassino in CMBS. Map alone worth the purchase for me personally. I would really really enjoy that handicap removed for Linnett. Especially since its like a decade old. Dont let the map's potential diminish. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Artkin

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

I was very happy with the monte cassino master map. seems like the fine details were skipped (not 100% on this) but the map is gigantic. And it is impressive. 

AND theres no handicap like the Normandy Linnett map. I was playing Monte Cassino in CMBS. Map alone worth the purchase for me personally. I would really really enjoy that handicap removed for Linnett. Especially since its like a decade old. Dont let the map's potential diminish. 

It's a great looking map, Artkin, that's for sure. But the monastery, the village and the castle are not on it, are they?

[Artkin]

idk the map historically. there is a complex on the top of one of the peaks. I imagine this is the monastery

[DougPhresh]

On 12/19/2019 at 5:17 PM, Warts 'n' all said:

It wasn't a bore for the poor ****ers who died there. And your argument for BFC to concentrate future efforts on other theatres might carry more weight if you took that fact into account.

That's the nature of attritional combat. Not particularly fun for many wargamers who would prefer to turn flanks and maneuver in exciting ways rather than use supply and artillery to push the line back. IMO from the Corps to Platoon level, the Commonwealth sector of Normandy was intense and is interesting to study, but many war gamers would rather not spend hours gaining a few hundred meters of closed terrain.
 

And as for BFC making tactical wargames on the basis of casualties, we could expect the next title to be The First Day On The Somme or Passchendaele, but I don't think that would be what many players want.

[Sequoia]

In Combat Mission players press forward despite casualties that would cause real life counterparts to call it a day.

[Commanderski]

59 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

In Combat Mission players press forward despite casualties that would cause real life counterparts to call it a day.

In real life most forces would retreat after about 10 - 20% casualties at most then regroup and attack later in the day or the day after, except on the Eastern Front where 50% or more was acceptable if they reached their objective (at least for the first year or year and a half). We obviously can't do that in the game but there are some scenarios that want you to keep your casualties under 20- 30%. 

I don't think most people play this game just to see a body count.

[Aragorn2002]

5 hours ago, Commanderski said:

In real life most forces would retreat after about 10 - 20% casualties at most then regroup and attack later in the day or the day after, except on the Eastern Front where 50% or more was acceptable if they reached their objective (at least for the first year or year and a half). We obviously can't do that in the game but there are some scenarios that want you to keep your casualties under 20- 30%. 

I don't think most people play this game just to see a body count.

Personally I rather take a minor victory, or even a defeat, instead of losing too many men. The losses of the enemy are more of an indication of a succesful action to me, than my own decimated units gasping for breath on their objectives.

[Freyberg]

Back to the question of what makes this module worth buying...

I played a lot of Italy back when GL came out - so much that I gave up for quite a while. Now I've been playing Quick Battles with the new interesting forces available, because I like QBs and because I've been too busy at work to have a proper go at the scenarios, which are best played fresh, without mulligans, and carefully.

There are something like 500 QB maps with FI, GL and RV !!  I feel like the game is brand new. The new forces are really cool - not just the brand new ones; the 1945 British are quite different from the forces in CMBN-Commonwealth, as are the New Zealanders, and I haven't even looked at Canadians and Polish.

I'm still just toying around with QBs  - I haven't played a single scenario, let alone a campaign, but I'm having lots of fun. The map designers have got the AI to put up a pretty good fight. The one I'm playing at the moment has been a real buzz - a map I'd never got around to before, British against SS, very late '44, played in assault mode, at dawn, with some very intense and surprising little firefights.

There are things I'd like to see improve in CM, of course, but I get such great value for money from this crazy little game...

[Bud Backer]

QB is definitely my favourite way to experience CM. There are many quality maps in these games and when plaything against a human, it's a rewarding experience. I often will tweak a map to present a bigger or alternative challenge to that posed by the original designer, which only increases one's options dramatically. 

[MikeyD]

About CM casualties, remember we're simulating the 'tip of the pear'. I recall during the liberation of Kuwait platoon commanders on the front line just before jump-off were told to expect 20%+ casualties among their men. It didn't happen but they were told to prepare themselves. Also, 5% casualties may seem small when looking over battalion stats but for the infantry platoon that got hit that 5% was 50%.

[DougPhresh]

32 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

About CM casualties, remember we're simulating the 'tip of the pear'. I recall during the liberation of Kuwait platoon commanders on the front line just before jump-off were told to expect 20%+ casualties among their men. It didn't happen but they were told to prepare themselves. Also, 5% casualties may seem small when looking over battalion stats but for the infantry platoon that got hit that 5% was 50%.

At the Operational level, casualties among Commonwealth infantry in Normandy rivaled the hardest fighting in the First World War. It was no doubt a huge consideration for how the Commonwealth forces fought, down to the tactical level.

The war-exhausted British, with officers who had been junior officers at The Somme, were appalled by the high casualty rate for their own men and junior officers (Something like 90% of junior officers in some British divisions became casualties). Monty's veteran troops from North Africa, particularly the 7th Armoured Division were noticibly less aggresive in Normandy than they had been in the desert and even less willing to attack than green formations seeing action for the first time.

For the Canadians, with a memory of the conscription crisis that had divided Canada in 1917, keeping casualties low was incredibly important. Canadian soldiers could choose overseas deployment at the time of enlistment and that limited the manpower available. More than that, Canadian formations had been decimated in Hong Kong and Dieppe, and the Canadian public was not willing to throw away another generation of the country's youth.

I know that the South Africans in Italy had similar considerations, with very few South Africans choosing to serve outside of Africa. Polish formations in either theatre had no way of replenishing their manpower, and intially, the Free French had the same dilemma.

The solution in Normandy was set-piece battles with massive artillery barrages and limited objectives. The fighting for Caen was incredibly tough and bloody, but reducing casualties was a high priority. I don't know enough about tactical combat in Italy to comment, but even at Monte Cassino and Ortona, commanders were not spending the lives of their men cheaply. I also don't know how the Italians, Americans, Heer and Waffen SS thought about casualties.

What I would say with all of that in mind, is that the nature of war games make casualty modelling difficult. I don't believe that many players are willing to spend 6 hours to clear a crossroads, or to call off attacks at 10% casualties. Some Operational games, like Command Ops 2 have started to better model these considerations but I don't know how to do it on a tactial level.

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by DougPhresh

[MikeyD]

The points system can be set up so theoretically taking casualties above X% costs you bigtime. That only really comes into play in CMSF2 for the Blue side where in some scenarios a 10% casualty count can cost you  the game.

[danfrodo]

Going back to the title of this thread.  this module is worth buying because it's FUN.   I've been doing the scenarios in alphabetical order since I installed R2V, playing against AI.  These are good solid battles -- Italy probably isn't the first choice of very many combat mission buyers but the fighting in Italy was intense and diverse and complicated and the scenarios reflect that well.  Now fighting as Free French, Dec 1943, east of Cassino w wet snow on the ground, fog & rain.  good times.  And when BFC does go back to N Africa (like in 2024?) they do have some of the gear built out.

Family heading to big city today for shopping so I am alone for R2V battles; nice NFL triple header schedule on in the background, cold & raining hard outside -- perfect day.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

11 hours ago, danfrodo said:

I've been doing the scenarios in alphabetical order since I installed R2V, playing against AI.

I've not been so methodical about it, but I'm on my fourth or fifth R2V scenario now, selected at random.....All of them have been thoroughly enjoyable, I've won just over half.

However, none of them have yet superseded 'Biazzo Ridge' (which IIRC was a stock scenario in the initial release) as my all time favourite CM:FI scenario.