Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/05/2020 in all areas

  1. I find myself nodding along to many of the posts you make Bulletpoint, but here I must disagree. By this logic, all we need is a single Combat Mission title since it's all basically the same. Speaking for myself, that's certainly not what I am looking to do, though it would be nice haha. It's more down to the equipment and especially the armored vehicles. Panzer Is and IIs, BT-7s, T-26s, short-gunned Pz IIIs against T-34s and KVs, doorknocker AT guns, maybe the return of command delay? Far less lethal, far more interesting, for me anyway. The heavy armor and big guns of the 1944-45 period we have, or are getting, is less compelling than the brand of combat that 1941-42 would serve up. Duels are more asymmetric, which is appealing to me in any wargaming scenario.
    3 points
  2. Bulletpoint

    Thinking of buying

    I understand what you are saying from a historical perspective, but I just think using a short-barrel Pz III against a T-34 would be very similar gameplay experience to using a Sherman against a Panther. It's possible I'm wrong of course.
    2 points
  3. Yes, after graduation I received a diploma of higher education with a military and civilian specialty. Yes, I did, you can play interesting moments, you can use it as a teaching material for cadets. But in the field it is much better, there are too many variables that depend on people. I know that RF army uses "Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations". But I got the impression that US Army units have a faster reaction to the enemy in the game, detect the enemy faster and are less susceptible to panic, with the same settings. Any person is always afraid when they shoot at him, even a trained soldier is afraid. Fight on TV and in reality are very different things. The same applies to armored vehicles with thermal imaging sights, my friend a tanker on a T-72B3 tank said that search for a target is carried out in a wide-angle view of sight. When target is found, time passes in order to bring the aiming mark to the target and increase the zoom of the sight, select a projectile, measure the range and only then fire a shot. In game this passes quickly enough. But the last time I played in CMBS was over a year ago, maybe they changed something with the patches. But my favorite series Combat Mission game is Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy, has something soulful about it. The organizational structure of company in the video has some errors. RPK machinegun was removed from the squads due to insufficient firepower, 45 charging magazine did not give the advantage that PKM / PKP machineguns give. Machinegunners in squads do not have a second number, they carry 600 rounds of ammunition of the first stage and also a box with 440 rounds of ammunition, same box for 440 rounds is carried by the squad leader. But this is the standard ammunition. In reality, such boxes for 440 rounds are also carried by shooters as additional ammunition for machinegunner, and in addition to this, they also have their own additional ammunition. I was very surprised that US Marines abandoned M249, which is an excellent weapon for suppressing the enemy. Russian army is only going to deliver something similar to us, the only question is when.I would then send 1-2 PKM / PKP machine guns to HQ platoon , or add a 4th machine gun platoon of 2 squads. In battle, the soldier is carried only the main ammunition and a part in placers in assault backpacks, the rest of the supply remains in the raid backpacks that remain in place and are guarded by several soldiers, they also act as assistants to the san-instructor (medic), while the rest participate in the battle. Or they are attached to the sides of combat vehicles. By the way, RPK machine guns are still used in marine infantry in squads. But Russian marines are now changing a lot towards expeditionary forces like in USMC , units are greatly strengthened. But with the SVD it is interesting, in company on IFV of sniper, and not marksmans. They are armed with SVD and SV-98 rifles and are better trained in special training centers. Usually 1-2 snipers are assigned to HQ platoon and same group is assigned to HQ company , for a total of 8 snipers per company. But in company on APC it is already different, they are already considered marksmans. They are armed with SVD rifles and do not undergo special training as a sniper in IFV company. But at the same time, 1-2 snipers are assigned to of HQ company. In total, there are 9 marksmans and 2 snipers in company on APC. I was in class at the institute and forgot what I started to answer. I'm sorry.
    2 points
  4. Erwin

    Thinking of buying

    Really disagree. Early war was a testing period for what we now consider modern weapons. The Germans had to learn tactics to overcome the (on paper) much better French tanks and the Soviet tanks like KV's and T-34's. It wasn't one shot one kill as it generally is in late war. If you ever played CMBB from 1941 to late war the difference in challenges and gameplay experience was clear. Currently, all the late war WW2 titles play about the same and are getting boring if one has been playing them heavily for 9 years.
    2 points
  5. I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me.
    2 points
  6. Comparing the outcome of real war actions with the ones modeled in the game,I always notice that the casualty rate is usually quiet high in the game compared with the real stuff.I mean experienced players not playing boldly and trying to do it as close as to real combat procedures.A part from the AI behaviour in one side,I think there is a reason for that.In my opinion,infantry in the game don't have the same chances of survival as in real life due to the poor modelling of defensive works or the,sometimes,difficulties in getting apropiate cover in terrain features.You can't find parapets in the game,fortified houses and underground basements in buildings nor underground shelters; it's told the protection in shallow trenches and foxholes is abstracted but I m not quiet sure at which degree.What's more,some weapons seem to be overpowered,like the SMG which are deadly accurate and lethal beyond its teorically effective range This issues should be improbe(probably in a CM3?) in order to make the game more challenging and realistic.This game,differently from others,is focused on infantry which I just like it so,why not to care more about our dear pixeltruppen?.What do you think about it?
    1 point
  7. I've just stopped a game for the evening but I've got a full crew who will be getting back in that perfectly good Panther as soon as they've stopped panicking. Lightweights.
    1 point
  8. There are lots of explanations that contribute: poor play on our and the computer's part, a misunderstanding of how different casualty rates were at he tip of the spear vs the over all numbers, various (mostly incorrect) theories about fortifications and modeling etc. The biggest difference is that we don't act like real commanders. We press far too much and don't withdraw when we take casualties. In a real action units rarely stay and fight on and on. They pull back to fright another day or bring up extra fire power or wait for support etc. We are playing a game so we don't do that. If you play a game with someone like @Bil Hardenberger or another professional they will tell you when they would be done in real life and trust me it is way way before most people stop. Including myself.
    1 point
  9. Heya, I'm not quite sure, but I think the Panzerfaust 3 model seems a little to big. At least I don't remember it to be this big when I was in the army, even when extended for the tandem warhead.
    1 point
  10. It was bit of a monster.....128mm gun, allegedly it could take out a contemporary T-34 at over 4km! Lucky there were only two. Don't waste your time with the Wiki article, it's just plain wrong! PS - One of them (Emil, I believe) is still intact, at Kubinka:
    1 point
  11. Yes. Shame there are no scenarios that deal with the impressive plethora of Brit AC's. I doubt that some of them have ever been featured.
    1 point
  12. John that is quite spooky. In the Wild Bill Villers Bocage I mentioned just now I had two Tigers firing down the length of the main street, targeted at two AT guns which were clearly visible but behind some wrecked tanks which were knocked out at or near to the start of the scenario. Instead of aiming at the guns they must have pumped more than a dozen shots into the wrecks. I thought perhaps it was just that the wrecks were in the way (and it may have been, clever design if so), but I couldn't find any position where they would hit the guns instead.
    1 point
  13. landser

    Thinking of buying

    Well, that's kinda hard to argue with innit? Stop now or I'll never buy another Combat Mission!
    1 point
  14. Exactly mate - start with a clear idea of what you want to do and stick to it - mission creep always ends in tears.
    1 point
  15. The version in game seems to be the 3 'IT', which is larger than the 3-T in your picture.
    1 point
  16. Thanks for your explanation re-dismounted crews. And yes, I have enjoyed both "Swords" and "Demise" immensely. The maps are great to look over and fight on.
    1 point
  17. When I started doing the OOB and placing the British units I had decided to have the crews bailed out of the tanks initially. Then I found, very quickly, you couldn't do this as a/ the crews would not stay bailed out and b/ its really difficult to work out which crew goes into which tank and c/ the AI can't do remounting. So the concept lasted until first contact with the 3d editor. The main challenge with replicating such ambush type situations is the player being ambushed knows they are about to be ambushed. In RL these guys had no idea a Tiger unit was a few hundred meters away or that it was going to attack them until it did. If the player tries tackling this like Wittmann did for real against either a human or AI opponent it often does not end well for his tank, although TBH in RL Wittmann's Tiger soon was knocked out taking him out of the rest of the action in fairly quick time. IIRC Schneider in Tigers in Combat (himself an ex Bundeswehr armour officer) is pretty dismissive of Wittmann's tactical acumen. And the bit that is often overlooked is that whilst Wittmann's unit achieved some local surprise the unit lost more Tigers than it could afford. Its an interesting action to analysis as there is more to it than the 30 minutes of Wittmann's charge. Anyways playing with house rules like you did will go some way to levelling the initial playing field. Hope and trust you enjoyed it? Cheery!
    1 point
  18. There is nothing more thrilling than watching a couple of guys sat astride the mighty Bren Carrier firing their .303s. If one's got a Bren as well, I just played the perfect scenario.
    1 point
  19. Cheers.....I think! TBH, part of the issue with the H&E scenario stuff is that the idea started on a whim, seemed to work OK so I decided to expand it, without much though as to what that would involve. Winging it is definitely not the way forward and that's a fact....I'm on the third or fourth iteration of most of the maps, some have nearly doubled in area, I'm sure you get the picture.
    1 point
  20. To play with... Axis - Tiger Allied - Firefly Against - Any pistol packing tank crew whichever nationality.
    1 point
  21. Bit like this chap then ... https://www.paradata.org.uk/article/major-chris-keebles-account-goose-green Great idea btw
    1 point
  22. wadepm

    Fire and Rubble Update

    I pity the guy who has to take over after my guys have just rushed the objective way too early...
    1 point
  23. benpark

    Fire and Rubble Update

    It would also be interesting to play any game saves from others- something like a saved scenario, 25% of the way in (or around when everything gears up), for instance. Like the player is 2nd in command, suddenly thrown into the action (and in charge of adapting someone else's plan).
    1 point
  24. I love the LAV III Coyote! GI Joe says that knowing is half the battle, then the 25mm Bushmaster must contribute to the other half. I also love the US 60mm M2 Mortar -- very handy tool for dealing with those MGs. What I fear most is zeroed-in artillery fire. There's nothing worse than seeing big ol' rounds rain down on infantry, vehicles and heavy weapons. Even if you put them in trenches, dense woods and buildings -- you will take more casualties than expected. Those air burst rounds are especially dangerous.
    1 point
  25. Favourite Unit: Wire IED (CM:SF2) Most Feared Opponent: M1A2SEP (CM:BS)
    1 point
  26. Yes, as someone who never plays quick battles, this would be interesting. My guess: A Russian campaign in Berlin and / or the Seelow Heights and a German campaign with heavy tanks in Hungary. At least that's probably what I would do if I was in charge.
    1 point
  27. Getting kills with hand held AT weapons is always nice ... And I actually LIKE the Stummels...like you said...if you can keep them alive they are quite useful...its a nice challange to try to keep them from dying. What i fear...larger assultguns would be one...
    1 point
  28. Sgt.Squarehead

    graphic bug

    Yes, apparently with both CM:SF1 and CM:A.....The latter for sure is not large address aware, so it can only use 2GB of RAM, regardless of what you actually have (this leaves around 30GB idling on my machine). The issue may be that Win10 itself shares that 2GB and it takes up more of it than Win7 did, I honestly don't know the deeper mechanics of the thing.....For whatever reason, 'out of memory errors' are at least an order of magnitude more common on my new machine. Everything still works properly, just not for very long, especially with bigger scenarios or maps. It's bloody irritating TBH.....You of all people know how fond I am of CM:A. @IanL Took a look at things, but sadly there just isn't a workaround for CM:A.....There is one for CM:SF1 however, it's called CM:SF2. PS - If you want to test 'Winter of Discontent' ping me a PM and I'll type up the briefing.....Otherwise I'm going to stick to sculpting odd islands, adding endless foliage and writing really bloody fiddly AI scripts for projects in a sunnier climate (and a much more Win10-friendly game engine). PPS - Have you considered a completely fresh Win10 install, with just Windows' built in anti-virus? All of the more up to date CM titles run beautifully on my new machine.....I believe the spec is very similar to yours.
    1 point
  29. Vacilllator

    AWNT review

    With all due respect etc. etc. I would say that that's a slightly harsh assessment of the review. It's positive and makes some valid points about the game, finance, future development. It may not be news to people on the forum but that was not its target audience. While I don't play SF2 (yet) as I'm more into WW2 I would say that any review like this does no harm to BFC and should be commended. My opinion...
    1 point
  30. 1 point
  31. PERSISTANT MAP-DAMAGE might be a good cure for this decease... If we could use large maps and play several shorter battles on the same map might make it somewhat easier on the AI...
    1 point
  32. So 1st October today, can we start new thread Will Russia Attack Ukraine in October? I am sure you will find another former US general ready to give us some warnings...
    1 point
  33. Ongoing thread discussing the strategic AI limitations and methods for making the best of the tools we have which you might find useful? And this one
    1 point
  34. +1 Cool idea. I did something similar in the CMBS scenario: Tactical Operations Center. But instead of the evading unit causing other units to fall back it caused a different AI unit to come forward to reinforce. Yes. More AI Groups and terrain objectives. Especially since terrain objectives are also used as exits and triggers.
    1 point
  35. "Control" and victory objective zones aren´t quite the same IMO. I personally prefer a more general mission goal and choose control objectives by myself, not from mission designer. At least not in (too much) details. I.e mission goal "capture bridge", there can be multiple map areas that actually "control" the bridge site. Wouldn´t make any sense to place a victory objective zone (of whatever size) right on the bridge. So I´d like figuring out myself on how to control the bridge, without getting hands tied with going for given victory zones. Main goal in this example would be to deny the opponent any map spots that he can exert observed direct or indirect fire onto the bridge and its approaches. Mission scoring here can be made by placing a general bridgehead area victory zone (but hidden from player) and assigning high point values to certain enemy units. That could be any heavy weapons and FO that exert mentioned control on the bridge and surrounding. These high point enemy units then remain unmentioned in briefing and the player just finds out about them at end game scoring. While not all easy for beginners I find it more interesting and challenging for my own game play and mission design. But there´s countless possibilities on how to set up a mission and a matter of taste at last.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...