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 per
    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 tra
    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 th
    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.
    1 point
  9. LXGTR

    Panzerfaust 3 too large?

    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
    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 irri
    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. RepsolCBR

    AI never in attack.

    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 oppon
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...