hellfish
-
Posts
1,877 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hellfish
-
-
Depending on the time frame it could be more numerous and better equipped Soviets running into fewer and less equipped US forces. That said, the main attack would have been via the North German plane, where terrain was better and opposition weaker.
M48s (or, hell, M60A1s) vs T-64s would be extremely painful...
-
I always though Northeast Asia (Korean peninsula) would be interesting. Base game = ROK + US vs DPRK. Expansions for PLA, JGSDF, USMC (and maybe ANZAC?) and Russia.
-
I have pdf copies of all the manuals. Fond memories. One of the first books I remember buying was the Soviet Vehicle Handbook. Loved those color plates.
-
I kinda miss CMMC.
-
Ah, OK. CMFI is the one getting module'd up to 1945, not CMBN.
-
Looking over this I think I may have misconstrued the question and so my answer is misleading as stated. What I meant to say is that flamethrowers will very likely make it into both BN and FI eventually via packs. But do not expect to see them in the v3 upgrade itself. If prior BFC practice holds, it will enable them but not provide them.
Michael
Yeah, IIRC BN is getting another module that covers the Bulge up to May 45? I expect the 3.0 will come along at the same time the Bulge module comes out, with the Bulge including the flamers.
I kinda need my Pershing fix.
-
Basically getting ground truth in engineerese (as opposed to cavalryspeak). Doing stuff like identifying the kinds of vehicles the river ford's bed will support, identify local sources of raw materiel, do an actual eyes-on recon of enemy obstacles, etc. It's about as wide and varied as you can imagine. Cavalry and infantry can (and do) do it too, but engineers have the kind of expertise that's sometimes required.
The Army/Marine manual:
-
Engineering is a hugely specific task that involves a lot of programming for relatively limited payoff. I worked on an infantry sim years ago and we were asked by an engineering schoolhouse (can't remember if it was Leonard Wood or the Marines) to do engineering tasks - placing and removing minefields, breaching obstacles, combat earthmoving, etc. Some of it we could do with little effort (engineer recon, emplacing some obstacles) but doing many of the tasks in a realistic way would have been exceedingly difficult to do and extremely expensive. So it'd be all that work for a group of features that would be very specific and often so mind-numbingly dull and/or complex that - in a game - might very well not be worth the effort. You can expect people to play with tanks and ATGMs and infantry nearly 100% of the time. Engineers doing engineery things - especially if you do semi-realistic timelines? Not so much.
I think the Russian automatic trenching machines would be pretty cool, though.
-
Hero of the Soviet Union? Maybe not, but this single SU-85 saved my rifle battalion from being annihilated by a heavy panzer recon company.
-
I loved the CMx1 QB map generator, but I love the 100+ CMBN and CMFI handcrafted maps more. There's absolutely no comparison between those goofy, but random, maps and the maps we get in the CMx2 games.
My only wish for the CMx2 quick battles is that the game would pick more diverse opponents for me to fight. It seems like I'm always fighting Stugs or Flak or Recon units for my computer-picked opponents (everything as random and/or unrestricted as it can be). I can't remember fighting straight up German Heer or SS infantry ever. I did see Jagdpanthers in a QB for the first time the other day, though...
-
That map is beautiful. Kudos to whomever made it.
-
Disregard - I've just moved halfway across the US for a new job and apparently I left my brain behind.
-
I'm getting a 'Server License Corrupt' message. I installed the game, it said it couldn't find the activation license thing. I canceled outta that, then saw the hotfix and ran it. Now it says "The license project on the server is corrupt."
Not sure what's happening, and the game isn't showing up in any of my installed program lists to uninstall it.
-
But I hear ya — the prevalent ignorance about weaponry and tactics among "war correspondents" irks me. And then there's the phenomenon of possibly-lacking-scruples-to-a-certain-extent individuals making assertions about particular weapons and their terminal effects and the way in which they're used tactically so as to shape public opinion about certain incidents.
To be honest, most military people don't know any better. When I was in Iraq, we had people who didn't know what the vast majority of weapons and vehicles were, or what they even did. The only time someone may have known was when they operated the system (i.e. tankers, MRAP drivers, etc) or who had been engaged by the system before (i.e. infantrymen knew their small arms, engineers knew their IEDs) but otherwise unless you had a serious geek out there (like me) they were completely ignorant - even at the senior NCO and officer levels.
-
Beautiful looking map. I look forward to this.
-
Looks pretty accurate to me! For Bulge we are currently planning:
Module 1 = Commonwealth
Module 2 = Spring 1945
Module 3 = Misc. stuff
As for the content of Module 3 it's similar to the way we're planning Module 3 for CM:BN... we're keeping it flexible until we get to it. For the Bulge's Module 3 I could see things like Volkssturm, E-100, Pershing, IR Panthers, etc.
Steve
I will very literally **** myself with joy if you throw in a T29.
-
There were no heavy tank battalions in the US Army in Europe in '44-'45.
There were a small number (~200 by May '45, though most of these were in depots) of M26/T26 Pershings classified as heavy tanks for morale purposes sent over beginning in January '45, IIRC, but these were handed out in platoon-sized units to a small number of armored divisions, and acted as a 4th platoon in a company, not as a separate unit.
-
Okay, well that makes it easier on Steve since no one will demand a differently organized US tank battallion.
Pfff. You wait till I start screaming (SCREAMING) for CDL and Amphibious Tank battalions.
-
I never understood how players would complain in an M1A1 vs T-55s then use Tigers or Panthers against Shermans or Stuarts. It's basically the same thing.
-
I don't believe that for a second. I think anyone with an interest in this kind of game will hear about CMBN from other sources long before they see anything on youtube.
Hell, I get bored watching CMBO/BB/AK/SF replays on youtube already.
-
Combat Mission Mega Campaign 1 (its been a while)
Too bad we can't have a function that prevents one person from singlehandedly sacrificing an entire British armored division in five minutes of fighting...
-
Nope. There are some board games, but nothing's been attempted on computers as far as I can tell - at least nothing publicly available. I suspect asymmetric warfare isn't 'fun' enough.
-
I think China would be the most fun. PLA/US Army core (US stuff is basically already done), then modules adding North and South Korea, USMC (also done, except maybe add EFV/MPV) and PLAN marines, Russia, NATO/EU...
It would be a lot of fun just from the combinations offered.
-
I want everything in Chinese blue camo.
Multi-Player Grand Campaign
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I'm interested. CMMC (for CMBO - 12 years ago?) was one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had.
Given that lots of people tend to drop out as games like this drag on (CMMC was something like 9-12 months?) maybe there should be a more dedicated staff pool (the core players) and then just let anybody drop in if they just want to fight. This way they don't have to worry about being dual hatted as a battle player and a planning player. IIRC in CMMC I wore three different hats at one point.