phil stanbridge
-
Posts
2,431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by phil stanbridge
-
-
Well that's really weird. Why? They were in the old games.
-
AIUI, the AI will, indeed, use pre-planned fire missions against "likely-looking" targets sometimes.
Yes, this must pre-planned. I tried it five times and on all times the mortar rounds fell in exactly the same area. So the designer basically gave you two guns, and then decides to potentially take one away with a pre-planned barrage. Impressive.
What battle are you talking about? I should like to try it.I've certainly not noted the AI doing anything clever on offense. On defense it seems to simply sit where it is placed and fight to the death. It won't move at all so far as I have seen. And this is usually fine -- it allows the scenario designed to create whatever sort of staging he wants.
On offense, though, the AI sucks. It seems to have no notion of "too dangerous", so it will cheerfully push its pixeltruppen into open-ground death zones. Also it doesn't appear to do combined arms, so its armor tends to drive ahead of the infantry, wreaking some havoc but also allowing me to get at it with fausts or zooks.
Buying the Farm. I'm not saying the AI is doing anything particularly clever really, I'm just saying that it is using its superior firepower effectively by targetting the main threat, ie, the 75mm gun and the AT gun and hammering them with everything despite the cost in casualties. I could not get a single round off because of this, and ended up in a draw. I'm learning from the AI!
I went into the planner and changed a couple of things. I changed my German units from Green to Regular and gave myself one 81mm off-map with 100 rounds. What a difference it made!
I tried to move my AT gun but it wouldn't have it - even though the option was available. Is that intended?
I think this business with Combined Arms is contentious too. My opinion is that the AI is attempting to use armour with infantry support. The problem is the maps are too small to really tell otherwise.
-
Just one other little thing I've noticed playing this scenario - both runs through I've had my AT gun targetted by enemy 60mm mortar rounds fired indirectly. How on earth does it know I'm there? My gun is hidden and behind bocage - Is this pre-planned or something? I've just lost 10 men in the first minute due to mortar rounds. Yet when I play as the attacker, I can't see bugger all. I'm going to restart and move my gun. See if it is pre-planned.
-
Was there any feedback reference this? Why was the specific gun sound for the K98 left out of Normandy? It doesn't make any sense to me.
-
I believe the steady increase in quality the scenarios have had since CMSF is mostly due to the fact that scenario designers are becoming so much more experienced in making good and challenging scenarios.
all credit should go to them!
You are correct of course, but it is a contentious issue. I've argued the point before. I still feel that the majority of missions in Normandy feel less 'dynamic' than the missions in SF and to a degree, CMBO/CMBB due to the fact the designers are able to control the outcome by using mines/obstacles and unpassable terrain. It has definitely taken some of the fun out of the game for me but I'm not talking about the negatives in this thread. I'm talking about happier things
-
I've just started replaying Normandy. It has certainly rekindled my love affair for the game after a reasonable amount of time out. I am replaying through the single missions that came with the game. One thing I am finding - the AI puts up a pretty good fight!
Playing as the defender in this game is generally hard work. The main problem being how quickly the AI attacks. Even on WEGO/Warrior so at least I get a chance to pause for thought, the AI sends his units into the fray without any apparent concern for casualties - not that that made a jot of difference in this mission!
The AI uses superior firepower effectively, and quite often uses suppressing tactics very well. In fact, I've learnt quite a lot from watching the AI. I've just run through a mission now, which is only a small map granted, but it was effectively over for me within 15 minutes. When I checked the score, I had lost 90 men in total, with 2 guns abandoned. I didn't even get a single shot off from the IG I had due to AI suppression. I couldn't even call in my artillery because I didn't get time. The AI had lost 4 KIA with 8 injured by the time I ceasefired. I used the default setup zones and didn't change a thing except for hiding/cover arcs. But I was surprised how quickly this battle was over. Yet when I played as the Americans, and on the offensive, it was a much more balanced affair. I had tanks immbolized due to mines, one knocked out by an AT gun and many men killed by the enemy IG (the gun I couldn't even fire!). I was obviously not using my firepower as effectively as the AI. Food for thought!
I'm now going to try that again as the defender, but I'm going to try and use my firepower more effectively. I'm interested too see what happens if I focus on one area rather than spreading my force over a much larger area.
-
I must admit, I haven't played Normandy in a few weeks now
But I'd love to see the designer take on these missions. Some of them are designed as if they are meant to be lost which is frustrating at best. I posted a while back saying how hard I found the campaigns in general, certainly compared to the campaigns in cmx1 anyway. For whatever reasons I don't really want to invest my time in Normandy again until the commonwealth module arrives. But then I can't help feel that package is going to feel the same too -
I was awarded a draw in RR, and I gained a Major Allied victory overall. I ceasefired half hour in to the final mission. So go figure?
-
I absolutely adore the scale of the campaign, although at 7 missions it is short. I want to see larger campaigns myself and I enjoy the micro-management aspect. It does feel more realistic that way. That's one positive for this campaign in my opinion.
-
It sounds to me like you want to know, ahead of time, exactly what battles you're going to be fighting, what you're going to be fighting them with, and exactly what's going to happen between battles. Is that about right?
Not quite no - I like the semi-dynamic nature of the battles, and the non linear tree, but I would definitely like a more definitive approach to which assets I will have available to me.
-
But you get the point I am trying to make. At the end of the day it'd purely down to scenario design and choice - and for some reason they are making it as difficult as possible on every level.
-
Jon I've experienced the same thing as Womble - and I've tried my best to save the damn ammunition! I've also been told I would expect a number of 105 assets only for them to appear empty or severely depleted. There is a general lack of clarity in the briefings in my opinion. You should be told directly if you will receive replacements, replenished ammunition etc, even if it is for the next mission. It makes it very difficult when you have to guess, on top of an already difficult game. I've gone from one mission to the next trying to work out exactly what I will receive next, and whether or not I can use it - for example, in one mission I saved a lot of my 105mm HE thinking I would be able to use it later, only to not have the assets available again down the line. It just adds to my list of frustrations. If you are commanding a battalion for example, why can't you have access to those batallion fixed artillery assets on a perm basis throughout the campaign?
-
Well, yes, I concur.. -
Did you not receive any engineer reinforcements? I got loads. Two platoons, I think.
To be fair, you can't blow mines most of the time even with engineers. You have to go around 'em.
I had about a platoon's worth of engineers throughout, (If I recall) but I lost most on the School mission at that bridge. They weren't replaced. I ended up with a small unit of engineers who had to do a hell of a lot of running around to blow a hole here, clear a mine here, and it just isn't realistic. I ended up regarding the 4 engineers I had left the most important units left in the game! I just got sick of it in the end.
Wow, I completely disagree.I am 70 turns into the last scenario, and was just about to write an entry on how impressive that last campaign is. I am getting close to the town square and, yes, the enemy units are placed so that every 10s of meters of the way is a new tactical element to defeat. It is like dozens of smaller scenarios in one.
OP, you likely got a minor victory in the last scenario, but a Major Victory in the Campaign?
Well this is why I started the thread - I want a good healthy discussion about it. I realise my opinion will differ to others.
I was awarded a minor victory in the last mission even though I quit only half hour in. I suffered 248 KIA with 169 wounded in total, and the enemy suffered 269 KIA with similar numbers wounded.
It's such a shame that such knowledge doesn't extend to the briefings. I would argue that the maps might be sophisticated, but they have no subtlety. They beat you in the head with "no, you can't do that," at every turn. A subtle map will have opportunities for taking little advantages. Most of the C&F maps are designed to stop every approach except the one or two the designers want you to take. And then, if you do find an approach the designers hadn't thought of, the defensive deployment isn't adaptable enough to cope and the scenario starts to become a cakewalk.For La Haye, I cleared the mines up to the outskirts, either side of the road, and threw a deep hook down my right to roll them up. I pessemistically assumed that the mine belt went right across the map, and was pleasantly surprised when I discovered I could drive my tanks round it. Enemy armour kills and neutralisation were by zook and arty. My shermans never saw 'em. Forced a surrender 1 minute past 00:00, though a ceasefire at the end of 00:00, going back to the save was also a victory, IIRC. With the forces I had, this scenario wasn't "too hard". I'd started losing the will to live by the time I had enough reinforcements on-map to get really stuck in, though, and my pTruppen suffered for it, due to lack of care and rushing to get a result. If you've suffered at the hands of previous scenarios, or their shoddy briefings, you might have a lot of trouble.
I am with you Womble. The briefings need to be less 'brief' and need to give you a bit more of a clue about reinforcements, replacements and replenished ammunition, instead it's a guessing game half the time.
I'm half tempted to replay the whole campaign again, although the frustrations would likely reappear, so maybe it's something for a rainy day. You wouldn't catch me saying that before!
-
It seems that certain of the scenarios/campaigns that are bundled with the game and, more particularly, some of the new user created ones pride themselves on being fiendishly difficult, or 'evil', requiring a perfect approach and multiple restarts. This could be putting off new players.
Of course, it may be that I suck, but I was able to master most of the battles in the CM1 series.
Yes, I'd agree with that - I'm not dissing the amount of work involved in creating these scenarios, but I honestly think they've over-cooked them. They are trying too hard and the end result is an overly difficult if somewhat predictable slugfest. Some of them are just too linear - a good example of this is Razorback Ridge. It's an absolute nightmare and IMHO is pretty much un-winnable unless you are extremely lucky. I played it through twice after many, many restarts, and ended up with a draw. You don't get enough time to really warrant the exploration it needs (and deserves) either. I just don't understand why these maps are made to be so un-penetrable, it doesn't make sense to me. I realise there can be a never-ending supply of new missions and maps in the future, but that's not the point.
Which mission did you consider easy, out of interest?I'm just starting the 2nd and consider the 1st is more of a puzzle than a battle - once you have cracked two "tricks" in your approach then the Germans don't have a chance at all.
The 1st was a puzzle yes, but once you solve it once the mission is actually quite straight forward. This is part of my problem though - the missions shouldn't be about 'puzzles' they should reflect allied numerical superiority, huge maps and plenty of time to play, more in line with the old series. These almost feel like scenarios out of the TOW series... The mission I found easy was a tiny map, with recon units. I can't remember what it was called but it was pretty easy. I had about 5 casualties and suffered a damaged M8 at the end of it.
-
I've just finished my first C&F campaign with an allied major victory, but only because I cheated in the last mission. I hated it so much that I quit out of frustration - I ceasefired very early and was awarded a 'minor victory'. I couldn't stand any more. I honestly found most of the missions dreadful
Way way worse than anything Shock Force put our way. Dreadful in the fact that the maps, although reasonably large at times, were so designed to stop any sort of multi-pronged flanking attacks. By and large there was only one way to the victory locations and you were going to get slaughtered along the way. Look at the last two missions. Nightmares both of them. A ridiculous amount of mines everywhere, blockades all over the place. If the US army had ran into a location like that in real life, they would have said, 'sod that' and chosen a different route, or bombed it into oblivion first. Then there's the bocage that you can't get through. I had lost all but four men from my engineers along the way and had just 4 demo charges - can't do an awful lot with that. Now I realise some people are going to say, 'hey, welcome to real life', but I stronly disagree. Sure, a real life dimension is important in this game, (and game is the word) but I think the map designers have taken things too far now. They are taking the fun and some of the flow out of the game by almost forcing you to a predictable and sticky end. It has to stop, it's just not that much fun anymore.
All but one of the missions were very difficult in my opinion (perhaps TOO difficult), and I had no replacements or replenished ammunition along the way. My mortar teams were useless as I had no mortar rounds. My engineers were mostly KIA/Incap and I was down to 4 men in the last mission so I instantly lost the ability to blow gaps big enough for my tanks - and tanks are by and large sitting ducks - you can't use them that well in the support role because there is hardly any LOS. Even when I thought I had LOS to a target, half the time the blue line just stops abruptly, and I've no idea why! Most areas suitable for tanks are predictably mined, and with no engineers, you can't blow the mines unless you 'volunteer' someone to go mine-clearing. This is worse than the IED's in SF! The whole campaign was full of frustrations like that for me. Not much fun at all if I'm honest
I am really hoping the future commonwealth campaign offers more diversity and scale. Larger maps, less predictability, better all round please!
-
I think I've got the same problem here, and I can get a screenshot.
-
There was a huge amount of artillery on call for both the US and British sides in Normandy as I am discovering reading a few books on the subject. The British seemed to have access to even more then the US. Quite surprised me just how much and it wouldn't be right to feature a campaign with much less, unless it was all about a much smaller force, or meeting engagements. I actually don't feel that I have access to enough in the scenarios - and I miss the naval support and the air support in the campaigns.
-
That sounds ominous for 'La Haye'... Unless I was just unlucky to not get any ammo replenishment.
Haha yes, ominous indeed. I have started La Haye without any mortar support and all of my platoons are seriously depleted. I could have sworn I was due some replacements. The only teams I have at full strength are machine guns with plentiful ammunition for them. I really need to use these to their maximum now.
How many missions are there in the campaign out of interest or is this it?
-
Goodness me talk about a tough mission! I've played it through twice now, and have just advanced on to the next mission with a draw, which will have to do.
But it was one hard slog the entire duration and I got plastered by enemy mortar rounds and heavier artillery, plus sporadic machine gun fire from the flanks. I opted for the crossroads even though they were a pig to advance. Those bloody barricades! I lost a lot of men there. My TD's were next to useless and I only had 32 60mm rounds, and some 105 stuff as support. The rest was either empty or my mortar teams had been so weakened by the previous missions there were not enough men to set the mortars up in the first place. I lost men on the flanks, to the 'uber' AT guns - I hit them really hard with machine gun fire and mortar/artillery rounds and STILL they kept firing. At the end of the mission they were down to 1 or 2 men manning each gun, but none of them were knocked out! Talk about frustrating.
Then I suffered heavy casualties to the enemy artillery rounds which never ceased the entire mission. As soon as I moved my platoons into what I deemed was a safe place the arty was never far away. I lost a lot of men because i grouped them up, but I didnt have much choice - you start out in one corner of the map all squashed up, and any movement attracts fire as you start to advance over the hills. So I stuck really. And I could barely advance because of those barricades. I did make good use of smoke however, which helped my progress. I eventually got a couple of depleted squads up to the centre and started picking fights with the enemy that were dug in there.
The only thing that really seemed to work in my favour - I left the platoon alone who were guarding the tool sheds and they did a good job by themselves stopping the german onslaught. In the end I lost 49 KIA, with 35 wounded, they lost 48 KIA which I found kind of coincidental.
-
So guys, what's the plan with Razorback? I can see this is going to be a bitch. I've got not much in the way of mortar rounds - and two platoons which are in reasonable condition all things considered. Is a methodical, slow approach the way to go, to try and scrape a draw, or a mad dash to the victory points? It doesn't seem all that far away, but I can just tell what lies in wait... Those hills seem rather imposing..
-
I would imagine it will turn up later this year. A number of factors would seem to determine this apart from the fact I'm a mind-reader. BFC have said themselves that modules will now take less time to produce due to the engine improvements. A number of the vehicle models already exist and require minor alterations rather than complete overhauls. They can nab the organisational structures of the commonwealth and British forces from existing games rather than completely rewriting them from scratch. Cashflow. It's a module that everyone is going to want. The only thing I can imagine taking serious amounts of time will be the ongoing improvements to the game they want to implement (like fire and flamethrowing units
) and the scenarios and campaigns. -
Struggling with Razorback Ridge now! My problem is, I've only 32 60mm rounds left!
-
I've made a start - love the briefings and historical background. Absorbing stuff!
But I'd love to see the designer take on these missions. Some of them are designed as if they are meant to be lost which is frustrating at best. I posted a while back saying how hard I found the campaigns in general, certainly compared to the campaigns in cmx1 anyway. For whatever reasons I don't really want to invest my time in Normandy again until the commonwealth module arrives. But then I can't help feel that package is going to feel the same too 
Well, yes, I concur..
Why no specific K98 noise?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Ohhhh that's sad. I was rather hoping to see a K98 sound appear in the not to distant future. It's not a game killer granted but it was rather nice.
So out of interest, how will this effect the other modules too? Will the Lee Enfield sound like a Garand for example?