Holdit
-
Posts
376 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Holdit
-
-
ASL for me. It fills in the gaps left by CM. There are scenarios and releases now that cover from the Sino-Japanese war to the Korean war, and everything and every theatre and nationality in between and a lot of stuff that isn't in CM e.g. paradrops, beach landings, gliders, climbing, sewer movement, basements for tanks to fall into...
Sure, you have to do the engine work yourself and there a few other drawbacks e.g. no sexy 3D and the FOW isn't as well-done, and you can't replicate weal-world tactics in the same way as you can with CM but in my opinion it's worth it. The modules can be hard to get and quite expensive, but if anyone prepared to forgo the full sets with physical boards can do quite well with VASL, an online computerised playing surface - unfortunately, it doesn't enforce the rules so you still need to learn them.
Some say that ASL is a Hollywood version of WW2. I don't think that's correct - the outcomes are too random and too cruel - just like in CM. Show me the Hollywood ,movie where the best leader was taken out by a sniper before he got to do anything, or where a bunch of Stalingrad's heroic defenders fried themselves with their own molotov cocktails. But a lot of players reckon that each scenario played produces its own story that stick in the mind. One that sticks in my mind recently was from "Fighting Withdrawal" (me playing solo - Holditov vs Holditala) the first scenario in the first module, which has the Finns attacking a Russian-held town in one of the early attacks of the Continuation War. A number of Finnish squads needed to cross an open space but it was covered by an Russian squad+ MG which had already wiped out one squad attempting to cross at the same spot. A morale check against one of the Finnish squads auto-generated a Hero counter and the hero distracted the Russians by heading for an adjacent building, drawing fire while the rest of his comrades scampered across safely. The hero survived the fire aimed at him but seeing that the Russian squad was demoralised (it had been reduced in quality by an earlier morale check), he fancied his chances at taking them on single-handed...and didn't survive the experience. The kind of vignette you might read about in a book by Max Hastings, Anthony Beevor or Cornelius Ryan.
-
On 7/18/2020 at 12:33 AM, PIATpunk said:
- with the Boche staying Boche rather than Turning Japanese. !
Do you really think so?
-
4 minutes ago, Probus said:
If modding was limited to adding equipment ONLY, I think the boost to the community/popularity of the game would outweigh any risks. I just have to keep pointing back to KSP as my example of an overwhelmingly positive experience. (Granted KSP is not about killing virtual people and blowing things up... scratch that... KSP is not about killing virtual people.)
I love the KSP tagline: "Failure is always an option..."
-
2 minutes ago, Probus said:
Started a new Updated Poll topic:
Please cast your votes there. Here is a summary of what you'll find:
1. Blitzkrieg: 1939-40
WWII Early war
Poland
France
(also Finland)2. Barbarossa: 1941-43
WWII Eastern Front
Can Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin data be used as sort of an upgrade?
Invasion of Yugoslavia
Operation Typhoon
Case Blue
Blau to Stalingrad
Warsaw to Moscow
(also Finland)3. Afrika Korps: 1940-43
WWII North Africa
Operation Torch, American North Africa Invasion Libya, Egypt, and Tunis 1942-43
4. Expansion of Combat Mission Games to VE-Day on Both Fronts: 1944-1945
End-of-war module that includes Brits, crossing the Rhine and the Ruhr pocket
A siege of Budapest for Hungarians
Battle for Berlin
(East vs West, 1945, 46)
5. Arab-Israeli Wars: 1948–49, 56, 67, 73, 82, and 2006
Israeli War of Independence, 1948-49
Suez Crisis, 1956
Six Day War, 1967
Yom Kippur War, 1973
Lebanon Wars, 1982 & 20066. Vietnam War: 1955-75
US Involvement
(French Involvement, 1945-54)7. "Fulda Gap": 1970-90
Europe WWIII
8. "Battlefield Asia": Modern Day
USA/NATO vs China
USA/NATO vs North Korea
China vs India
India vs Pakistan
(Afghanistan Update)9. One Engine - CMx3
game performance improvments, graphics improvements, ray tracing, intermediate distance bitmaps
additional editor features, dynamic operational campaigns
additional gameplay features, coop, LoS tool, visible aircraft10. Enhanced Modding Support
add units
equipment
functionality
ingame OOB editor11. New Modules more battlepacks for existing titles
New Countries for Barbarossa (Bulgaria Hungary Romania Yugoslavia Partisans).
Additional modules for Red Thunder
Additional modules for CMSF2: Modern Day Syria, Turkey, Iraq
CMBS Marines (from both sides)
Commonwealth forces and expansion into VE Day for Final Blitzkrieg12. Surprise me - I'm certain to love it
Korea 1950
WW2 Pacific
WW1
HorsesI can't see why they couldn't knock all that out over a long weekend...
(I'd push the PTO higher up the list, but that's just me.)
-
Some posters seem to be assuming a false dichotomy when it comes to modding: that either new material comes direct from the developers only or else it's the wild west. What I'd like to see is something more along the Linux model, where people can make/suggest changes, but only one authority can authorise their release into the game, and this would only refer to the more data-driven mods i.e. new theatres. The current system where visual and sound mods can vary according to the tastes of the player, would continue, because that doesn't affect anything important - for all you know, you opponent's panthers could be pink. In an ideal world, I would see the place for modding - or third party development - would be in the area of new campaigns or theatres e.g. some modders get together and put together a package for the Winter War, and so the uniform graphics, the research for the weapons, maybe tweak some weather to account for extreme winter, etc. The weapon, TO&E, and vehicular data would be provided in a format specified by BF. The modders or TPDs would run their own playtesting and provide the results to BF for review. BF would then run some of their own quality control and when satisfied, release it as a new module, which players would either have or not have, just as it is now with other modules.
All in an ideal world, of course.
(Actually, in an idea world, BF would release one game including everything between 1936 and 1953 - next week... no, make that tomorrow...wait..this afternoon...
)
-
2 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
CM philosophy is more 'historical tactical sim' than 'game' and a lot of effort goes into getting the physics, ballistics, force structure and equipment availability right. Opening up game data to be monkeyed with defeats the whole purpose. If CM were ever to produce that 'Space Lobsters' fantasy game they've joke about opening up game data wouldn't be an issue. Whose going to argue about the proper rate of fire of a Martian space blaster?
There's a difference, though, between the engine and the data - or maybe there isn't with CM, but in theory at least, giving someone the ability to add data e.g. weight, speed, calibre, ,muzzle velocity, rate of fire for a given vehicle, gun or small arm isn't the same as letting them muck about with how the engine crunches that data. That, of course, should be BF's and BF's alone to mess with. In addition, BF could act as gatekeeper for new additions, the data for much of which is already known, so they could do things like make sure nobody is trying to sneak a 90mm gun onto a Matilda.
-
On 7/9/2020 at 2:44 PM, Probus said:
. I just have to agree to disagree that modding always brings chaos. After closely working with the Kerbal Space Program community, it seems like it can absolutely be done right. Just check out SpaceDock and CKAN for example:
Or just look at the Linux community.
-
I'd like to see something like this...one engine, just one, that will support all of the terrain, all of the building types, all of the weapons, for ETO, PTO (there's a lot more to it than beach assaults) and North Africa, with a limited selection of content for each. One engine to buy, one engine to patch. Because of the vastly-increased potential scope, out of the box, the game might contain a limited sample of unit types and vehicles across all theatres, just to get things going. A bit like the original Squad Leader, which only provided MKIV's,, Shermans and T-34/76's, one personnel carrier for each nation, regular infantry only, etc. At the same time, release the tools for others e.g. modders or contracted third parties to create the additional content e.g. database entries and graphics. Find some to way make it worth their while to get involved, but ultimate control for releasing content would rest with BF. That way they could concentrate on the engine while others get the theatres/campaigns out more quickly.
I'm not claiming that this would be feasible or realistic, just what I'd ask for if the genie-of-the--wargame appeared and asked what my wish was. Regarding CMx3, I have to say that I have no interest in buying multiple versions of another engine that after another 13 years is still likely to have covered the same ground as CMx2. I haven't even picked up the new CMFI release yet, so depleted is my enthusiasm for the way BF is doing things - still no fix for the CMBN bocage bug over a year after it was reported. The military contract thing doesn't sound encouraging; it just sounds like more time spent on that and less time on this. I've seen that happen before with another publisher.
-
37 minutes ago, Bufo said:
Yeah also one engine would be nice. I wonder how a WW2 battalion would hold up against a more modern company
Not long, I suspect. But I was thinking more in terms of ease of management of versions, patching and map reusability.
-
One engine. All theatres and conflicts from 1930 onwards. Specific conflict packages contracted out/licensed to other creators where BF isn't interested or is too stretched already, but BF retains full control of the engine.
Also an editor supporting copy-and-paste-able, rotatable, exportable and generally reusable maps and map segments.
-
Copy-able, re-usable, rotatable maps and map segments.
-
On 12/13/2019 at 9:26 PM, Peter Panzer said:
@JoMc67 - interesting, I've never heard of that line. Advanced Squad Leader is as far back as I go - the notion of tiny cardboard StuG III's still brings joy to my soul. As I see it, ASL lives on as Combat Mission - how fortunate we are!
As a result of the Ad Hoc at Chef du Pont experience, and for other reasons, I've rediscovered ASL. ASL does live on, independently of CM.
-
Has anybody tried this since the patch was released?
I just noticed about the patch, so I'll take the scenario for a test drive myself some time this week.
-
On 5/25/2019 at 8:05 PM, Badger73 said:
@Holdit FYI - @Doug Williams and I are testing this H2H. We're ten minutes into it after a week of play. Interesting game of cat and mouse so far. Good ASL map adaptation.
Glad to hear it - thanks for the feedback.
-
2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
It appears to be a new TacAI issue with CM:BN.....It's receiving some scrutiny at the moment, here's the page:
This is what almost ended my first attempt at your scenario.....There's a screen-shot of my men doing silly things on your map.
In my scenario the German friendly direction is SE. I'm not sure what I could change it to that might help, though, since they might have enemy troops in any and multiple directions.
-
44 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:
I decided to give it a go as the Germans first up. I wanted to see if the recent hedgerow gap problem would rear it's ugly head. And sadly, it did. I heard a "Boom" and to my horror instead of a US Breach Team running through the gap, and getting mowed down by my men, my pixeltuppen beat them to it, racing through the breach to their deaths.
It was a shame because up to that point it was playing out as a very interesting battle. And if we ever get a fix to our most recent problem I will certainly give it another go. I might also give it another play through but keep my Jerries away from the gaps when I get more time.
What's the hedgerow gap problem?
-
Some more discussion about this scenario here...
-
Tell me about it. I can remember banging my head off the desk during that phase of the design but that might have been the VCs or just programming the German AI opponent around them. I did a lot of tests (to save time I cheated by putting some Americans in that barn near the exit point and had them doing a a quick dash from there), but I can't remember for sure if that was one of them. I have a vague memory of trying it and the result being a draw, since scoring is based on destroying units that need to exit, but I couldn't swear to it.
-
40 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
+1 Very cool idea for a scenario. Thanks for taking the time to make this.
Unfortunately the Proving Grounds doesn't seem to get much traffic. If you think this scenario is ready to go you might want to consider publishing it at the Scenario Depot III.
Glad you like the concept. I get my WW2 tactical jollies from ASL as well as CMx2 so I might do more.
I think you're right about the proving grounds; I've had more feedback here in 24 hours than I had in the previous 2 months (i.e. none). I'll wait until a few people have played it and see what they think because I wouldn't consider myself a good enough player to know if it's really ready for prime time.
-
1 hour ago, PIATpunk said:
40 Metre wide hexes I believe, but that should not stop a good brawl on your map
Yep...I did actually base it on 40 metres, the 20 was just a memory blip.
That said, the guy who did the "Block Busting in Bobruisk" ASL-to-CMx2 port used 20 metres I think, and it might actually work out better, so if I'm doing another one I might experiment with that, or 30. Making the map the same size does leave you with a LOT of detail to fill.
-
13 hours ago, rocketman said:
I don't have the opportunity to test this now, but I just want to give a thumbs up for you starting your scenario making career. Enjoy!
Is it a real place/battle? Maybe next time consider using an overlay in the editor. Map making with one is a joy.
Thanks for your encouragement.
It's based on a real engagement, but the OOB is a bit of a fudge and the map is fictitious. I did use an overlay - a screenshot of the ASL board used in that scenario:
With ASL's 40-metre-wide hexes, though, its maps don't look good when translated directly into CMx2, so I added a lot of my own interpretation and some Norman flavour (bocage). I placed the houses and woods as per the ASL map, and the roads inasmuch as that's possible. I added crops and bocage and additional trees wherever I thought it would work, so the CMx2 version of the map gives the attacker more cover on the approach than the ASL American player has.
My aim was to translate the ASL scenario into CMx2 rather than recreate the historical one, but I don't think anyone has covered that engagement yet, so maybe...
This is the OOB I used...
The scenario is actually from the ASL Starter Kit, a stripped-down version of ASL for people to use to dip their toe in the water - I think the CMx2 version might make a good training scenario for CMx2 too - a nice simple infantry-only fight.
-
12 minutes ago, PIATpunk said:
Just firing it up and wondering about 'best played as..'. Assuming Allies vs Ai, but what about h2h? Cheers
Oops I forgot to mention that. It's probably best played as Allies vs AI in single player but I think it's a good candidate for H2H too.
-
"Ad Hoc at Chef du Pont" is a semi-fictitious scenario based on the ASL scenario of the same name and the ASL scenario "Gavin Take", in which General James Gavin and two scratch columns of paratroopers try to fight or sneak their way to a critical bridge of the the Merderet River early on 6th July 1944. The situation is historical but the map is inspired by the ASL map, but with lots of adjustments to make it suitable for CMBN.
It's a first try at a full scenario and was actually created a couple of months ago. I was wondering why I hadn't had any feedback at all when I remembered I hadn't mentioned it in the game's own forum...
It's available at The Proving Grounds:
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tpg2/cm-battle-for-normandy/ad-hoc-at-chef-du-pont/
...or from DropBox:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ebl7z9rp9rtwrcn/ASL - Ad Hoc at Chef du Pont.btt?dl=0
Feedback welcomed, good, bad and constructive.
-
On 4/3/2019 at 11:25 PM, Howler said:
Either point him to a post describing board etiquette, or assume he's still relatively new, at 12 posts, and let it pass.
Or, you can do what you did which is less welcoming, helpful, or instructive.
...or at least, if one must take a swipe...have the good manners to actually provide the answer at the same time.
Pacific Theater?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
The idea that the war against the Japanes was all about island-hopping strike me as odd. Advanced Squad Leader did two modules covering the Pacific War: Code of Bushido, and Gung Ho!. The first added the Japanese and scenarios in which they fight US army and Commonwealth troops, the second adds US Marines and the Chinese. The scenarios cover:
Burma (4), The Phillipihnes (3), Peleliu- inland (1), Bougainville - inland (1) & beach assault (1), Guam - beach assault (1), Manchuria (2), New Guinea (2), Leyte - inland (1)
That's two beach assaults out of 16 scenarios. (12.5%) .