BloodyBucket
-
Posts
986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BloodyBucket
-
-
Anyone have any requests for the next video?
Some more infantry vs. infantry action, with some close up views.
-
I like the "bouncy" tanks. Might not be realistic, but it's a great visual.
As to the CMBO voices, it does seem odd to hear them again...but if the sound can be modded, I'm sure there will be a hefty number of choices available soon.
Perhaps the Germans should all speak Sgt Fury comic book German..."Vat ist dis, dese paper are Fake! Arrest dot man!" It would go with the Thompsons making a "BUDDABUDDABUDDABUDDABUDDA!" sound, and the rifles going "KERCHOW!"
-
Game looks great.
I can see not allowing rocket launchers in buildings. My dad told me of sandbagging a bazooka into a basement window and remotely firing it to disable an assault gun, and the big reason it worked is nobody expected a bazooka to be fired from a building.
The bailed-out crew vs. infantry thing is ok with me, if it's rare. Didn't anybody see Bogey go at it in "Sahara?"
Seriously, most of the time I think a bailed-out Sherman crew would be more interested in not being on fire and trying to get the Hell out of Dodge than engaging an infantry squad, but soldiers do odd things.
As to the hand grenade vs. tank idea, I think it's a stretch. If AT rifle grenades aren't tracked, then I can see them being bundled with magnetic, sticky and field expedient devices to give infantry a generic short range AT ability, but explaining it as simply chucking a HE hand grenade on a tank deck hoping to KO it seems like a reach.
I got a kick out of factoring in rifle grenades when deploying and moving infantry in CMBO, and I'll be sorry to see them gone, but it's a quibble. The game looks fantastic.
-
I'm glad to see CM return to the Western Front. Been lurking since it took off in other directions.
-
I don't play that often, but I still prefer CMBO to the more recent versions because of the setting. It's a great game, and while I've got quite a few multiplayer games under my belt the vast majority of my time with CMBO has been single player.
Enjoy!
-
Don't let the graphics fool you, it's a great game.
-
Any WWI flight sim that's half as good as RBD.
-
How about "having posted more than twice in the last six months"?
Michael
Well, now I'm active.
-
Define active.
-
Wow. I play TOAW, have a good time and get plausible results....and I think JasonC gets just as much pleasure from pondering the nitnoids of what consim theory should be.
What might make a pure and righteous consim game is a fun topic for debate and thought. I would venture to guess that what makes a good sim that sells well is somewhat tricky to nail down, or, as they say, weaklings and children would do it.
I find TOAW quite playable and realistic enough since I view it as a game, not a tool or the Gospel of Combat. I don't think of it as the zenith of game design, never to be bettered.
Now, a game with the features that JasonC advocates would be great...or dull as dry toast, depending on how it was presented, how the interface worked, etc.
I think there is room in the gaming world for a lot of different levels of abstraction, detail and seriousness. I dread the day when the issue of how many attack factors can dance on the head of a pin is resolved once and for all...I think the debate is entertaining.
-
Did you see the hidden BREN tripod?
Good stuff.
-
The Marine Corps used M1911A1 pistols, M2 machineguns and the old steel pots during my early tenure. The comm shop I was in had some WWII vintage mine detectors.Originally posted by Beeper:I think I'm one of the few guys in here who actually used WWII equipment (sort of) in the early 90's...
-
USMCR 1980-Present. Will retire shortly as a Master Sergeant, unless I pick up Master Guns, I might do the full thirty.
Missed Desert Storm, made OIF, good luck to all those presently or going to the sandbox. I know now why war is a young man's calling - When I see the young men under arms I see my own sons.
Emerged from OIF unscathed, but back in the early 80's I did get a wicked wood shampoo from an overeager MP at Twentynine Palms.
-
We often attacked Sandfleasia while training.
-
"Why use a flamethrower when you can use the m72 HH or M141 BDM?"
Good question. There may be situations where the above mentioned munitions might not be suitable, and there is also the morale effect of the "traditional" flamethrower.
-
Hmmm...Suicide tactics. I think that the allies in the Pacific had to deal with this, so let's broaden our view beyond the recent Iraq fracas.
Say CM moves to the Pacific? Japanese soldiers carrying explosives tried suicide attacks vs. allied armor, faked surrender, set boobytraps (IEDs), beheaded prisoners, refused to surrender, staged suicidal (banzai) charges, there were the famous "kamakaze" aircraft... in a lot of ways, not too different from some tactics likely to be used by the more fanatical elements in our potential UN vs. Syria scenario.
Looking at how some tactical games in the past have dealt with this would be interesting.
Up Front, the old Squad Leader based game, had rules for Banzai charges and suicidal close combat vs. tanks. The scale there was really two or three squads. I'm not familiar enough with Squad Leader proper to know how it was handled there.
Perhaps "Jihadists" working with Syrian regulars could perform a kind of banzai attack that would ensure heavy casualties on the attacking squad, but might take out US armor.
Steve pointed out the intolerance for WWII type casualties that US forces seem to have today. A banzai typ rule for the Syrians might make life interesting for an American player in SF.
-
HA! BFC is hardly the first company to "trivialize" my own tame OIF experience. There was "Kuma War", and that TV puffpiece, "Over There".
Really, I don't have a problem with a wargame covering a conflict that I was recently in, as long as there isn't anything too outrageous (say, allowing the US side to get bonus VPs for murdering civvies). In fact, there was a downloadable boardgame covering OIF made available recently, and I was rather pleased to see "my" counter in the game! (first thing I look for in any Bulge game is the 110th infantry regiment counter in honor of dear old dad).
I don't have a moral problem with it, but I do see some problems from a design standpoint, but that is for BFC to figure out and for us to carp on.
-
No flamethrowers that I am aware of. Yes, there is a modern version of Napalm that was used during OIF. The only infantry version of a "flame weapon" that I know of currently is the old WP grenade, mostly used to destroy equiptment.
I have wondered if the old flamethrower might have been useful in Afghanistan in some of those caves.
-
Sounds like SF will have more "gray area" aspects than I thought...If it strictly a game simulating a stand up fight between the Syrian and US military forces, I think any realistic sim factoring in the US C3 and fire support advantages would be pretty one sided.
While I agree that a company could find itself in a temporarily hairy situation, unless you are talking a pacification scenario with ROE issues, it should be rare for US forces to feel really threatened.
Somalia was pretty unique in that there were a LOT of enemy shooters and the response times were dorked up by UN chain of command issues. I can see how simming a Somalia type scenario might make a wonderful FPS, but for a CM type game I wonder if gamers are going to accept winning a thumping military victory only to be told that they were defeated by TV coverage of the few KIAs that they did take.
The US might have plenty of challenges in the tactical aspects of MOOTW (military operations other than war) like the current pacification operations in Iraq, but in a stand up fight...
-
It really depends on what the game will simulate...If they are going for the pure military phase, who cares about suicide bombers? Anybody attempting to get near military units during the combat phase in OIF, for instance, would have been stopped or shot.
If they are going to sim MOOTW (military operations other than war), like the current pacification ops in Iraq, than suicide bombers make sense.
As far as IEDs, the only difference between IEDs and mines in CMX1 I can see is command detonation.
VBIEDs (Vehicle Borne IEDs) would be stopped or destroyed in the combat phase, but in a MOOTW sim, they might be a factor.
I think that SF will be focused on the combat phase of the Syrian/UN conflict, but I could be wrong.
After dealing with coalition warfare first hand, I am curious about what effect this might have on the company level of SF...OIF was really a US/UK show, but in a true UN operation, I have no doubt that the nature of UN ops would have some impact on company commanders, mostly in the form of delays in getting fire support and the danger of blue on blue fratricide.
-
Is there going to be any simulation of the difficulties involved in coalition warfare, or is the focus simply too tactical?
Will you have to wait for your air support request to be translated?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
I wish to still be breathing for CMx7. At the current rate, I think I'll be pushing 80.
-
Dorosh, you've got some interesting ideas here, and I would like to add my vote for the battalion commander being most effective when he is not up front micromanaging his platoons.
It is a pyramid scheme, really. The fireteam leader worries about his three or so men, the squad leader about his few fireteams, the platoon leader about his few squads, on up to the battalion commander worrying about his companies.
The problem with simulating Battalion level decisions in a computer game is really about simulating complex human interactions and leadership, not so much in defining roles. A lot of what a commander does happens before the battle, and the higher the level goes the more this holds true. By leadership at the Battalion level, I mean setting the pace and standards for training, ensuring the chain of command is followed, weeding out the incompetent, ensuring supplies and replacements flow smoothly, and not the classic "follow me!" leadership with rifle in hand. Not very dramatic, but vital, and when it is lacking or not competent the privates and corporals sense it.
Going back to your "Band of Brothers" example, Winters is shown struggling with the issue of a less than stellar company commander during the attack on Foy. Do we really want to go to that level in CM, where officers would be rated for political connections and personality, making it harder to get rid of a nice guy who tries hard or the division commander's nephew? Note that a lot of the "Band of Brothers" story focuses on lower ranks once Winters is promoted, because the life and duties of a staff weenie are not as exciting (for mini series uses, at least) as the life and duties of those closer to the sharp end.
In my mind, what the Battalion commander brings to the table in a company level sim is rank and leadership. Having three Captains asking for artillery support is not the same as having a Lt. Colonel ask for it. The fact that he has the rank lets him deal with the staff weenies higher up the food chain (that's me nowadays) and not get blown off. He also simply protects the higher staff weenies from being deluged with requests from multiple captains who all have the most important problem on the planet, via the pyramid scheme.
The leadership portion MIGHT involve micromanaging a company if the situation calls for it, but that really means that he has screwed up by not having a competent company commander in place.
Perhaps adjusting company objectives in light of new situations, information and directives from higher HQ is within the scope of CM, but to really make it work in Multiplayer I think you would have to let other humans or the AI control the companies, and much of the time the situation would remain static enough where there really wouldn't be too much to do as the battalion boss.
-
Thanks for the replies from BFC.
If I understand this correctly, it may go something like this?
Title: CMx2 Ardennes '44
Module: The US Paratroopers
Module: Kampfgruppe Peiper
Title: CMx2 Korea
Module: The UN alliance
Module: Chinese intervention
Title: CMx2 Pacific
Module: US Marines
Module: China, Burm, India
etc, etc.
We won't be able to pit Peiper against the SNLF, and if technology enables a groovy new water effect for the hypothetical Pacific title, don't look for it to get patched to the hypothetical Ardennes title.
All to the good, IMHO, if I have grasped it correctly. As a Jarhead, I would jump on the Pacific title and modules, but since my interest in the Spanish Civil War is pretty limited, I would have the option to pass on it completely or just get the Title and no modules.
I would expect that the Titles and Modules would provide plenty of gaming goodness to tide my over if the next release did not twirl my toes, so I won't begrudge the Spanish Civil War enthusiast a his day in the sun. Also, I could console myself knowing that any improvements made in the game during a Title I passed on would likely show up in the next title that I wanted.
Is this about right?
Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy Video AAR
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I swore I read that earlier, but a careful re-reading of this thread just had a poster indicating that "...I think AT grenades are not explicitly simulated so the generic grenade has gotten a boost in AT power."
I might have read something in another thread indicating no rifle grenades, but my memory isn't what it used to was.
At any rate, if the rifle grenades are in, then my minor quibble is quashed.