Pete Wenman

P

Highly circumstantial, but I've read an awful lot of post on these forums that I wouldn't describe with words like "clever" or "challenging". More like "lazy" and "malicious". 
P

Highly circumstantial, but I've read an awful lot of post on these forums that I wouldn't describe with words like "clever" or "challenging". More like "lazy" and "malicious". 
P

MINUTE 1
And this is it: baptism by fire 😕I hope my men won't suffer of my mistakes... On the right, the squad is nearly approaching the woods without opposition.

In the center, my team is quickly going to the house to have a LOS on German's AOA2.

On the left, no opposition so far.

One could think that these men are exposed but in the two following screenshots you can see that the ridge is protecting them


Overall situation at the end of the first turn. No enemy detected so far, not a single shot. On the right, I will detach one team to take a good overwatch position and monitor the second objective and the plan of the enemy to take the first one.

I figured it was about time I created a scenario for this title and I am now in the closing stages of finishing off a scenario titled Assault on Port Cros. The scenario, while based on historical events, is not what I would term as an accurate representation of them so this is more of an attempt to offer something new and maybe different for CMBN.
The basics:
Play Mode:  Allied vs Axis AI only.
Battle Type: Allied attack.
Battle Size: Large (I know this is subjective so to qualify this it is an Allied company plus force against an approximate Axis battalion element).
Battle Length: 3hrs 30 minutes (although this may change based on final testing).
Map Size:  2368x1264m
Requirements: Market Garden and Vehicle Pack modules.
The basics of the history are that the First Special Service Force assaulted German coastal defences, including Port Cros, on a small island group covering the approaches to the Port of Toulon to set the conditions for the main Operation Dragoon landings in the south of France in August 1944.
The following image forms part of one of the briefing graphics for the scenario:
 

But @Warts 'n' allby his own admission 'My tanks, and infantry in, or near the church, got slaughtered within a few minutes. And it wasn't too much longer before my outflanking troops followed a similar fate. I hit "Cease Fire" once I'd lost all my tanks.' indicates that he did not do overly brilliantly. Not really fair to have a pop at the designer for that is it?

To me, the reaction to the video so far is the best example since the time Battlefront posted the screenshot of a Tiger tank before CMBN as to why we don't get more updates.

I have realized that, for so many years, I have only bought from Battlefront two games: CMBB and CMSF (plus all its modules). What is wonderful and very rare now in game industry is that Battlefront is still releasing free demos to try their games. I have looked at CMBN several times. Installed the demo and was continuing to hoping for CMSF2 even if I was not yet knowing it was an existing secret project.
But, for so many years, did I support Battlefront with free demos? I am not sure. So, thanks to @JoMc67 PBEM proposal, I have now bought CMBN big bundle. I think this is the best support I can give to Battlefront. Will buy CMSF2 upgrade when its done. It is not in September. I do not care. I care about a well finish product. And I have the intuition we won't have to wait very long before release.
Just my humble opinion.

Just goes to show you how gamey all those "realistic" RTS titles really are, don't it? Real world tactics invoke real world outcomes in CM, more so than any other game at this level that I can think of. No health bars, no armor hit points, no base rushing, just good old fashion tactics. A lot of your problems will be unlearning exploits and "tactics" that you picked up while playing pretenders. The CM1 guys had a similar problem when they transitioned from the old titles to the new engine because of the change in fidelity and abstractions. But whatever you do, don't get frustrated, once you get it you'll be rewarded with years of fun.
 
Mord.

For most forumites. Either "Devon Basic Training " or "Task Force Raff Combat Training" are considered to be "the first campaign". I now realise that you are attempting to play the game alphabetically. If I were you I would watch all of the Armchair General videos. Then watch one or more of the videos from Task Force Raff. Then go back to the Game Manual and play both "Devon" and "Task Force Raff". Whilst closely following the advice given in there. It will save you a lot of frustration.

For the record, Grogheads.com takes no official position with respect to Battlefront one way or the other. However, our members possess a variety of opinions that we encourage them to express, be they positive or negative. Wargaming is a subject we are all very passionate about obviously, so sometimes, some people have difficulty expressing their views in a rational, calm manner. I know I'm stating the obvious, but I just want to go on record by stating clearly that the opinions expressed in our forums belong to those of the poster.
Personally speaking, I have every CM game ever released. Yes, I've been frustrated with the DRM and licensing and the delays, but it never has, nor will it ever dissuade me from buying a game in the series if it appeals to me. Shock Force 2 is eagerly awaited. 
I encourage anyone here who strongly supports CM and Battlefront to hop into our forums and represent. You are all welcome.

"Amazing how you guys keep going on and on over such trivial life matters. Definitely unfollowing this one. My entire mailbox if full of this whining"
It's the internet wtf did you expect? They built it so we could argue about nothing and watch porn.
 
Mord.

This is Karl...

And that thing he's cuddling there is Karl's Panzerschreck which he affectionately calls "Bertha". He claims the camouflague on Bertha reduces the chances of enemy tanks spotting him by 75%!
Karl's ammo bearer has cause to dispute this claim as he's lying in a bush picking shrapnel from a tank shell out of his internal organs...

The rest of his platoon, save for a few stragglers and himself, have withdrawn to the woods to the rear.
But Karl didn't go with them despite being shot at by infantry, tanks and surviving two mortar strikes.
He's been hiding in these bushes and watching this one roll up the hill, but he has only 1 round left.

Karl's a good shot, I'm not sure if he's told you that already, he usually tells anyone who'll listen.

His second tank of this December morning.
Now on something of a roll and with no more rounds for Bertha, he pulls his pistol and spies a halftrack. He's not concerned that a squad of enemy infantry were seen running along that tree-line only a minute ago or that his pistol is somewhat inferior to his beloved Bertha in the anti-armour role.

Sure enough, his efforts to ruin the paint job on the halftrack draw the attention of the americans and Karl ist Kaputt..

The End.
 

I prefer a guy with big thumbs and Parkinson's.
 
Mord.

All your Steams belong to me 

after Microsoft's micro code update; I decide to test the game launch today; and guess what, It works again!!!!
 
lol just in time for the new one..

I don't think anyone doubted the existence of certain articles (although thesun? seriously? 🙂 ) Anyhow it's still bullocks. Besides; how does 'a growing population' equal to factual tangible pressure to 'include' Sharia law.? Also, like... what laws? Stoning people for 'avin a pint? Come on get yourself a break and go meet a Muslim near to you. He or she probably won't bite. They might invite you for tea though.
Personally I feel the 'politics' line was crossed with your first post about the Muslim subject. I had to reply but I'm happy to steer it back to the more on topic macro geopolitical / military stuff. ---
It will be 'interesting' to see what happens in the region after the, sort of, inevitable regime (Assad) victory over the rebels in Idlib. I hope it's not just the next phase of conflict, but I have some fears. There are a lot of players on the board, with converging interests. Turkey will be among the first with the ball in their court. Will they pull their (proxy) forces out of Syria and how about the Kurds? The Iranian block becomes stronger. Israel is not happy, there is always something about oil, wuddabout US, 😉 etc. 

Your WSJ article is an opinion piece with the writer freaked out by Muslims in general.  I studied in Leicester and survived and got into curries, and my cricket team in Colchester plays on the Army Garrison cricket pitch with a multicultural inc Muslims  team of players - heck Ismail Mohamed picks up the keys every Sunday from The Parachute Regt guardhouse and hasn't been shot yet.
The surgeon who operated on me a few years back was a Muslim, and the Consultant Anaesthetist was a handy bat / bowler for oppo club.
Yes you get a few crazies but the main problem is with ultra nationists finding folks different to themslves a problem...

I'm glad there is no mention of those sorts in the article, for I would have stopped reading them.
I'm not going to debate these subjects, I think it is suffice to say that both ('floodgate muslim immigration from Turkey' and the 'EU Sharia') are populist myths. Also, I miss how those are correlated? Turkey doesn't feature a Sharia law; besides there is no such thing as 'the Sharia law'.
In The Netherlands (and I suspect the UK also) there already is the possibility for mediation, instead of formal courts, when parties want to settle a civil dispute. If they do wish the mediation to follow certain religious rules, that is fine as long as it is within the boundaries of the law (and all parties agree to it). Different religious groups do make use of this freedom and have been doing that for a while. It is nothing new, nor is there any small chance of our constitution being replaced with religious books. 

to make this a more constructive discussion it might be worthwhile to see how you'd design the scenario. You'd noted above how you've edited a few.  How about editing a RT scenario and doing a comparison?  It is all well and good to critique design but you've painted a broad brush about how many of them "get it wrong"
I left everything after the but off as it isn't relevant.  Don't take this the wrong way, but you have 9 posts on the forum and have made a very broad claim.  No one here really knows your background, knowledge, experience etc etc.  There is nothing really to evaluate your feedback.   The designers (both the ones who are doing stock scenarios and campaigns for BF and those producing user made content) as a group are all over the map.  Some are extremely knowledgeable and well versed in Eastern Front history and tactics.  Some just like bang em up tank engagements with some real beasts.  In terms of the Hammer campaign I think it is a compilation with a couple designers (that is a guess, it was a long time ago developing RT).  There isn't necessarily consistency as to design of each scenario in the campaign.
To see an actual comparison of a scenario and how'd you'd consider changing it would make this a more clear cut perspective.

So now you've thrown a separate argument into the mix.
My response to your original post demonstrates by using an example of divisional organisation, that your assessment of AT guns being too common is incorrect. It also demonstrates that your assertion that "Players are usually not informed enough to realize that no one would realistically expect them to fight their way through defense lines as deep as usually encountered in a CM scenario. " is also incorrect because in reality lines were deeper than can be shown on a CM map and that they were indeed attacked.
To address your latest assumption, if you do not think that divisional organisation effects the Order of Battle for a given scenario and that in turn does not then effect scenario design then you are talking nonsense as I am sure one of the many scenario designers will point out to you. If you think the scenarios are unrealistic perhaps you would like to give specific examples so that the designers can address the accusation.

@SimpleSimon I am not sure about you're assertion about AT guns being too common. A PanzerGrenadier Division in 1944 would have 19 AT guns (Pak 40's), 31 tank destroyers and 42 assault guns to support the 6 infantry battalions.
This averages out to about 3 AT guns, 4 tank destroyers and 7 assault guns per battalion. It is not unreasonable to assume that a map size of 500m x 1500m would be defended by an rifle company, in which case you would expect to find at least 1 Pak 40, 1 tank destroyer and an assault gun section. I also do not find it unreasonable to suggest that the brigade or division commanders may concentrate additional assets into this area if they had intelligence to support an imminent attack.
Earlier German infantry divisions would have had 36 AT guns to support 9 battalions plus another 36 guns in the AT battalion making a total of 72 guns. This averages out to 8 guns per battalion or about 2 or 3 per rifle company if the commanders structured it so.
I am also not sure about your second assertion that the defensive lines in a CM scenario are unrealistically deep. The reality is that a single CM scenario cannot portray the actual depth of a WW2 defensive line. German doctrine on defense outlines 3 separate lines to create a defense in depth, a main line, an advance line and an outpost line. An attacker does not always have the opportunity to flank such a position.
The best WW2 example of defense in depth is the Russian defense at the Batlle of Kursk. The defensive line was 190 miles deep.