Rocky Balboa
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rocky Balboa
-
-
Can't remember, but did you have any indirect fire support for this attack? Would have been a good Idea to plot some harassing fire missions into the town just to keep Jerry's head down while you advanced across that open area...
-
I love smaller independant developers because they are not afraid to show when they are getting annoyed at someone
Most major developers would have been oh-so cautious in their response to this, which is a contributing factor in why this behavior is so wide spread nowadays (IMHO)
Could also be because most major software developers don't have the owner of the company handling public relations on the forums either
-
Yes, as always... Don't like don't buy. Thats obvious for god sake. But there are people who like Combat Mission and people who were waiting for this module(like me) and they potentially interested buying this game/module. They have their own opinions, expectations and their worries of certain things BF can listen to them or ignore them. That's their choice. You don't have agree with them just don't flame whenever someone has different opinion or expectation, because it's stupid
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but you need to also pay attention in how you present it. If you come off sounding like a child then that's how people will treat you. Of course it's obvious to say "don't buy it if you don't like it" but there is really nothing else to say on the matter. BF has been very clear on what you should and should not expect from a module.
You can either buy the module and wait for a future upgrades to the engine that adds or fixes what you consider to be wrong with the game or you can not buy it and wait until the fixes are made. Which may be never.
As or your expectations, BF has never given out absolutes about when something will be changed or added. They may give some indications that there are certain features they want to add at some point but they never give absolutes on when it will be done. Bottom line, when this Module is finally offically anounced and they give details about what will and will not be included then you should decide if it's worth buying.
Ranting about things is never going to get you anything except higher blood pressure. If CM:MG doesn't sell well because most players don't think the content is worth the price then that will send a louder message to BF than your rants ever will
-
Good Show guys ... much appreciated ....
-
BFC is getting plenty of publicity and eyeballs on the brand with CM:Touch.
+1
I was a little confused at first when BF released CM touch but now it mmakes a lot more sense. You Release an inexpensive CM:touch to the apple & android market and the people who buy it are now the same target audience that could possibly buy CMx2.
Forget spending money advertising on TV or googl. With CM:touch sales, they now have targeted a proven audience that already understands the brand and the concept. In addition to all that, their making money with the sales of CM:touch to boot. Now that's freaking impressive ....
-
The defender cannot have reinforcements, they have to defend with what they have on the hex, when the assault is declared. Therefore, you can be confident there will be no enemy armour making an appearance, until possibly the next CM battle.
I understand your reason for this but IMO when the attacking player knows there will be no re-enforcements for the defender, it removes an element of drama from the battle which could make it more enjoyable. Here's a suggestion that would allow the defender to possibly receive re-enforcements but limit what he can get.
If the defending hex is already at the max stack limit then no re-enforcements are available. If the defending hex < the stack limit and there are qualifying friendly forces in adjacent hexes, allow the defender to select a small amount of variable re-enforcements. The number of re-enforcements needs to be kept small so as not to disrupt the attackers numerical advantage but large enough to give the attacker an increased challenge. A simple formula could be used (ex ... A re-enforcement group consisting of say 3% - 5% of the current defending force these numbers can be adjusted as play testing dictates) to determine the size of the re-enforcement group.
The defender selects from his qualifying support units the re-enforcements that could arrive anytime between s+30 to s+60 turns (use the editor to control the variable arrival time of these units). Re-enforcements are never guaranteed to arrive but the possibility will add an unknown element of drama to the battle as neither the attacker or defender knows for sure if they will arrive in time to impact the battle.
You could also give the attacker the option of using some of his indirect fire support or air support to interdict possible re-enforcements. If the Attacker chooses to do this and meets the necessary requirements then he can guarantee that the defender will not be able to receive re-enforcements during the battle. This interdiction attack will not cause any actual casualties but merely delays the re-enforcements from arriving.
-
my .02
Physiologically speaking, morale hits should be based on training/experience, fitness, casualties and fatigue. As these effects last much longer in the human mind.
Things like leadership and victory or defeat can effect morale but for a much shorter time frame which is usually determined by the other factors mentioned previously.
-
@Oddball_E8, I Don't think you need to purchase CMBN again ... I believe you can just purchase the upgrade for $10.00 ....
Another consideration is that the MG module will be coming out soon
which I'm guessing you'll be able to purchase at the standard module price of $35.00. This should also upgrade your CMBN to the current release. -
I'm following your operation with great interest. Since success or failure of this operation hinges on the occupation of 2 towns. I can foresee several CM battles being fought for possession of these towns.
After a few of these battles take place it will become obvious how much we need the ability to save a CM map at the end of a battle so that it can be used in the next.
I'm assuming that the maps will need to be edited between assaults to reflect the terrain damage from the previous battle.
-
Most CM scenarios don't allow enough time for the attacking player to do proper reconnaissance. I always like to add more time for this but in a campaign, you don't have the ability to alter the time constraints.
Bill, I would also be interested to hear how you construct a counter reconnaissance plan. Please consider including this in your recon series ...
-
It is possible to flank the enemy at the operational level, but the flanking unit would not be allowed to declare an assault (CM battle) because of two reasons.
Firstly, if it was possible for two stacks to attack from two different hexes, it would double the amount of units the attacker has at the start, which would make the CM battles far to big. The current system for introducing a second attacking battalion onto the CM battlefield after 30 turns of 60 have elapsed reduces the work load at the start of a battle, and allows blown units to be replaced, thus helping to maintain a manageable amount of forces.
Secondly, I don't like the idea of battalions converging on one hex. This seems to contrary to what I imagine would happen in reality. As far as i know, foot unit formations at that level would be tasked with pretty simple orders. i.e. move forward in that direction, with supporting battalions moving parallel to the battalion, and reinforcements coming up from the rear. With that in mind, i have no problem restricting the movements of PzC units to reinforce that belief when it comes to assaulting.
Here's a suggestion that might work to allow flanking movement but still maintain your Bn battle limit:
Allow units in multiple hexes to participate in the battle as long as they are not adjacent to another enemy occupied hex. However when attack from multiple locations, the attacking player would still have to declare which units would participate in the attack and this total should not exceed a Bn in size.
You could also allow other units in multiple adjacent locations to provide support for a battle as long as they are not adjacent to another enemy occupied hex.
-
I would like to see FOW extended to the terrain. The benefits of this are as follows:
Sound contacts would be more realistic and less absolute.
Deformation of terrain (ie ... broken fences / walls or hedge breaches would not telegraph the enemy advance unless observed.
Having FOW terrain would make it easier for the player to determine terrain relief since you will immediately be able to see what your units cant see.
Scouting/Patrolling would become more realistic as your scouts moved further away from friendly units. This would give a more isolated feeling as the visible terrain closes around them. Also if scouting in advance of a friendly movement, you would be able to determine quickly if your scouts have advanced outside the view of follow on or supporting units.
The 2D map can be provided in game as a pop up map to simulate a field commanders paper map.
Of course I acknowledge that a system like this would be a major overhaul and could be too CPU intensive to properly implement
-
Still following along here ... Bill, hows the moral of your troops holding up at this point? ... Do you have enough VP's to call it a win at this point or if you push to take the final objectives in the town, are your bullet stoppers up to it?
-
When playing single player I will reload occasionally. This happens mostly when I have made I severe blunder or I'm faced with a difficult situation that I didn't handle correctly. As others have mentioned reloading allows me to try a different approach to see how I should have handled the situation. I look on these single player games as training for games when I play H2H where reloading is not an option.
I approach campaigns differently than I do single player scenarios and QB's. Even if I make a costly mistake in a campaign that prevents me from completing it, I try not to reload a turn but rather start the campaign over from the beginning or at least the beginning of the current battle. If I play badly enough to lose the campaign completely, then the replay doesn't happen immediately but rather after I have endured a season of brooding and self-flagellation.
-
And please don't click on his link ... thats what he's phishing for.
-
I said something along these lines before the game ever really started going, Bil should be the one with the hard side to start with. But I would like to see what forces he would select if he was playing defence, Give GAJ Bil's present forces and lets see what Bil could do to make a good fight of it. I bet he might make it pretty interesting.
I like how well planned and coordinated Bils attack is, very well done, but the game is a sleeper, pretty boring with no sight of it turning into a close battle, more like a clinic how to Coordinate a attack.
Not taking anything away from Bill, he definitely knows what he's doing and his execution aside from a couple of missteps has been excellent. I would have liked to see more of a time limit put on the attacker, this might have caused a little more excitement and a little less recon and caution.
-
Some off the cuff and ill-informed comments again on the spotting disparity - the LOS 'rules' are the same for both players, one player is simply better at working with it and the accompanying terrain. I think what's presented in this AAR is highlighting a skill mismatch between the two opponents. One orchestrates his moves several turns in advance, not fixed there's a difference, with a clearly defined goal; whereas the other plans on a turn by turn basis and moves by the seat of his pants with changing goal posts. Still interesting to watch though.
Not really a fair assessment, as the nature of defense is to react to the moves of your opponent or to stay in place and fight. Bill has the luxury of taking his time in planning his moves. GAJ must wait and respond to Bill's moves with his reserves so there's not a lot of planning GAJ can do until he see's what Bill is doing.
I do think at this point, GAJ is becoming frustrated and losing his will to fight. This results in making some careless and not well thought out decisions. For example, when moving his 2 M10's he should have timed his move so that both tracks would have arrived at a firing position at the same time giving him a better chance of at least one spotting a target before being taken out.
Of course, I've seen this frustration happen before and it's normally precipitated by a desire to not prolong the beating and get the game over with.
This is also the point in most MP games when your opponent stops sending turns as quickly and eventually falls off the face of the earth. Glad to see that GAJ is made of sterner stuff. -
Thanks for the news Steve, sounds like its going to be a great module and a must have for me ... When can I pre-order?
-
As cautious as Bill is being, he is still not above making a mistake or two.
Earlier in the battle he lost 2 HT's but the loss was less severe because they weren't loaded with pixel truppen. This last turn he lost a TC on his MkIV that advanced too aggressively. He could have very easily lost the whole track had Tube Guy been hiding in the tall grass.
So far his mistakes haven't cost him too dearly but the fat lady hasn't started singing yet.
-
Both parties are playing an excellent game and providing a very enjoyable AAR. GAJ got careless with his TD and kept following the same path into the town even after he knew that Bill had eyes on that area. Bill has also made some careless moves as well early on.
These things happen, that's why I prefer to play small - medium size battles because the more units you have to move around, the greater the likely hood that a mistake will occur. This is also the reason why I prefer CMx2 over CMx1. Less predictability and more randomness in the combat feels more like a war than a chess match.
Skillful play and tactical proficiency still matter but stuff happens ... I like that
-
It may be a good thing that you didn't spot anything this turn ... there is a good chance he wont see you either ... Of course he may see you even though you can't see him :eek: ...
Hold your breath and hope he hasn't spotted you, maybe he will move into you FOV this turn. I can't wait to see what the quad 50 does to his dismounts.
Be prepared to shoot and scoot because you know that tin can ain't no battleship
-
I'm assuming this new feature will be included in the purchase of CM:GL but will be an upgrade you will need to pay for if you don't buy CM:GL?
-
Interesting that you can see the ATG and not the crew but you can spot the M10 with the crew inside.
I wonder if the UI would show abandoned if the crew left the Gun?
Not complaining ... this is definitely better than what we had .... I still think FOW terrain is where we really want to be though
Thanks for showing this off Bill
-
GAJ's last post indicates that he has a pretty good assessment of Bills force. This IMO gives GAJ a slight edge because Bill still doesn't have a complete picture of GAJ's force. Granted Bill has done amazing job of identifying his ATG's, and M10's but he still doesn't have a fix on GAJ Rangers. GAJ also seems to be concerned that Bill has a full PzIV plt in support but I think this favors GAJ and his defense of the final objectives in the town.
IMO Bill is too light on infantry which he will need in his final assault on the town. I think Bill realizes this as well because he is being very cautious with what he has. If GAJ can successfully weaken Bills infantry then the additional tanks in support will do Bill little good in the end stages of the battle. Bill dodged a huge bullet when the 2 HT's that were hit where not loaded. Had they been full of Infantry Bill could have lost the battle right there.
Keep in mind that infantry are very brittle and all GAJ needs to do is inflict enough casualties to break their will to fight. If they arrive at the final objective with low morale then GAJ's Ranger's may be able to win the day.
which I'm guessing you'll be able to purchase at the standard module price of $35.00. This should also upgrade your CMBN to the current release.
Yippeeeeeeeee
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Which reminds me ... MMMOOOOOoooooooowww .... Where's my CM:MG .... Feels like my udders are about to explode ...