Erwin
-
Posts
17,477 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
32
Posts posted by Erwin
-
-
Widescreens have this problem with older tech CM1. You can try and play around with your videocard controls. I have NVidia and haven't been able to get CM1 looking correct other than by forcing my monitor to display 4:3.
Personally I just got used to the units being stretched.
-
+1 for anything that makes gameplay more efficient and hence more enjoyable:
- Better use of the bottom of the screen for useful commands (easier for us mouse users)
- Ability to swap ammo from any other unit (within reason) in one turn (ie: without having to mount/dismount)
- Tone down the ability of moving tanks to spot better than stationary ones and buttoned armor's ability to spot leg units/guns so easily at night/in smoke as if they had night vision/infrared tech
- Color code units of (platoon/squad) formation icons to immediately show what formation they are part of, and aid in keeping the formation together and not confused with units from other formations
- Ability to click on ANY waypoint to immediately select the unit (as we had in CM1) and move the waypoints as in CM2.
- Enable a gun or HMG to move to a position from where it can see and shoot at a target - instead of the current "3rd ammo bearer can see the target but it's impossible to move the main weapon a few inches so it can also see and shoot".
Also:
- Triggers (to help scenario designers)
- For those rescue missions... How about units that do not show up visibly at set-up and only when a friendly unit has LOS to them? That way one wouldn't know the location of the unit to be located/rescued until a rescue/recon unit gets within LOS.
-
I meant to put in hints in my threads. So, here are some for "The Corridor".
1) In the first two ("historical") scenarios you have no time or need to dismount your infantry. You don't need your infantry. In Battle #1 you can use your arty and tanks fire to suppress any defenders and literally drive over the "touch" objectives in vehicles. That's how you win in 35 minutes.
2) In Battle #2, you are best keeping your light vehicles in the rear and only attacking again with tanks and arty. The Brits can bring down a huge amount of arty on the two crossing points and while the tanks mostly survive I lost most of an entire armored platoon in the ford. Didn't need the infantry or halftracks to win in Battle #2 so 100% wasted - and you'll need em for the hypothetical battles #3 and (the final) #4.
3) Note that the briefing says that "arty will be resupplied between battles" - but you'll find that your on map mortar ammo is NOT resupplied. So, don't waste it in Battle #1 like I did.
4) Expect large odds against you and well placed AT guns (and armor) that imo are impossible to scout for in the time limits in this campaign if you play WEGO.
I would recommend adding at least 50% more time to all 4 scenarios.
-
Hey Streety... I just wanted to let you know how much I have appreciated your mods over the decade of CM1. Thank you...
-
Was playing "The Corridor" at the same time as "Foiling Fustian" so completed it around the same time.
"The Corridor" maps and scenarios are all quite interesting. However, the short time limits - 35 minutes(!) to one hour - makes the game all but impossible to play in WEGO due to the overwhelming Allied defenses. It felt like a desperate situation like the Ardennes attack and I felt one would have to be very lucky to have enuff units surviving in the later battles. Maybe in RT one can do appropriate recon and respond fast enough to events.
I managed to win the historical scenarios but the enemy arty is so devastating in the last historical scenario that the hypothetical scenarios that followed were not much fun. By the final scenario I CF'd at set-up to see the odds and found the to be approaching 1:6. So, I just gave up in frustration at that point.
I recommend getting the scenarios separate and playing em as standalone scenarios. It will be interesting to find out how many players here were successful at the campaign in WEGO.
-
The other disconcerting thing I noticed when attacking tanks with infantry in woods at night/predawn with smoke drifting around - is that the buttoned Shermans were able to spot (and decimate my infantry) way too easily than you would expect. It was as if the Shermans were equipped with modern infrared/night vision technology that could see at night and thru smoke.
Something I hope others can comment on.
-
"Sounds" good... Is it available somewhere?
-
What I am amazed to find is that I find that I enjoyed the fully-patched CMSF more than the CM2 WW2 versions(!) because the less resource hogging terrain graphics of CMSF allowed for larger maps and more maneuver games rather than the relatively claustrophobic WW2 maps that nearly all result in repetitive straight ahead assaults.
I don't mind whether the region is not desert so long as we can have much larger maps that suit the longer range modern weapons systems. ie: 2K+ ranges.
-
I much prefer playing campaigns due to the force and ammo preservation economics that are usually required. In those campaigns that are designed with that in mind, there is a real motivation to keep casualties low and not waste ammo.
Anyhow, I hardly ever read much about campaigns, so here's a brief review of this 5 battle campaign that has you commanding an infantry force of FJ's (with 88's in some scenarios) and Italians (with a few assorted Italian AS vehicles in some battles) plus mortars and arty:
Battle 1: Interesting little night scenario introduction as your FJ's and Italian "Para Hunters" defend against Brit paras and then hunt down the survivors. Small but fun as one gets to attack for part.
Battle 2: Excellent daytime infantry assault scenario on a large-ish map with several attack options. One can really admire the great uniform graphics of the FJ's and (Veins) Italians. This one is replayable as there are attack options. 2nd time I managed to get a Total Victory with about 10% friendly casualties by using good tactics. Very satisfying and recommended for training on how to conduct an infantry assault.
Battles 3-4: Night-time again - defending with addition of 88's under massive Allied arty attack. As #2 was so good was disappointed with these. The AI doesn't attack well, so these were more a question of just sitting there hiding from the arty, and letting the tac AI fight the battle for you. All one really can do is place the 88's well and allocate arty in defense and get through to the next battle. #4 was similar.
Battle 5 was an early am assault so visibility gets better as time goes by. Again, you have to enjoy inf attacks to like this battle and the campaign.
But, Battle 2 was outstanding and would be xnt as a standalone.
-
Got it.
Thanks Aris! -
"If, as an attacker, my casualties exceed 5-10%, I call off the attack and accept whatever level of victory or defeat the game awards."
Agreed re your calculation. That's a good way to calculate personal victory/defeat levels regardless of what the game tells you is the result. I reckon if I have suffered more that 15%, I have definitely "lost" as that unit will be ineffective in RL.
It's fine for scenarios. However, the problem with some campaigns is in doing that you may get thrown out of the game, and then you have to replay to get to the next level/battle.
In addition, maybe some folks like replaying. But, to me 90% of the fun of a scenario is the "surprises". So, the replay is very rarely satisfying and becomes just a slow grind to get through it, so one can move on to the next battle. And of course in RL, there are no "do-overs".
-
Good point. It's like we need a "realistic play" mode which would warn the player as to his % casualties and a warning if he started to take excessive casualties, and actually ended the game automatically (with a withdrawal for example) if a (known) % casualty limit is reached. It changes the game completely when a major objective is avoid excessive casualties (which was done well in CMSF). For some reason, CMBN and CMFI games seem to tolerate much higher casualties in the victory calculations. Presumably the designers made that choice(?).
-
Where is the patented Aris handprint by the cupola? I just realized that I haven't seen that in a while...
-
I definitely recall more than two platoons of Shermans. There was a formation of the 105mm versions as well IIRC plus HQ tanks etc etc. Life is too short to replay games (unless for training purposes). Once you've played once the surprises are mostly gone. However, I thought others would really enjoy this final scenario of the campaign, as it sounds like many may not have gotten to the end.
-
While I enjoyed CM Campaigns, the feature that CM1 has that would be useful here in CM2 is that in CM1 one can always W/D off the map at any time whether it's a standalone scenario or campaign.
-
Sounds about right (altho' several scenarios could be described similarly). What made it memorable is that the US has a battalion of infantry plus a couple companies of armor, plus dozens of support weapons, arty, engineers, and other AFV's and vehicles. Probably the largest CM2 scenario I recall produced (by BF anyhow).
Actually, it should be released as a standalone scenario so one doesn't have to fight thru the whole campaign to play it.
-
Beautiful paint job. Yours?
-
Did you enjoy the final "monster" scenario in the campaign? I thought that was one of the best CM2 scenarios I have played. But, can't recall anyone else talking about it.
-
togi: It would also be helpful to know how many seconds/minutes you consider "long".
-
Really nice work. Thanks.
-
With Tiger sound you warned us not to use it as the Allied player. So we should not use this Sherman sound if we are Axis?
-
Well if you completed the campaign, simply say so...
-
Puzzled as to why this only works if you play axis. I thought each tank had its own sound file??
-
Good idea. Looking forward to listening to it.
Thanks Aris!
Macisle's Map - Axis AAR - *** Here be SPOILERS ***
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
What was interesting was that your AAR seemed to give the sense that you thought you were being overrun and losing... And yet you got a very decent victory according to the game system.
Based on your own assessment, and trying to project your game to a RL situation, how accurate do you think the game victory assessment was?