Cpt Kernow
-
Posts
136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Cpt Kernow
-
-
post deleted by me the usefull idiot.
Steve its all going to plan, soon no one will be able to complain about the infantry model without also implying that they are an inferior tactitian.
P.S.
KJHKHOIOIJJSHO OIPUOPJS
(Decode as instructed)
Cpt Kernow
The usefull idiot.
[ November 19, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]
-
Look you closed my thread (my opinions of this game the prequal). Ok someones was giving it a bad smell but its frustrating to have some one say:
"But ofcourse no one can explain sneaking over open terrain torwards HMG-positions when cover is close and therefore i guess BTS is avoiding the discussion about it and useful idiots like you are welcome to distract from the complaints."
OK someone calls me a usefull idiot (the stooge of BFC! thats Cpt Kernow) Now I am unable to respond which I feel is my right as an english gentleman.I would slap Schrsophfso (name purposefully misspelt to protect the innocent) in the face with a glove but your forum isnt that advnced yet (pleaze fix or do something).
During that thread a certian person (Schcduxh) was directly rude to me on several occasions calling me both a liar, an idiot and an "eel" amongst other things equally heinous and foul.
This is of course no way for a gentleman to conduct himself and I demand satisfaction. Please reopen said thread to allow me (and only me) one last rapier like post. Schrojusdori is a useless fencer (see no direct insults, just carefully framed aspersions, that SChdofcih is the way of a civilised man) leaving himself wide open everytime he opens his mouth or pen or fingers or whatever, you catch my drift.
So as one gentleman to another I know you will allow me this, it is your duty.
P.s.
I checked my bank account and the payment for last week hasnt come through yet. Diverting the attention of posters away from the fantastic amount of flaws in CMBB is of course a full time occupation, I even had to play the game (Eurgh) to find out what some posters were talking about, so of course the extra fee we discused will apply for the remainder of my contract.
However I do like the bit when you get Beta testers to interject into a thread (Beta testers LOL they cost money)and this is making my job easier (not easy enough to make up for actually having to play CMBB, I have showered several times and somehow I still feal dirty)
Yours
The Usefull Idiot
[ November 19, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]
-
Schoerner
You are a little boy that lives in a huge house.
This huge house has a big big kitchen. This kitchen is full of black kettles.
When not in this house you live in a greenhouse made of glass.These are full of stones that you like to throw.
Forum visitors please observe:
In response to a post of mine Schoener tries to imply I am childish for trying to restate my opinions about what this thread (that I started) was about. Here are his comments refering to me:
This is sounding like from a child crying: THIS IS MY THREAD!
Forum visitor please observe some of Schoeners comments to others that he thinks are not posting in relation to what he thinks this thread is about.
Cpt Kernow, i think you're missing the point. Or did you answer the problems i described?
No funnily i didnt because I was talking about something different and am not obliged to answer your posts.
Later we have I didn't receive not ONE single answer dealing with the infantry behaviour in the Brückenkopf (Bridgehead) scenario
Some better answer him soon coz he'll scream and scream till he's sick till he does
Later still
Your last post comes back to the topic of this thread.
If this isnt bad enough, battlefront itself decide to post. Their post quite correctly is in harmony of what the thread is about, it adds to the discusion and develops the thread, however by this point Schoerner quite selfishly is insisting that every post should relate to his post and what he thinks this thread is about , (he's still screaming and is quite close to being sick) so he says to Steve of battlefront:
@Steve:
I can't understand, why you are ignoring the topic, too
which should read " Steve why are you ignoring my post, my questions and needs are so more pressing,important and urgent than that of anyone else."
Schoerner I wont call you a child. However I do think you are stuck in the ID phase of development.
You also accuse me of insulting you personaly and when challenged totally fail to come up with any examples. (I might be insulting you in this post but now the gloves are off)Then say I am flaming.
Lets say I was flaming you are hardly in a position to criticise me for that are you.
Forum visitor please observe some more choice comments of Schroener. Are these not flames?
Is anyone praising/defending CMBB's inf-unit-behaviour here, capable of reading FIRST?
and
And what if i tell you, that you have no clue about tactics and movements under fire, and therefore you don't recognize it?
and
Because either you're a child closing it's eyes or a liar.
Hmm nice well observed arguements there Schroener.
Anyway as this next quote will demonstrate, its good to see your not dogmatic.
It's a matter of FACTS, that units are under certain conditions behaving really unrealistically
I should follow the widom of Andreas who said:
I have made a habit out of not responding to Herr Schoerner's posts
But when ducks sit, shoot them.
Oh bye the way I am allready a member of the blitz.
I think you make an excellent ambadasor for it.
-
Doodle bug.
Im posting a reply to you seperately to schoener because unlike him you are capable of reasoned arguement.
I quite clearly refer to those saying they are refusing to play this game till the patch comes out.
I will restate here that those experiencing the refered to problems so much that they refuse to play the game or in fact find it in anyway impeding there enjoyment must be doing something wrong in there gameplay. This was the thrust of my initial post. I merely restated my initial points because a certain person (you know who) was flaming people in this thread for not talking about what he thought this thread was about.
As far as battlefront are concerned and patches, please read both the posts from battlefront on the first page of this thread. I dont think I couldnt ask for a better validation of my initial post. So refering back to the patch in some way is not really a valid way forward for you.
Amongst many other relevant things battlefront said
" The truth is that there is some room for tweaking, but we feel that the people who are expecting 1.01 to fix the "problems" they see with 1.00 will be disapointed. Nearly all of the people that have voiced concern/complaints thus far look like they are having problems because they are getting their troops into situations they never should get into in the first place.
Look, I respect your opinion, and your right to it. I dont think you express it in a whiney fashion and thats good. Consensus is dull and of course there is room for improvemenent in the infantry model, me like others who have posted here dont want BFC to change it to much as we like it prety much the way it is at the moment. I am not a fanboy of BFC, if I felt something was genuinely wrong I would be first to comment on it.
I just dont think there is and am happy with there product patched or unpatched.
[ November 19, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]
-
Firstly.
Schonoer and Doodlebug.
I started this post so dont tell me what the topic isOK.
You are the ones in misunderstanding.
To help you understand what this post is supposed to be about let me spell it out in simple steps.
1. Some people seem very very hung up on the sneak behaviour of their troops. (Correct me if Im wrong Schonoer)
2. I have not witnessed this problem a great deal, it has in no way has interfered with my enjoyment of this game.
3.Therefore I preposed that those experiencing this problem to the point where they become obssesed with it must be using faulty tactics.
4. Therefore I discuss the issue of tactics.
Conclussion.
This thread is primarily about tactics and the supposition that fualty tactics are making some frustrated with this game.
OK
Do you understand that?
Also Schoener please show me where I attacked you personally.
redwolf
I suggest you refer to battlefronts comments on page 1 of this thread.
-
Colonel_Deadmarsh
I agree with what battlefront said in response to your post. (Hope you can feel the smugness eminating from your monitor as you read this.)
I can actually of course handle the fact that other people have an opinion. Thanks for the massively wild assumption about my charachter.
The difference between an opinion and a whine is about expression. If someone argues a point in a calm rational manner then that is an opinion if some one spews forth a rant in emotive unsubstantiated way this equals a whine. So far most (not all) complaints about the new infantry model are comprised of the latter.
If anything I dont think you can handle my opinion, otherwise you would have replied with a counter arguement (good) instead of a personal attack (not very good)
Anyway you got shot down for that one and now you should take it like a man.
-
I got onto the topic of tactics because I very rarely see this sneek thing that somepeople keep bringing up and pressumed that to triger sneak (bug)events one must be using certain (incorrect) tactics.This is how we got onto the topic of tactics. Most of the time my pinned units either crawl to the nearest (or at least near) cover or get up and finish there advance into cover. If they have broken well thats different. However when men break in combat they really really break so theres no accounting for there actions.
I seriously have just not encountered this sneak (bug) very much and I play cmbb loads so i find it hard to empathise with people who claim it ruins/impairs CMBB as it is outside of my exoerience.
-
Well seems some people are still having difficuly getting to grips with this game.
Below in another thread (my opinion of this game the prequal) I had a swipe at the whingers. (Battlefront dont listen to them, infantry is much better in CMBB)
However rather than take swipes I thought I could do something more constructive.
How about a post dedicated to our ideas about succesfully implementing an infantry advance.
Then those that are having problems can use these to overcome there frustrations and be reborn in the resplendent glory of CMBB.
This is from the post mentioned above.
what works for me is to make sure of two things they work in unison to help (not gaurentee) that some ( hardly never all) of your infantry arrives in cover.
2. Dont ever have just one squad advancing at a time. Make sure you have more than one squad on the advance.Try a minimum of two groups of two full platoons at slightly different places say left flank and mid to left flank ( I try to use the formula: for every three platoons two advance one covers). This gives then enemy multiple targets so some of your squads will get through.After this advance the other flank. If your troops are reg and below you must accept that some will break off the advance and hit mud. You are just trying to get the majority into position. Once they are they can poor fire on the enemy and those units that hit mud can maybe make the last few metres to cover.
2.Suppresion Suppresion Suppresion. Use your infantry to make up the numbers on the advance, but never never never advance till you have all your support weapons in place. Thats everything that can provide fire support. AFV,halftracks mg's mortars everything. Have every element in position to cover the advance of your squads.
Other tips would be dont advance till the time is right. If you have an afv unopposed, spend time blasting away at enemy positions. If you notice a weak lane of fire exploit it, or if not try and create one.Wait till you see there mg's break and attempt to sneak away.
On each map there will be one or two maybe three critical points of advance, your whole strategy must be to manouvre all your assets to complete these advances.
I still get it wrong and see whole advance break down into chaos but I dont blame the engine, I blame war and myself for implementing a flawed plan. Advancing under fire aint supposed to be easy. The succesfull advance and its exucution has now become a (if not the) essential element to CMBB gameplay and this is one of the fundemental reasons I prefer it over CMBO.
I would add that the most difficult advance is an early one. If right at the start of a map you have to cover open ground this gives the enemy perfect opportunity to take shots without being spotted and therfore suppressed and this can be further excerbated by his abilty to switch between firing units so as to furhter inhibit spotting. So advances are in fact harder at long range from the enemy rather than close.
-
If I drop the AFV vehicles and direct HE in an open environment I would definately get into a lot of trouble.So would a real life commander.
Thats why they invented tanks! Why was there stalemate in WW1. Infantry didnt like advancing through open terrain ( well there were alot of craters etc) into machine gun fire. The allies introduce the tank and make a massive advance in a single battle.
If I didnt have any tanks I would try to identify a flank that was independent of the middle and opposing flank (e.g. units in these flanks cant get LOS into this flank) and advance say 3/4 force down this flank. Use your advantage as the attacker which is mobility and greater flank security. This way you will be putting 3/4 of your force against aprox 1/3 of his. When you have rolled up this flank you can then advance to flank on your enemy and cover the advace of your remaining troops. Defenders rarely leave place to take advantage of your exposed flank and if they do they effectively become the attackers against your 1/4 force.
If your feeling clever you can attemtp a feint to pull his mobile assets away from your main assualt. A smoke barrage in an area you are otherwise going to ignore is a good way of doing this.
-
what works for me is to make sure of two things they work in unison to help (not gaurentee) that some ( hardly never all) of your infantry arrives in cover.
2. Dont ever have just one squad advancing at a time. Make sure you have more than one squad on the advance.Try a minimum of two groups of two full platoons at slightly different places say left flank and mid to left flank ( I try to use the formula: for every three platoons two advance one covers). This gives then enemy multiple targets so some of your squads will get through.After this advance the other flank. If your troops are reg and below you must accept that some will break off the advance and hit mud. You are just trying to get the majority into position. Once they are they can poor fire on the enemy and those units that hit mud can maybe make the last few metres to cover.
2.Suppresion Suppresion Suppresion. Use your infantry to make up the numbers on the advance, but never never never advance till you have all your support weapons in place. Thats everything that can provide fire support. AFV,halftracks mg's mortars everything. Have every element in position to cover the advance of your squads.
Other tips would be dont advance till the time is right. If you have an afv unopposed, spend time blasting away at enemy positions. If you notice a weak lane of fire exploit it, or if not try and create one.
On each map there will be one or two maybe three critical points of advance, your whole strategy must be to manouvre all your assets to complete these advances.
I still get it wrong and see whole advance break down into chaos but I dont blame the engine, I blame war and myself for implementing a flawed plan. Advancing under fire aint supposed to be easy. The succesfull advance and its exucution has now become a (if not the) essential element to CMBB gameplay and this is one of the fundemental reasons I prefer it over CMBO.
-
Post deleted.
[ November 18, 2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]
-
double post.
[ November 18, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]
-
NO
I ment that those not wishing to have to get to grips with the new infantry model should exclusively use crack/elite troops.I am happy to use whatever troops are under my command at any given time.
Whilst there is in my opinion a slight problem with the "panic sneak" mode, I hardly ever encounter it. However some go on as though the "panic sneak" mode makes up the entirity of thier CMBB gaming experience they whinge about it so much, even to the extent of stating that they will not play the game till the patch comes out. I can only suspect that these gamers have tactics that highlight the "panic sneak" mode problem and if they changed them they wouldnt encounter the problem so often.
I just dont have the problems with this game that some seem to constantly elude to.
-
Is that Im looking for someone to swop it for GI combat.
Ha ha only joking. No seriously, this game is the pinnacle. Wats this about peeps saying I wont play it till the patch comes out. WHAT!!!.
It takes alot to draw me out of the deep depths of the lurk, from those depths I browse these pages many times a day, and to those that sob and whine about the new infantry model I come hither to say
ENOUGH!
I am tired and weary of your complaints. If you long for the old gamey ways of cmbo then just make all your men crack and elite and play QB. I find this calibre of troops can run headlong into machine gun fire withonly a small % hitting the dirt.
I think those that complain to much must insist on a certian style of play. I find my infantry behaves very well very realisticaly. Ok green and conscript troops break easy, but ok thats life aint it. Regular troops if given good covering fire and also enough of them are in the advance can cover good distances before hitting the deck. Crack and elite troops are incredibly hardy over medium distances. Am currently playing an op. Split a aquad of crak recon 43 troops, advanced them in open towards some biuldings to draw out there occupants. Even though these split squads came under direct fire from a machine gun they didnt get down to dine on mud. They did hit mud a bit later but unpanicked started to crawl backwards to nearest crater. All seemed good to me. After this I suppresed the MG with one of my own and sent over the whole platoon.
Cmon
Lets play.Lets not whine.
-
Andreas
If you had read my last post ( You should have done )
You will see that I define grog snobery. The intelectual debate that you talk about is great and educational as I also pointed out and I in no way consider it snobery. What I consider snobery is grogs thinking that somehow this game is "FOR" them and non-grogs can not really like it or want to play it. I think i succesfully discount this perspective in a reasoned and calm discourse.
Read my last post and you will see that your rant was entirely unnnecesary.
-
Michael
You miss the point of my post which is fair beause it has a slight emotional (angry) slant to it, so perhaps you are reacting more to that than the actual cold reasoning in my post. I have calmed down now(you patronize me again, but hey Im used to it now) and will repeat myself calmly to give you the opportunity to understand my main thrust.
The whole point of my prior post is that CM all ready appeals to the wider audience and that one requires no prior interest in WW2 or war in general to appreciate this game. In my previous post I demonstrated that game titles that dont rely on flashy graphics and twitching such as CIV can generate big sales. I postulate that this is due to the more mature age of the PC installed base.Because we can assume then that the appealing aspect of CIV must be its cerbral aspect not its graphics etc and one dosnt require a prior knowledge or interest in WW2 ( as evinced by myself and others like me) to enjoy CM we can conclude that as it stands CM is a highly commercial product.
What I consider as grog snobbery is the idea that CM would not appeal to the wide unwashed non grogs.
I think that it does and that the evidence supports my conclusions.
Just as an aside it would be fair to say that once one gets into CM one begins to develop a healthy interest in all things WW2. I am a thinking educated individual who likes to expand there knowledge base and CM has stimulated me highly in that respect. For this reason as another poster pointed out I really appreciate the presence of grogs on this forum as they are highley educational. I just dont appreciate that one attitude that lurks in a small number of grogs that somehow this game is there exclusive province and couldnt possibly appeal to anyone who isnt as interested as them in WW2.
Just to ram my point home Battlefront itself agrees with me and shares my opinion as evinced by this post:
Steve of BTS:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
got news for some folks... the bulk of CM's audience is not the diehard turn based wargamer. I would guess only a tiny fraction of the people who purchased CM have not played and enjoyed RTS and FPS type games. Hell, at the very least they probably have purchased and played at least one of the Close Combat series. My personal favorite games of all time are (not in order):
War In Russia (Turn Wargame)
Kampfgruppe (Turn Wargame)
Marathon (FPS)
Duke Nukem (FPS)
Quake (FPS)
Warcraft II (RTS)
C&C Red Alert (RTS)
Carrier Command (RTS)
FA-18 (Flight Sim)
Hellcats over the Pacific (Flight Sim)
Decent (Flight Sim, sorta)
Space Raiders (Flight Sim, sorta)
OK, so out of 12 games named above... how many of them are a) wargames and
turn based? Gee... not many! So if I am even remotely representative of CM's fanbase, then why on Earth should anybody presume to think that the majority of CM's fanbase would turn their noses up at either a RTS or a FPS type game? Well, good ones anyway...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps we should settle this the mans way. You could send me a turn to see if all that fnacy book learning helps you out on the battlefield ( I strongly doubt it )
[ October 29, 2002, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]
-
Andrew
I have no problem with "grogs" makeing grog comments to other grogs such as arguing about the rarity of certain units and the like.
There is a strain of grog that thinks that grogness is a prerequisite to partaking in the CM experience. I outline one post in the begining of this thread but this post was merely the straw that broke the camels back.
There are grogs, good they add to the richness of this forum.
There are also however GROG SNOBS and they only detract from it.
-
This is a bump.
Some grogs need to learn a few ugly facts not about war but about themsleves.
-
I have made this a string on its own (This game aint just for Grog snobs) but it also belongs here. Reply to it in the above string.
Just seen a sentence in a prior post that really pissed me off.
It was this.
"Those who are interested enough in WW II to read the stack of books necessary to really appreciate CM "
WHAT!
The CM series is a truely fantastic series but unfortunately it seems to attract a certain type I will now coin the grog snob.
I would never had considered myself a wargamer before now.Though admitedly in the past I did belong to wargaming club and even owned metal figures but on my PC's hard drive have been FPS and RTS games. CM is the first actual "wargame" I have put on my machines hard drive. I did have a bent towards buying strategy games ( Shogun etc etc )but also realy enjoyed FPS. Now such games will never find a place on my HD as all my gaming time is devoted to CM. I cant think of a greater compliment to a game than keeping it on my HD even after I have bought the sequal (BO-BB).
Also I think some grogs fundamentally mis understand the potential mass appeal of the CM series, and seem to have some kind of hysterical desire to keep its audience limited to those that have read the required number of books.
Let us look at one of the Biggest selling games on the PC. The CIV series.
Any similarities between CIV and CM seem obvious to you mr grog snob.
1. Turn based
2. Graphics not near FPS or RTS standards.
So a game that contains the above features is demonstrably not barred from mass appeal and mass sales.
What is CIV famous for, fans of this series would say its depth. Now we know that in real terms CIV is a puddle compared to the oceanic depths of CM. But still here we are getting to the nub of why the CM series could be massive.
The reason why I can ( and many like me )enjoy CM ( Without having read any WW2 books,)is because unlike every other game i have put on my HD CM does not patronize my inteligence(unlike some grog snobs) but treats me like a mature thinking human being.
The average age of the installed PC base is much higher than that of the console base, and this is why CIV has sold so well on the PC. I see no reason why CM would not appeal to a larger proprotion of this mature gaming audience who as we have demonstrated do not base game purchases on graphics or turn style considerations but are obviously attracted by other more cerebral qualities in the gaming experience. I think if CM could have been called SIM WAR its sales would perhaps even eclipse that of CIV because there is no doubt that it is a far far superior game.
To be absolutely frank I think BFC are without par or equal at creating quality product but display the attitudes of hobyists when taking their product to market.
This may be a good thing as gread corrupts allways. Perhaps once BFC had got a sniff of all the green I think they could potentialy make perhaps we would see compromises slowly sneek into the CM series of games and this no doubt would be a tragedy.
Whew its good to get a rant out of the system.
-
This is perhaps the essence of my post.
I love and APPRECIATE CM and also consider myself an "average gamer" if you look at the PC installed base.
Even though I have not read any ww2 books CM has not had to compromise itself to win my appreciation.
[ October 28, 2002, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]
-
Just seen a sentence in a prior post that really pissed me off. :mad:
It was this.
"Those who are interested enough in WW II to read the stack of books necessary to really appreciate CM "
WHAT!
The CM series is a truely fantastic series but unfortunately it seems to attract a certain type I will now coin the grog snob.
I would never had considered myself a wargamer before now.Though admitedly in the past I did belong to wargaming club and even owned metal figures but on my PC's hard drive have been FPS and RTS games. CM is the first actual "wargame" I have put on my machines hard drive. I did have a bent towards buying strategy games ( Shogun etc etc )but also realy enjoyed FPS. Now such games will never find a place on my HD as all my gaming time is devoted to CM. I cant think of a greater compliment to a game than keeping it on my HD even after I have bought the sequal (BO-BB).
Also I think some grogs fundamentally mis understand the potential mass appeal of the CM series, and seem to have some kind of hysterical desire to keep its audience limited to those that have read the required number of books.
Let us look at one of the Biggest selling games on the PC. The CIV series.
Any similarities between CIV and CM seem obvious to you mr grog snob.
1. Turn based
2. Graphics not near FPS or RTS standards.
So a game that contains the above features is demonstrably not barred from mass appeal and mass sales.
What is CIV famous for, fans of this series would say its depth. Now we know that in real terms CIV is a puddle compared to the oceanic depths of CM. But still here we are getting to the nub of why the CM series could be massive.
The reason why I can ( and many like me )enjoy CM ( Without having read any WW2 books,)is because unlike every other game i have put on my HD CM does not patronize my inteligence(unlike some grog snobs) but treats me like a mature thinking human being.
The average age of the installed PC base is much higher than that of the console base, and this is why CIV has sold so well on the PC. I see no reason why CM would not appeal to a larger proprotion of this mature gaming audience who as we have demonstrated do not base game purchases on graphics or turn style considerations but are obviously attracted by other more cerebral qualities in the gaming experience. I think if CM could have been called SIM WAR its sales would perhaps even eclipse that of CIV because there is no doubt that it is a far far superior game.
To be absolutely frank I think BFC are without par or equal at creating quality product but display the attitudes of hobyists when taking their product to market.
This may be a good thing as gread corrupts allways. Perhaps once BFC had got a sniff of all the green I think they could potentialy make perhaps we would see compromises slowly sneek into the CM series of games and this no doubt would be a tragedy.
Whew its good to get a rant out of the system.
-
Goanna
CMBB id frustrating if you choose to play it like CMBO. I at first had similar experiences untill I realized I was playing an entirely new game. I would never consider going back to CMBO now as it does not provide the same SATISFACTION when you pull of a succesfull attack. CMBB is slightly more cerebral than CMBO but still provides all the visceral moments of excitement and tension.
Keep pushing and your perservernece will pay off.
-
Lou.
Hiding russain infantry still scream when theyve had there legs blown off by HE.
Maybe the unit heard is a sniper
etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
-
Mickey D.
You should read the post that started this thread. I didnt draw attention to any the scenario attributes you raised only to the lack of information given by scenario designers about how best a scenario should be played e.g. Pbem v AI etc etc.
This is not actually part of the briefing and is more concerned with actual game play mechanics rather than mission objectives and historical accuracy etc.
turn based? Gee... not many! So if I am even remotely representative of CM's fanbase, then why on Earth should anybody presume to think that the majority of CM's fanbase would turn their noses up at either a RTS or a FPS type game? Well, good ones anyway...
Hey Steve. (Battlefront)
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
wwb_99
does in fact exist.
This game was fully beta tested.
We did really go to the moon.
[ November 19, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]