Myles Keogh

Um... JuJu has provided me with the .psd files to carry on the mod (from R2V) and I've been working on the same thing. Still working... but got the first pass on all silhouettes and weapon slots completed. I do like your MP3008's though. Tough little blighters to get right. Merge each other's efforts?
I'm also trying to take this opportunity to unify the common elements across all WW2 family titles. I've get no desire to go to the modern titles.

0

Please, don't compare Red Army which saved Russian people from slavery and Jewish people from extermination to German army which killed 27 mln Soviet citizens. 
It's better to return to Fire and Rubble indeed.
 

🙄
Yes, no other soldier displayed bravery like the German soldier, definitely not the Russian soldier who literally fought for the survival of his people. Who knew that if the Germans succeeded a genocidal campaign would be carried out to kill or enslave every single Russian in his country. I don't even know what to say about your comment on American soldiers, your sweeping generalization is just funny to me honestly. I'd imagine though that the ones who encountered the concentration camps or heard of them fought pretty damn well against the bastards who enabled it, that's good enough for me for that war.
German soldiers being war criminals is well documented in every service, so yes you can try to hand wave away a lot by saying "Not every German soldier!" but it doesn't do anything to the now well known fact that the Wehrmacht carried out the policies of the Nazi government and systematically murdered their way through Europe.  Also your right most did know they fought for an evil regime and they still kept fighting before they even knew they were going to lose! What does that tell you about those men?
 
 

Well if he knows so much, how come he lost?
Anyway, regarding infantry: I am kind of confused why Graviteam Tactics is cited as an example of very strong infantry, the developers even pride themselves in infantry being somewhat useless against tanks. That is not a joke, there is a thread on their steam forum that only exists to post reports of tanks being basically impervious to infantry. I would even turn it around: In Combat Mission infantry is a bigger factor, in Graviteam the anti tank gun.
 
edit: Although I should say that this is partly because Graviteam plays before the introduction of effective hand held anti tank systems, at least the WW2 part.

Here's the campaign run-down for the ones not described yet. Ithikial has an additional campaign that he has been outlining, so that's another campaign in the mix, additional to the below.
The German and Soviet main, and more traditional campaigns are each around 9 battles, depending upon track. These each have some limited branching to keep things interesting.
Each of the below has some degree of variable set-up for each campaign scenario, again-to keep things interesting over more than one play-through.
3 AI plans are the norm for each, as well. A lot of attention has been given to the AI in both the attack and defense, and I hope it shows when you are hunkered down in the Hegyikastély, or countering attacks outside of Naugard.
I am a proponent of letting everyone discover the thing "as new" as much as possible, so I'll be posting just the thumbnails for the settings and forces for now, with a brief description of the Berlin campaigns.
The two central campaigns are somewhat "phased"- The Soviets have 3/3/3 phases- 3 battles in Poland, 3 in Germany, and 3 in Berlin. The Germans are phased by KG assignment, as Regiment "Norge" is the through-line. It is about half KG Darges, half KG Phillip. Some branching may impact that, but the variable AI should keep it interesting between plays.
Soviet campaign:

German Campaign:

Berlin. Two versions, one for the Soviet side (pummel away, but watch those Panzerfausts), and one for the German (enjoy the pummeling).
The following campaigns (roughly the same, from two different perspectives) cover the fighting for the Lehrter Station and Kroll Oper in the first battle, the Reichstag and to the Staatsoper in the second battle. Forces are retained over the two battles, with some limited replacements/reinforcements. Two battles each.
The idea for these was to somewhat recreate the feeling of the old CMx1 Operations. One force, during a single battle, linked terrain. There isn't persistent damage, but creative map positioning gives a sense of advancing over the ground fought over.


 

I wont get Cold War, World War 2 is the only thing that interests me.

Hi all,
I've been making Combat Mission YouTube videos for a quite a few years now, some of you may have seen my channel, some may not Double Vision (YouTube).  My video format is more about the what is happening than the how, I like to tell a narrative of the battle, taking the watcher on the journey with me, whether it be versus another player or the AI.  For a while I've wanted to do something different and I've been toying with different methods, I finally took the leap a few weeks ago.
My latest series is here Lions of Carpiquet.  I want to say an enormous thank you to anyone who is involved in the is series, I'm sure some of the contributors frequent these forums.  This wouldn't of been possible without their efforts.
I do these videos mostly for my own fun, hopefully others will find them enjoyable too.

I see it as a way to support the developers and encourage them to make more content. I don't begrudge them some working capital. 

You are correct in that the scenarios and campaigns in CM are essentially hypothetical.
They are, however, and no matter how loosely, based on real and factual events. Such events can be studied in great detail through a huge amount of written material, placing those hypothetical scenarios into the reality of history.
The cold war battles, as per the CM title, didn't happen. Anything that is available to read about them is hypothetical. There is no historical reality backing them up and, therefore, they are essentially science fiction.
Yes, they might have happened as might a lot of things; perhaps space lobsters of doom!
I'm not knocking the Cold War battles; I know a lot of folk really like the subject and to each their own. But, for me at least, they are not on a par with battles based on historical reality. 
And, documentaries tend to display the 'truth' that the documentary makers want to be displayed.

Indeed, @chuckdyke if we always all agree with each other we never learn anything new and are of no value to one another; if nobody dare to share their (subjective) opinions than this wouldn't be a forum. Disagreeing is not something bad imo, nor is it to be proven wrong. Actually I personally see it as a virtue to be able to change ones mind after being presented with convincing arguments. I have certainly been wrong plenty of times in my life and will probably be engaged for the rest of my life finding out more of those occasions (learning & improving). Also I like logical arguments and enjoy training reasoning skills by pointing illogical arguments out 😇
Anyway I still don't think the comparison between IS2 or Sherman makes much sense, nor that performance of Israeli M-50/M-51 Supersherman in Sinai has much to do with their WWII performance. That's just my view 
Anyway on another note the strategic importance of the Sherman and all it's variants is probably larger than the strategic importance of the IS2 in WW2. However I'm not sure whether the same could be said for the T-34, which is more similar type like the Sherman.
They were all 'winners' though, as in that their host nations won the war. However also that doesn't necessarily mean that all their hardware was the best from all perspectives.
 

This is often referred to as the field telephone abstraction. Assume a field telephone or something. Note that it's specifically the Leader individual who has artillery calling rights. This applies to any team with arty call privileges, whether HQ or FO.  As an example if a FO team losses its radio (generally when the RTO is KIA) but the actual FO is unharmed the team can still call for artillery.  However if the FO is KIA and the RTO and radio are unharmed the team is no longer able to call in artillery. 
This is the way it has always been in all titles and the above is generally the explanation that has always been given.  
  

Aragorn, I will pre-order just because it makes me feel good. and it probably makes our friends at BFC feel good to get lots of early orders.  I am spending the money anyway, so doesn't hurt me to spend it a month or two early.

Normandy hedgerows are impassible to vehicles and need dynamiting to get through. Bulge battle hedgerows (and hedgerows in every other title) are just roadside brush than can be easily driven through.
Historical Bulge battle didn't have impassible snow drifts. They didn't get that blizzard snow we see in all the picture books until January when the Germans were already on the run. The deeper the snow in the game the more road types disappear until there's no more roads on the map. Scenario designers rarely use deep snow in scenarios because its a pain to fight through. Troops get exhausted almost immediately. Freezing temps have one benefit. The ground freezes and the chance of vehicles bogging drops sharply.
CMSF2 players often complain about troops exhausting themselves too quickly (carrying all that body armor in extreme heat) but its nothing compared to troops trying to move fast through deep snow in extreme cold conditions. 
Wanting CMFB part of CMBN is mere sophistry. What would be the point? They'd charge you the same for it, anyway. Literally all of the art is different. the TO&E is different, even the tree types are different. Plus making it a module would have obliged purchasers to buy CMBN first. Just want the Bulge title? You'd be out of luck.

maybe you should actually read your own "bug" report?
As AKD pointed out in that thread, the reason why German and U.S. AP rounds are deadly is because they are APHE while the british rounds are solid shot.
If you guys want to speculate all day about random anecdotes, that is your prerogative, but if you want us to act on "bugs", you have to be able to show an actual "bug".

It's always amusing to watch grown men acting like Veruca Salt:
 

It's always amusing to watch grown men acting like Veruca Salt:
 

It's always amusing to watch grown men acting like Veruca Salt:
 

It's always amusing to watch grown men acting like Veruca Salt:
 

It's always amusing to watch grown men acting like Veruca Salt:
 

I'm shocked to hear you say most people play the game from high up in the air and rarely look at the game close-up and see its visual detail. To me Combat Mission's most appealing aspect is the ability to watch events unfold on a macro scale in WEGO, then repeat the go 1, 2, or 3 times and watch interesting events unfold from the perspective of single vehicles and even individual soldiers. For me that's the core of its uniqueness and charm.

They are still supposed to proactively avoid HE fire.
 
Baseless speculation, but if they were getting HE fire from the rear, then the bocage is doing nothing to protect them, so there would be some logic in a panicked run through.

I've shelled the near side of bocage with direct fire HE (e.g., infantry guns) since the patch, recreating the scenario where I was reliably able to replicate this, and they do not evade forward now.

Hunt used to cause units using it to stop immediately upon taking any sort of fire.  However, it was changed by one of the patches or upgrades to be more "robust" in that squads/teams using it would no longer immediately stop upon taking shots from unspotted enemies unless that fire really raised their suppression level.
I can't say I'm a big fan of the change.  It's been annoying watching scout teams on hunt keep moving forward despite bullets kicking-up around them.

Hunt used to cause units using it to stop immediately upon taking any sort of fire.  However, it was changed by one of the patches or upgrades to be more "robust" in that squads/teams using it would no longer immediately stop upon taking shots from unspotted enemies unless that fire really raised their suppression level.
I can't say I'm a big fan of the change.  It's been annoying watching scout teams on hunt keep moving forward despite bullets kicking-up around them.

"As a gentleman with apparently 30 award view(?)" you seem very arrogant & childish to respond like that.

Anyway, a lot of people do not get that CM is a simulator, not a game. And no it's not an excuse, let me explain it.

What you see on screen isn't what's happening in the simulator. There's a lot more going on than what's visible or known to the player, for example a bunch of soft factors such as "Experience, Morale, Leadership, and other elements operate at the individual soldier level and collectively transform how units behave",  these factors go way deeper than you think, you may have noticed that already. 
About the LOS system, sometimes it bugs out, but I only had that happening 2-3 times IIRC. But it's not broken.
Soldiers can either be occupied, sending information trough (C2 Link), Tired, In shock, stressed out or the other soldier/tank sits still & is well camouflaged.
The LOS also isn't a simple ray cast as in RTS traditional games. A forest tile with trees on it for example has some randomness to it, I think it should be obvious why that is, if not; It's to simulate bushes/leaves/grass where a unit can hide in & look trough leaves. Spotting abilities & experience take a big role here. Take into account that most units are well camouflaged & are sitting still. It's thus very difficult to spot units in it. Buildings are even more tricky, as their layout is always unknown(Spoiler: it's not 1 room). 

I hope this gives you some insight to what level CM actually simulates. And please, don't compare it to RTS games x).