Cpl Steiner

I would love BFC to spend some time fixing QBs. When I played the CMx1 games for a period I played nothing but QBs. The random terrain and random force mix (but within credible limits) gave me hundreds of hours of very fun gameplay. And let's not forget, a fix to QBs would theoretically be a fix for CM:BN, CM:FI, CM:RT and CM:BS all in one go because it's the selection logic that is at fault, which is presumably the same for all of the game families. I really don't see how it can be so hard - I think it's more of a case of it being right at the bottom of BFC's priority list.

Update: I gave this a try using Ukrainians (Digital camo) vs Separatists (Standard camo), with US reinforcements turning up later for the Ukrainians and Russian reinforcements turning up later for the Separatists, and it works great. All factions look unique and the Separatists look distinctive next to their Russian allies. IMPORTANT: Make sure when including Blue and Red units in the same side that you purchase units of the side you want showing in the launch screen first. Therefore, if you want Red to be Separatists with Russian reinforcements, purchase the Russians first, then change Mission data to "Blue vs Blue" to purchase the Separatists, then change Mission data back to "Blue vs Red". [EDIT] One more thing - I am not using any vehicles for the Separatists. Obviously using vehicles for the Separatists will potentially run into the problem of lots of Ukrainian vehicles having the Ukrainian flag painted on them. To my mind the Separatists are best used as a pure infantry force anyway. Some vehicles may work better than others - I haven't looked at them all.

Hi All, Here's an interesting discovery I made today. The Ukrainians come in two different camo patterns, "Standard" and "Digital". The Digital version looks a lot different to the Standard version and has a Ukrainian flag stitched onto one arm which is absent from the Standard version. So, without any mods or new modules, it is quite possible to have Separatists on one side (Ukrainian Standard pattern camo) and Ukrainians on the other (Ukrainian Digital pattern camo). You just have to set the mission data to "Blue on Blue". You could even have Ukrainians and US vs. Russians and Separatists in a single battle! I like novelty so I may try to make such a scenario to show it's possible.

Hi all, Whilst watching a replay of a Russian recon infantry unit firing on the enemy I noticed that whilst a muzzle flash was clearly visible for most of the weapons, all the sniper rifle produced was a puff of smoke. Is this a simulation of some sort of flash suppressor or just a bug? I should add that I am using Vein's effects mod, which may also be the cause. Thanks.

I am actually quite keen to make a scenario for CM:BS, but am too busy enjoying playing the game right now. I also think I need more information on the key events, skirmishes and battles of this hypothetical war so I can pick a point in the timeline that looks underrepresented and like it would be a fun scenario. Didn't someone say recently that a more detailed backstory would be released in the future? Failing the above, if anyone has any suggestions based on their understanding of the wider picture and what battles they would like to see, feel free to make them and I will see if any grab my interest.

I have only skimmed the previous posts so I hope this has not already been discussed. In the original Combat Mission series Quick Battles and the Editor were able to generate random maps. Now, I appreciate that due to the higher level of ground detail in CM:BS this is not feasible anymore, but could not some compromise be made? I am thinking maybe an option to randomly generate the "underlying" terrain, such as contours, forests and maybe some crops? The scenario designer would then have some basic terrain to start to add buildings and other features to, rather than an almost blank slate.

Coming late to this thread, which seems to be a little "heated" judging by a few posts above. I hope my contribution does not pour petrol on the fire! I read the following today in an article on negotiations between France, Germany and Russia over Ukraine... "Putin is increasingly seen as a reckless gambler who calls bluffs and takes risks, and is inscrutable, paranoid and unpredictable. Trying to work out what he wants is guesswork. The Europeans sound scared." This, I think, gives some credence to the idea that the Ukrainian conflict has the potential to spiral out of control into something much worse, involving direct conflict between Russia and NATO. Brinkmanship is a dangerous game.

I would really like to see the following. Pro-Russian Seperatists Brits Would also be happy to see the following. US Elites such as Marines, Airborne or Rangers Russian Elites such as Airborne or Spetsnaz Poles French Any other NATO force

I am returning to this thread as I have not found any evidence that air controllers are freed up to call in more air strikes once an air strike they have called in is running. In my replay of the "Ambush" scenario, the Ukrainian air controller was shown as "busy" for the entire time the first helicopter was making its attack runs. Maybe this is accurate but players should bear it in mind when calling in strikes as it may be more efficient to call in several aircraft per strike using the multi-select function rather than call in each aircraft one at a time, especially considering the lengthy delay before the aircraft start making their attacks runs (10 or 11 minutes delay in this scenario).

It's great that you service guys are chiming in with facts like this. I want the game to be as realistic as possible so I hope BFC read your post and make the necessary adjustments. The mortar team sounds like it should really have an ammo bearer team paired with it in my opinion.

I saw a Russian article which I translated. It had a "game cashing in on war" kind of tone, which is grossly unfair I know. http://caponier.ru/flashpoint-ukraine-combat-mission-black-sea/ Just go to "Google Translate" and paste the link in there.

It was the "Ambush" battle, in which as the Ukrainians you get 4 "Hind" attack helicopters and a single Air Controller. I will try it again and see if I can call 2 of them and then the other 2 once the first pair are overhead and making their attack runs. That is slightly preferable to calling in all 4 at once.

In the old days of "Shock Force" your JTAC or whatever could bring in multiple simultaneous air strikes. When the "Normandy" game came out they restricted it to one air strike only, which I thought was due to the lower technology back in WWII. Now we have an ultra-modern setting to game in again, but it seems the air strikes are handled like WWII ones, at least for the Ukrainians that is (the only side I have played so far that had air support). So, is it the case in CM:BS that if you are given say 4 attack helicopters you are more or less forced to call them all in together in a single strike mission? I can't see any alternative other than having more air controllers on map. This would not be so bad if you could call in a "linear" strike, which would spread the helicopters attacks around a bit, but as it is you have to call it in as a "point" or "area" strike only, and you cannot "adjust fire" once the helicopters are doing their attack runs. If you want them to hit something outside of the target area you have to tell them to "cease fire" and then go throug the entire 11 minute odd process of contacting them again for another mission.

Yeah, the Russian idea of smoke dischargers is that they are intended to be used offensively, so they chuck their smoke grenades far ahead to allow the vehicle to advance through the smoke, almost like an impromptu smoke barrage. This can be an advantage if you have vehicles far to the rear of your troops - once you know what to expect of course.

I seem to recall Steve saying that he didn't want to see micromanagement orders such as "stand", "kneel", "go prone" etc in the game as this was not what the game was about. You can order a unit to move to a particular map reference but whether they go prone or "take a knee" when they get there is up to them, not you, as your eye is supposed to be on the bigger picture. I have noticed though that if you put a unit behind a slope, they often stand fully upright so they can see over the crest, so the TAC AI does change posture in some circumstances. I also think one or two men usually take a knee anyway as default behaviour, with the rest generally lying prone. One solution I would like to suggest is that when you give a unit a fire order and trace a line of sight for the unit, the game should take into account lines of sight that are not valid right now but would be if the unit changed its posture from prone to kneeling or kneeling to standing up. Once you click down the order, the unit will adjust its posture to accomodate the order. This would allow you to trace lines of sight where currently you cannot, without the need to micromanage. Of course this is only for firing. If you just wanted the men to take a peek without revealing their position, it would require another combat action such as "Spot Briefly". This would allow a unit to kneel or stand for 15 seconds just to look in a particular direction.

If you select a unit and press the Space Bar, a menu pops up where your mouse pointer is currently located that shows "Move/Combat/Special/Admin" as a menu, with sub-options available by hovering the mouse over the menu item. It's not exactly what you are asking for but you may find it easier to use than the buttons in the UI section of the display.

I am not "in the know" but having played from "Shock Force" onwards I know that when "Shock Force" first came out soldiers on the move would not react in any way to the sudden appearence of threats. It was like they had to get to their next waypoint before they could react. This was rightly ridiculed by the players, and BFC listened to their concerns and steadily introduced "self-preservation" behaviours like you are seeing. It came in with a "Shock Force" patch but I have no idea which one. I remember when I saw them react like this the first time it was like the game had just become "self-aware" like Skynet! It is one of those features that show how well polished the game engine has become over time.

I really like the Russians in this game. They look really great with all their modern kit, and have some really great vehicles and weapons. How on earth did you get a total victory as Russia in "Going to Town"? Never mind, don't tell me, I want to crack this one without any help but it's certainly a tough challenge. One thing I like about the game is that you can see all sides' points of view. From the NATO point of view, it's countering Russian aggression; from the Russian point of view, it's standing up to Western expansionism on her borders; and from the Ukraine's point of view, it's defending Ukrainian sovereignty and the right to self-determination. There is no black-and-white "bad guy".

Played it today. Awesome scenario! It felt like the script for a movie. No spoilers but I had some great fun with this one when one of my vehicle drivers panicked, dismounted the vehicle and basically ran away across a field. I had my platoon leader leg it after him and he eventually rallied but it was a bizarre moment. Like other posters I ran out of time and had to rush at the end, with the inevitable adverse effect on my final score, but in fairness the delay could have been avoided had I not become obsessed with collecting all my wounded, which resulted in an entire squad being pinned down for ages despite my placement of a BTR70 right in front of them to act as a shield. It was only when the QRF platoon arrived that I got out of that mess. Lovingly crafted and highly recommended scenario.

WeGo Elite. I tried Iron years ago but found it too confusing.

It's nearly 2 am in the morning here in the UK and I am debating whether to go to bed or fire up CM:BS for another game - so yes, I think you could say I'm enjoying BFC's latest offering very much indeed. Lots of posters have mentioned the increased lethality in this game and I have to agree, it is very brutal and unforgiving. Whereas in previous titles you could take some risks and get away with it, 9 times out of 10 you won't in CM:BS. I've seen whole squads mowed down in literally a second when they got caught in the open. This has the effect of making you think really long and hard about the best way to tackle an enemy position, so much so that the tactical planning aspect is almost like Chess. Oh what the hell, time for another game!

Downloaded around midnight in UK. Iniially got stuck in "Preparing Download" but a few refreshes later and it started downloading fairly fast. As to general impressions, I have only played the first two stand-alone battles so far, and one of them only half way, but I am enjoying the game immensely, In terms of terrain, doodads of bycycles, fork lift trucks and kiosks give the maps a nice up-to-date look. Buildings look how you would expect them to look from watching news reports from the region. No problems rendering the maps in "Best" settings with decent frame rates on my laptop (which admittedly can handle pretty much any game on max settings). In terms of units, they are excellent. I love playing as the Russians vs. Ukrainians right now, whereas in Shock Force I found that playing anything other than NATO wasn't that satisfying, for me personally anyway. The Russians in this game look fantastic, and their kit is great too. I haven't tried the Ukrainians yet but seeing as they are currently giving my Russians a pasting in "Going to Town" I think they will be fun to play too. In terms of gameplay, I am going to have to adapt my tactics considerably due to the new weapon systems such as air burst munitions. Rooftops in Shock Force were unpleasant places to be but in Black Sea they are a death sentence! I am also glad to see a lot of small-sized battles ship with the game. I have always thought that Combat Mission is at it's most enjoyable when the battle is platoon to company level, so it's nice to see such battles included compared to the full-battalion monster battles that seemed to be all the rage in Battle for Normandy and Red Thunder. Great job BFC!

In Shock Force the calibre was usually a good indicator of which weapon it was for. I am hoping the same is true of Black Sea

I did the refresh monkey thing earlier today and was disappointed to see that Black Sea was not yet released, so in my frustration I bought the Market Garden expansion for CM:BN. That will keep me busy whilst I wait for Back Sea, I thought. I then refreshed again just now and discovered Black Sea was out! I immediately bought it and started downloading (currently at 2.0/5.0 GB). Never mind, I guess Market Garden will just have to wait!

I think in the early days of CMx2 (or x3?) when you could not view what casualties each unit had caused, it was impossible to award units an increase in experience, but since we can now view every units' achievements in battle I don't think there is much to hold back such as set of rules. The fun of the Biltong rules was how units would have their experience affected by preceding battles. Knock out an enemy tank and that Green unit of yours could raise to Regular, but if it suffered a lot of casualties and became rattled it could drop down to Green again. I don't have a copy of the original rules but that's how it worked as far as I recall. In the new engine you would track experience and morale separately, so you could have units increase in experience but drop in morale depending on various effects. What would really make this idea work would be if there was a way to do a campaign so that it used the "core force" of the campaign builder but random battles rather than a scripted sequence of them, then you wouldn't even need to do much book-keeping. Is there a way to import a core force file into a Quick Battle? I don't think there is from memory.