Jump to content

landser

Members
  • Posts

    390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by landser

  1. Blunting the Spear is one of the best campaigns in Combat Mission, any title, as far as I am concerned. but it's massive and definitely not noob friendly. For me one of the best campaigns for new players is Task Force Raff in CMBN. It's an excellent primer scenario that gives the player a taste of bocage without feeling restricted, plus attack and defend missions on very nice maps. Time limits are generous, allowing plenty of time to scout, recon and maneuver without feeling rushed. Reinforcements are also generous, and you get a real feel for combined arms and using off board artillery. The lavish tank strength eventually on hand allows for some setbacks without losing momentum, making it an ideal scenario for new players (and vets too!).
  2. Like finding a twenty in your pocket. Or early Christmas. BFC super deal sounds great.
  3. You must feel so vindicated as Battlefront lights it up on the leading edge of the computer gaming industry. Well done mate.
  4. Not only that, but the thing was nice to have around. The tank was used to clear snow from the town's streets, or so I've been told. So no reason to rat him out when it was such an asset to the townsfolk
  5. For me it's CMBN. Partly it's due to the number and quality of the campaigns available, and partly due to the airborne side of things. Allied para operations in advance of the landings (and after it too) are endlessly fascinating for me. As a campaign player who does little else, CMBN stands out. SF2 has a lot too, but the gameplay is not nearly so compelling. So CMBN gets the nod from me. The paras, the terrain, the historical significance of the operations and battles depicted, and the force/weapon balance of that brief time period all add up to make Normandy the title I have the most fun with.
  6. Playing battles I designed, knowing everything about it, is a nonstarter. Sure the ability is there, but I have no real desire to play scenarios I designed myself. I won't even pick the enemy forces in a QB.
  7. That sounds fine in theory. But in practical terms I have to disagree. And the reason is that scenario and campaign designers tend to use parts of any and all modules. For example they may use just a few pieces of one. And then in order to play that scenario or campaign you must have the module. Even if it's not designed around British army forces, it may still use units, or map elements or anything really. And with how precious campaigns are in the Combat Mission world, not having these modules restricts our choices more than they already are. Just imagine a CMBN player who opted not to get the vehicle pack So while technically your point is true, I think for most players that not having the whole works is too limiting when searching for new content to play. And I concur with the point above about a base game with plug-in modules. I hope this is Combat Mission's future, a point I've made here myself before too.
  8. If I take the years 2001 through 2021 in to account, and average all the sales data over that period, including but not limited to flash sales, community events, door prizes, bundles and giveaways, the best prediction based on the data is the next sale will be in never.
  9. I don't agree. While I agree the AI has issues, I don't think it's the complexity that causes it. It's more down to how the game was designed, and how the AI is scripted. There are perfect storms where the designer seemed to have been in your head and the AI puts up a great fight. But in general the AI is limited, unable to 'think' on the fly and react, exploit or withdraw as the battlefield evolves, unless the scenario designer created it that way. In a sense it's not really an AI at all, but pieces that react rigidly to the instructions the designer gave them. TacAI muddles the question to a degree, but in a broader view the AI lacks the intelligence part. AA is more accurate in my view, Artificial Automoton Automoton: a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of coded instructions,
  10. Sounds like a Battlefront issue lol. Fictional armor? How'd that make it in the game? I guess you mean not present at the time and place being depicted? Anachronistic? Plagiarized proximity? What specifically are you referring to? I played through it a couple times and didn't notice anything out of ordinary. Actually there wasn't much armor at all. I remember StuGs and halftracks, kubelwagenen and maybe some heavier stuff in the final missions. Been a while.
  11. If you liked Devil's Descent, I'd recommend The Outlaws https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4490522/re-combat-mission-campaign-compendium#Post4490522 Similar in scope to Devil's Descent. American paras, with some help from the straightlegs near the end.
  12. The complexity is in the underlying mechanics, isnt it? It's easy to play, hard to play well. Of course I am still operating with WitE as my reference point, but take something like supply and logistics for example. The rules here are complex. Matter of fact I thought this was handled superbly by WitE. It's easy to push the counters around, but if the player fails to understand logistics and supply, it will take just a couple of turns before those counters cannot be pushed, as they are out of gas. Good hunting commander
  13. I can see that. In my case I played the Road to Smolensk scenario four or five times out of the block. I kept going until I could win a decisive victory in that one, which had the side benefit of giving me a lot of practice with the opening moves for Army Group Center, which paid off later. I then jumped in with both feet to the GC. I played it first as the Germans, with the 260-point campaign with FoW off. Then I played it again, this time with the 290-point campaign, FoW on and several bonuses given to the AI. Then I played a third GC as Russia. That's three times through the Grand Campaign and I did not attempt another. That was a number of years ago and then I planned to get WitW and then of course WitE2, but have done neither. WitE could really use a mode with unrestricted starting positions. I would play through a fourth time if I could set all starting dispositions with a free hand. It's interesting to consider the possibilities if the player were free to do so.
  14. It depends on who you are asking, it seems. Some complain endlessly, and I think, unfairly, about the AI. I praised it in my AAR. It's not human, obviously, and it lacks that sort of daring that a human opponent might have. And potentially, it lacks the glaring mistakes a human may make. But my impression was that it was good enough. The AI takes up logical positions, attempts to escape encirclement, reacts intelligently and promptly to breaches, masses force to affect local penetrations and generally, I thought, puts up a fine fight. I also made note of how variable it was. For example in my first aborted attempt at the grand campaign the Russian made a stand at the Dnepr, forming a strong line and making the break through of the land bridge difficult. The second time it was a thin crust and instead he appeared to prioritize his defense of Leningrad. In a game like these Grigsby games, any level of unpredictability or inability to divine patterns is great. It's not simply a matter of knowing where he will make his stands and unlocking these programmed patterns, but of reacting to and exploiting things as they unfold. That is crucial to replayability. I never did play WitP, but there's a member over at Subsim doing a AAR of his head to head campaign and I am really enjoying it, as the Pacific war is one of my things. It's all very interesting and makes me want to give it a go.
  15. A few years ago I played a German campaign in WitE and attempted to detail it in an AAR over at SimHQ. That AAR can be viewed here, if interested https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4454240/1 It's difficult to convey things like scale of micromanagement. How do you describe it, or put it in to words? I talked about it a bit in the AAR, but you'll have to experience it to know. One of my issues with the decisions the designers of WitE made is how recruitment is handled. The two sides play by different rules. The German commander must adhere to strict historical unit arrival and departures timetables. The Russia commander can build whatever the hell he wants. It's such an odd design, and perhaps my biggest gripe with the game. But I'm not intending to discuss this. The German commander must also deal with Command Capacity. Each headquarters has a limit to how many subordinate units it can control. If the number exceeds the threshold then penalties are incurred. Juggling this overload is one of the finer points of command. Army Group South especially begins the game heavily overloaded. But there is a way out of it. You can't just build a couple new Army Group or Army HQs, no, only a Russian can do such a thing! But if you can reach Rostov it triggers the AGS split in to Army Groups A and B, which of course the Germans did in preparation for Fall Blau. This a massive event for a German player, and the new HQs offer a chance to reorganize and fix the command capacity overload. But it is a MASSIVE! undertaking. You are taking regiments, divisions, corps and reassigning them. This one here, that one there. Detach this, attach that. Return this to OKH, sack this general, promote that general, and transfer the other one. All of this is in accordance with administrative points, which you need for each of these moves. And I ate it up. This sort of thing is right in my wheelhouse, but it is a lot of work. Even many stout wargamers I know would blink at what is involved, and this is just one event in an entire war. The micro is strong in this one haha. Here's what I wrote in the post describing this part of my campaign. It does not convey scale With the split of Army Group South in to Army Groups A and B, a welcome opportunity to reorganize the overloaded command structure of the Wehrmacht was available to me, Having a fourth Army Group could allow redistribution of the forces throughout my command and alleviate the penalties that come when an organization is over the command capacity. At the start, only Army Group North does not suffer from this, but the other two do, and especially so in AGS. This is a major undertaking, and the player must embrace the micro to attempt it. I failed to mention it yet, but the very first move I made in this campaign was to replace Halder at OKH with Kluge. Model then took Kluge's vacancy in 4th Army. And as mentioned, many corps commanders have also been replaced. The creation of Army Groups A and B saw Rundstedt shift to AGA and Halder made a return as commander of AGB. But only very briefly as it turned out. The man cannot catch a break. He was immediately cashiered and replaced with Kesselring, who left Luftlotte 2 for this assignment. The scope of the changes I made are too broad to recount in detail here, but in general terms I looked to make each army group structure the same. That is, each one would get a Panzer Group and two infantry armies. With the recent arrival of XXXX Panzer Corps, we now had 11 Panzer Corps, so one Army Group would be shortchanged. In the north on the Leningrad front, no changes were made to Leeb's AGN in terms of commands attached to them. Hoepner's 4th Panzer would remain, as would 16th and 18th Armies. Because of the terrain, and the fact we have been tied down near Leningrad, 4th Panzer would be the one shortchanged, with just two Panzer Corps. Bock's Army Group Center on the Moscow front saw some shuffling. XXIV Panzer Corps, the one from 2nd Panzer sent to the rescue at Leningrad was reassigned to Hoth's 3rd Panzer, raising it to three Panzer Corps. AGC had three infantry armies, the 2nd, the 4th and the 9th. So the 2nd was reassigned to Army Group B. This left AGC with three Panzer Corps and two infantry armies Kesselring's newly formed Army Group B was assigned the sector around Voronezh. The recently arrived XXXX Panzer Corps was attached to 2nd Panzer, bringing it to three Panzer Corps. 6th Army was reassigned from Army Group South to AGB. So now AGB had Guderian's 2nd Panzer along with 2nd and 6th Armies. Rundstedt's newly constituted AGA would be assigned the southern front, the right wing, and given responsibility over the region around Denpro and Rostov. Kleist's 1st Panzer (three Panzer Corps) remained, as well as 11th and 17th Armies. All satellite armies were reassigned to their national headquarters. With these moves the rough cuts were complete. No Army Group was overloaded any longer. However some overloading remained at the Army level, especially in 9th Army, but also minor overloading in 16th and 18th as they continued to hammer at Leningrad. This should be worked out in time, but I can only wish I had one additional Army headquarters, which would solve all remaining issues. In all it was a massive undertaking, down to individual divisions, brigades and regiments being shifted to various corps, corps to various higher headquarters, and additional changes were made to corps commanders as I continue to try and get my most capable men in the best positions. All of these moves costs a lot of admin points, over 200 having been spent on this reorganization. With mud coming I felt I could spare the points with few HQBUs being needed as panzer units would be pulled back to refit. The strategy gamer/micromanager in me absolutely loved the whole process, and the penalties had been eating at me since June. To have it (mostly) sorted at this point is very satisfying. It should prove of some worth come winter, and in to the '42 campaigning season So this is the sort of thing you can expect, I reckon. Again, this is not WitE2, and perhaps it is a mistake to compare the two. I should play it and see. But I expect the games will share this sort of thing, and others having played it can set me straight.
  16. I have not bought number 2, but I have a lot of time in WitE. And honestly, if you are concerned about time and micro, you'll have it in spades with a Grigsby game. Running the risk of projecting my WitE experience on to the newer game, which may or may not share these things, there are few games as micro-intensive as these. As noted turns can easily take an hour. This is not all spent concocting masterful operational plans, but also on giving orders to your hundreds of counters, every turn for a hundred or two turns. I happen to really enjoy it, but you need to have the same mindset or the sheer scale of what's before you can overwhelm or induce a sense of drudgery. This sort of game is not for everyone. Hell, it's not for most everyone But if grand operational war games appeal, there are few to compete with the Grigsby games. The micro must be embraced or you'll never finish a grand campaign. There's no way around it (unless WitE2 has found ways around it haha). You don't play one of these grand campaigns, you live it, move by move all the way down the front line, week after week. It's nearly impossible to know whether to recommend it to another player really. But every true wargamer should at least give a Grigsby game a go. If it suits you, there are few better wargaming experiences in my view.
  17. Customizable points and the return of Combined Arms preset would go far to get me to play QBs again.
  18. You cannot select the gunner or the BAR man with the LOS tool either. But the LOS tool has to be dragged around to every terrain point you are interested in, which is tedious at best. A 'visible terrain mode' would give all of this info at a glance.
  19. I fail to see how this applies to the mode I am suggesting Oh FFS.
  20. Combat Mission could really use a feature or mode where clicking any unit under your command would shade or color all parts of the map visible to that unit.
  21. Perhaps not yet, but I think Grand Tactician could become a worthy contender. It's still a bit raw, but has the potential to be the king of American Civil War games. Same guy who made Seven Years War, and while that title never convinced me really, this one has much more promise. Still in EA. https://store.steampowered.com/app/654890/Grand_Tactician_The_Civil_War_18611865/ To get to that point though, it need some work.
  22. For CMBN? My two favorites are Devil's Descent and Kampfgruppe Engel. Devil's Descent is a company sized American paratrooper campaign just perfect in scope. Kampfgruppe Engel is an innovative campaign where you play as Germans in the Falaise Pocket. It's a tough one, but fun and diverse. Check this thread for some of my thoughts on these and a few more. https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4490340/combat-mission-campaign-reviews#Post4490340 Edit: It's Engel, not Engle
×
×
  • Create New...