Jump to content

landser

Members
  • Content Count

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by landser

  1. More of a wish-list sort of thing, and not really in step with the OP, but I'd love to see more robust statistics tracked by Combat Mission and displayed for the player. Aside from win/loss ratio like the OP wants, more detail about the combat that took place in the debrief, and perhaps a cumulative page showing aggregate totals throughout the players 'career'. For example Rounds fired for each weapon type Accuracy percentage for each weapon type Most lethal weapon system Distance traveled Longest range kill Average range kill Penetration/deflection/part
  2. I like CMx1 too. Matter of fact I recently played through some campaigns and operation in CMBB and CMAK. Well a year or so ago I guess now. At this age, a year qualifies as recent haha. There is a lot to like about the original engine, and for me especially the Combined Arms setting in QMB. I like the ability to indirect fire target any spot on the map, not only those with LOS. I like the proper hunt command, and I could go on picking various elements that I prefer but I'll digress. But taken as a whole, and especially from a QoL point of view I don't think CMx1 holds up well. That doesn'
  3. In the sales profession they call this a takeaway close. The goal of course is to generate a sale as the prospective buyer proves it IS for him or her, and don't tell me what I cannot have I'll go against the grain and suggest that engine 4 has a few improvements that affect the AI, but to say it is better is a matter of degree. The main points of the engine 4 upgrade are: -- Added hulldown command -- Improved infantry spacing -- Added ability to peek around corners -- F/O kill stats now displayed -- Added screen edge pan toggle -- AI Area Fire Orders (The AI can now
  4. Nice AAR. I played this one last November and it's a tough one. I made a brief report about it here https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4495837/re-combat-mission-campaign-reviews#Post4495837 I noted in that post that I suffered my first M1 losses of the campaign in this mission, scored a tactical defeat. The map is a ATGM trap of the first order, with the terrain being ever so devious, especially on the left. Because you must exit the map on the far side you have to cross it which exposes your armor's flanks to those elevated positions in the upper left. Quite difficult, an
  5. I often find myself having an inner debate about these sorts of things. And something like the quote above is one. Due to a combination of the scale (both time and area), the AI and how things work in Combat Mission generally, there is no prospect of forcing a tactical withdrawal. A strong point in actual warfare is a key defensive position, and there will be times the enemy will hold at all costs, but in the main, even these sorts of positions will be abandoned when a penetration occurs elsewhere along the line and the troops on the strong point are threatened with envelopment. I suppose a sc
  6. Just so Erwin doesn't think he's mad, I saw it as well. My reaction was that maybe the forum server was being rebooted or something along those lines. It was fine next time I checked and I'm not concerned about it.
  7. Thanks fireship. I was aware of these, but have not seen them. What I am referring to specifically is the naval side of that campaign, although the way I wrote it could have been more clear.
  8. Same, and especially naval. I dream of an epic, historical, accurate film about Leyte. Such an important event, with so many facets, drama, mistakes, courage and sacrifice. Would make a fantastic film, done right.
  9. Your wish is granted danfrodo. https://www.nme.com/news/tv/no-time-to-die-director-signs-up-for-steven-spielberg-and-tom-hanks-band-of-brothers-follow-up-2778457 Filming is to begin next spring, if the virus rules don't prevent it I suppose.
  10. BFC is going to go whichever route they choose, but I hope that if there ever is a new generation, that it is Combat Mission as a base game and every module plugs in to that, so that it all works together as one.
  11. There was a mission in Task Force Thunder called Dar al Abid as Sul where the briefing made mention of 'civilian presence'. It was handled mechanically by tracking damage done to buildings. I really like this scenario, and played it using as little firepower as possible, and as a result was much more surgical in my approach. A nice change of pace where the indiscriminate and prodigious application of firepower was off the table.
  12. Yes, this is bad, but at the same time, rare, at least in my experience. In recent memory I can only recall one example, which is the mission In To The Valley in SF2's Task Force Thunder Campaign. I rarely play single scenarios, preferring campaigns, and in campaigns at least, such situations are rare. In the above mentioned mission the enemy is in buildings close to your lead armor units at the start and armed with rockets or ATGMs, I forget now which. I didn't like it, but brushed it off as an effective ambush. That's a tough mission all around. Just as bad, and maybe more common, are a
  13. That's putting it politely Honestly this has caused me to mostly avoid the QMB in CMx2 titles. I'll play a few QBs when I first get a new Combat Mission game, but once I'm up to speed I rarely touch it unless it's for a PBEM. I may be oversimplifying it, but I feel like the removal of the Combined Arms setting from CMx1 was at the root. While still not perfect, Combined Arms was good at giving me the sort of well-balanced enemy force I want to play against, while not knowing what they would be. I could pick them myself, but that's no good. I revisited CMBB, and CMAK recently and p
  14. Well, that's kinda hard to argue with innit? Stop now or I'll never buy another Combat Mission!
  15. I find myself nodding along to many of the posts you make Bulletpoint, but here I must disagree. By this logic, all we need is a single Combat Mission title since it's all basically the same. Speaking for myself, that's certainly not what I am looking to do, though it would be nice haha. It's more down to the equipment and especially the armored vehicles. Panzer Is and IIs, BT-7s, T-26s, short-gunned Pz IIIs against T-34s and KVs, doorknocker AT guns, maybe the return of command delay? Far less lethal, far more interesting, for me anyway. The heavy armor and big guns of the 1944-45 per
  16. I thought I remembered seeing a comment showing that BFC did indeed intend to eventually release the early war, but working backwards after F & R, so '43, then '42, then '41. At the current rate though of one every six years, that's 18 years down the road Of course I may mis-remember and things may have changed too. Seriously though, I would also jump on a Barbarossa module. Not too interested in F & R to be honest. But 1941-1942 especially has great appeal for me. Red Thunder is a good module and I recommend it, and especially the excellent Blunting the Spear campaign.
  17. I agree, and you hit on a couple of the things I had in mind when I said I can think of a number of ways to overcome this in my previous post, but declined to spell out. This sort of direction, and addressing what I see as the shortcomings in the player experience, are what I hope to see in the future from Combat Mission. With the limited number of campaigns especially, features designed to increase replayability would be very welcome, from my point of view. Frankly, I think a think-on-its-feet AI is vital, so that even if everything else were the same, the way the AI prosecutes the battle wo
  18. Replayability is one of Combat Mission's core weaknesses in my view. Battles are compelling when I do not know what I face, but once I do the game loses a big part of it's appeal. AI plans address this issue in a way, but it is position, not composition. Having the AT gun moved to a different spot does fundamentally alter the scenario, but how many AT guns I face does not change. Once I have played a scenario I know what I face, have a general idea of enemy positions (AI plan alterations notwithstanding), reinforcement location and timing, off-board assets, key terrain, avenues of approach, co
  19. I rarely use mods, and hadn't really thought about why, but this thread made me think about it. The point above about playing from on high applies to me, and that's certainly part of it. For example uniform textures... I really couldn't care less. I never even notice. If the Russians were wearing Japanese uniforms I'd be fine with that. I also find searching the mod sites a bit of a chore. Not to disparage the fine and valuable service to the community these sites provide, but actually finding the thing I want is not always easy. The only mods I search out for every title are UI mods
  20. Wow, this is some thread. The tribalism is strong. I've been playing Combat Mission for 20 years and I probably would NOT recommend it except for very specific players. I praise WEGO, the tactical battlefield, and particularly the spotting, C2 and ballistics. But for me virtually everything else is out of date or substandard, including but not limited to the transaction process (Steam takes care of this), the upgrade method (also good now with Steam I suppose), AI, campaign system, editor, UI, QMB, graphics, and more. How do I get Steam keys?
  21. +1, and it's a point I have made too But for me, the thing I most want out of Combat Mission is a new campaign system. Not necessary to go through in detail, but for me a new system and way to generate this content is what I would most like to see.
  22. MP, I guess? Balanceism CMx1 allowed setting the points didn't it? QB was more fun in CMx1 for me. There's a lot to like about Cmx2, but QB isn't at the top of that list in my view. Three things come to mind One, there is no longer a Combined Arms selection. This setting in CMx1 seemed to do a good job of getting the AI to pick reasonable force composition. If I let the AI pick in CMx2 it's usually a mess. And if I pick them I already know what they are. Two, no custom points, as above, arbitrarily restricting the scenarios that can be created using the QB Three, no
  23. Good stuff Simon, thanks for the detailed post. Maybe I'll pick it up on the next sale.
  24. This is a game I've been on the fence with. I hear things like omniscient enemy artillery and that sort of thing and it makes me think I'd see the good in the game, and the frustration over what could have been, in equal measure. Your last post Simon did more to make me want to buy it than all of the videos I've watched and reviews I've read. More of this please. In wargames, I really enjoy disparate or or assymetrical scenarios with a wide variety of possible compositions and courses of action, like what you describe here. And to have it all mean something in the larger, maybe opera
×
×
  • Create New...