landser

I enjoyed that, thanks for the link. I like his style, and even though all I ever play are campaigns, I now want to tackle this scenario. Comment Commanders, haha.

Yes, you are correct. I am wrong. The 1660 uses GDDR5, but they went with GDDR6 on the Super version (which I somehow missed in the OP, my mistake). This places the Super in between the 1660 and the 1660Ti, and I reckon makes it the best solution between the three if budget is a factor. If it isn't, the Ti is still the (slightly) better card. But the difference is so minor it probably wouldn't be noticed, and especially in a game like Combat Mission. You could save a few bones and get similar performance with the Super.

I advise a 1660 Ti over the 1660. Same Turing architecture, but the Ti version uses faster memory, GDDR6 vs GDDR5 and has more cores. It may not make much difference in Combat Mission, but for a small premium you'll get a better card. For what it's worth I have a 1660Ti in my box and it plays everything I throw at it at 1080 on top settings, and this includes many of the more recent AAA titles. Great bang for the buck, but be aware it has no ray tracing. Not an issue if CM is all you'll play.

Maybe that's because it isn't what was written. The author is saying that it is confusing because certain content requires certain other content. The direct quote "To make matters even more convoluted nearly all the DLC/expansion modules have different prerequisites (these have all been listed below). Some DLC requires you to also purchase the engine upgrades in order to function. Others require that you own other DLC modules. Consequently, not only are things confusing but things now cost more than you may have initially thought." I happen to think that Battlefront's upgrade and patching methods are the most archaic of any game I still play. I like Combat Mission, and own most of the titles, but it can be considered behind the times for some of us. And certainly for me.

Print screen works and is fine if you only need one shot. But if you want to take multiple screens then use something else so you're not continually alt-tabbing to save the screen grab. FRAPS is what I use too. Just point it to a folder and snap as many as you like.

Yes, I think I called it a 'showcase for suppression' or something like that.

Looking at the thread again I see only four CMBN campaigns, and they are among the most popular so not sure any Combat Mission vet will learn anything new from it, but ya never know.

I wrote a campaign review thread at SimHQ. It died off since there was no interest or comments. But I covered several CMBN campaigns. Maybe you can take something from it, though I did not consider engine 4 in the commentary. https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4490340/combat-mission-campaign-reviews#Post4490340

I approve of this Go ahead and get CMBS. Just don't start it.

CMRT, East front? How to pick just one right? But I will anyway, and suggest Bidermann's In Deadly Combat. a company-level memoir from soon after Barbarossa, through Sevastopol, and the retreats to the Kurland pocket. A great read. https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Combat-Soldiers-Eastern-Studies/dp/0700611223

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/partial penetration numbers A complex rating that shows hit or kill percentage modified by shot difficulty (with range, target visibility, ordnance suitability, etc factored in) Average play time per battle Casualty percentage And so on and whatnot. Combat Mission to me is so perfectly suited for statistical analysis, but we need the statistics. I'd love to see this sort of thing implemented in future versions of Combat Mission. It's something I've wanted for many years. Doesn't hurt to bring it up, even if it is unlikely to happen. I eat this stuff up and would pore over the numbers after every battle.

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't mean I won't play it, but it does mean CMx1 is just not on the same level as CMx2 for me. I can make a good analogy with Falcon 4. Falcon 4 Allied Force was a great version of that sim, with probably the best campaign play to date in the long, long evolution of the series. But Falcon 4 BMS, while maybe still not quite so good with the campaigns, is far beyond F4AF in terms of the jet, avionics, comms, weapons systems, graphics and on and on. So while I can still see the best points of AF, having flown BMS there's no longer a contest as to which is better. It's the same in CMx1 and CMx2 for me. And CMx2 has the better jet

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 be scripted to use area fire) -- Added AI facing order -- Added AI withdrawal order. I believe there is now a different (better?) reaction to artillery as well. But these are more about commands, facing and spacing. Not a better AI in the sense that might be normally assumed, that is AI performing better, whatever that might mean. It's down to each player if that constitutes better AI, but for me it's very minor at best. So much so that I would call upgrading to engine 4 from engine 3 as non-essential. And honestly it's the F/O kills count that I like. The other stuff doesn't really make much difference to me, though the spacing is welcomed at least from an aesthetic point of view, and in the case of the peak around corners maybe a step back. I may be missing other AI improvements but that's what I am aware of

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, and combined with the 'ambush' at the start it's quite a challenge. This was the fifteenth mission of this campaign for me and the first really dangerous one as shown by my first battle tank losses. Until this mission you're able to use your superior firepower, frontal armor and range, but the terrain here partially negates this as the hill screening the left side falls away as you reach the center, leaving me feeling quite vulnerable. Good mission. And good hunting commander!

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 scenario designer can trigger this sort of behavior if enemy troops reach a certain line on the map? But in general this sort of thing doesn't occur in Combat Mission. There's little in the way of tactical fluidity, of reinforcements sealing a penetration, of withdrawals or exploiting a breakthrough if it occurs other than perhaps where a designer foresaw it. So in Combat Mission we must assault that position, come hell or high water, because they're not going anywhere and it's a victory location after all. There is little to 'unhinge' a defensive position and force it's retreat. I try to make it a point not to criticize a game for what it is not. In most cases it isn't fair. You don't buy a coupe and complain it's not a convertible after all. But at the end of my inner debates I find myself hoping that these are the areas where the next steps in Combat Mission's evolution occur. That we eventually see a computer opponent that is able to think on its feet, to react and exploit, or to save its hide or push for victory through prudent recognition of the ebb and flow of a tactical battlefield. I sometimes feel like we have all the tools aside from any sense we are playing a human opponent because the computer is so rigid in its conduct. And AI that could at least approximate this would go far in making Combat Mission's single player a much better experience than it already is. in terms of the topic this sort of withdrawal could go a long way to preserving force strength, but then again it would simply push them toward the back edge of the map as there's no escape, where it would likely be even easier to rack up high kill counts, away from suitable terrain and prepared positions. Perhaps there could be a retreat off map option for the computer opponent, but maybe the game loses some appeal as it's not so compelling if you force the enemy in to a pell-mell race for the exits. It might come down to the player's expectations, as some would see this as a realistic reaction to a disintegrating defense and some would lament the loss of the drama or challenge they expect from a given scenario. "All I did was drive my tank platoon through the gap and ten minutes later the scenario ended". I don't know what the right answer is, and what I want out of the game is not what the next man wants. Until it can be worked out though we'll continue to see casualty percentages far in excess of what would be tolerable to a battalion commander. Stand and die is not all that rare in history as well all know, but in Combat Mission there really isn't any alternative.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 artillery stonks on setup zones. For a long time I always thought that designers should not have the ability to call first-turn fires. But then I played CMRT's Blunting the Spear campaign. I'm full of praise for this one it's true, and in that campaign's fourth mission there are indeed first-turn fires. But instead of calling these in on the setup zones, the designers instead had them falling on crossroads and the like. So all of that time spent giving opening orders to my many vehicles resulted in them driving straight in to these deviously well planned fire missions. I took it on the chin but thought how perfect this was, and it's something I'm not sure I've seen before. That campaign is expertly designed.

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 played a few QBs with Combined Arms and it does a nice job of picking. Not sure why it's gone. Could it come back?

Well, that's kinda hard to argue with innit? Stop now or I'll never buy another Combat Mission!

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 period we have, or are getting, is less compelling than the brand of combat that 1941-42 would serve up. Duels are more asymmetric, which is appealing to me in any wargaming scenario.