Jump to content

landser

Members
  • Content Count

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    landser got a reaction from Vacilllator in Game Stats - Request for a Patch   
    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. 
     
     
     
  2. Like
    landser reacted to Bulletpoint in Spotting dirty great armoured behemoths   
    I had the exact same experience this year, while looking for mushrooms.
    But did the bull weigh 44 tonnes, and was it running on tracks powered by a 690 hp Maybach V12 engine? Were you actually looking for such bulls? If no, then I don't think the comparison really adds anything to the discussion.
  3. Upvote
    landser got a reaction from George MC in TF-Thunder Campaign: Into the Valley   
    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!
  4. Like
    landser reacted to Lethaface in TF-Thunder Campaign: Into the Valley   
    Nice AAR!
    I remember that mission and got stuffed on my first try similar to you. IIRC i moved infantry on the buildings on the hill and they got slaughtered while M1s were taking AT-14s to the face. I retreated and didn't came back yet lol.
    Definitely one of the harger battles against the AI in CMSF2! 
  5. Like
    landser reacted to Sulman in TF-Thunder Campaign: Into the Valley   
    I thought I'd try a little recap of my 2nd attempt at this map. The first did not go well and I decided to give it another go. Fresh of my success with 'Dagger Fight' which ended in a Total Victory when the computer surprisingly threw in the towel, I thought this would be a nice change of pace. First, the briefing:

    Generally, CM2 briefings have a lot of hidden clues. This one is vague and really once you start this mission you'll want to punch the intelligence officer. The map is anything but clear. Combined with the fact you have a Coy of tanks you know things are about to get spicy. The farm is merely one of many locations with ENY activity, so yes, it's one of those. The scenario 'ATGM Ambush' is good training for this mission.  This is essentially the same thing on a much bigger scale.
    The map, and some general ideas about strategy, with a caveat:
    1st Attempt:
    My original strategy was to dismount my mech inf platoon, get them up the hill and occupy the buildings circled in yellow. I did achieve this, but at quite high losses to one of the squads. I mistakenly - stupidly - thought I would have some arty assets later as there is an FO, and my plan was to get him in that building which could observe the map exit where there would no doubt be plenty of ENY units.
    I did not count on a couple of things:
    How hard it would be to dislodge the few infantry in that building, occupied by apparenlty the world's toughest ATGM crew. The whole northern portion of the map being lousy with ENY. Mutual support for ENY in this hilltop complex from the high ground to the N and NE. ATGMs as a close-support-weapon (devastating, and new to me) One syrian ATGM squad displaced about 80m to a nearby field and started pounding the building with missiles. I lost a whole squad to ATGM fire when the building collapsed, and the others only survived when I hid them deep in the complex, which rendered them ineffective. I rushed a bradley up the hill but left it's right flank just momentarily exposed and it got deaded by ATGM fire from the NE. I decided to push the tanks forward and they got so beat up mid-way through I decided to think about it and try again. No shame in admitting you get it wrong occasionally.
    If at first you don't succeed...
    I thought my general idea of clearing the nearby hilltop was fairly sound, especially if my inf had javelins (they did!) they could use against the Northern ATGM teams. I needed to be very careful to keep them in defilade once they were up there. I was really missing some LMG support too. They would have been very handy.
    v

    The 'suspicious activity' reported by the lead tank (as per the brief) is just out of the frame on the right, a small farm complex. Now,  bit of a moan from me; I do not like missions that have your units starting in danger. The farm is ~250m away, which puts the lead elements easily in range even from RPG fire.
    Like most players I like to do a little 'walk' around the map at truppen level, you can see that at 3x magnification two of my M1s are easily visible at their start line from a rooftop just down the road:

    Starting T1  I sent my infantry up the hill, classic two up, one back formation with a Bradley watching over them. I was well used to CMBN where scrub and woodland usually held small units waiting along avenues of approach:

    My lead M1s immediately (and somewhat predictably) picked up targets in the farm complex and further north - ATGM teams - and engaged them effectively.

    Although potentially vulnerable in this position, I think they were generally out of harm's way and did not want to move them just yet. They also took out a lone sniper on the nearby hilltop that was near my infantry but had no LOS to them.
     
    More to come!
     
  6. Like
    landser got a reaction from Freyberg in High casualty rates in CM games   
    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.
  7. Upvote
    landser got a reaction from sttp in Why is CMFB a separate title and not a CMBN module?   
    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.
  8. Like
    landser got a reaction from Lethaface in Why is CMFB a separate title and not a CMBN module?   
    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.
  9. Like
    landser got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Why is CMFB a separate title and not a CMBN module?   
    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.
  10. Like
    landser got a reaction from Artkin in Why is CMFB a separate title and not a CMBN module?   
    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. Upvote
    landser got a reaction from Roter Stern in Why is CMFB a separate title and not a CMBN module?   
    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.
  12. Upvote
    landser got a reaction from RepsolCBR in Why is CMFB a separate title and not a CMBN module?   
    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.
  13. Like
    landser got a reaction from Howler in Why is CMFB a separate title and not a CMBN module?   
    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.
  14. Upvote
    landser got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Thinking of buying   
    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.
  15. Like
    landser got a reaction from Blazing 88's in Thinking of buying   
    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.
  16. Upvote
    landser got a reaction from Bufo in Thinking of buying   
    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.
  17. Like
    landser got a reaction from badipaddress in Thinking of buying   
    Well, that's kinda hard to argue with innit? Stop now or I'll never buy another Combat Mission!
  18. Upvote
    landser got a reaction from Busso in Thinking of buying   
    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.
  19. Like
    landser got a reaction from IanL in Thinking of buying   
    Well, that's kinda hard to argue with innit? Stop now or I'll never buy another Combat Mission!
  20. Like
    landser reacted to Bulletpoint in Thinking of buying   
    I understand what you are saying from a historical perspective, but I just think using a short-barrel Pz III against a T-34 would be very similar gameplay experience to using a Sherman against a Panther.
    It's possible I'm wrong of course.
  21. Like
    landser got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Thinking of buying   
    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.
  22. Upvote
    landser got a reaction from RepsolCBR in Thinking of buying   
    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.
  23. Like
    landser reacted to Erwin in Thinking of buying   
    Really disagree.  Early war was a testing period for what we now consider modern weapons.  The Germans had to learn tactics to overcome the (on paper) much better French tanks and the Soviet tanks like KV's and T-34's.  It wasn't one shot one kill as it generally is in late war.  If you ever played CMBB from 1941 to late war the difference in challenges and gameplay experience was clear.  Currently, all the late war WW2 titles play about the same and are getting boring if one has been playing them heavily for 9 years.
  24. Upvote
    landser got a reaction from LukeFF in People who use the default buildings or terrain. Why?   
    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 and sometimes sound mods. If mod packs were more comprehensive I might just do. But I have no desire to download + install, farm buildings, then roads, then trees, dead cows, individual vehicles, sky boxes, uniforms, machine gun animations and so on.
    Then I factor in the fact that I have installed say CMBN on three or four different machines through the years and I just can't be bothered to re-mod my installs, since it doesn't really matter to me in the first place. I don't play Combat Mission for the graphics of course
  25. Like
    landser reacted to Bufo in Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.   
    I can. Here it is: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forums/euiv-bug-reports.813/
     
    Currently standing at 22 792 bug reports.
×
×
  • Create New...