Razgovory

Well the screenshots said beta, betas typically last 1-3 months. I think we have a good chance at seeing a December release.

Hi all, I haven't posted here in a while. I was did own Shock Force, but I'll be dipped if I can find the manual and disk. That was quite a while ago. Still, I'm happy to see a sequel being made. I have a few suggestions, observations etc Consider a "floating timeline". Time makes fools of us all, so putting an exact date on the war may not be the best way to go. This was a minor problem with Shock Force which took place at an exact date about a year in the future. It quickly became dated and you had expansions that took place in the future age of last year. Instead of having the war take place in 2017 have it take place in x+3 where x is always the current year. I applaud you for picking Russians as OPFOR this time around. I tried to sell some my friends on Shock Force but weren't interested. One referred to as derisively as "Combat Mission: Squish the Arab", perhaps a bit crude but the US vs Syria is one sided. Add the British, Canadians, Dutch and German and it's not really very fair. Admittedly in the WWII games we know who is going to win. For instance in Normandy after the first week the Germans lost all chance of winning. Perhaps it's a double standard, but I think players would like to think that the stakes are high. If this is to be WWIII let us make the most of it! Don't be shy about throwing in additional OPFOR countries in. I know you have stated you weren't interested in having Belarus join in, but I ask you reconsider. Perhaps adding in CIS units in modules. Admittedly these units aren't likely to be particularly effective, or even distinctive but having more countries join Russia in the war gets rid of the feeling that Russia is being dog piled on. Further afield some other countries might be fun to throw in the mix such as Iran (who have an interesting mix of equipment) or even North Korea (Good Lord, is that T-34!). I'd love to see some of former Warsaw Pact countries that are in NATO in the game. Countries like Poland have an interesting mix of Soviet and Western equipment another NATO country that might be interesting is Turkey. A Turkish campaign against say, Iran could be really neat. I believe the Russians will be introducing a new MBT in the time frame in the game. I don't suspect it'll make an appearance. Figuring out capabilities of current generation equipment is difficult enough. Coming up with the capabilities of equipment that hasn't even been put in use (and may never be put in use) is all but impossible. That's sort of the problem with Chinese equipment. Nobody has any idea what it can do. They've built several newer MBTs but what they actually can do is pretty much unknown. I don't imagine we'll see the Chinese show up either. Well that's enough rambling for today. Cheers, Raz

I suspect the British voices will be very similar to the ones in CMx1. I'd also like to see some Red anti-air and better fortifications in addition to the Brits. Newer BTRs would be cool to. I don't know if the Syrians have those, but they don't have T-90's either. So who cares? I'd also like to see Red infantry beefed up a bit (give more of them those nifty RPG 29s! I suspect playing British vs Americans would be fun as well. You could recreate the battle of Yorktown with tanks!

I lost two squads to something very similar one time. The soldiers stormed the building and there was a vehicle IED parked next to the building. When my guys reached the side of the building as the car-bomb I think one of them took a shot at it. Kaboom! Everyone was knocked out. I was terribly unhappy.

Thanks! I should order the game today. I would love to see the marines in action.

I haven't purchased the marine module as yet but intend to do so soon. I have downloaded the latest patch for the game which has a warning not to install it over the Marines module. Is the same true in reverse? Can I install the the marines module over the patched version? I'd really rather not reinstall the game (the game key is in my email somewhere. It's hard to find). Oh and Btw, I bought the game when it first came out and was terribly unimpressed with it. I shelved it for a long time. I recently started playing it with the latest patches and the game is tremendously improved! It's one of the best wargames I've ever played! I know Battlefront is a small business and they have to work very hard with limited staff and money. I'd like to say they did an excellent job on this game!

I'd love to see more Red equipment. The Syrians don't seem really have T-90s (also we didn't invade Syria earlier this summer) so I don't think it really matters much if they are given other stuff. I'd like to see some more modern Russian equipment as well. Also better infantry. I'd like see the infantry equipped with better anti-tank stuff. Make them more interesting. Possibly some better fortifications as well.

I have a feeling it isn't really the world's largest English News service.

Same thing happened to me. Instead of going in to the building I ordered them into they decided to enter the one two doors down, climb to the roof and hop roof-to-roof to the building. One guy actually made it. I ordered my Strykers to open up on him.

So this is a decision on their part? I just cant see any negative points to allowing us to add our own units. I'd really like to know the reasoning behind the decision... ? </font>

Noticed that as well. Even hiding the Bradleys could spot them. First time I played it I was thinking like a WWII commander and was waiting for the Americans to move close in and catch them in a cross fire. Second time I just ordered the ATGMs to fire at a distance and they killed the Bradleys very easily. They were also useful on the infantry squads.

I think the manual says something about calculating weight when considering movement speeds.

I noticed a similar problem when I messing around with QBs. I put a bunch of Syrian T-72s against American medium infantry. There was a weird instance where an AI Bradley pounded a T-72 with it's main cannon while the T-72 just ignored it. Naturally the auto-cannon had no effect on the tank but the AI would not use a TOW missile. It just kept futilely shooting 25mm shells at it. In fact, at no time did any of the Bradley's use their ATGMs.

Yay! We need some more discussions on tactics. I found WWII tactics to be severely wanting with modern weapons. An ATGM is a bit more effective then the old 37mm gun. The modern battlefield is really deadly.

I give a 2. It has a lot of rough edges, but it is a lot of fun. For me one of the biggest pluses is that it isn't WWII. WWII stuff has been done to death. I really like something original. I also agree with the basic premise that the technology gap between Western and Eastern weapon systems isn't so great. It's the training and doctrine that count for far more on the battlefield.

I got through the last training mission with only one casualty. Those Javelins really pack a punch.

I'm a bad commander. My first scenario mission didn't go well. Something about clearing a town full of insurgents. 20 guys KIA 40 WIA and 2 Strikers down. I eventually pressed Ceasefire and it said I won... but that's alot of casualties.

I believe this is fixed in the patch; memory is hazy right now as I usually do RTS. </font>

My first impressions. (Note on my specs 3.3 gig processor, Radeon 850xp pro video card, 2 gigs of RAM. Not top of the line but pretty good) The controls are somewhat counterintuitive; the hot keys seem to change when you click on different menus. That's really odd. As has already been noted, using the keyboard to move the camera is not good. Fortunately using the mouse to move the camera works much better. It's not Combat Mission x1 and that's the biggest hurdles you have to get over before you can enjoy it. After you start to figure that out the game gets much better. So far I've played one quick battle and one training mission. Apparently you have to do something for the AI in the quick battle that I don't know how to do yet so the enemy just sat there. That was okay. I got to test artillery on them which was fun. Once you get past the new controls the game is really a blast though. I do miss the option to speed up turns in the turn based part of the game though.

A friend of mine who I played Combat Mission with complained about this sorta thing. He complained that in most battles it would come down to a few "queen pieces". Like a Tiger vs ISII duel. Who ever one that fight would win usually win the whole battle.

Hi. My name is Razgovory. I've posted on these forums before but not very often. I own CMBO, CMBB and CMAK. Some one on another forum gave me the link to the Demo of CMBO when it first came out and I was blown away by it. I really liked the turnbased system, and how the 3D maps made judging line of site a snap (something I found annoying with older wargames). It was one of those rare games that is easy to play but hard to master. I remember my first game very. I felt sorry for the poor Germans getting shelled and then felt terror when a Panther came up over the hill and started killing my Shermans.(I think the Map was called "Valley of Trouble" or something like that. Only a lucky hit by a 75mm artillery shell stopped the Panther's rampage. It was one of the most intense gaming moments I ever had. I pretty much had to get it at that point. When Shock Force was announced alot of people were disappointed because it wasn't WWII. Not me. There are so many WWII games as it is. I would really like a change of pace. (though a game where you fight in the Pacific theater would be okay, just enough with the Germans!) Well I have pre-ordered the game and await with bated breath when I can download it. Perhaps I'll see some of you online...

And if so, who would I do that.

In some scenarios I found that start off with a rocket FO. I'll order a pre-planned attack, and pepper half the map in large holes. That would be fine if I was trying to build a golf course, but not for softening up an enemy postion. So my question is what good are off map rocket batteries? Were they ever used in the small scale battles of CMBB?

To be honest I don't think nukes were a real possiblity. I believe that The US had already dropped all the bombs it had. There would not have been a new one for some time. Those things take a long time to make! They might be able to level one or two Russian cities with them but I don't think it would have made a real big difference. Military planers(at least in the 1950's)thought that though nukes would be used, they would not the deciding factor. I still think that the West would win but mostly Because of supply. You can have the biggest army in the world but if you can't move or feed it does not do much good.

Well My guess would be the Western Allies. 1.Soviet Supplies were badly stretched and forces were deep in enemy territory. The Red army was not nearly as good at logistics as most of the other combatants. During the winter 1945-46 the Red Army in Germany was forced to forage for supplies. The Red army in germany had alot of unfriendly ground behind them: Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia were not particulary happy to fall behind the Iron Curtin. Also the sheer brutality and chaos of the war left roaming bands of Bandits and Partisans who made travel through those territories difficult. Compare this to the western Allies. The Allied forces always had sufficient supplies even when deep within Germany. The Americans were masters of Logistics. They managed to have better supplied armies then any other fighting power despite being the farthest from the fighting and waging war on two seperate fronts thousands of miles apart. Behind the combined armies of Allies was France, Belgium and the Netherlands. All friendly countries. Also the Infrastructure of the these nations was better intact to that of the east. 2.The war would not be confined to Europe. The Soviet Far east would have to garrisoned. Cities of Petropavlosk and Vladivostok would vulnerable to Marine raiders and bombing runs. Chaing Kai-Shek's Nationalist chinese could cause problems for the Soviets if those borders are not properly maned. Commonwealth soldiers would attack Soviet garrisons in Iran from India. In short the war would be fought all over the Soviet Union. 3.The Soviet Unions acceptance of lend lease equipment and materials made them somewhat reliant on those materials. The most important of these were not tanks but the logistical vehicals such as trucks, jeeps and halftracks. The Red Armies mobility was greatly increased by this stuff. If the supply of spare parts for these things suddenly stopped then writing up new logistic tables would be the least of their problems. 4.Both American and British Air-forces were far superior to the Soviets in nearly every regard. Technology, numbers, supplies, and training all favored the Allies. Besides I don't think the Soviets ever came up against a thousand bomber raid. 4.The Soviet Union used alot of WWI infantry and artillary tactics and doctrines. Their tank doctrine were quite advance but their Infantry still charged elbow to elbow and their artillary still relied on "rolling barrages" to destroy targets. 5. Navy... Well The Soviet Submarines may have been the only navy to loose more ships then they sank in merchant raiding operations. 6.If the Soviets managed to blitzkreig across Europe and throw the allies out of Europe,(unlikely considering the speed of the Red Army was not exactly breakneck, and crossing the alps to get at the soldiers in Italy would be difficult) that would not nessicarly end the war. The British were thrown out of Norway, France, Greece and Crete only to return to invade Italy in 1943 and France in 1944.