jtsjc1

Hey you damn kids get off my lawn!

Hey you damn kids get off my lawn!

I've been playing Combat Mission since about 2002, when I discovered Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord, and since then I've owned every CM title produced with the exception of Afghanistan. I think it's arguably one of the most engaging digital simulations of a tactical battlefield out there. It does a better-than-fair job modelling, in broad strokes, the principles of fire and maneuver, combined arms combat, supporting arms, and C3I.  
Having said that. . . There are areas where the game really breaks down in representing a lot of facets and attributes of the weapons and behaviors of troops on the ground. Here are a few examples I've seen:
The complete inability for spotters to call in indirect fire on point they cannot physically see. This is something combat arm officers and NCOs are taught to do as a matter of course. Calling in artillery fire on positions that are out of LOS can been done with somethings as simple as a grid mission and adjusted by sound. It's not ideal, but it can, and has, been done. I should be able to call in fire behind hedgerows at any time regardless of its position. The only detriment is the loss of accuracy. (As an example, this lack makes a scenario set in the Hurtgen Forest all but impossible to represent accurately.) The inability for engineers to search for minefields ahead of their discovery by tripping them. Engineers should be able to attempt to clear a lane through a suspect minefield at any point in the game, not just when a minefield is discovered. There are far too many scenarios in all the modules that show minefields in the briefing only to rob the engineers the agency to deal with them. That's remarkably unrealistic. (This is excluding flail tanks, of course.) There seems to be a misunderstanding of the toughness of armored vehicles. A 64,000 lbs AAV-7 or a Stryker, or other armored or even remotely armored vehicle, should not be burdened into changing direction when faced with a masonry wall. They might have to slow down, but they are not generally impeded by them. Infantry squads are remarkably inelegant with their fires. This applies more to modern combat, but squads given a marksman rifle should be able to detach that marksman to perform precision fires instead of the whole squad or team just blazing away haphazardly at targets. While suppression is important, aiming in a huge component to modern infantry fires. These guys are some of the worst marksmen.  Infantry should be "spot-able" in buildings. Troops are not static. Infantry attempting to spot their opposite brethren in urban environment should not have to expose themselves to fire just to find them. I can't count how many times I've had spotters looking at a town for great lengths of time to find nothing, only to uncover a large troop formations in the buildings once I expose myself. I'm not suggesting it's easy to spot troops in built-up environments. It's certainly not. But it's not binary, either. Dumb grenades. In once scenario I had a squad below the rise where a German squad sat with an MG blazing away at friendly troops. They were well within grenade range, but they could get an LOS to the squad do to the shape of the terrain. In order to kill that squad I had to basically charge my guys, and lost a few in the process, when in reality a volley of hand grenades should have been enough to disrupt the Germans. But I couldn't throw them because I couldn't see them. In another examples, a Marine squad was working up on a house where a Syrian squad sat. They were able to get to the house undetected due to the lack of windows on three sides of the house. However, because I couldn't do something as brainlessly simple as throw a grenade into the window n the fourth wall, I had to rush into the house the hard way... And lost two guys before the Marine recon squad broke and ran into the open where they were summarily executed. This brings me to another point.... I think this may be in the process of being addressed, so forgive me if I'm repeating a soon-to-be-fixed flaw, but troops don't helter-skelter into random and dangerous directions when they come under fire. More than likely then go prone and remain in place. I can't count how many times I've had troops bolt into the open when they come under fire only to die needlessly. In one scenario I had a squad in a field of tall grass and they came under fire. The only guys who were able to return fire were the guys who were kneeling. The rest couldn't draw an LOS and therefore couldn't fire. Were their squad members mute? Could they not tell their fellow soldiers the direction of fire and relatively range? Where was their squad leader? Why wasn't some form of ADDRAC statement issued? These are just a few of dozens I've seen. While I recognize there are limitations in programming that might make some of this challenging, here is my plea: A lot of this could be alleviated with getting a better understanding of combined arms warfare, a better understanding of the limitations and attributes of the weapon systems, and how troops operate and behave in the field. Just reach out to Marine Forces Systems Command, or even one of the Marine divisions, or contact the U.S. Army Training and Education Command or one of its combat divisions and see if there are field manuals that help better explain how these work. Ask to talk to combat officers and engineers and artillerymen to get a better feel for their capabilities in combat--what they can do and what they can't. While there are lots of merits to this game, there is an equal amount of what seems to be pure fantasy (both in the game and in the forum) over what actually happens on battlefields--how long things, how attacks and defenses are planned and executed, and a whole host of other tactical considerations. Contact their public affairs folks and their unit historians; I have no doubt in my mind you would be given reasonable access to make a better game. You will undoubtedly find them remarkably receptive and open.
Please understand, I love this game. I wouldn't have spent time writing this if I didn't care about it in some way. It's just frustrating to see a game *this close* to getting it right, only to toss it away. Just my 2c... 
Thanks for indulging me. 
 
 

Is it just me, or does SF2 look really nice?
I find myself just kinda staring at the screen some times.

I had a few days off so finished my first (admittedly byte sized) campaign, "Guardians of the Homeland"...
... twas great fun, shame there weren't more "episodes" featuring "the Guardians".

Yep! @37mm. Another good one! @General Jack Ripper SLIM's was cool too. Thanks, fellas.
You know I am to the point where about 90% of my "TV" watching time is game plays/game movies on Youtube. What an amazing thing that some guy sitting on his comp a thousand miles away could be creating content that is more entertaining to me than multi-million dollar Hollywood crap. Must be why they are doing everything they can to destroy the amateurs ability to make a living on YouTube.
 
Mord.

This would be my plan (purely uninformed speculation):

1: CM:FI to end of war.
2: CM:RT to end of war.
3: Unnamed CM:BS Module.
4: CM:FB to end of war.
5: Battle Packs for CM:FI, CM:RT, and CM:FB.
5A: Second Unnamed CM:BS Module.
(New Combat Mission Engine Development?)
6: Combat Mission: Korea. (3 Modules: Drive to Pusan - Inchon to Chosan - China and Stalemate)
7: Combat Mission: Blitzkrieg. (3 Modules: Poland - Norway - France and Low Countries)
8: Combat Mission: Weltkrieg 1968.

There is a camp in Korea called "Camp Carrol", Korea, was named after my uncle (mother side) Sergeant First Class Charles F. Carroll, a posthumous recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross for his acts of heroism during the Korean War. Just thought I would mention it.

sure can and not a stupid question.  All CMSF1 scenarios should be playable so knock yourself out.  
There is a thread in the CMSF 2 forum for a huge list of scenarios and campaigns  
 

Nice! That's some serious street fighting!

Honestly I am so grateful for the reduced price for previous owners of the game. $35 to bring the who deal up to engine 4 is not a bad deal, I mean we're getting on board regular/vehicle mounted mortars and the updated QB force selection. That right there is worth the money to me. It's also the kind of stuff that keeps me coming back, and getting new stuff whenever I can.

I can't wait to see those Berlin maps.

CM doesn't try to represent the peculiarities of siege warfare or occupation duties. But, then again, the coming CMRT module is supposed to bring the title up to VE day. Which implies brutal Berlin fighting. In Berlin the combat losses mirrored the carnage of us CM virtual generals. If a whole company manages to get decimated within 10 minutes 'welcome to Berlin'.

Man, you're just cold. That poor guy obviously got hit with a case of the shakes. It happens.

I just grabbed the file. Thanks for putting it up there...  It will be presented to the powers-that-be, behind the walls of Mordor.

The original plates for the Presidio Press 'Pershing' book were lost in a fire. The second edition (which I have) was a heroic undertaking by Feist to reproduce the original down to the smallest detail. They did a commendable job

Yes, it did help. Thanks.

I have the 1996 2nd edition. It is the same as the original with the glossy pages and the white cover. It is published by Feist Publications. The newer ones are the Echo Point reprints. I have the Echo point reprint of Firepower. From what I can tell the originals are better quality especially the photos. They're also quite a bit more expensive and hard to find. I would say if money isn't an issue, look to get a good used copy of the Feist 2nd edition. Hope this helps.

Exactly. And that is why I don't use it. 

In nearly 18 years of CM, I've never had quite this situation develop, but it was funny.
After heroically destroying 3 Su-76M's with the Schreck and grenades, this landser and his partner shot it out with some Soviet crewmen.  His partner went down, but they got all the crew.
When the schreck tried to displace, he bumped into a Soviet ATR gunner.
Fritz was quick on the draw and fired twice, but missed.  He tried to hook it around the corner of the building, but the ATR gunner put a big slug in him.

Just play in the dark, and hum Nat Cole's "Let there be love" as you slaughter the foe. 

Although you can toggle as described by Holman. The guys on the ground in the winter of '44/45 couldn't do it, so I don't either. Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment.

To be fair to the AI. I had units on three of its sides but it did show it's "6" to the most dangerous enemy.  I think it was trying to get away but it should of backed out.
 

Did you even read what @MikeyD wrote? His whole point was that, even if you assume NATO could be overrun in the first 60 hours of combat due to all of the factors you just listed, there is no strategic point. First off, as I have said before, I very much doubt the Russians could even conduct such a complicated maneuver. Second, and more importantly, is that they simply could not hold all of the ground they would take in such a scenario. 
Yes, it would take a while for the bulk of NATO forces to be brought to bear against them, but this is nothing new. This has been accepted in the US ever since we started fighting wars not on the North American continent. This isn't some glaring, overlooked weakness. It's well known and accounted for. For crying out loud, the US military has an entire Corps, the 18th Airborne Corps, dedicated to this. Their purpose is to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world within 24-48 hours with enough men and equipment to "hold the line" long enough for the bigger heavier support to arrive. 
Unless infrastructure is physically destroyed, it can still be used. No amount of "hacking" is going to change that, unless of course said "hacking" causes highways to explode and gasoline to no longer be combustible, and food to no longer provide sustenance. 
This isn't true, no matter how much the History/Military/Discovery Channel tells you it is. As I said before, basic land navigation qualification is still done with a map, compass and pace counts. Basic marksmanship still requires a soldier to hit a target with his rifle, unaided by machines. Everyone is still trained to operate in a WWII-like environment, where none of the new shiny toys work. Because guess what? Even under optimal conditions, those shiny toys tend to break. Yes, there is more technology now, that is more capable, thus allowing us to do more things. But no one falls to pieces when the tech stops working. This is pure fantasy. 

Hopefully one day a new vid will pop up on the forums from Chris. I still have his twitch page bookmarked just in case.

I'm waiting for the guy to say "Oh S&#$ my wife's gonna kill me for firing this in the living room!"