z1812

Thank you. This looks to be very interesting.

Hi Sublime, As you may know, Angola turned into a proxy war that was subsidized by the usual Cold War Adverseries. Cuba eventually was involved as was South Africa. There were quite a lot of different weapons systems, Military groupings, and smaller actions that would make for an interesting CM title. The terrain would be new as well. Google Search Cuito Cuanavale. I can't copy the link on my ipad.

My Preference, 1. Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 2. Patton Rolls East 1946- 3. Angolan Civil War 1980-1985

Hi Miles, Judging by how you have described your interest you may want to consider the CM Normandy big bundle: below as described from the store. The CMFI bundle is 85 dollars and the Normandy bundle is 105. You will get a lot extra for that 25 dollars. The Normandy Forum is quite active as well. Best value! This Complete Edition Bundle contains it all: the base game and all modules (Commonwealth Forces and Market Garden), packs (Vehicle Pack) and uprgades (2.0 and 3.0) in one package, all updated to the very latest version! If you are new to Combat Mission Battle for Normandy, this is the one-stop-shop package for you, no patches or any other files required!

Staying within the options offered, I would take more campaigns and scenarios.

Very well done and very much appreciated.

Hmmmm.......I hadn't thought of that........will have to give it a try.

I just achieved my second victory playing "Phase Line Green". I used my normal tactics and it worked. I also played "August Morning" that I skipped over at the beginning and got a Major Victory. Thank Goodness for that........................I thought I had completely lost my touch.

The next time I put MG's in buildings I will give them their own floor.

I save and reload only to understand what happened and then I try to learn from it.

Thanks for the advice Slysniper. I have been using the approaches you mention for a long time now but they are not serving me well in CMBS. Perhaps I will need to do some fine tuning for this title. I am sure it has also has to do with combat survivability on the modern battlefield where everyone is armed to the teeth. I am glad to find it so challenging. It makes you think a lot about what you are doing. I hope not to pull out to much hair in frustration as mine is already thinning quite nicely.

I have been playing a PBEM. I put 2 MG's in the top floor of a 5 story building. They were taking forever to set up. I moved one to the 4th floor. At the same time I had 2 small teams on the move. One to the 5 th floor and the other to the fourth floor of the same building. With all the teams and the MG's in place they still did not set up. So then I moved the Non MG teams to different floors so the MG's were completely alone on different floors. By the end of the next move they had both set up.

I find patience is one of the keys to success. Once I understood that I started to have better results. It is interesting how things can seem to move along slowly and then within 5 or 10 minutes everything starts to resolve....................unfortunately it is sometimes not in my favour............................

I find the QB's are quite winnable...............as you say the battles are harder. I usually play at Elite level. Iron confuses the hell out of me.

I have been playing CM since 1999. I have always enjoyed playing PBEM as well as against the A.I. With the previous games, I have found the A.I. gave me some tense moments but usually I prevailed and won. CMBS is much more challenging for me. I have played the small battles up to "Object Delta" and have not won once. I don't mind as I find the scenarios very interesting and the challenge to be fun. How are you all doing against the A.I. ?

Great look. Thanks a lot!!

My sentiments exactly. No one has a crystal ball or a monopoly on truth.

I am just thankful for the game. Warts and all, there is no other that brings the same amount of fidelity to tactical gaming. You can be sure I would like improvements but I also recognize the work, creativity, and thoughtfulness that have made Combat Mission excellent right from the beginning.

How do you envision it working? Details would need to be arranged concerning frequency of communication for instance. What would the referee's responsibility be? I see that each player could plot their move and then send it to the Commander who would then review the moves for a sense of what was happening and then forward the turn to the opposite Commander who would send it off to his troops. Commanders could not change anything on that turn and could only advise their subordinates after the current turn was sent to their opposite number. I am not sure where the referee would come in. That would be a minimum of 4 exchanges per side per turn. That would increase on the next turn if the Commander issued any directions to his subordinates. Would this be the Iron Man mode of play? I think it would be fun if you could find enough players who could commit to the concept.

Exactly, and the best anyone posting here can do from their armchair is speculate. My speculation is that the Ukrainian economy and Military are teetering on the brink of collapse.

This article is quite interesting. http://www.sott.net/article/292772-Minsk-Merkel-and-the-American-Way-Der-Spiegel-says-Putin-has-won

In war, truth is the first casualty. Aeschylus, Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC)

It was reported in reputable media outlets that the shelling came mostly from the Ukraine side. However I can't possibly know the truth of the situation as I was not there and do not not have first hand knowledge of it. I imagine most of us posting here are in the same boat. Your last sentence is quite telling as to your objectivity. Russians post here and they seem quite civil in their postings and deserve the same.

As I recall, most independent observers found that the Ukrainians were largely to blame for indiscriminate shelling. There is more to the situation in Ukraine than we know and is reported. As far as blame and responsibility, there is surely enough to go around to all countries involved. Ironically the only country whose approach seems balanced is Germany's.

People have been known to criticize Battlefront and CM frequently. It seems to be a great past time for those with a lot to say and little to offer. As Wargames go, Battlefront offers a great deal of fidelity to observing "proper combat results" considering their budget and market size. The only 3D wargame that is at all similar is Achtung Panzer Operation Star. That game however only offers Real Time without any multi-player at all. There was another 3D Russian front game called Panzer Command Ostfront which, in my view, is just not comparable to the above. Not to mention the attempt to port Close Combat to 3D which was called GI Combat if I recall correctly. Armed Assault and Battlefield are first person shooters. As such they appeal to a larger market which means more revenue and more money for development. They are not wargames as such. In my view it is remarkable that such a small company, serving such a niche group, has been able to provide such an excellent series of wargames. They have done an excellent job of balancing resources between graphic quality and providing a believable tactical experience.