Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SeinfeldRules last won the day on May 8

SeinfeldRules had the most liked content!


  • Location
    San Jose, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,542 profile views

SeinfeldRules's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. I believe the desert camouflage uniform was only issued to soldiers deployed to an overseas desert environment.
  2. So I've replayed this one multiple times and I'm puzzled... I chose this variation to utilize the openness of the terrain and attempt to surprise the Russian FSE, as was stated in the mission briefing. However, your starting force is so lackluster, and the enemy so numerous and deployed so far forward to start with, you basically have no chance of leaving Brown Pass or your starting area before the rest of the company arrives. In fact, I found the best strategy was to cluster my forces into the lowest ground possible and then wait for the rest of my company to arrive. By that point the enemy is only a minute or two from reaching your starting area and you can setup a reverse slope defense with your tanks. Anything else is almost guaranteed to lose you the majority of your starting force to either artillery or BMPs. The enemy's head long rush into your starting area is enough to attrit about half of them, then it's a game of cat and mouse with your TOW launchers and tanks to take out the rest of the BMPs that sit right outside the pass (with my all seeing FSO sitting on the side of the mountain pointing them out)... basically leaving the rest of the map undefended for the "hasty attack". I feel like I gained none of the advantages of choosing the "hasty attack" option as I was forced to defend from the pass anyway. Perhaps I misunderstood the briefing or the intent of the scenario, but the enemy seems too numerous and too far forward to match the text.
  3. Some more NTC terrain that you wouldn't think of... up in the mountain ranges, light infantry would be right at home.
  4. Those PS Mags are still being published today, in almost the exact same art style (though no more scantily clad women). Really useful source, usually has obscure info that would be impossible to find elsewhere.
  5. The desert really has a special beauty to it. The more you explore, the more you find beyond the stereotypical flat plains and rocky mountains. Like Mastiff said, you can find wadis that would swallow a platoon whole. '
  6. How many "master maps" of NTC are there? Also, in my year or so out here, I don't think I've ever seen a cactus that was higher then my shin, so the lack of cactus assets is actually pretty realistic. 😄
  7. Well thank you for the compliment! The new kinder, gentler term is Observer, Coach/Trainer. Observer Controller was the old term, back when the OCs just stood and watched, and then mercilessly crushed souls in the AAR! Now we take a more active role in course correcting units, hence the "coach". Some units we have to do more hard coaching then others. 😄 NTC is a very interesting place with lots of history, and with how many units rotate through it really is a modern "battlefield" in a sense. Very excited to see what CM has to offer.
  8. Love that you guys are including the National Training Center! As a OC/T at the NTC, I'm looking forward to some of our iconic "battlefields" being replicated in their full CM glory. Are there any plans for NTC Master Maps?
  9. I wonder if negative scores for objectives would work? Could have a hidden touch objective surrounding the extra forces that will trip when a player moves units out.
  10. Community maps are possible, you can't copy paste but you can reduce the size of a map to what you want to use. It's basically how master maps are right now. Maps that large are incredibly hard to make detailed however, mostly because as you build more and more elevation data into the map the editing process grinds to a halt as the game re-calculates every. single. point. Well it kind of resembles the cliffs in Dinant... which is kind of in the Ardennes! Would probably make an interesting "what-if" scenario...
  11. Building off Bulletpoint, I think the aspect of having to make a less then perfect decision amplifies that satisfaction even more. The terrain of a map plays a huge role in this, because it is the one thing you have no influence over. Real life commanders never had the perfect support by fire position or covered routes into the enemies rear, they had to deal with the hand their were dealt, both on offense and defense. The terrain was as much of an enemy sometimes as the man on the pointy end of your rifle. It's why the first step of almost any military planning process is to analyze the terrain. The great captains of military history are as renowned for their ability to read the ground just as much as their ability to lead men. "Terrain walks" are a staple of any military staff ride. All this to say that when you "bake in" terrain, you are taking away a big chunk of the decision making process. When you bake in these convenient support by fire positions, the decision is no longer "where on this map should I place my support by fire position?", but instead "should I go to Position A, B or C?". On a "natural" map, maybe there is no tenable support by fire position. The player must adapt. Maybe they utilize more of their artillery up front to compensate. Or choose to utilize a smoke screen. Or one of a hundred other ways a player can utilize the terrain and their understanding of tactics to achieve their mission. Offering up a player a series of built in options is no longer a tactical game, but a "choose your own adventure". It's why I'm deeply dissatisfied with games like the new X-Com or Unity of Command - the game offers up to you a series of baked in options, of which only a few actually work. Another factor of tactical appeal is that the closer a map is to realistic terrain, the more likely you are to utilize realistic tactics. Half the fun of Combat Mission is pretending you're a WW2 commander and understanding why they made the decision they did. Check out combatintman's excellent play through of one of my scenarios here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/ He dives deep into an excellent analysis of the terrain I provided and builds a plan that I never even envisioned while designing the scenario. That's exciting! That's what real commanders had to do! Not solving a puzzle the designer offered up to you. Later in that thread I also talk about how I designed the map and more about my philosophy on scenario design. As for why sometimes *too* realistic is a bad thing, I imagine a faithful re-creation of Ardennes style woods would result in little decision making beyond putting your soldiers in a line and waiting until they step on a mine or take a bullet to the face from 15m away. Realistic terrain yes, but not very fun. Also, a personal pet peeve of mine - zig zag roads. Yes, the "real thing" has a road branching straight off at a 67.76 degree angle from the main junction, but if I try to replicate that in Combat Mission with the draw tool, it will create a mess of zig zaggy road sections. If you now try to put a hedge or forest along that road, it will inevitably create a break in LOS on what is, in real life, an arrow straight road that just happens to branch off at a weird angle. The resulting CM recreation looks odd and often plays odd.
  12. Try my CMRT "Assault Position" and "Pastureland" for examples of how open fields can be tweaked to create interesting tactical situations! Pastureland takes place pretty much entirely in an "open" field. The only cover you have is the folds you find in the terrain. Also check this out: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=AD+Waldbillig+Waltz.btt It's a scenario I was never able to get over the goal line due to other commitments, but I think it's probably one of my better maps. It has the size and terrain you are looking for and is based heavily off the real thing. Also, re:frontages again. Remember that the entire company was not on line, and these companies could often be at 50% strength if they've been in heavy combat. These companies may only have a platoon up, and that platoon may only be 25 dudes. That stuff is lost in translation sometimes.
  13. On elevations, I will say don't be afraid to create that dead ground. Hike through the hills and you'll see dead space is a common issue defending units would have to deal with in real life. Going out of your way to create clear lines of sight creates the tabletop gaming look you are actually trying to avoid. Natural hills have undulations and numerous draws and spurs that create difficulties for the defender and opportunities for the attacker. I don't think any attacking infantry force would ever have taken a hilltop defensive position if those natural dead spaces didn't exist in real life. You'd be surprised at how nuanced and "stepped" terrain can be in real life. I've found the best way to construct realistic elevations is to draw your contour lines fairly spread out (10 or 15m in elevations) and then using the "Adjust" tool set to 1m to add variation. This creates the natural folds you are looking to re-create, adding micro terrain infantry can utilize. I go to great lengths to try to re-create the real world in CM, and many of the things you discuss about here concern me as well. Check out some of my scenario maps to see how I deal with them. I put an extraordinary amount of time into my elevations and villages. Also on the subject of infantry frontages, attacking infantry forces would absolutely stick to cover. Defensive lines weren't literal lines of men occupying every piece of ground, instead clustering and flowing around the terrain that is actually defensible. Vast open ground could easily be covered by artillery and machinegun fire, and often didn't serve a purpose anyway. Roads have always been the key to warfare and defenses were focused around those key avenues of approach. Even a "hilltop defense" was key only because it overlooked an avenue of approach needed by the attacker to continue their offensive. Your map may be 1.5km wide but not every piece of ground on that map is key terrain the defender would occupy or even care about. A 1.5km map would probably support an attacking infantry battalion with 2 companies up 1 back against a company sized defending force. Check out the US Army Green Books, they provide a history of the US Army in WW2 in all theaters, and have excellent maps sometimes showing maneuver down to the company level. Gives a great picture on how WW2 armies actually fought and what they considered important. Also, don't overly concern yourself with machinegun lines of fire - take a trip through Europe on Google Street view and see how rare it actually is to have long sight lines. Far too often vegetation and microterrain blocks line of sight over what would otherwise look like good ground. Remember, these machineguns are dug in at ground height! Go for a walk outside and when you think you've found a good position, lie down and see how much your opinion changes!
  14. @ebphotoTry this link! https://www.dropbox.com/s/tr4lgsdlo6sehnl/AD CMRT Terrain Mod.zip?dl=0
  15. This map looks fantastic - one of the very few urban settings I've seen done well. Most look sterile and repetitive, you've really taken it to the next level!
  • Create New...