Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Combatintman

  1. For me the Hill 214 battles and keeping enough of Team Yankee alive make this a shaky CM campaign prospect.
  2. To drag this thread closer to the subject of its title, there are no real nuances to avoiding getting whacked by aircraft. If you have air defence assets then deploy them: With half-decent fields of view/fire into the sky. In positions to cover the stuff you really really don't want to see get destroyed. Close to stocks of further missiles. In addition to the above, and/or if you don't have air defence assets: Use smoke to either obscure your really important stuff from the enemy asset calling in the air asset. Get yourself into woods or other terrain that offers you good concealment and, where possible cover as well. Seek out and utterly smash every single C2 and dedicated observation asset the enemy has. Employ rapid manoeuvre. Ultimately though, there is a fair amount of abstraction in the modelling of air/aviation and their engagement by ground assets so you will always be susceptible to the fortunes of war when you hear the sound of freedom above your troops.
  3. @Howler - the last sentence is bang on the nail - have a like mate.
  4. Been done since ... Bayonet charge foils enemy ambush - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) Not claiming this to be the last either.
  5. I can tell you for free that 'designed with the idea of humans playing vs humans' is a false assumption. The rule for bundled scenarios is that they can be played in all modes although exceptions to that rule were made for CMCW in relation to the Soviet Tactical Doctrine primer scenarios and a couple of others in that title. None of those exceptions include H2H only. There was no direction given to any of the scenario designers to optimise their scenarios for H2H for any title I've been involved with (CMSF-1 &2, CMRT, CMFB, CMFR, CMCW). The challenge of following the rule, particularly when making a scenario based on a real action, is that the scenario has to be winnable by both sides in all three modes. The get out clause is the one-liner in the 'Load New Game' screen where you can say 'best played as (insert side).' Designing H2H is even more variable: How do you know how skilled every single player is who buys the title? Which of those players is going to take Blue/Allied in your scenario? Which of those players is going to take Red/Axis in your scenario? Is one of those players going to play to their skill level or just have a bad day? Is one of those players going to have a good day and play above their skill level? Steve from Battlefront posted some time back that the data/feedback he has indicates that most people play the title in Human vs AI mode. This would likely explain why the rule of playable in all three modes was introduced. It also reinforces the point that your assumption is not well-founded. Nonetheless, designing for all three possible combinations is achievable but it generally involves employing most of the victory point combinations, asymmetric objectives and time limits. Achievable of course does not necessarily mean that your scenario is awesome in all three play modes. It should be in one of the three and if you can do it in two, then so much the better. If you can do it in all three then your name is @George MC Linking the above to your point that designers 'boost' defenders with 'tons of points' - that is correct in many instances. I 'boost' one side or the other or both sides with victory points in order to achieve the effect I intend. As an example, to avoid a turn one cease fire resulting in a victory for a defending force that typically occupies all of the high victory point objectives that the attacking player needs to capture I will 'boost' the attacker by giving that side the equivalent number of victory points for friendly casualties at a threshold that will only be achieved by the defender's actions half way through the battle (ballpark figure for illustration would be 20% casualties). The turn one ceasefire would; therefore, result in a draw. The intent here is to make both sides commit to the scenario and play it through. If both sides commit then the attacker will not get those victory points and is not intended to. You confirm these thresholds by testing and adjusting as necessary if that 20% (or whatever) threshold is achieved too early. Some of those 'boosts'; therefore, are never intended to take effect if the scenario is played with good intent by both sides through to its time limit or to a point where one player or the other genuinely elects to cease fire.
  6. If you've got CM Cold War and CM Fire and Rubble you have them already - they were bundled with those titles.
  7. Totally agree mate - I think others have tried the same thing but they petered out. I know the editor not quite inside out but not far off that; however, I have never really grasped QBs at all. I'll be honest that this has partly been due to the fact that I rarely play QBs so have less interest in them than making scenarios but I think that I ought to understand the things a lot better because after putting the graft into making a decent map, it seems a waste not to be able to offer it as a QB map. Good luck with the thread and I'm looking forward to learning from whatever contributions are offered by people who have walked the QB walk. Have a like mate.
  8. @chuckdyke - no just defined areas on the map using the click combination above in the 2D editor.
  9. The AI can be programmed to fire at area targets using the CTRL-click command.
  10. Means you can join them together without internal windows showing would be my guess.
  11. No there isn't a convenient way to do it. Pick your building with the appropriate size, shape and number of floors, go into 3D mode and then change the door/window style, the colour of the facade, the roof type and the window/door layout using the the ALT-click, SHIFT-click, CTRL-click and CTRL-click for modular buildings. For the independent buildings, you just have to know what they look like before you place them or place them, look at them in 3D to see whether you've got the right one or not. Independent buildings have more limited options in 3D - SHIFT-click will change the facade, CTRL-click will inflict damage on it.
  12. That's one of mine @Megalon Jones ... and it is Sichenhausen not Sichausen said something like this sickenhowzen. Have a like for the great video and always interesting to see how someone else tackles the mission.
  13. Apart from pretty much every set of orders in a 34 year military career I've received or read having them ... you're probably right.
  14. No - Combatintman was on the other side .... surprised they hung on for so long really ...
  15. Every infantryman had a ride and, as others have pointed out, this would have been an extremely lethal battlespace with NBC and masses of artillery. The BMP series was designed to reflect this reality. Strain all you like, but it would have been a suicide tactic. From an implementation point of view, it was discussed and discarded. The coding is done and from similar discussion held on the CMBN forums over the years, it is a PITA to implement and I doubt Battlefront will revisit this original design decision so unfortunately it is one of those things you're going to have to live with.
  16. The other thing that sometimes causes problems is elevations, particularly when trying to blast building walls. If the ground in the adjoining tile is slightly higher than the building, your troops will just go around and look for a door. Best bet with your blast commands is to have show all moves toggled and check that your blast unit is showing a brown/blast rather than yellow/quick move before you hit the red button. As I said earlier, it is annoying, it is fiddly and it should behave better than it does currently.
  17. To fight it has to be maintained - pack lift, track bashing ... ever thought about those considerations?
  18. Happens often - the blast command is fiddly and should behave better than it does. If you have a save of the order you gave to the blast team that would probably add more.
  19. Dhobi dust I reckon ... household, washing, Henkel detergents and washing powder, Imi Stock Photo - Alamy
  • Create New...