Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by QuiGon

  1. On 5/25/2021 at 10:26 PM, ChrisND said:

    New QB points for the patch:

    Huge: 22,500

    Large: 14,100

    Medium: 8,850

    Small: 5,568

    Tiny: 3517

    EDIT: I posted the numbers for an Attack scenario. For Meeting Engagement, Huge is 18,020.

    Thanks, that's quite an improvement, although a maximum of 18,020 points for a meeting engagement is still not enough IMHO. I'm currently playing a ~30,000 point PBEM meeting engagement on a 4 x 4.5 km map, using the Scenario Editor to put the troops together, which is rather cumbersome as it doesn't show a budget. A flexible solution, where we can define our own budget would be really helpful :)

  2. 54 minutes ago, Bufo said:


    The prices of M60 tanks are strange. In my understanding, the better / more capable of a tanks is, the more it costs.

    However these are the prices:

    M60A1: 288

    M60A1 RISE: 305

    M60A1 RISE+: 298

    M60A1 RISE PASSIVE: 303

    It should be increasing in value.

    Also M60A3 and M60A3 TTS costs the same. Who will buy the former? It makes no sense other than role playing.

    Indeed, I've noticed that as well when I did a QB after the game got released and mentioned it here:

    On 5/1/2021 at 2:59 PM, QuiGon said:

    In the quick battle unit editor the M60A1 Patton (RISE) is more expansive than the upgraded M60A1 Patton (RISE +) and M60A1 Patton (RISE Passive).

    Observed with veteran experience, high motivation, fit fitness, 0 leadership.


  3. On 5/17/2021 at 1:13 AM, IanL said:

    Yep, if you are playing a trusted opponent you can get there yourself using the scenario editor. Check out this post:


    That's actually what I ended up doing. The search function lead me to it. It's much more cumbersome though than just setting a bigger QB budget.

    And the problem doesn't end there. I'm playing a MP match of CM:CW this way, so I put together my force in the quick battle purchase screen with a budget of 30,000 points that we agreed on. Then I went to the scenario editor to put the same force together there, that I created in the QB setup, but... I couldn't! The formations available in the scenario editor are quite a lot different than the ones available in a QB (even if same month and year is set)!!!

    For example: In a QB the US has infantry, mech and armored categories, while in the scenario editor there are only infantry and mech categories available to the US. Armor is missing there, instead armored formations are mixed in with the mech infantry. That leads to the next problem: I chose a mech infantry bataillon (task force) in the QB setup, where each company consisted of 3 mech rifle platoons and a 4th weapons platoon. Now in the scenario editor unit setup, the mech infantry bataillon (task force) is a totally differnt formation, where the 3rd platoon in each company is a tank platoon...

    This inconsistency makes it really difficult to play it as you proposed 😔

  4. The small size of QBs is one of my major gripes with the CM series. I would love to fight battailon(+) quick battles, but even if the battle size is set to "huge" it often doesn't provide enough budget points to do so. In CM:CW for example, a huge meeting engagement gives you ~13,000pts, but even a single M113 equipped US Mech Infantry battailon costs ~20,000 pts. I really wish there would be a bigger option than "huge" or even better: an option to set custom budgets.

     @Battlefront.com please add this. I would really really appreciate it! 🙏

    It's been requested over and over:


  5. In the quick battle unit editor the M60A1 Patton (RISE) is more expansive than the upgraded M60A1 Patton (RISE +) and M60A1 Patton (RISE Passive).

    Observed with veteran experience, high motivation, fit fitness, 0 leadership.

  6. On 4/12/2021 at 10:10 PM, Erwin said:

    can casualties be caused by any caliber?


    I've seen this happening just a few days ago in CMFI as I described above. I saw 3-4 FF incidents in that battle, all of them small arms (rifles and even pistols) and all of them without area fire. Only one of those FF incidents resultet in a casuality though and this one was caused by a Carcano bolt action rifle (8mm).

  7. 1 hour ago, Pelican Pal said:

    My test was done in Black Sea (I used IRON difficulty mode to ensure they were out of contact + High EW) and I could not get small-arms to cause casualties. I'm on Steam version.

    What verson of FI are you on?

    v2.11 non-steam

    It wasn't the first time I've seen friendly fire with small arms (and without area fire), but never before did I see it happen that often in a single battle.

  8. I've witnessed several small arms friendly fire incidents in a night battle playing the Italian forces in CMFI just yesterday. It was the first mission of the "Fleeting Moment" campaign and there it happened several times that some troops opened fire with their rifles on their comrades. I guess this can happen if they are out of comms, which can happen quite easily with the Italians and their lack of radios. Just to be clear: No area fire commands where used when the friendly fire incidents happened. One of the incidents was at pretty close range even, when my company commander opened fire on one of his subordinates using his pistol!

    After one of my troops got killed by one of his comrades I tried to reduce friendly fire by assigning fire arcs to all my troops, to prevent them to shoot in the direction of friendly forces.

    It certainly makes night battles "more interesting".

  9. On 4/10/2021 at 5:00 PM, Artkin said:

    Ah yes this seems just slightly automated. You still need dropbox... IMO - unacceptable.

    This would never work, or make sense to push as a proper "MP". People in the "mainstream" gaming hemisphere would never accept this.

    I was hoping for genuine multiplayer Real Time support, as most RTS are. BFC will never make it big if they dont push real time multiplayer IMO. The audience that wants to play Xcom and similar games is just too small.


    Uhm, real time multiplayer over the internet is already available in all the current CM games?!

  10. I just heard the news and I'm absolutely stunned that this is actually happening now!!

    Thank you @Battlefront.com for making this dream of me a reality! I preordered right away :)


    On 2/3/2015 at 8:59 PM, QuiGon said:

    If there will be a CMFG a dream would become true for me. I really like that setting (big fan of OFP, WiC, Wargame and RSR), so besides new modules for CMBS I would really like to see BF developing CMFG.


    On 5/9/2017 at 3:07 PM, QuiGon said:

    Combat Mission: Fulda Gap 85' would indeed be a dream comming true. I hope it will happen at some point.


  11. On 5/31/2020 at 9:10 AM, SgtHatred said:

    2-player turn based already exists. The timer can't be adjusted and you can't rewind the action because it's just real-time mode with a 1 minute auto-pause. You can even give orders during the playback, although I am pretty sure you are not supposed to.

    This is actually my preferred choice for MP battles, but it is really missing the ability to rewind the action, as you can in SP. I would be so glad if that ability would be added!!

  12. The german Gebirgsjäger only use it for operations in very difficult terrain (usally snow). I doubt it would be used in Syria. They would rather use the Fuchs (or the GTK Boxer nowadays) in that environment. Afaik it has not been used in any combat operation by the Bundeswehr, but the British Royal Marines have used it quite a lot in Afghanistan, even in combat.

  • Create New...