QuiGon
-
Posts
78 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by QuiGon
-
-
-
On 2/7/2023 at 2:56 AM, Centurian52 said:
I believe the Bundeswehr was using the Panzerfaust 44 (44 referring to the size, in mm, of the barrel) during the timeframe of CMCW (entered service in 1967, phased out in the 1990s as it was gradually replaced by the Panzerfaust 3 from 1987 on (I'm sure we all remember the Panzerfaust 3 from CMSF2)). It's one of the reasons I was hoping to get the Bundeswehr in this module (not that I mind getting the BAOR instead). Similar to the RPG-7 in a lot of ways. Reloadable, with a similar range to and slightly better penetration than the RPG-7 (with the PG-7V rocket), rocket was bigger than the barrel (67mm to the barrel's 44mm, so you get a similar look with a larger warhead sticking out of a smaller barrel). Basically I think it would have played a lot like having RPG-7s on the blue team. Oh well, I'm sure we'll get it next time. And we have Chieftains as a consolation prize, so I can't really complain.
They used both during the late Cold War: PzF44 was the light AT ("Leichte Panzerfaust") and the Carl Gustav was the heavy AT ("Schwere Panzerfaust"). After the Cold War and the introduction of the current Panzerfaust 3 the Carl Gustav actually remained in service with the Bundeswehr as a provider for battlefield illumination ("Leuchtbüchse"). It was used in this role in Afghanistan to launch illumination flares at night to illuminate the area.
-
52 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:
It's pretty skimpy on details.
It lists all the changes?
-
On 2/3/2023 at 10:09 PM, Grey_Fox said:
Is there a full change log?
Check the included Readme.
-
On 2/1/2023 at 3:56 PM, Battlefront.com said:
The Cold War guys are putting something together for you all.
Note that I screwed up and said "time forward", but that is incorrect. I'll let them explain everything since I obviously can't be trusted with the details
In my head I was remembering a very early design of jumping ahead to the early 80s, but there were too many equipment changes to make that viable as a Module.
Haha, fair enough
On 2/1/2023 at 3:56 PM, Battlefront.com said:Plus, we figured you guys would want BAOR more than a new flavor of Yank!
True, although not as much as I would like to see the Iron Cross!
-
On 1/31/2023 at 7:11 AM, Aragorn2002 said:
Please give us the other nations for the NATO module for CW too. Many of us are dying to know.
On 1/31/2023 at 7:16 AM, Battlefront.com said:I'll get some sort of discussion about the details going soon.
Steve
I'm one of those dying to know, so I'm really looking forward to those details!
-
16 hours ago, Artkin said:
Was hoping for some bones, but thanks for the news, good or bad the clarity is appreciated..
This! So thanks a lot for the update Steve! I really appreciate it!
-
Throw them some bones!
-
On 1/9/2023 at 1:21 AM, Simcoe said:
What is everyone most looking forward to in 2023?
I'm waiting for CMCW module (German forces
) more than anything. A new CMBS module would also be nice.
-
Looking for some news about 2023
-
I just ran into this issue again. I haven't played SP in a while, so I forgot that overwriting save games is an issue, as I always use unique savegame names in MP for better coordination with my battle buddy.
Now I played CMCW for several hours in SP yesterday and then saved the game using a savegame name that already existed in order to overwrite the old one. It seemed to save successfully (game froze for several seconds as it usually does while busy saving), but when I wanted to load the file today, it was still the old savegame and several hours of gameplay are lost
-
On 5/31/2011 at 1:00 AM, Battlefront.com said:
Yes, we assume that the Radio is rescued. We do have in mind changes, in the future, where there isn't an automatic assumption like this. But it gets us into some sticky issues which we didn't think were a good idea to mess with this time around.
Steve
I hope this is still on the list, because I find it pretty odd that the radio just magically gets rescued if the radio operator gets WIA/KIA on retreat, while all other equipment has to be picked up manually through buddy aid.
-
Fun fact about the Luchs recon AFV:
It basically had two roles during the Cold War:
1) Frontline recon: In this role it would have done classic frontline recon for the armored units of the Bundeswehr. Nothing special about it.
2) Deep recon: This is a somewhat uniqute role for an armored vehicle. In this role Luchs AFVs would have been tasked with slipping through the frontline and conducting recon up to 150km behind enemy lines. Moving at night, observing from a hideout during the day.
It's been designed with this role in mind:
- It's silhouette is broadly similar to that of a soviet BTR
- It was equipped with a HF long range radio to be able to stay in contact with the HQ over long distances.
- It's incredibly silent, so much that you often hear the sound of the tires, before you hear the engine. On excersies with these vehicles, specific resting areas had to be designated for the infantry as there had been a deadly accident where a soldier got rolled over by a Luchs during an exercise while he was sleeping.
- It has a dedicated reverse driver, who would steer the vehicle while in reverse. It could drive just as fast in reverse than it could drive forward (100 km/h).
- It was ambhibious to cross rivers on its own.
I still find it mind boggling to this day, if I imagine I had to drive around behind enemy lines in such a big vehicle. -
I just found this video on youtube and thought it might fit well here, although it probably has not much new information for most of you:
-
1 hour ago, BFCElvis said:
Fixed. Thank you.
Thanks!
-
On 12/27/2020 at 3:03 AM, BamaMatt said:
The patch is gone. It says invalid link.
Patch is still missing @Battlefront.com @BFCElvis!
-
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
-
~13,000 points for huge quick battles is nowhere enough for the big maps (especially if air and arty support is involved). I would love to see if the budget points for quick battles could be increased, as even a single US mech bataillon without additional support costs more than 20,000 points.
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
-
On 4/30/2021 at 8:46 PM, Redwolf said:
I'm thinking German forces East and West, and winter terrain/textures.
This! Both!
-
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.
-
The year to come - 2024 (Part 1)
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by QuiGon
I'm really disappointed, that the CMBS module was scrapped as I find modern warfare just so much more interesting than the same old WW2 stuff. Now I don't know the exact reasons behind this decision, but I never really understood why it is fine to make games featuring Nazi Germany and SS units, bot it's not ok to make games about (certain?) current conflicts, especially as CMBS has its own setting that is distinct from the real world war. But maybe this distinct setting is actually the reason for the cancellation as its TO&E is pretty outdated by now and thus it might be weird to expand on that. That would actually be an argument I could understand somewhat.
Anyways, I really hope there will be a new modern warfare CM to replace CMBS for us players that find WW2 with its simple weapon systems and tactics rather boring.
For now I'm really stoked for CMCW BAOR