Jump to content

Ithikial_AU

Members
  • Posts

    3,098
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Ithikial_AU

  1. Steam should auto remove the duplicates from collections and adjust the price accordingly automatically. At least that's how it's worked when I've bought Paradox content.
  2. Cold. This battle pack is set within the CMBN game family timeframe and geography of June 1944 - September 1944.
  3. Just to confirm that "JuJu's UI" including my update is purely a bmp replacer mod and doesn't touch the scripts at all. A mortar should still display as "Not Positioned" if that is the case. If it's destroyed, could it or the halftrack have taken the (granted very lucky) indirect hit itself at some point? Is there any sign that the unit is coming under fire?
  4. It was. Hope you enjoy. Read the briefings, push hard and don't be scared to go a bit unorthodox with your panzers to get the job done - especially in Mission 1. Mission 2 & 3 largely use the same forces.
  5. It was a real trick getting all the nations in the right months for the Italian theater. Free French are available from Nov 1943 to July 1944. All Free French Forces were taken off the front lines in Italy in July 1944 to prepare for Operation Dragoon in August, which is not part of the CMFI remit.
  6. The stock scenarios and campaigns with a module release are meant to use the new formations and toys. With most of the F&R content being for the Germans (just a product of history with minimal Soviets changes to kit & formations this late in the war), the inclusion of lend lease equipment organically became a central theme of the module for the Soviet side. This is probably why you see many of the scenarios including Shermans, given the scenario designers are looking for historical engagements following these lend lease equipped formations. If you are sick of Shermans, I know The Battle of Tukums 3 scenario campaign doesn't include any. But you may be sick of Soviet made armour by the end of it. All of the German formations except one are newly included in the FR module while all of the Soviet formations are from the CMRT base game.
  7. The action took place on October 4th and 5th so just sneaks into CMFB.
  8. No it's the October crossroads assault in Holland and best of my knowledge hasn't been recreated by anyone in the community in CMFB. Not sure it would be the best scenario being a bit of a one sided turkey shoot. Would be interesting if in game you could have the pixeltruppen of Capt Winters alone firing shots at the German company in the game without the German TacAI gunning him down in two seconds.
  9. The game series is unique because some elements are designed to feel the same allowing other areas of focus, especially the history, to shine through. An MG42 will always 'feel' the same regardless of the family the game is with but the subtle differences in different formation TOE's, OOB's and terrain in each theatre are allowed to be the focus. DLC is the wrong phrase for the modules IMO. I've always described them as 'old fashioned' expansion packs similar to the norm with older games before the internet was as prevalent. I've been directly akd's crosshairs only once and he won. He still scares and amazes me with some of the nit-picking detail he finds primary evidence for. I think he has a time machine and hops back and forth between the 1940's and the present.
  10. As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up: 1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical. 2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc. 3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above) 4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started. 4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain. Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios.
  11. A good post. With the GWOT, it seems that Australia rarely sent more than a battalion and a handful of aircraft to overseas areas of operations let alone a full brigade of troops to take and occupy terrain alongside their allied partners. I've suspected logistics constraints, effectively not having a system in place for supporting ongoing larger scale deployments, also played/dictated Australia's contributions over the last few decades. <-- Has not served a day in uniform (if you don't count cadets in high school ) so freely admit I'm an armchair general happy to be schooled.
  12. PKD? It's the logo from the original classic 'Deus Ex' game from the year 2000. Still one of the best games ever made IMO.
  13. Honestly, the easiest way to do this would be to get a license to turn this book series into a game. Effectively WW2 humans vs modern era alien space lizards. It's effectively CMSF NATO vs all nations in the WW2 families. Honestly, I'd love a sci-fi combat mission the style of 'The Expanse' or 'Firefly'. Human only... some central alliance versus the outer rim rebels or some such. But I know it's a bigger pipe dream than CM2 Africa.
  14. https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cmbn-other/jujus-ui-mod-v6-unification-mod/ CMRT files are most certainly there...
  15. If you've got the file from the panzershrek example can you provide a copy via a dropbox link or something similar?
  16. @Chibot Mk IX - With the panzerschreks were there any other schreck teams or spare rockets in the truck nearby? Heavy weapon ammo can be shared with nearby units. It's why on map mortar platoons bunched together appear to have 'so much ammo' when it's really a pool the individual unit can draw upon in it's current position. Test the Germans in CMSF. Pick up additional faust rockets and then try to buddy aid. The German Panzergrenadier squads in CMSF2 can be overloaded very easily.
  17. For a moment there I thought they were Dragon's Teeth and thought oooh that would be cool, then realised we lack that type of obstacle in CM2. Haystacks... I feel sorry for you already George.
  18. Sorry no I haven't but Prit Buttar's "Between Giants" was a key source of mine in building the Battle of Tukums campaign for the Fire and Rubble release. Was a good and easy to follow read. Keen to look at his other books when I get chance.
  19. Please no. BF have a habit of predicting locations of conflicts before they happen when they make a modern title and Taiwan is a little close to home.
  20. Any wargamer, including a CM wargamer, has the luxury of not needing to 'worry about tomorrow', or in other words "what happens after the scenario clock ticks over to 0:00". A real world commander has to worry about his formation's combat effectiveness for whatever unknown objective may come at them next. CM commanders can by default be far more risk taking than their real world counterparts given they don't have these burdens. They also don't have to watch as their buddies getting their heads blown off or needing to write letters home to grieving mothers. For example, "Your son died heroically as I ordered him to charge a suspected enemy held trench system on his own so I could spot the location of enemy machine guns. He was the last man in his squad anyway... and was close by... it was his turn." I'm using WW2 here, but when you read a historical account of an engagement it will likely take many hours more than what is depicted in a CM scenario as the process of advancing in enemy territory is at a glacial pace versus wargamers who don't have the burdens listed above. Forces are also more likely to disengage a lot sooner than a CM Commander, (MikeyD's comment about CM Commanders being French WWI generals is great! ). You can read about engagements ending after one side experiences 10 casualties, while the CM commander throws in everything to make it happen, again because they don't need to worry about the shape and combat effectiveness of his force once the scenario clock reaches "0:00". (Okay, campaigns can be slightly different). To remedy this, a scenario designer can be brutally harsh with victory points assignment to force the player to try and preserve his force no matter what, but I'm guessing the posts about overly hard scenarios would skyrocket on this forums. Does this make CM bad? No. In the end CM is a game based on reality, not reality itself. Thankfully! I'd hate to have me as my commander on the battlefield given my CM performance!
  21. Looks amazing. Looking forward to another GeorgeMC eastern front slog. My views on the map editor, "Easy to learn, difficult to master". I'm in the same boat as I try to avoid but always fall into the trap of trying to be perfectionist with maps. It's really tempting when you are looking at the overlay at the same time as laying out buildings, roads and elevations.
×
×
  • Create New...