Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by IanL

  1. 22 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

    One thing that i am considdering to include , in some of my future scenarios atleast, is some degree of 'custom difficulty setting'...

    In addition to the default player-force that the scenario has been designed to be played with i'm thinking of adding some additional units (located on a small exitzone) at the rear of the player setup area. If the player would like to include some of those units he simply moves them of the exitzone before hitting go (during setup). This will make the scenario somewhat easier then the default setup.

    That's actually a pretty cool idea.

    22 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

    As of now i have not considdered any VP impacts of these tweaks of the original force...

    And that's the brilliant part. Since units assigned to exit are considered to score VPs for the opposition if they do not exit the battlefield. That means you can assign some number of points to those units and by keeping them the player is shifting VPs to their opponent. The more they decide to keep the more points their opponent starts with as a handy-cap.

  2. 16 hours ago, George MC said:

    I have a vague memory (don't quote me!) that the crew of the AFV will always have the appropriate round loaded and ready to fire (except smoke) i..e if they turn a corner and its a tank they'll fire AP, if infantry HE.

    You should get quoted because you are correct. In order to keep things simple and avoid long discussions about how a tank's commander should have known to have X type of round ready because it's obvious that Y. Etc.

    Really smoke rounds are the same. If you give a tank a smoke order they don't have to first fire the HE round they have loaded they just start firing smoke.

    It's just an abstraction that makes game play smoother.

  3. 2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

    (G) You forget all about kicking in the door like an action hero, and instead you use smoke, move your Bren guns into cover with LOF within 150m of the buildings. When the smoke clears, you shoot it out with the Germans and then once they are dead you enter the builing. 

    What he said.

    Once you think everything is quiet then follow A, B or C just to be sure.

    2 hours ago, markshot said:

    No satchel charges, no priest, no M1A2 ...  Just bolt action rifles; 1895 surplus.

    Sure sure bring those too :D

  4. 1 minute ago, John1966 said:

    Which begs the question as to whether a tank is "live" to some units but not others - I thought it would be KO'd for everyone because when you click on it, it's live even though I saw the crew bail

    I am not sure about the KO status being per unit. But keep in mind that crew can bail on a tank that is not KO'd. So, in this case it may not have been.

  5. There are lots of explanations that contribute: poor play on our and the computer's part, a misunderstanding of how different casualty rates were at he tip of the spear vs the over all numbers, various (mostly incorrect) theories about fortifications and modeling etc.

    The biggest difference is that we don't act like real commanders. We press far too much and don't withdraw when we take casualties. In a real action units rarely stay and fight on and on. They pull back to fright another day or bring up extra fire power or wait for support etc.

    We are playing a game so we don't do that. If you play a game with someone like @Bil Hardenberger or another professional they will tell you when they would be done in real life and trust me it is way way before most people stop. Including myself.

  6. 1 hour ago, John1966 said:

    They treated it as a live tank. Very odd.

    Yep, the units in the game do not automatically know if they KO'ed something. Unless their is smoke and fire. I once had a sherman pump 7 rounds into a PzIV from under 50m (it was in thick woods so viability was still not great). I was worried there was a bug but my opponent reported that the Panzer was dead after the second shot. The Sherman crew kept firing because they just didn't know it was already toast.

    That's the most extreme example I have personally seen.

    PS your Sherman crew is smart. The last time one of my Sherman tanks got a clean shot at the back of a panther it bounced of the turret and then I watched in horror as the Panther gunner turned the turret around and took out the Sherman in one shot.

  7. On 9/29/2020 at 2:22 PM, markshot said:

    So, are QBs more worth the time in CMx2?

    Yes, I believe so. However there are a few things you should be aware of.

    The automatic selection of enemy forces can be spotty at times. Things have gotten better in the later releases but they still sometimes pick goofy forces. One way to mitigate this is to set the QB for human force selection and then use the suggest button. Try to not look to closely at the enemy forces but re do the suggestion if it should pick nothing but flame thrower units for some thing else odd. Unless you feel like facing a wall of fire - that could be interesting. 🙂

    Also, the later maps and AI plans are better than the early ones - @MarkEzra got better and better at making them. You can also manually select maps. You can make it feel pretty random by just scrolling and picking a map with a high number.


    On 9/29/2020 at 1:13 PM, markshot said:

    I don't think you got my type of player.  I want a good fight.  I am perfectly happy to lose the fight or get a minor win.

    But I don't want to lose by being tricked.  I want to lose because I advanced without clearing my flank or posting a rear guard.  And the enemy came up from behind me.

    Another example of a fair loss is letting my platoons all get bunched up, and then the enemy calls down arty on a TRP which was intended for exactly that purpose.


    So, I want an intellectual challenge.  Not a riddle.  I want to put all the pieces I have been taught about movement, recon, fire support, combined arms ... together and test my problem solving skills.  I want a chance to win.

    I'm right there with ya. However I feel I get that from CM2 games. It is not really clear to me why you feel CM2 games are less good at this than CM1 games in this regard. I just cannot play CM1 any more. CMBN was so much better in every respect (except in variety of forces when it came out) I just could not go back.


    On 9/29/2020 at 9:06 PM, Freyberg said:

    Some battles have been so good, I've played them again (the Road to Mounteburg springs to mind, and the CMSF2 one where you're clearing the big valley - there are others). It can also be fun to get into the editor and try it with a different but equivalent attacking force, of a different nationality.

    I share the frustration with having to replay campaign battles though - I'd usually rather give up...

    Agreed there are a few scenarios that I really like. Huzzar! and Carbide Carbide from CMBN being two (note they both use a variation of the same map - maybe I like the map :-). I normally play H2H so I don't have much campaign experience.

  8. Correct there is no branching. I'd like to see it however there are things you can do that come close. The thread @George MC linked has a bunch of ideas.

    1 hour ago, markshot said:

    PS:  I now see how you can have units on the map without the chain of command required.  You simply put them in reinforcement group that never actually shows up.  The explains why Bn is missing from of the scenarios.

    Yes, that is a thing that people do etc. However WRT battalion HQ you don't need to have them in a never arriving reinforcement group for them to show up on the C2 list. They just will appear as in C2 to the Company HQs when they have their radios up and running and out when they do not.


  9. 11 hours ago, Bozowans said:

    I'm not very good with the AI orders so it looks kinda clunky sometimes but it works.

    Cool. Thanks for sharing your experience and we all look forward to seeing something to play with.

    Also, smart move starting small. It is so tempting to go big but getting started small really helps.

  10. On 9/26/2020 at 7:35 PM, Collingwood said:

    Years ago I owned all modules for Shock Force, but for Mac

    With steam keys being available, does this mean that now I can buy the complete upgrade package for v2, then install it for PC instead via Steam?

    If so, that would be awesome. Thank you

    I'm pretty sure that will work. A while ago BFC made keys work for either platform so if you update to CMSF2 you can choose to play on a PC and you can have those keys moved over to steam.

    If I recall correctly you need to contact support to get your old CMSF1 game upgraded to CMSF2, press the blue new ticket button here: Scenario List - local

  11. 15 hours ago, sttp said:

    Good lord.... Should have predicted someone would take offense.

    Who me? No offense. I think @rocketman has the right idea. I am hoping that others will help him out. No offense to be taken. Unless you are referring to my pointing out the time you are wasting speculating about stuff you have no idea about. In which case I'm still not offended. :D

    15 hours ago, sttp said:

    Either the bug can be fixed at its core but hasn't yet been, or it can't be fixed at its core. There is, logically speaking, no 3rd option.

    So thanks for basically confirming what I said.

    Sure there is a third option - I laid it out. You can choose not be believe me that is your perogative. I don't really care other than it could detract from work that @rocketman is doing and that would be #sad.

    15 hours ago, sttp said:

    I guess we can infer from your message, then, that BFC's position is that the bug is just too complex to be fixed at its core. Okay then. So people can continue submitting (or re-submitting) individual instances of the bridge bug, and maybe they'll be fixed some day.

    Hey I don't actually speak for BFC and I have not seen the code I'm just reporting my opinion from what I have observed. And giving you guys a bit of a hard time for being so whiny. :)

    Yes, call out bugs when you find them. Better yet, organize around @rocketman's effort to go find some. That's a good thing (tm).


  12. 3 hours ago, Probus said:

    You don't happen to have direct links to the mega campaigns?

    Here are the two that either just finished or are under discussion. The others have fallen down in the list but they are there some where:



  13. 19 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

    It wasn't a tournament, it was a continuous campaign of battles that were played out based on the strategic movement of units on the map. Absolutely glorious.

    I understand about DLC, but I just don't think they would get involved for that either, based on past comments.

    That kind of thing happens fairly regularly over at The Few Good Men.

    There have been several pretty successful campaigns and there are some well thought out and workable rules and people with experience. I would recommend heading over there and joining the next one that comes up. After that get involved in creating the next one.

    See ya over there.

  14. On 9/26/2020 at 9:56 AM, sttp said:

    I'd say the odds are pretty high that the game's lead programmer already knows exactly what causes this bridge bug

    There are tons of idle and rampant speculation in this thread. I have a high degree of confidence that Charles does have a very good idea how the code for bridges works and what its limitations and short comings are. I also have a high degree of confidence that there is no single bridge bug that he is hiding or pretending he has fixed or cannot fix or <insert any other speculation you guys can come up with>. So, feel free to continue to speculate if you like but it it is for sure a) wrong and b) a waste of time.

    How do I know this? Because I have logged many bridge problems both of my own finding and from this board. They have all been given fixes. The major mistake people make is thinking there is one bug with bridges. There is not. What is there is some complex code that has lots of corner cases and is sensitive to changes in one place having unforeseen effects that might need more fixing.

    What @rocketman proposes - investigating and finding examples that can be given to Charles to investigate and fix - is a good thing. I look forward to seeing the results. And yes the geometry of the map elevation, terrain choices and road and building placement all factor in.


  15. 22 minutes ago, Commanderski said:

    I think that the closest we would get is if somebody designed several related scenarios

    Actually people over at The Few Good Men have organized and run campaigns. I highly recommend heading over there and checking them out. I have participated in a few and enjoyed them.

  • Create New...