MengJiao
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MengJiao
-
-
It also depends on what you mean by effective.
Do you mean effective in a manner that an average GI can hit a target he's aiming at more often than not and kill it or do you mean that whatever he points the weapon at and pulls the trigger causes the target to go to ground? There's a big difference there imo and both of them get the job done depending on what you're trying to do.
In Red Orchestra's USA mod (Darkest Hour?), the Grease gun was my favorite weapon. I didn't kill very many avatars with it, but when I did I would laugh myself sick. Not very realistic no matter how you look at it. Still, i love to see the Grease Gun in games.
-
I'm loving this AAR. The attention to detail in the screenshots is superb, and really helps to convey a gripping story (I'm rooting for Upham, a real Tube Guy if ever there was one).
Many thanks for the hard work you're putting into this Akira, it's really appreciated!
That's quite a compliment: "He's almost a real Tube Guy"
-
Paper Tiger did the excellent Road to Dimas campaign, which was Red on Red.
It does have tanks and IVFs though, but it's an excellent series of battles and well worth playing anyway!
I'd suggest dipping into the editor to create a decent Red vs. Red stand alone battle - changing an existing QB map and swapping out the forces for your preferred mix won't take too long, and that way you won't need to create AI plans as the QB one should still work.
I've been running some of my ancient red-on-red battles. T62s vs T62s lots of trees and walls and towns and so on.
-
Be careful what you wish for people....
For all I liked CNBB I think the CMx2 version could be a very different game. One of the biggest changes that we have seen is in command and control (C2) and the importance of battlefield cohesion and communication.
I think this will be the key to making the game realistic in that the russian superiority in numbers will be balanced realistically by terrible C2.
This will mean that as a Russian player a lot of the time you will be either issuing orders to no one or watching your orders being ignored. Certain in a T-34 v PzV battle I suspect that once the hatches close you could find yourself as all but a spectator.
The way to win as the Russians might be to have a solid simple battle plan and to stick to it hoping that the Germans don't do something unexpected and that you can make enough progress before the fog of war gives the advantage to the Germans who will react better.
In effect to win as a Russian you will need to play as a Russian.
If they build it that way and it works they will have made a brillant game, but it might be one that disappoints those people who love Russian hardware and underestimate russian weaknesses.
I remember the frustrations in CMBB of having a tank that could cut a PzIV in half but was scared to face it. If anything I suspect that in CMx2 commanding the Russians will be even more frustrating.....
I like that idea and the challenges it brings, but not everyone will.
Peter.
I don't know if C2 would be quite so much of a problem for the Russians once they actually got into contact with the enemy. Probably a simple plan would be better and probably their formations would be denser, but in CM terms they would probablyat least mostly get into the battle.
-
Guys... it's okay for people to criticise the game.
There's no game to criticise so I can't abide criticism of it.
-
These are much better movies Broadsword56
Stalingrad 1993
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108211/
Come and See 1985
There's always Cranes are Flying an insanely arty Soviet 1950s film full of real t34s moving at high speed nose to tail. Kind of astounding.
-
Like a Norman keep? Are they even do-able in CMx2?
Thanx
There are some ancient earthworks in Normandy. I haven't seen them in person or read of any excavations, but you can see the tell-tale traces in such things as round enclosures and isolated high stands of trees.
You might be able to simulate them as rubble with trees on top.
-
Its funny how people are yearning for a Med game, especially since all they did when they got the CMAK title was build erzats Normandy theatre scenarios out of it.
Starting with Normandy is an elegant solution. It's classic and from there you can go earlier or later.
I'd really like to see early war stuff, particularly 1940. You don't get to see it much.
-
I was just thinking how much more powerful my computer is now than when I purchased CM:BO back in 2000.
I preordered the game back in September '99 and hadn't upgraded my computer by the time CM:BO shipped in June. My computer specs:
AMD K6-2 350
Super Socket 7 motherboard (don't remember manufacturer)
32 MB (maybe 64 MB) 100 MHz SDRAM
Matrox Mystique 8MB (probably the G200 with SDRAM)
8 GB Western Digital HDD
CD-ROM drive (4x, I believe, my first one)
14" monitor (ancient monitor that was new in '92)
Wow! Great question. For me that was just 3 machines ago in about 2003-4. All I really remember about it is that the fans never worked well, the motherboard had to be replaced by a expert from the factory and I installed XP on it and went to a flat screen monitor. I think it had fairly substantial specs for the period, but I have no idea what they might have been.
-
I have lurked here since CM/BO but would be a Junior Member or Member if I hadn't lost my old log in. How's that for a senior moment?
I am 54 (Dear God how did that happen?). I have been playing board wargames since 1976 (I have about 200 in my collection). Combat Mission just seems the culmination of the tactical board games I have played over the years.
I'm 55. I've played war games since I was 10 (Bismarck, Gettysburg) which would have been in 1965, now that I think about it. I've played all the CM stuff since 2004 or so.
Combat mission has had some great moments for me over the last few years.
-
This may be social conditioning, or as a result of fighting on the Russian front, or the be tough ethos. Possibly the reason why the Anzacs, Finns, Canadians, fill in other favoured group,were thought tough was because they actually had that higher number of men shooting to kill.
I think being tough may be a bit overrated. I once asked a man who was the intelligence officier (G2?) for an American armored division (the 4th, maybe?)
in France in 1944 how he thought the US beat the Germans. He said, "We had gas and we always knew where they were." So you can be as tough as you want, but if you're out of gas and not sure where the enemy are while the enemy has gas and knows where you are...you may be in trouble.
-
Nah, still can't see it myself.
Despite all of the supposed advantages that the Germans had they still only inflicted parity casualties on the Allies, who where engaged in a number of high risk operations like airborne assaults, amphibious landings, attacking bocage and attacking the elite panzers.
Sure they had difficulty in manoeuvre and supply because of the air supremacy of the Allies but we have seen else where that the impact was somewhat overrated and the Allies did lose huge numbers of aircrew to German AA.
Veteran commanders ? Not really the British particularly had many experienced commanders but also within the US ranks were many veterans of Italy.
MG42, good gun for sure but its superiority really came out in the MMG/HMG role and in reality at the squad level it was not a huge amount different to the bren, the US BAR bears no comparison.
Panthers - debate continues but the results where of the 2k German tanks in Normandy 100 odd survived.
Don't forget too that any German company or battalion in France in mid-1944 would be suffering the privations mentioned above so for my money the answer is without a doubt "NO" and history supports this.
The German forces in Normandy seem to have been pretty spotty in terms of how good they were tactically. Even mid-range American Divisions like the 30th could stand up in isolation against major German forces for days during the German counterattack after Cobra. And as for casualties, its hard to say since at the end of the fighting in Normandy in September, the German forces seem to have lost 90% of their equipment and at least 50% of their men due to an over-indulgence in ill-advised strategic disasters.
-
What's most gratifying to me is seeing the scenarios play out like little stories. That's what made CMBO such an addicting game.
I think the nit-picking about grenades and bailed crews, besides being what gamers do by nature, is result of the great storytelling ability of the game. The downside to the huge leaps the graphics have made since CMBO may be a foray into the "uncanny valley". CMBO was kind of a cartoon of those tactical board games I loved come to life. Little things could be fudged and it wasn't so jarring.
This looks to be so close to an actual film that any little deviations from what each gamer perceives as realistic is going to be pounced on, because when things get that close to looking real that's what the mind does.
What a great time to be a gamer!
You may need to explain uncanny valley. I know what you mean (I think the term was coined in dealing with robots -- when they get close to human they enter the uncanny valley and are judged differently from machine-like robots), but the term may be unfamilar on this forum.
-
It was a Union commander who finally recognized the center of gravity for the Confederacy was NOT Richmond, but Lee's Army.
Abraham Lincoln seems to have known it. Supposedly he said (of Grant, I think) when Grant was accused of being a drunken embezzler: "I can't spare this man; he fights." Another good sentence.
-
I thought the Somme was an allied victory, costly, in the initial stages, but overall the Germans lost operationally, which was, after all the objective. "Mud Blood and Poppycock" is an interesting book that seeks to challenge the conventional "Lions led by Donkeys" school of thought.
There's no doubt that the first day of the Somme offensive was a major disaster for the British Army. After that things were generally a bit better, though perhaps actually even worse in spots, though on the other hand proportionately no worse than say the German performance at First Ypres which led Haig (according to Wikipedia anyway), who defended Ypres, to make a mental note not make the mistake of calling off an offensive too soon.
-
I agree. There was an event that took place after the hard fought battle in the Wilderness in 1864 - Grant's first battle in the east - that sums it up nicely. The leading column of the II Corps came upon a key north/south crossroads and the troops thought that they would turn north as they always did after a big fight to regroup/reorganize and the cycle would repeat itself yet again. But the officer at the crossroads pointed south and the troops realized at that moment that there would be no retreat this time and even tho' there were some horrific battles down the road, the war would finally end as they had commander who had the strategic vision - and will - to make it happen.
Right. And about that time Grant supposedly said something like, "I'm going to whip Bobby Lee if it takes all summer."
Something I used to say in HTH Civil War board games even if I was the Southern Commander in question.
It's just such a great sentence.
-
Gee, that’s a difficult one. I chalk it up to this:
- Condescending attitude
- Promising much and always delivering less
- Refusing to let things be
- Propagating blatant falsehoods regarding his role post war
Yea, that’s about encapsulates it.
Tis a shame that after Marlborough and Wellington all you Brits had was that guy.
Doesn't Alan Brooke count? And anyway, for the most part Monty seems to have done very well. Apparently somebody mentioned earlier that the final D-Day plan was a Monty Plan.
-
Magpie_Oz, I don't think anyone here is claiming that Poland is part of the Commonwealth... AFAICT, what as been said is that:
- Polish forces used the same equipment and TO&E as the commonwealth units present in Normandy, and fought in 21st Army Group - so, in game terms, it makes sense to lump them together with commonwealth forces if Polish forces are to be included;
- Polish units (division level, I think?) took their orders from Commonwealth higher-ups (corps level and higher, right?), so it makes sense to say that Polish forces were part of larger commonwealth units, or were under Commonwealth command - now, where on Earth would that imply that Poland was ever part of the Commonwealth?
- The first module is referred to as "the Commonwealth module" because it's centered around Commonwealth forces and because nobody wants a name that is fifteen words long to describe everything that's in it - that doesn't have to imply that it won't contain anything that isn't part of the Commonwealth! Case in point: there will be new German units too...
Frankly, as a French, it wouldn't come to my mind to deny that the 2ème DB, while certainly being a French unit, was part of the American forces in Normandy - because the units it was part of (XVth corp, IIIrd army) were led by Americans, not by a joint command.
Well, there was only one army group (21 Army Group) in Normandy until Late July. So using the logic of Cladistics, you should separate the Americans (who, along with the French 2nd Armored, will eventually be the 12th army group), rather than specify the others. "American" would be the outgroup characteristic (a pliesomorphy I think), just as with early fishes:
Stratophenetics isolates Climatiida, the earliest occurring acanthodian lineage, dating from the Middle Silurian, as basal to the entire taxon. Counter-intuitively, climatiid acanthodians display the most apomorphic morphology comparative to other members of the lineage, including the presence of two dorsal fins, and numerous paired intermediate spines on the ventral surface of the body—a condition autapomorphic of Acanthodia itself. The time-dependent phylogenies go on to isolate the Acanthodida, as the most derived acanthodian fishes, and yet they display the most plesiomorphic of all acanthodian morphologies, retaining a single dorsal fin, and with but one pair of intermediate spines. The two groups are separated by a mere 12 million years—which, to geology, is a blink of the eye.
The time-dependent phylogeny, therefore, has two significant flaws: it ignores the fact that the most basal members of a lineage, as Carroll himself would point out, are those which will display the most plesiomorphic anatomy comparative to other members of the ingroup, and will have more synapomorphies comparative to the outgroups, than will the most derived members of the lineage. Yet here we have the most derived members of the acanthodian lineage, from a morphological point of view, being advanced as the most basal. Furthermore, the time-dependent phylogeny must invoke massive reversal with no apparent causal factor, to explain why such a plesiomorphic form should have been recapitulated by the acanthodiids. All in all, this phylogeny is something of a mess.
-
I could have sworn they said that they would have the Waffen SS out upon release... I mean Hell.... they were pretty much all over the Caen area, and the 17th SS GVB, and elements of the 2nd SS engaged the US as well. But maybe that will come a month later or so, but I thought the British, and Canadians along with Waffen SS would be out upon its release...???
I just write SS on a little sticky and stick it on the screen when the SS is missing from a game for a few months.
-
Please everyone - you gotta use 21st Army Group or Brits/Canadians (B/Cs?) - NO MORE inaccurate shorthand you bunch of backwards hayseeds.
Didn't the 21st Army Group include the US forces at least until late July?
-
Here are some from my library:
- "Decision in Normandy" by Carlo D'Este = good overall view but a bit to Brit focused as few details of the US First Army fighting are given.
- The first few chapters of "Eisenhower's Lieutenants" by Russell Weigley - provides much of the detail missing from D'Este's book.
- (With reservations) "Six Armies in Normandy" by John Keegan = "interesting" organizational approach makes it read like a novel. But there are many pieces missing and some details are just incorrect. Keegan is a deeper version of Stephen Ambrose. He writes good prose and his conclusions are spot on but he plays fast and loose w/ the source material.
- "The Longest Day" by Cornelius Ryan = an early version of "oral history" centered historiagraphy with all the charm and faults of that approach. Not as polished as his masterful " A Bridge Too Far" but still valuable for the insightes offered by those who fought.
There's a online copy of Martin Blumenson's Breakout and Pursuit:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Breakout/index.html
-
A few anecdotes...
More Than Courage: Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Anzio, Rhineland, Ardennes-Alsace
“The German Panzerfaust was a tremendously more potent weapon than the U.S. bazooka and consequently had become almost a standard item of issue in the regiment. Men were regularly trained in its use, with the result it had become a valued assault weapon.”
History of the 517th Regimental Parachute Combat Team
“The 325th jumped off that morning all right and as they moved forward we saw many of them carrying the German Panzerfaust”
All American, All the Way: A combat history of the 82nd Airborne
“While receiving replacements and being re-equipped and reorganized the division concentrated on training in combined tank-infantry tactics and the use of the German Panzerfaust”
The Battalion: the dramatic story of the 2nd Ranger Battalion
“ On July 19th the 15th Cavalry Reconnaissance Group relieved the Rangers and battalion training was resumed. Lt. Page was demonstrating to the troops how to load and fire a German shoulder-fired recoilless rocket launcher called a Panzerfaust, when the weapon exploded in Page’s hands, killing him instantly.”
D-Day: The Invasion of Normandy
“Colonel James Gavin, commander of the 505th Parachute Infantry, compared the two weapons while in Sicily in 1943: As for the 82nd Airborne Division it did not get adequate anti-tank weapons until it began to capture the first German Panzerfausts. By the fall of 1944 we had truckloads of them.”
United States Vs. German Equipment
Edwin Reeg, Platoon Leader “The weapon is accurate and easy to fire and the effect is excellent against the front armor of both Mark Vs and the Panther self-propelled gun….only one dud occurred in forty-five rounds fired”
“an effective and simple weapon to operate….we habitually carry them on vehicles”
Nudge Blue: A Rifleman’s Chronicle of WWII
“several weeks previously, the 9th Division had a special school that lasted a few hours for non-coms from each company on the use of the German Panzerfaust”
“The object of the orientation course was to make it possible for American troops to utilize Panzerfausts that had been left behind. I enjoyed firing them and was very eager to take advantage of the opportunity whenever they were available.”
All the Way to Berlin: A Paratrooper at War in Europe
“Shortly after the Waal River crossing, the 504th captured a truckload of German panzerfausts….We issued a limited number …”
Steeds of Steel: A History of American Mechanized Cavalry in World War II
Medal of Honor Citation for Lt. Dan Lee
“He killed five of the enemy with rifle fire…..Fired on by an armored car he took cover behind the German half-track and there found a panzerfaust with which to neutralize this threat”
Cheers
MRD
Since the game allows blue v blue or Red v red, maybe some German infantry can take the American side to use those PZfausts?
-
Thats very controversial in my opinion. Also no gliders and paratroopers?
What about flooded fields?
I'm happy to have a game that has the bocage fighting in it. I'm happy to have a game with the vanilla US Army (with airborne troops) fighting the Vanilla German Army. It's a good base for developing other aspects of the Western (and Eastern) fronts.
I can think of any tactical landing games that I've liked, except maybe one of the Marine scenarios in CMSF, but even there you come off the beach rather than getting onto the beach.
A beach simulation would need tides and currents and small craft and water depths and so on. It would be a good basis for say a galley fighting game focused on the ancient world, or a floatplane and PT boat simulation but not a good base for the Normandy Campaign. I would like a galley and/or floatplane simulation, but it would be a very different game.
-
Well I have to agree it was not the Tankers fault at hill 112. After they reached the top of hill 112 they couldn’t hold the hill against the just arived 102 zw pz abt with their Tigers. The only thing that could be discussed about is why they didn’t consolidate in Eterville and Maltot instead on the hill 112 top. But to do that they would have needed more infantry.
I guess we will find out more about the dynamics of the fighting around Hill 112 when the Commonwealth module comes out.
First Impressions
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Great game. I loved CMSF and CMBN is 100 times better.
Impressions:
1) I liked the fact that eventually I had to give orders from a high perspective (so that the map is very map-like)
2) but I could come down from a map view and see all the action up close
3) I liked the fact that the first 2-3 runs of the tutorial were a massacre for the US
4) and once I figured out where to put the mortars and the spotters, it was a massacre for the Ost Georgian Germans