Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About WriterJWA

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yup... So even after I managed to sacrifice a Stryker to trigger the mines (which no on-ground commander would even remotely do) and marked them with engineer, I still lost two Strykers as I tried to slowly pass them through the gap. But effective, modern, U.S. Army engineers who are professionals at their jobs are probably too far outside the "scope of CM games." Not only do I have to sacrifice a vehicle to find the mines just to mark them... The marking is entirely arbitrary, too. I've tried to get around these mines four times without doing something "gamey" or just losing unrealistic casua
  2. So I'm playing one of the small USMC scenarios and I'm trying to breach a section of the wall to make entry into a nearby building. Every time I try to use the 'Blast' command, however, the game just puts out a yellow path line like a 'Quick' move command, and the assault team attempts to go around to the entrance on the far side of the compound (where there are sure to be aimed guns, etc...). Is this a bug?
  3. Yeah, I was thinking about this further... In infantry schools they used to teach a basic procedure for these things. If ambushed inside of 50 meters we were trained to turn toward the fire and assault through the enemy position. If outside of 50 meters were were to take cover and return fire to establish fire superiority. Obvious these are easier said than done, and entirely dependant on terrain, volume of fire, etc... but those were the baselines.
  4. Are you saying it has to be allowed in all cases because the program itself doesn't differentiate between wall types and the risks of throwing a track inherent to each type, or because players would take advantage of it? If the latter, then the program needs to reflect the risk of that decision. If a player decides to plow through walls over and over then they increase their chances of becoming immobilized.... Darwin's Law ensues. Also, armored vehicles already slow down upon breaching fences, why would that have to change with allow for breaching walls? Why can't the game just represent physi
  5. What's the relative range of these grenades, and is their ability to through outside LOS dependant upon elevation? In one of the instances I experiences I had a squad in a piece of dead ground with an enemy squad just outside of it (maybe two or three AS's away). I couldn't trace LOS to the enemy squad so I couldn't order an area fire, hence no grenades.
  6. I hear that... I do. But while I recognize (and did so in the original post) that the engine poses certain limitations, there seems to be some base-line factors that are missing that fit with basic practices on the battlefield. I'm not asking for a look-see-smell replica of a battlefield. No one should want that. But I would certainly like it if the equipment and men behaved in ways that fit with battlefield psychology, modern (or historical) TTPs, doctrine, and the limitations of the equipment. This points to my earlier post about the minefields. Regarding the AAV/armor question, there
  7. I've been playing Combat Mission since about 2002, when I discovered Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord, and since then I've owned every CM title produced with the exception of Afghanistan. I think it's arguably one of the most engaging digital simulations of a tactical battlefield out there. It does a better-than-fair job modelling, in broad strokes, the principles of fire and maneuver, combined arms combat, supporting arms, and C3I. Having said that. . . There are areas where the game really breaks down in representing a lot of facets and attributes of the weapons and behaviors of troops
  8. This game seems to have its own metric of what it considers realistic or "outside the realm of CM" that's based largely on the limitations of programming and sheer fantasy. In a separate thread there has been talk that a USMC AAV-7 shouldn't be allowed to break down masonry walls because it might allow players the option to do that whenever, or because "it's not done in combat conditions." (Real life hint: It is). In the Thunder scenario I still haven't been able to get beyond the gap in the berm without catching a mine and killing Joes. And yet despite S2 being well aware of the minefield pri
  9. So.... The engineers' option to 'Mark Mines' is dark. I've used engineers a-plenty in CMBN and CMFI with great success, but here it won't let me mark minefields, even after I sacrificed a Stryker to expose a minefield. Where are the M58 MICLIC's? Why can't I breach the berm with the engineers a la the Persian Gulf War??
  10. *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* So, here we are: CMSF2, the Task Force Thunder campaign, scenario one. There is a long berm running the length of the map between the US setup area and the battlefield. The berm has ramps at intervals to allow the player to drive vehicles to the top. Toward the south end of the map there is a gap where a highway runs perpendicular to it across the map. According to the briefing and the map, there are anti-tank mines blocking the road. Makes sense.... That's a likely avenue of approach. Now... apparently, the backside of the berm is prohibited terrain. I can't get ve
  11. Yes. Exactly that. It was done in Iraq routinely as a breaching option in lieu of explosives. All the time. Gates, wall, etc... It is not even remotely a rare event. Don't alter physics just for the purpose of "gaming" players in a direction that you deem accurate when in fact it's not.
  12. So I'm playing the second scenario in the USMC campaign. Toward the middle of the mission I attempt to seize an objective with three AAVs with infantry aboard. The objective is a building with a small wall that surrounding... However, it seems in Combat Mission the 64,000 pound AAV-7 is no match for the masonry of a three foot wall. I was unable to cross over the wall put my troops in a safer position to dismount and assault the building. Why can't AAVs breach walls? I have witnessed an AAV topple a wall much larger. Here is a video that demonstrates my point:
  13. I'm just getting warmed up to the idea of developing a scenario, so forgive my lack of knowledge. Instead of creating a band aid ("morale ballast") to prevent early surrender, why not just have the various troop qualities better reflect a realistic surrender threshold? So instead of having to create some kind of off-map spirit leader that keeps them in the fight, they can rely on their own troop quality (ie., green troops panic and surrender at X value, veteran troops at Y value, fanatics at Z value). Money no option. . . I think I'd be far more realistic to have an exit map edge for an
  14. I wonder if somewhere around the first Combat Mission series it just got stuck in the minds of developers that the scenarios should be on or about an hour. I remember having similar complaints when playing CMBO and CMAK.
  • Create New...