Jump to content

InsanePerson42

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About InsanePerson42

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. I just played this mission in the demo. When the Italians were coming at me I felt invincible, I was slaughtering them. And then I started to lose the moment the Germans arrived. It really gives you a feel for the difference between the German and Italian armies.
  2. Ditto. But I don't think you will ever find a person who would disagree with that. I'm sure everyone who works for battlefront would love to put in visible air support too(I realize it's not good tact to speak for people you don't know, but this seems pretty universal). But battlefront is a very small company with few resources, so they needed to abstract a few things. If you're willing to sacrifice a bit of ground realism I recommend the Theatre of War series. They do an excellent job on air support, and anti-air ground fire.
  3. I figure the way to do it is have the operational level be turn based(probably essential). Each turn would represent 1 hour, and would be simultaneous move(wego). When opposing forces meet the game would zoom down to tactical level(like the Total War games). Each engagement on the tactical level would last for no longer than one hour(to match the operational level turns). If the engagement is not decided in that one hour it will be resumed next turn. YES!! I have frequently found myself wishing I had better ability to direct suppressing fire. They should certainly add that to the next
  4. I was actually thinking a dedicated medic unit would be the ideal way to do it. I know for a fact that there was casualty evacuation in WW2, but it makes sense that it may not have been the first priority of the combat troops. These days the rule is "never leave a man behind". Having never served in the armed forces I can't really say much on modern procedure, but I guess they will teach me that soon enough. I just passed the ASVAB(97%!!) and physical, all that is left is to pick a job, swear in, and wait to get sent off to basic. That last bit isn't really relevant to anything, I just feel li
  5. Okay. I'm having a thought here. normannobrot- I like your idea of combining the strategic level and the tactical level(have you played the Total War games by any chance?) but I think it might work best to bring it a level down. Combine the operational level and the tactical level. By having larger armies marching around on an operational map dozens of kilometers in all directions that makes room for c3k's fuel levels. Add in a few more logistics on top of that even. Keep the ammo limitations of Combat Mission, in addition require supplies of food(effecting the troops fitness in battle).
  6. That is true. Perhaps combining the strategic and the tactical in a realistic way would be a bit much. The player would simply have to fight far too many battles and would start to get bored(we are talking thousands of individual engagements). It would still be pretty damn cool if someone were to figure out how to make it work. It might work to go one level lower though, combine the operational and the tactical. Edit: Of course the idea here is to post interesting ideas without regard to whether it would actually be practical to implement them. The theory is that a totally free flow of idea
  7. (operational) + (tactical) Command ops + Combat Mission! (strategic) + (operational) + (tactical) or Hearts or Iron 3 + Command Ops + Combat Mission!!......might be a bit much, but it would be awesome anyway! Would be nice to be able to participate in the grander operation surrounding the engagements, but still be able to fight the engagements themselves. Sort of a Total War series thing, but far more realistic.
  8. I think the idea is that AI unit groups would have planned paths along which they would retreat. They would make use of these retreat paths if some condition was met(they take too many casualties, moral gets too low, the enemy has more than ?/1 fire superiority). Of course it's not my idea, so it is entirely possible that I am misinterpreting it. But I think (is someone were to figure out how to implement it) it could really enhance realism.
  9. True. I don't really like the King Tiger anyway. You can never get your hands on very many of them. And they aren't that much better than Panthers anyway. Think about it, their capabilities vs allied vehicles are only slightly better than those of Panther tanks. King Tiger- Invulnerable to any allied ATG from the front, but screwed if the allies take it from the flank(although it might take a couple shots, the crew still won't react fast enough to save the vehicle). Can kill any allied vehicle with one shot. Panther- Invulnerable to any allied ATG from the front(except the 76 mm at close
  10. I have this problem on occasion as well. I assume it's because I'm usually attacking and therefore my units have not observed the terrain as thoroughly. I find(if I know where the enemy tank is, and have LOS) that it often works to simply give my tank and area target command on the location I know is occupied by an enemy tank. This is naturally less effective than if my tank could actually see the SOB, but it is a useful stopgap.
  11. That would be cool. And I think it should be possible. Maybe it could be done by measuring levels of fire superiority. There must be some way to do that. I remember reading in some WW2 field manuals(as well as Jeffrey Pauldings CMBN tactics video series) the necessity for fire superiority in order for an attacker to advance. It is frequently advised that you retreat and relocate if you lose fire superiority. I think Umpire manuals(umpire in this case being someone who directs the course of training exercises) would be especially helpful for a game designer trying to determine when the
  12. This thread is for things that people think would be really awesome if they were to be included in a realistic wargame engine like that of the CM series. If you're really thinking outside the box then most of you're ideas should be wildly impractical or downright impossible with the current engine or technology. But maybe someone will pick up on some of these ideas and make a game engine that is more realistic for it. So here is my first thought. I think a really cool next step in realism is to require the player to evacuate casualties from the battlefield(instead of the current system
  13. I wish that combat mission had dedicated medics. Units who are poorly armed but better at rendering aid. It would be nice to be able to attend to my casualties as quickly as possible without reducing the combat capabilities of my forward units.
  14. I often like to give my tanks area targets at AFV's they haven't spotted if I know one is there(some other unit spots it). This does of course depend on my tank having LOS though.
  15. ok, I have a few points to make First, Its a tactical wargame, not a political message! Who is there to offend? As long as the game doesn't take sides or portray either side as "the good guys" who is going to be offended? Set the game in any conflict you like, with any set of opposing forces. As long as both sides are fairly and accurately represented and have playable campaigns I don't think there is any reason to worry about offending people. Take Vietnam(or the Second Indochina War) as an example(I realize that CM might never go to Vietnam, its just an example). American players woul
×
×
  • Create New...