Jump to content

niall78

Members
  • Posts

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by niall78

  1. 39 minutes ago, c3k said:

    When I have a bogged vehicle, I'll cancel its movement orders. I don't know if it helps, but in my mind, it increases the odds of unbogging.

    I play WEGO. Sometimes tanks bog and then immobilises before I get a chance to intervene but when a turn ends with a tank still just bogged I cancel its previous movement order and then order a direct reverse. I find this usually frees the tank. It could be part of my imagination and the odds are exactly the same no matter how the player intervenes between bogging and immobilised conditions but this seems to work well.

  2. 17 hours ago, rooibos said:

    This game has no presence.

     

    It's never mentioned on reddit (except for by one notable user, now banned... I know who you are :D). And reddit is the biggest website on the internet. It doesn't have its own subreddit, and everything has a subreddit. There are only a few dozen CM videos on youtube with over 1,000 views.

    It's not mentioned on gaming websites- Rock Paper Shotgun is pretty much the only one, and even then it's in the "niche wargaming for old dudes" column. Hell, the only reason I bought CMBS or even knew about it was because I remembered the Combat Mission name from its connection to Close Combat, way back when CM was turn based. I used to post on the old SSI boards a lot.

     

    Despite what the higher-ups say, I'll still harp that not migrating to Steam is a HUGE mistake.  Christ, a game about driving tractors and planting corn sold 8 million copies on the PC.

    There is one professional review on the Metacritic site for CMBS. One review from a magazine in Finland for one of the finest tactical modern combat simulators ever created? I find that quite shocking. A general web search isn't bringing up many reviews either - just very niche website reviews from the usual suspects.

    Viability is non-existent for Combat Mission for the general gaming public. It's even hard to see for it's niche core audience - wargamers - in my opinion.

  3. 9 hours ago, rooibos said:

    probably having a community the size of my mother's bridge club doesn't help

    There's a time issue with many players who use community created scenarios and campaigns. I'll download a scenario or campaign as soon as I see it mentioned in these forums.

    It could take me months or even years to actually play the scenario - by the time I do play it I mightn't even realise it is fan created. I get to play six hours a week so might do a scenario a week. I'm playing CMRT at the moment - if I grab a CMFB scenario it might be next Christmas before it gets a run through.

    For some reason though these forums and the additional content sites seem very quiet for what is a very successful and long lived game franchise.

  4. I can only begin to understand the work creating a scenario - let alone a campaign - must entail.

    I must have every fan created scenario and campaign released for CMSF through to CMFB. I can only pay a very poor thank you to these creators from this forum every once in a while. Poor pay back for the thousands of hours of fun and challenge I've got in return.

    Battlefront have created products that I've loved since CMBO. The fans who mod and build scenarios and campaigns for these games prolong and improve each offering immensely.

    I'm very happy to pay for additional scenario and campaign content from Battlefront. I'd be willing to pay for fan created content as well. Not a big ask considering the work that goes into such creations.

  5. 10 hours ago, Blazing 88's said:

    FYI...  Even better, have you tried the free open source MegaMek game which also has a Mercenary campaign tracking /generator MekHQ (in depth and vast)??  Don't let the name fool you, it is Battletech. 

    You don't just get Mech's you get EVERYTHING to play around with (Original and user created maps, Mechs, Tanks, Vehicles, Infantry /Elementals, AeroTech, Jumpships, Starships, etc).  All the original Mech names are used (Warhammer, Phoenix Hawk, Shadow Hawk, the Clan stuff, etc).  The unit library is filled with all the centuries covered in Battletech, including the new stuff......

    Very well done and continually updated.  MegaMek /MekHQ are worth your time to have a look at if you are a fan of the BATTLETECH games. 

    Did I mention MegaMek and MekHQ are FREE!!!l.... runs on PC and Mac (some other OS as well).

    Was a big MegaMek player. I helped run a few of the on-line campaign MegaMek servers for a good few years.

    For those that like modern graphics Jordan Weisman  - Battletech creator - is releasing a new turn based tactical Battletech game in 2017. It blew through its Kickstarter of $1million by another $1.7 million. It'll be super if even half the promised content is live on release.

    http://battletechgame.com/

     

  6. Early Blitzkrieg and Russia ('41, '42 or '43) are the ones I'd really want to see. Playing 1941-42 CMBB campaigns and scenarios were probably my all time favourite CM moments. 

     

    Cold War gone hot would also be super interesting. We'd need rules and graphics for chemical and biological weapons and also maps big enough to use tactical nukes of course. ;)

     

    Frankly I'll throw money at any era Battlefront want to simulate. I love the WW2 titles but I had great fun with CMSF and am immensely enjoying the hypothetical CMBS as well. Bring it on Battlefront! You produce the tactical simulators I dreamed of as a kid when I imagined the future of computer games in the early Eighties and I'll support you with cash every chance I get.

     

    Did somebody mention CM:Battletech? I'd cut out a kidney for that - and no I'm not joking.

     

     

  7. I play the Russian side a lot. This is vital information I wasn't aware of. Thanks for the tips antaress73.

    I find all sides ultra lethal in CM:BS. What sees first usually kills or cripples first.

    Modern era requires a bit more patience in general compared to the WW2 titles. Sneaking small forces into positions to try and get spots on at least some of the OPFOR before you advance and being prepared to wait till your force generate those spots. Any major movement without reconnaissance in the battles I play usually end up with my units burning after a few turns. Even as the US non-KIA hits will often degrade an AFVs fighting ability dramatically - I've lost numerous main guns for instance on my Abrams to missile teams I never even spotted during the action.

    I like Bradleys but they die very easy. I keep them well back over-watching from the backfield with their TOWs. I also dismount any forces inside as soon as any type of contact with the enemy is possible. This is vital for any type of APC or IFV from any of the forces in the game I feel. There's an ever present threat of mass-casualties any time a full infantry hauler is exposed to any type of AT fire. Artillery or air-power makes such full haulers dangerous even when traversing non-exposed parts of the map in CM:BS - this is a big difference from the WW2 titles where air and artillery are a lot less decisive.

  8. 9 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

    I don't often see mines used as 'genuine' belts of minefields in the game because the gameplay just comes to a halt. Its rather like battleship and Xylophone rocket artillery in that way. You use it a couple times just to witness its effect, but since it badly unbalances gameplay you avoid it. Using mines as 'booby traps' at a crossroads or obvious maneuver point is more common. All bets are off playing QB against a human opponent, of course. He might just spent ALL his points on mines and artillery rockets! Though he'd have difficulty finding anyone to play a second game with him.  ;) 

     

    In my mind we see tactical minefields in CM. Hastily laid affairs by the local forces. They'd displace a lot of this stuff if they moved position. Proper minefields laid by engineers are out of the scope of CM because - as you say - a mission wouldn't be fun played with the whole map covered in 'professionally' laid mines.

     

     

  9. 1 hour ago, H1nd said:

    Tell that to Finnish combat engineers... we drilled combat breaching days on end with bangalore torpedoes. In ww2 engineers were often called to breach fortified positions and in addition to busting bunkers i'm pretty sure it involved lots of mine defusal and breaching. And that is also a thing to remember: all you need to do is deactivate mines. It was quite commonplace to quickly remove detonators but leave the mine itself in place in case of boobytraps. Once again.. finding the mines is the hard thing. Removing or deactivating them is the easy and fast thing.

     

    I might be mistaken but I thought the main use of the Bangalore torpedo was to clear wire obstacles without directly approaching them under fire? 

    I can see how they might detonate mines but I've never heard of them being deployed with mine clearance as their primary objective. 

    We are of course missing them from the game even if their use would probably be limited to assault scenarios on emplaced positions by specialist assault squads - as per their historical use.

    Personally I don't see guys sitting in minefields screwing out detonators under fire after sniffing out the mines in the first place as very realistic. Again it's not something I've ever heard of anyone doing under fire and not something I'd expect to achieve more than we can already achieve in game in any case - a relatively safe path if care is taken.

    In game I usually just avoid minefields unless it's a very long timed game and I had ages to pick my way though it safely or the minefield is completely unavoidable in which case I factored in casualties as part of the scenario expectations. Just as was the case in real life I'd assume.

  10. It was very important in a lot of books I've read to control the battlefield at the end of a battle. You can then haul off all your 'knocked out' tanks to repair them. The Germans were always loath to leave tanks on the field while their recovery and maintenance units were always ad-hoc - the usual supply nightmares as well. The Americans had salvage refined to a tee with specialist teams with proper standardised recovery vehicles. The 'replaceable parts' innovation that was at the core of American tanks helped immeasurably. It's much easier to put a new engine in a mass produced Sherman than a semi-bespoke Tiger.

    Many of the Tiger tank memoirs spend as much time talking about recovering other damaged Tiger tanks as straight combat. All though the war controlling the wreckage after a battle was vital business.

    In real life a tank is very rarely rendered completely useless. In CM I view them as knocked out when they are combat ineffective and immobile. I view them as destroyed when they burn.

    Maybe I'm weird but in many games I've set knocked out or abandoned tanks burning with further fire to ensure their destruction. Kind of a role-play decision rather than a hard-nosed tactical decision.

  11. On 05/08/2016 at 0:42 PM, pcelt said:

       Thank you very much Bootie for your help. Unfortunately I am having some problem getting it installed and working .I have d/l some tank mods etc which work fine but this mod I find a problem----could someone please list the steps I need to take with this particular mod ---it is many years since I last modded Normandy game.

     Many thanks for any help.

     

     

    Just drop it in your Z folder with those tanks mods and it should work perfectly.

    If you see colourised weapons in your game interface you know you are rocking Juju's UI.

  12. 4 hours ago, dragonwynn said:

    No problem naill78 let me get a little feedback on the first few missions and I will put it up for download. By the way are you one of the designers of the Stalingrad Mod or am I thinking of someone else? 

    It's great to read this campaign will be released Dragonwynn.

    I've had no input into any mod let alone the magnificent Stalingrad Mod. I wish I had the talent or the time.

  13. On 21/07/2016 at 3:20 PM, Bootie said:

    Here is a review I did of a book to avoid!!

     

    Great review. Had exactly your experience when reading this book. Frankly Sven Hassel books were better as they contained some humour - this didn't even have that.

    Makes me sad as just maybe there was a real story to be told. Albrecht Wacker wasn't the one to tell it though. This book was pricey as well in hardback. If I wanted Hassel or Charles Whiting in Kessler mode I could have bought their whole output on E-Bay for less.

     

  14. 48 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:

    That is the simple explanation, but it only provides a small part of the answer. What is left unanswered of course is if there were more competent technocrats involved in 1940-41, why was arms production so low and so poorly run.

    I remember reading the many technical specialists volunteered or were called up and sent to general fighting units instead of being retained in their industries. These people - electricians, fitters, engineers, etc were pulled from general service and returned home to work as the war progressed and the need for such specialists grew acute.

    Maybe the lack of highly trained technical specialists stymied early German wartime industrial expansion?

  15. On 24/07/2016 at 4:10 PM, Childress said:

    LOL, unknown to me it was a Holocaust denial site. Just picked it off Google. But we can't impeach  the noted British historian Niall Ferguson , can we?

    Reason magazine has a more negative take on the Nazi recovery. Hitler did slay inflation and employment but at a great cost further down the line.:

    http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html

    Niall Ferguson is a well unknown for his contrarian views on a lot of subjects. Not necesssary a bad thing for a historian but unfortunitly Ferguson allows his personnal contrarian viewpoint influence his writings and in many ways writes counter-factual history because of this or distorts history though ommission of vital facts.

    His history of the British Empire is fawning. He credits it with every development in the world during its hayday while ignoring the genocide, murder, servitute and theft that it actually entailed. His view is the British Empire was a great thing for mankind. His books tries to reinforce this view point instead of giving a balanced view of history.

    I try to avoid such writers like the plague. Lots to read and my time is limited. I can make up my own mind about a given subject given good sources of fairly unbiased information. I don't get that from Ferguson. I find tawdy propoganda dressed in the clothes of history insulting frankly.

  16. Just digging about the internet on this topic and came across this piece of trivia :

    L.JPG

     

    Standard piece of equipment for a Lewis gun team I wonder?

     

    You'd have to think that the completely exposed underside of the magazine when attached to the weapon or carried as spares would have been a nightmare in any type of muddy, dusty or sandy conditions.

     

  17. Interesting topic. It probably goes without saying that any commander that launches an attack without having a decisive local advantage has theoretically failed badly in their job. Of course it is a situation that is impossible to impose on the enemy in most battles.

    Most of the battles in World War Two were slug-fests where ultimately logistics won or lost the day. Battles and campaigns were meat grinders where armies fought and died in highly attritional ground combat until one side collapsed due to failing supply, manpower and logistical support.

    Combat mission represents tactical actions within these battles very well. There is a large time compression involved in WW2 CM battles in many cases - in my opinion - that can make the game seem slightly less realistic for a history grog that reads a lot of combat reports or eyewitness accounts. Maybe it is this time compression rather than the scenarios portrayed that can make the 'nature of CM battles' seem a bit weird.

  18. 17 minutes ago, IanL said:

    Either I missed something in CM1 or you are miss-remembering.  As I recall the squads in CM1 were represented by the three stooges (with all the respect deserved :-) ) there was no rag tag look, no representation of specific weapons nor even ammo for that matter.

    There was a panel on the bottom right-hand side of the screen that gave the weapon load out of the selected squad. Not that it really mattered as firing was abstracted in any case. CMx2 is many levels more detailed than CMx1. Harking back to a few weapon pictures that were abstracted isn't really telling the full story.

×
×
  • Create New...