arpella72

BS is just not worth playing it is a hypothetical game and biased US No 1 Russia No 2 Ukraine No3 and no expansion pack is planned to rectify this. Kudos for the WW2 games it is where BF shines and we really enjoy playing it. FI is the next game I will buy. 

I was looking for a realistic wargame time ago and "Theatre of war" came across. It was a good game with a very good level of detail in balistics,damage modelling,etc. In fact, some modelling was better than the one in CM. I played a lot with it till I found Combat Mission. I tried Graviteam games but thought they are quiet good I found the IU was difficult to work with. Now, I,m looking forward to play a game that is due to be released soon. It's called "Task Force Admiral" and covers the air/naval fighting in the Pacific during WWII. It looks great and it strechtes from both the tactical and operational layers. What is more, I need a change and I,m a bit tired of muddy,snowy, wooded landscapes. Sunny Pacific awaits me. 
Anchors aweigh ! 😁

Hi!. i found this excellent video in youtube about the US infantry organization and tactics during WWII.Very interesting specially for the ones that are new to CM. I didn't know about the 12-pound vest for the mortar crews. It will be an interesting addition but I would prefer CM adding formations like the ones described in the video. I really miss them.
 

Hi!. i found this excellent video in youtube about the US infantry organization and tactics during WWII.Very interesting specially for the ones that are new to CM. I didn't know about the 12-pound vest for the mortar crews. It will be an interesting addition but I would prefer CM adding formations like the ones described in the video. I really miss them.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkDvHUrbHcc
Hi!.Have anybody seen this serie?.It's called "Valley of Tears" ( HBO) and it's about the fighting in the Golan Heights between the Israelis and Syrians during 1973 Yom Kipur War.It looks great.
Now that CW have been released it would be interesting to make an expansion about that conflict.I have read somewhere that one of the biggest tank battles ever took place there.I got some Osprey campaign books about the Israel-Arab wars time ago and I'm very interested in this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkDvHUrbHcc
Hi!.Have anybody seen this serie?.It's called "Valley of Tears" ( HBO) and it's about the fighting in the Golan Heights between the Israelis and Syrians during 1973 Yom Kipur War.It looks great.
Now that CW have been released it would be interesting to make an expansion about that conflict.I have read somewhere that one of the biggest tank battles ever took place there.I got some Osprey campaign books about the Israel-Arab wars time ago and I'm very interested in this subject.

What a shame we don't have a CM2 Afrika Korps! 😔
 

Comparing the outcome of real war actions with the ones modeled in the game,I always notice that the casualty rate is usually quiet high in the game compared with the real stuff.I mean experienced players not playing boldly and trying to do it as close as to real combat procedures.A part from the AI behaviour in one side,I think there is a reason for that.In my opinion,infantry in the game don't have the same chances of survival as in real life due to the poor modelling of defensive works or the,sometimes,difficulties in getting apropiate cover in terrain features.You can't find parapets in the game,fortified houses and underground basements in buildings nor underground shelters; it's told the protection in shallow trenches and foxholes is abstracted but I m not quiet sure at which degree.What's more,some weapons seem to be overpowered,like the SMG which are deadly accurate and lethal beyond its teorically effective range
This issues should be improbe(probably in a CM3?) in order to make the game more challenging and realistic.This game,differently from others,is focused on infantry which I just like it so,why not to care more about our dear pixeltruppen?.What do you think about it?
 

Comparing the outcome of real war actions with the ones modeled in the game,I always notice that the casualty rate is usually quiet high in the game compared with the real stuff.I mean experienced players not playing boldly and trying to do it as close as to real combat procedures.A part from the AI behaviour in one side,I think there is a reason for that.In my opinion,infantry in the game don't have the same chances of survival as in real life due to the poor modelling of defensive works or the,sometimes,difficulties in getting apropiate cover in terrain features.You can't find parapets in the game,fortified houses and underground basements in buildings nor underground shelters; it's told the protection in shallow trenches and foxholes is abstracted but I m not quiet sure at which degree.What's more,some weapons seem to be overpowered,like the SMG which are deadly accurate and lethal beyond its teorically effective range
This issues should be improbe(probably in a CM3?) in order to make the game more challenging and realistic.This game,differently from others,is focused on infantry which I just like it so,why not to care more about our dear pixeltruppen?.What do you think about it?
 

So,looking forward to CM5?,....
 
 
 

Very good documentary about the fighting in the Hurtgen forest.I watched it recently.Lots of footage(It took my attention the guys cutting a tree to clear the way for a sherman tank)
and witneses from both sides.

Very good documentary about the fighting in the Hurtgen forest.I watched it recently.Lots of footage(It took my attention the guys cutting a tree to clear the way for a sherman tank)
and witneses from both sides.

Very good documentary about the fighting in the Hurtgen forest.I watched it recently.Lots of footage(It took my attention the guys cutting a tree to clear the way for a sherman tank)
and witneses from both sides.

Very good documentary about the fighting in the Hurtgen forest.I watched it recently.Lots of footage(It took my attention the guys cutting a tree to clear the way for a sherman tank)
and witneses from both sides.

Comparing the outcome of real war actions with the ones modeled in the game,I always notice that the casualty rate is usually quiet high in the game compared with the real stuff.I mean experienced players not playing boldly and trying to do it as close as to real combat procedures.A part from the AI behaviour in one side,I think there is a reason for that.In my opinion,infantry in the game don't have the same chances of survival as in real life due to the poor modelling of defensive works or the,sometimes,difficulties in getting apropiate cover in terrain features.You can't find parapets in the game,fortified houses and underground basements in buildings nor underground shelters; it's told the protection in shallow trenches and foxholes is abstracted but I m not quiet sure at which degree.What's more,some weapons seem to be overpowered,like the SMG which are deadly accurate and lethal beyond its teorically effective range
This issues should be improbe(probably in a CM3?) in order to make the game more challenging and realistic.This game,differently from others,is focused on infantry which I just like it so,why not to care more about our dear pixeltruppen?.What do you think about it?
 

Comparing the outcome of real war actions with the ones modeled in the game,I always notice that the casualty rate is usually quiet high in the game compared with the real stuff.I mean experienced players not playing boldly and trying to do it as close as to real combat procedures.A part from the AI behaviour in one side,I think there is a reason for that.In my opinion,infantry in the game don't have the same chances of survival as in real life due to the poor modelling of defensive works or the,sometimes,difficulties in getting apropiate cover in terrain features.You can't find parapets in the game,fortified houses and underground basements in buildings nor underground shelters; it's told the protection in shallow trenches and foxholes is abstracted but I m not quiet sure at which degree.What's more,some weapons seem to be overpowered,like the SMG which are deadly accurate and lethal beyond its teorically effective range
This issues should be improbe(probably in a CM3?) in order to make the game more challenging and realistic.This game,differently from others,is focused on infantry which I just like it so,why not to care more about our dear pixeltruppen?.What do you think about it?
 

One of the tank's flaws in the game is they cannot crush people or AT guns under they tracks.That makes them a bit vulnerable against infantry in close quarters.I think that should be changed.Overunnig AT guns was a usual practice among tank crews.

Sometimes I'm under the impression that hand grenades lack some effectiviness and they have a poor effective radius in CM.Looks like an average hand grenade,like the American MK2 or the British Mills,have a killing radius of 5 metres and a casualty radius of 15m,thought the shrapnel can reach more tan 200m.I have readed as well that German stick grenades were less powerfull.
Anybody have even made a test?

I know this subject has been discuss before but I want to bring it back because is one of the things I would like to see in a new game engine rather tan other.I think defensive works need a major overhaul and modelling in the game:
-Deeper trenches and foxholes: I know there s a problem related to the fog of war with that issue but in real life major defensive works are very difficult to conceal and are usually evident by recce.The question is to know if they are wether empty or full,defended in strenght or not.In the other hand,is there any way to fix this?.It would be interesting to have dig-in command outpost and mortar positions and AT gun positions as well.
-Different models of barbed wire and pillboxes,and bunkers.
-Underground shelters and bunkers,and underground cellars for buildings:It would enhance and improve the defensive tactics and make attacks more challenging.Imagine enemy soldiers emerging from a place that you have considered totally controlled.
All this features would give to the game more realism and a stronger feeling of immersion.
P.S: Another question not related to this subject,I think tanks should be able to crush and kill personnel and guns under they tracks.

Sometimes I wonder why not to model fortified houses.I mean,houses that have been fortified from scratch using sandbags,trunks,etc.I think it would improve the defensive possibilities as they would be tougher spots to overcome.In a similar way,why not to model houses with basements underground?,it would be difficult to do so?.Soldiers could get protection from incoming fire.What s more,the basements could be comunicated in some cases so the defenders should be able to go from one house to other.

Sometimes I wonder why not to model fortified houses.I mean,houses that have been fortified from scratch using sandbags,trunks,etc.I think it would improve the defensive possibilities as they would be tougher spots to overcome.In a similar way,why not to model houses with basements underground?,it would be difficult to do so?.Soldiers could get protection from incoming fire.What s more,the basements could be comunicated in some cases so the defenders should be able to go from one house to other.