kraze

I have it installed right at this moment. A great time waster

Woah that explains so much. Seriously the focus on simulating true LOS for every single unit member is like the best thing about CMx2, let alone in comparison to other wargames

I've learned the hard way to always keep good observers or experienced HQs, if I can't employ the former, just a few steps behind the hot frontline and use them to call in the shots without disturbance while the enemy is focused on other troops.

Evolution is good but Battlefront would've dug themselves a bad hole in that regard. The main reason for that would be them dropping at least three CMx2 series to make a CMx3 game that would, without a doubt, feel unfinished at first. Like CMSF was when it was first released. After all CMx2 was a complete rework of an engine core to a point of it being completely different and way more detailed than not only CMx1 but a lot of competition. That said - there's nothing being requested in this thread that can't be done with the current engine. Either by a mission designer or by adding/changing a code so you can continue playing after mission 'ends' as you would. I personally like it as is. CMBS is especially brutal in its difficulty (or, to be precise, not forgiving your mistakes) due to modern tech being especially killy - so to me anticlimactic endings only add to that brutality. Kinda like a good HBO show.

You got a Total Victory most likely due to russians surrendering (the reason for battle ending is written under the battle result). What would 'keep going' involve from there on when the other side essentially dropped down their weapons? Yes I get what you mean. It can be very anticlimactic. But so is reality. Then again you also didn't have to damage or destroy the infrastructure that you, as a defender in a war, would've had to rebuild later on. I'd call that a very positive outcome.

Everything you can find by 'Aris' query at cmmods and Rambler's foliage (also available there) @IanL eh, no.. but it sure was a fun mission from the base campaign

Mods matter

From my experience AI is fine in every mode as long as you give it an appropriate roster for the task. It certainly will try to flank/surround the objective on the offense instead of just moving there head on. However here's the thing - AI strategy (as opposed to tactics, e.g. maneuvers) in CM is governed mostly by the mission designer so don't expect QB to have a complexity of a typical well-scripted battle. Treat QB as just that - a simple mission with a simple objective but with a freedom for you to choose when, what and how to fight, a combat sandbox if you wish.

The key to having an enjoyable QB experience is to never let game pick yours or AI's forces. Pick them manually in a whatever composition you will want to fight with/against. But before you'll start purchasing forces - pick and preview the map manually. Find the one that seems like an interesting one to fight in and stick with it. Like are you in a mood to use Ukrainian infantry to attack a Russian outpost that would have some tanks in it? Then go ahead - have yourself infantry with a support of lightly armored but heavy punching BTR4E and give an enemy some T72B3 or T90A. Want to set up a "tower defense" scenario as americans versus heavy russian armored advance? Buy a ton of foxholes, minefields, sandbags and a lot of infantry with ATGM while giving an enemy an advantage in points and fill his roster with nothing but tanks in an 'assault' scenario where you are the defender. Just set up the game according to your wishes.

CMBN was my choice because Big Bundle. That is - a lot of content, but not just missions (87 single battles alone and 7 campaigns not counting 2 tutorial ones) - sides with a lot of branches (from fanatical SS to badass US airborne) and a pure vehicle porn (so many tanks). It's a great Western European front war library and to me a nice starting point in CM WW2 series with all the content.

Considering Sherman's inferiority in direct combat versus german big cats I take it they used smoke to outright blind enemy tanks and cover their flanking maneuvers so they had any chance of striking weak spots. Would make sense. I've read somewhere that otherwise before Shermans would take out a Tiger head on they would lose 5 tanks and by that time the 6th one will be able to get into a good striking position

Man, that Sherman is crying right there

I never liked WW2 era in gaming. Mostly due to its overuse for decades and how games, namely of a strategy genre, represented it. Vehicles were little more than variations of same stats and shared the same function, be it a light tank or a heavy tank, they just dealt a different amount of damage, chipping off those health bars or armor digits. Most were just destined to be discarded as you raced for the best tier to rule the battlefield. Yes even Men of War was quite guilty of this. Same very much goes for Steel Panthers, Close Combat and CMx1 games - because of all the abstractions, even grounded in reality, but still abstractions, that these games had. Sure enough Graviteam Tactics made WW2 just 'acceptable' to me, mostly due to its awesome representation of tank combat, but I always felt like something was amiss. That's why I like a modern era a lot more. Even in simpler games like Wargame series or Call to Arms due to era's sheer difference in weapon design and technological imbalance every side always felt like it had its own style. I was always playing Steel Panthers MBT and hardly ever touching WW2 versions. Even mediocre Close Combat Modern Tactics was interesting to me. And CMSF and CMBS just set the quality bar absolutely high. But then I got CMBN. And for the first time in my life I felt excited about WW2 era in games. Due to a sheer realism and precise representation of everything - every single vehicle, or even every firearm soldiers carry feels unique. No "better tiers", even light tanks can have their moments of glory versus bigger and meaner brethren when lucky or used cunningly. All the weird looking armored cars, these boxes on wheels can contribute a lot to battles. If it takes part in a mission - it can and will be used and it will matter. And due to all the variety of OOBs that a full CMBN bundle currently offers - it delivers what Graviteam Tactics does not: countless ways to have the same battle in - and an amazing infantry gameplay to boot, making tank battles actually feel superior in Battle for Normandy compared. Furthermore CMBN is, because of how many WW2 games are there and what they are, an example of why realism matters, why just having an abstract "frontal armor" receive less damage before an invisible health bar runs out, or just shrug off hits from calibers below some predefined penetration threshold - will never make an important difference that makes a game truly memorable. Exactly that difference between 75mm tank cannons of USA, Germany and UK. Damn it, I'll have to buy all WW2 CM titles now, right?

What made 88mm L/56 not present any real advantage over german 75mm? Shouldn't the punch get increased proportionally? I certainly didn't see Churchill stop a hit from 88mm on its frontal armor I think

Yeah, thanks. They indeed seem to be very deadly... but the low count of APDS in a loadout and a subpar performance of a 57mm AP however makes IV a rather "glass cannon"

Indeed, CMGL's IV works for CMBN just fine. Thanks... If there is indeed no Churchill VII for CMBN (at least an active link) I'll see what I can do with a crocodile version and Photoshop

Oh boy WW2 era typical kinetic rounds are something entirely different for sure, essentially being oversized bullets. But there also some sabot rounds present here and there. Would a 57mm APDS fired from a Churchill IV even compare to a 75mm slug fired from Sherman? Would a 76 mm brit M10 APDS outperform an 88mm German AP round? Surely even during a relative infancy of sabot rounds they should pose a huge threat due to smaller mass, better acceleration and the devastating force focus in a very small point?

Hello, I've been digging through CMMods and getting all the skins by Aristoteles when I've noticed that Churchill VII is missing. The only one that is there is with crocodile modification - so that skin doesn't work with a basic VII (and doesn't fit the model when textures are appropriately renamed). Doing a google search however it appears there was Aris Churchill VII present some time ago at Battlefront's own repository - however that link leads to nowhere now. So is there Aris Churchill VII skin somewhere? And did somebody do a Churchill IV (57mm one) skin mod? Would be nice to have

Not any less than in CM. The command point limitation is there to introduce a similar system like WeGo except in real-time where you can't just change orders whenever you wish or give them out to 10 units at the same time. Other than that it's only tough for infantry most of the time but due to predominantly open and flat maps instead of mechanics - you can tell armored combat is the primary focus here. But that's one of the reasons why CM is a superior game all in all

There never will be low casualties in large urban battles. At first I thought I was doing something wrong too, but as I was looking up and asking for solutions just like you - I just had to accept that it will always be dirty, no matter the tactics. The safest way to get through some house is to level it. Sometimes you'll end up either killing all guys inside or routing them through the sheer amount of firepower concentrated before the house goes down - and then you can go about capturing it.

Graviteam Tactics is very good. But its learning curve can break your desire to play it. That said it's the only other strategy game that models tank warfare to such degree, if not better. Also freeform campaigns. Steel Armor is the same engine and is a very good tank sim. Syrian Warfare is... Oh boi. Let's just say it's not a realistic wargame and is equal to Russia Today being a game CM Black Sea is a great choice and is definitely the most realistic modern warfare strategy game. And do note that despite being the same engine modern and WW2 eras CM play differently. Modern era is about stealth, long range and 1 shot 1 kill. WW2 is a lot more about brute force and staying together

Very different beasts, despite some similarities. Compared MoW has clear roots from a popular RTS subgenre (without the base building) where you gather "resources" and "build" units. That it also tries to have any realism is certainly a plus - but in the end it's the same easily disposable nigh-unlimited troops that will sacrifice themselves at your mere click, arbitrary point capture and hold and roster being more or less balanced to not give any side an unfair advantage e.g. gamey. It is certainly a very fun game and surprisingly nice to play. My favorite "gamey" RTS together with Wargame. Combat Mission on the other hand is clearly inspired by Close Combat (the 2nd generation CM more so than the first) - your troops are limited, they matter and they don't want to die, having morale or even names. And the game couldn't care less about being fair. A German Koenigstiger will murder a dozen Shermans without blinking before their subpar optics will even spot one. Abrams will eat T72B3 and T90A for dinner at 2km+ at night because of its advanced FLIR resolution. It will provide you with challenge you never hoped for from typical RTS games and every dead soldier will hurt (especially in modern era titles where soldier roles are clearly defined versus WW2 era where you just had 12 dudes armed with samey bolt action rifles). That you lost all your men in MoW is exactly because of that. in CM your troops know better than to rush the enemy and help you not make mistakes through staying away from trouble as best as they can. In MoW it's very easy to lose if you will just rush your squad at a static enemy's one which can easily break your whole dynamics for the whole game due to you having to wait while you get those arbitrary purchase points back.

AI in CM games works much the same as they do in games like DCS or ArmA. A simplified explanation would be that they have a set of waypoints and goals they have to reach and they would do just that. So they won't suddenly adjust the major plan to your actions (unless scripted in triggers but no triggers in QB) However along the way they still have a microAI working which will react to immediate issues - that would cause them to stop, retreat, take cover or take a detour. A well scripted mission can be very challenging and unpredictable. And there are enough of those in base games and from this community. QB however is more like a skirmish in more common RTS like Men of War but still fun

AI force selection in QB is still "broken" as described but you can select its roster instead. And by "broken" people mean that it would select a standard preset structure from the list with all points it can regardless of your own force selection. Again it's not a problem since you can select AI roster yourself for a lot more interesting challenge. I only wish there was an option to set the amount of purchase points (instead of an abstract force size) and save QB presets

OK, I have a strong urge to purchase some CM title but due to a certain other sale incoming I have to limit myself to only a single one. Since this is almost an 'Xmas bones time' I have a question that perhaps has a chance of getting a helpful answer. You see - while I want a CM title - it's CMSF2 that I want the most. And since the last news had it going into an alpha testing stage a few months back is there a chance it's not too far around the corner and I'd be better off holding onto my moneys for a while? Certainly don't want to buy a CM title right now only to learn tomorrow I have CMSF2 to purchase. And I want to buy a CM title