kraze

Mods matter

Mods matter

Mods matter

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.

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.

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.

OMG I am in the exact same shoes as you, having tried out graviteam tactics and many other wargames recently. Combat mission is the one that stuck to me the most and although I just purchased CMBS which is a great game btw. I am suddenly mesmerised by WW2 and I am trying to decide between CMRT, CMFB and CMBN as my first WW2 CM game. All of which I know I'll get eventually.
CMRT  is unique because of the Russian faction and I am curious how operation bagration mange to wipe out the the whole German army group. CMFB is also different because of the German's final assault and it's mostly set in winter which is a cool thing to see. CMBN is the most classic I suppose and provides the most content including market garden which I am also interested in. I even went out and bought my first WW2 book, Dunkirk by Hugh Sebag and also an encyclopedia of all WW2 greatest battle. 
On a side note, "Snow and steel battle of the Bulge" and "Those who hold Bastogne" are great books to accompany CMFB .
Here's a link to all popular WW2 books according to Amazon. Pls rec me some if u any good ones 
https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=sr_aj?node=5031&ajr=0
 
Cheers!

The Italian Army of WWII never really interested me. In so many games, they are just a 1 point army in North Africa, a parenthetical 1 or 2 pointer in the boot of Italy, and are removed from play on a surrender die roll in '43.
Then I played them in CMFI. The strength of this game system is that is shows how having outdated tactical organization and equipment results in poor battlefield performance. There was no lack of skill or bravery among the Italians. There was a lack of proper planning for a modern war. The large, WWI optimized, platoon has its place: in the trenches against infantry. But not in open order against armor and/or modern equipment. 
CMFI is one of my favorite modules.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

With Christmas just 5 days away, I'd advise you to buy something now. Grab one of the extant titles for yourself for Christmas, then buy CMSF2 when it gets released.
As a beta tester, I can confirm that the CMSF2 release is slated for REDACTED BY MOD
C3K: This is a transgression warning. Mod.

I don't know, but think your just a little Kraze

OMG! In third time here this ridiculos fake about "ERA, which destroys tank" from known T-64 hater GurKhan!
Well, maybe good that this moved to separate topic.
So about GurKhans approvals:
1. Bulat is failed project
BM Bulat was designed at the end of 90th years in order to improve combat capabilities of T-64B to T-80UD level. But economic crisis of that time didn't allow to release this project in full volume. MoD demanded to make upgrading as cheap as possible and designers offerd two variants - T-64BM1 (cheap upgrade) and T-64BM2 (more cheapest). Malyshev's tank factory after Pakistan contract acomplishing, almost stopped all works, so to support it, government decided to order upgrade about hundred ot T-64B into T-64BM. Yes, many specialists understood, that tank will have some problems (especiually with engine when mass significantly grew), but it anyway will better than older T-64B. NOBODY couldn't imagine that Bulat will fight in real! By this reason MoD rejected thermal sights and some other things, whih made a taknk more expensive. But in crisis years Bulat was a real achievment, because it "widely advertized", like wrote GurKhan. SInce 2005 to 2013 87 tanks were upgraded, 10 of them in initial "more cheapest" T-64BM2 variant (not represeneted in the game)
2.Ukrainian army refuses from Bulats
No. "Moving tanks in reserve" and "refusing" are different terms. Bulats can be useful in for example new tank brigade of new formation (14th TB now exists mostly on paper, but with real HQ). Many Bulats are now on Malyshev' factory in awaiting of repair, but factory still busy on BM Oplot-T for Thailand. 
3.  Nozh ERA is dangerous for the tank itself
Damned fake. GurKhan have posted photos of Bulats, which blewed up on mines with ammo detonation or which were destroyed by direct hit of MLRS or large-caliber artillery on statinary positions and shouted like idiot: "Ha-ha! Nozh suck! Stupid ukies made ERA, which blow up tank itself!"  
Photos, which he posted in own article:
This one was lost 21.07.2014 in Georgiivka village. During engagement with enemy tank he got HEAT shell from own vis-a-vis between turret and hull. There was a fire in tank and crew withdrew to village. They almost didn't try to extinguish fire and just abandoned own vehicle. When fire became strong and got ammunition it detonated and teared off the turret. Fragments of explosion also wounded two paratroopers on the checkpount nearby. 

This one was lost in 4th-5th of Sep 2014 in Dmytrivka. Base camp of several units, among them 1st tank brigade was hit by MLRS "Smerch" salvo. This tank tried to escape, but was hit with close explosion or with sub-ammunition of MLRS rocket. Left side of tank burned out with ERA blocks, of course. All three crewmen were killed. 
 
If Nozh so bad and dangerous, that Ukraine refuses from Bulat, how then GurKhan will explain that in new upgrade project of T-64BV this ERA will substitite old K-1, but will be mounted in K-1 containeres? And why he doesn't want to see real work of Nozh, like on photo below? 
Debaltsevo bulge. This BM Oplot got HEAT from enemy T-72 mod.1989. Crew alive, tank in service. Strange, but all ERA blocks didn't detonate like said GurKhan

Shyrokyne area. T-64B1M (Congo contract with improved placement of Nozh ERA) of "Azov" regiment. ATGM hit. Tank stil in service

So, single reason of future retiring (but not immediate) of Bulats is not "dangerous ERA", but 17-years old solutions and issues, tied with its.
Now developed new upgrading program of T-64BV, which for less money will increase capabilities of these tanks: thermal sight, new digital radio equipment, new improved optic, GPS navigation, Nozh ERA in K-1 boxes (easy repair in field conditions). First upgraed vehicles will be transfered  already in next year.

Playing against AI I just set up QB with whatever I want to fight with versus whatever I want to fight against - within reason of course - and have fun.
It's easy to have a good setup even by using just common sense. Like it will take another tank company to get rid of that tank company. You won't send armor to take out defending infantry inside a dense urban area. But you can send an infantry to get rid of a mechanized battalion inside an urban area. Likewise you won't have infantry meet said mechanized battalion in the open field. And of course an attacker or assaulter has to have an adequate advantage in numbers over the defender. In a meeting engagement have more liberty with the numbers.
Like when I started handpicking OOB for AI instead of having it done automatically I was surprised at how much more fun fighting a QB was

Sounds like you need a new hobby if this one makes you that upset.

If we start all being Cpt. Hindsight in here - Battlefront depicts BM Oplots (that are more or less just around the corner and beyond prototype stage in reality and 2017 ain't over yet) but doesn't give Ukrainians UAVs (which the army uses extensively since 2014), thermal vision (which is more or less a thing now on a ground troop level) and has troops wearing dubok camo which nobody wears in the timeframe in reality.
Battlefront did a well-informed guesstimate but even then, with Oplots, depicted Ukrainian army to be weaker than it should be given improvements in the past 3 years. And that's with a real-life conflict getting localized instead of a bigger invasion which would most likely hurry up things even further.
The roster for everyone is more than adequate and it is certainly not fantasy like Il2 1946

If we start all being Cpt. Hindsight in here - Battlefront depicts BM Oplots (that are more or less just around the corner and beyond prototype stage in reality and 2017 ain't over yet) but doesn't give Ukrainians UAVs (which the army uses extensively since 2014), thermal vision (which is more or less a thing now on a ground troop level) and has troops wearing dubok camo which nobody wears in the timeframe in reality.
Battlefront did a well-informed guesstimate but even then, with Oplots, depicted Ukrainian army to be weaker than it should be given improvements in the past 3 years. And that's with a real-life conflict getting localized instead of a bigger invasion which would most likely hurry up things even further.
The roster for everyone is more than adequate and it is certainly not fantasy like Il2 1946

See now? Building a company of Oplots takes less time than CMBS expansion