nimtz
-
Posts
16 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nimtz
-
-
I have been searching left and right for the number of individual scenarios (stand alone battles) and the number of QB maps of all the Combat Mission games.
For the Modules the info for the number of scenarios is included on the Battlefront website, but the number of quick battle maps isn't.
Here is the info I currently have:
-
CMBN: 21 Scenarios, 156 QB maps
- Commonwealth: 20 Scenarios, 2(?) QB Maps
- Market Garden: 14 Scenarios, 55 QB Maps
- Battle Pack 1: 12 Scenarios, 5 QB Maps
-
CMFI: 17 Scenarios, ??? QB Maps
- Gustav Line: 18 Scenarios, ??? QB Maps
- CMRT: 18 Scenarios, 178 QB Maps
- CMBS: 22 Scenarios, ??? QB Maps
- CMFB: 25 Scenarios, ??? QB Maps
-
CMSF2: 19 Scenarios, ??? QB Maps
- Marines: 16 Scenarios, ??? QB Maps
- British Forces: 30 Scenarios, ??? QB Maps
- Nato: 24 Scenarios, ??? QB Maps
I managed to find the info regarding CMRT on the wargamer review which is 18 scenarios and 178 Quick battle maps.
Also, the number of QB maps seem to depends on how you count, for example I just counted the number in CMSF2 (with all modules) and that gives me 83 Maps, but that's excluding variants. So perhaps that 178 number for CMRT is including varients which is misleading.
Does anyone know where to get or has that info? Thanks! If you can provide me with the number of "campaign" scenarios too (tallying all the campaign scenarios count) I'll add the info too.
-
CMBN: 21 Scenarios, 156 QB maps
-
Loving the CMBN 2.01 MG fixes, 4 MG42 positions (regular skill HMG teams) are enough to keep 3 US infantry platoons from advancing on open ground (3 MG teams might even be enough)
-
delete this thread.
-
Over time I've realized that a pretty big factor in whether I end up enjoying a wargame/campaign/scenario is the relative workload I have. That is, how many officers am I actually taking decisions for.
So I thought of a very easy way to "measure" said workload and compare some wargames that way. the process is pretty simple: You take the total amount of units under your direct command and you divide that by the amount of work a single officer is expected to have.
So if for example you take a company-lever scenario/campaign of CMx2 that would equate to a workload ratio of 5 (that is a company with 4 platoons). That if you are acting as the Company commander, issuing orders to your platoon lieutenants and also acting as platoon lieutenants issuing orders to your squads. It ends there since you do not have direct control over individuals in each squads (that is the job of squad leader is handled by the AI).
A battalion-level CMx2 scenario has a workload ratio of about 28 (4 Companies, 2 support platoons). Which makes it pretty easy to see why battalion-level scenarios have to be either played WEGO or in RT with lots of pausing to issue orders.
Now I'm curious as to the workload ratio of some other wargames out there, say WitE, WitP, the HPS panzer campaigns, the HPS squad battles etc...
-
I don't know how much of a minority I am but I will probably keep upgrading CMBN as new upgrades are made available (since I already have CMBN 2.0). But I will wait for 3.0 or 4.0 before buying CMFI, A game I would have bought sooner otherwise. I still have lots of hours of play left in CMBN and CMSF so i'll just keep playing those knowing I will probably get double value for my money by waiting a year or so.
As I said, I just hope I am in the minority because this continued support idea is great for everyone of us.
-
The only "problem" I can see with that is that it becomes a good strategy for the customer to just wait as long as possible before buying any game.
That is if you have to pay a total of $55 + $10*number of versions to get the latest version. lets assume v4.0 so that would be $95 (maybe a bit lower with a discount for multiple upgrades).
On the other hand if you wait a couple years you can get that same game for $55 (and maybe even cheaper if you wait for a holiday sale).
Don't get me wrong I think continued support is great and I want this model to succeed, but presented with that choice the latter option sounds much better to me.
-
A related question, if someone decides to skip the 2.0 upgrade, will he be able to get the 3.0 update for $10?
That is, if you wait can you get 1.0 > 3.0 for $10, or do you have to do 1.0 > 2.0 > 3.0 ($20 total).
Also, supporting games indefinitely might be rather large a task even if you are charging $10 for upgrades, imagine once this model has say five base games, that will mean a lot of work just to bring the other four products to the latest version. Possibly slowing the pace of future releases.
-
It's better for the game to err on the side of the gunners being conservative than the other way around.
I think this is were most people have a problem. The current system has awful point target accuracy for HMGs combined with the fact that the gunners are too conservative with ammo. The end result is sub-par performance of HMGs.
I think most people would agree that they would rather see the game err on the other side, that is your conception of "slightly overpowered" would in fact probably be much closer to reality. Even if you think this is wrong, I think the vast majority of your paying customers would agree that HMGs need not just a slight increase in combat efficiency against point targets at 500-1000 meters.
-
In any case, the gunner is going to have to guess that he's hitting where he's aiming unless there's something nice to target that throws up a confirmation.
Not sure if this was the case with most HMGs in ww2, but in ww1 assistant spotters with binoculars were used to spot the fall of the rounds at longer ranges (say over 900 yards). The guns were very accurate even at 1500+ yards, quickly switching between very scattered targets is a different story though.
And then there's the beaten zone aspect. According to the US Army FM, the M240 loses it's ability to have a beaten zone after 600m. For those who don't understand this, it means that if a target is at 700m the bullet is no longer sufficiently traveling flat enough that targets between the gun and the target are "safe" from being hit along the path of the bullet. Which means while the gunner is engaging targets beyond 600m there is no beaten zone in effect.
Here's a nice video of a MG34 on Bipod at 680 yards (621 meters). The beaten zone is still tight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G4T7kN0t68&t=3m13s
With a tripod, it would obviously be much tighter. I'd dare say a couple meters at most.
-
I would be very interested to see a poll of users/owners in which they decide if they would rather have overpowered machine guns or underpowered machine guns.
Personally I would rather have them on too powerful side, sure it may give some advantage to one side on specific maps and generally give the advantage to fortified defenders, but it would encourage much more tactical play and care when machine gun nests might be around.
-
Out of curiosity, whats the release order for 2013?
Market Garden, CMSF2, Eastern front?
I was wrong, you were right. Am I upset? Are you kidding? I'm the happiest I've ever been with a game series in my life, and don't think it will ever be topped, except for CMx3 that is.Not only CM is an amazing series, but it gives me hope in the future of "video games". The way the industry has changed in the past decade was concerning to say the least. Seeing good franchises turn into generic brainless time wasters and seeing said games get widespread success. It went to a point where I wondered if there was actually a chance that intelligent/semi-serious games could still exist, let alone thrive in the current context.
But a few companies, including Battlefront, have proved that there is still room for games that have actual value, they have proved that it's still possible to succeed as a niche developer by focusing on the fanbase instead of making them endure an inferior product in order to gain new potential customers.
-
I, for one, would buy CMFI in a heartbeat with a say 30% discount. If said discount happens before the release of the Eastern front game that is (otherwise I will just be too busy playing that instead of CMFI).
-
I know this is a false positive but my antivirus is detecting the patched 2.0 CM Normandy.exe as a "Generic trojan".
Any way this could be fixed? Something must have been done differently when making this exe since this is the first time this happens with any BF game.
-
bump,
now that the FI patch is released, maybe a word on the BN update.
-
Here's my theory.
Fortress Italy didn't sell quite as much as BF had hoped and they realized that many of us are just waiting for the CMBN patch. So they decided to wait it out instead of releasing it only a couple months after FI.
4.01 artillery dialog greyed out with mortars on map
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Not sure if this is a bug or what, playing with 4.01 "CW 18 Platoon" Scenario, you get a single platoon as the allies and a mortar detachment, but the arty dialog is greyed out so there's no way to make use of that stocked and ready mortar.
Am I missing something here, is this an issue with 4.01? Can anyone else reproduce the issue?
Thanks!