Bud Backer

I’ve been waiting for these little guys for ages. I played around with it a fair bit to make that shot different from the conventional front or side shot.

Ah, Balance. I agree, we need to have balance in a competitive game. And that is made all the harder because the war it is trying to simulate was never balanced. The more the game balances things the more it is removed from the realism that many die-hards would like to see. Personally, I don’t feel I need an excuse to be able to use certain vehicles. You mentioned the Cromwell and other Commonwealth vehicles and it’s an interesting example. Are they overpriced? Do their costs not reflect their quality, as you put it? I actually don’t know. Even if their cost was adjusted, would rarit

This caught my eye after I wrote the above and wanted to address it because it is an important assumption. I emphasized one part because I think this is key. This is very much an assumption of the cost factor. It appears to imply that in this discussion, the Sherman is the natural match-up for the Panzer IV. I think this might be a easy conclusion to make, however, let's challenge that for a moment. It is a likely matchup? Sure. So is Sherman-Panther. Or Sherman-SdKfz 251. Or Sherman-infantry. I say this not be be silly but rather to draw one's attention that the kind of matchups they ar

Good. I know you are a thoughtful fellow, so don't accept the bait and drop the level of discussion I know you are capable of holding. It just doesn't go anywhere and encourages more nonsense. There was a reason the Germans were trying to use and improve the Panther, and I think you are essentially confirming that here. And Tommy-Lighters or Ronsons or Shermans, call them what one will, there are reasons for those monikers, unfortunately the moniker sticks long after the reasons it was granted are corrected. Neither here nor there, in terms of the cost discussion, but nice anecdotes t

Interesting. That is so completely opposite from my own experience. My regular QB partner almost always uses strafing aircraft and I consider them to be even less than a nuisance. In fact, I like that he wastes points on them.

Let’s stop the hyperbole train because it really just derails any serious discussion, ok? I agree that that pricing of some units feels off, including the StuG and the Panzer IV. I also think the Abrams is too cheap in CMBS. But I don’t think you can argue that the PZIv is too expensive because it can be killed with an M8’s 37mm. So can a Panther or JagdPanther. Shall we suggest then that they should cost perhaps the same as a Sherman? Or perhaps that the panzerfaust, since it can take out a Jumbo, should cost 400 points? I think few would find that sensible. Is the Panzer IV mo

Hmmm. Snipped this part imgur.com/a/4LIFK6H copied the URL of the image itself which I can put in as an image here

I play pretty much exclusively QB. And lately it’s been my thing to set much of the settings on random. So I’ll know the year/month, and the two sides as the person I play against has his preferences as to nation and force type as do I. But the rest is usually random. We approach this from the perspective that each of us has a superior officer who told us to go to this location (the map) and do what is appropriate (attack/defend depending on the random result) the objectives. We pick our own forces. Sometimes we introduce some “house rules” for that battle alone - like - no substitution, buy w

NVM

I worked with him in the 90s on Steel Panthers after SSI stopped. He was a force of nature, seemingly unstoppable, but irrepressibly good humoured and enthusiastic. A positive individual and I am sad to hear of his passing.

I find doing a decision matrix is the easiest and most successful way to make a decision, as all games have small to huge battles possible. I think the key thing is to decide what period ( WW2 or Modern) interests you the most. if Modern, then CMSF2 or CMBS are your options. CMSF2 has more nations and more variety of equipment, but is focused more on a counter-insurgency/asymmetric sort of warfare where one side typically has a lot poorer equipment than the other, but has more numbers and has to use different tactics than a stand up fight. There are no seasons here, it’s basica

Just a further clarification on this: without an AI plan, you can’t use the map against an AI opponent as the AI units will not Advance, and be an effective enemy. They just sit in their starting positions. But against a human opponent no AI plans are needed in a QB map. I’ve made many such maps and they all worked fine in QB against a human opponent.

If you haven’t played any Combat Mission games then it may help to know that there are four types of battles you can have: 1. Premade battles (“scenarios”) that allow you to pick one or any side and have forces pre-selected. You read the conditions, forces available and objectives and attempt to fulfill the latter to win. They can range in size from a few squads to a regiment. 2. Campaigns - these are an interconnected series of what is mentioned above in 1 with outcomes of each battle determining various things for the upcoming battle. 3. Battles you create using the scen

Have you checked the saved games folder?

What blue stuff? I just see text in a box. kidding... 😛