Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Freyberg

  1. I dunno - 100m isn't very far in real life; and 100m is definitely the limit of the effective range of SMGs in Combat Mission. WW2 SMGs were a heavier weapon firing a bigger bullet than modern SMGs; and even a smoothbore musket in skilled hands had some sort of accuracy at 50m, so I don't 100m range for SMGs is an exaggeration.
  2. If you want to play urban or close-quarter maps with SMGs, the best way to get your fix is to play as Soviets
  3. The impression you get from his book is that he was traumatised from the loss of so many friends and had a death wish...
  4. That was a big plus - I've really enjoyed playing Indian Army, including Sikhs.
  5. Keep playing, get better at the game and at tactics, and 'random bugs' will happen to you less often...
  6. I've never had that problem - and I've played a lot of Combat Mission.
  7. I first found CMBO when I experiencing my first 'mid-life crisis' - and I started searching the internet for a computer equivalent to the tabletop wargames I loved when I was a kid. CMBO and CMBB were exactly what I was looking for and the games just keep getting better. I have never felt CM really lacks anything. Hi res shoot-em-ups completely bore me - the gameplay is infantile. The occasional fudge factors in CM don't bother me - they're like dice rolls. You can't have a wargame without them. They make it more realistic, not less - the realism is in the risk and the randomness. If everything always happened as it 'should' the game wouldn't be realistic at all.
  8. I know I post pointless things like this too often, but I just can't get over the incredible wealth of fun I get out of the Combat Mission games. I've been playing Commonwealth and minor Allies in CMFI so long - with huge enjoyment - that now I've started a few QBs with US forces they seem brand new. Meanwhile, I carved off a few slices of the gorgeous CMFR master maps, quickly threw together some QB maps and started playing them - late '44, early '45 - which are a terrific challenge and hugely enjoyable. The AI does such a good job with a good map that you can put together your own fun QB map on your own chosen terrain with relative ease, without any idea of how the battle will unfold. And I'm still scratching the surface of CMCW, which offers a whole new unfamiliar world of units, vehicles and capabilities which are engrossing and offer a whole new historical learning curve. Plus of course I still dip into the other titles (I've still to properly explore CMBS and CMFB - and after all these years with different versions, I still love the extended versions of CMSF and CMBN). Through all kinds of ups and downs in life, Combat Mission has been my 'happy place' for nearly 20 years!! 20 years FFS!! That's beyond unique for a computer game. Sorry - I'm a bit drunk, but I just had to say wax rhapsodic...
  9. It was a hard battle with high casualties even when I played it, which was not long after CMRT was released. It sounds like subsequent updates have upset the balance of the game and perhaps made it unwinnable. Plus, some of the campaigns are really bloody hard. I've had other campaign in other titles that I gave up on, because I couldn't be bothered replaying one battle for a second or third time...
  10. It's been a long time since I played this, but I remember the Nazis being, as always, tough but brittle. I played the way I usually play - a really big 'skirmish screen' across the whole frontage - because I need to know where everything is - then the rest of my infantry and heavy weapons, moving quickly but carefully; tanks following in tight bunches, not too far behind but VERY carefully, relying on a lot of infantry eyes up front, so even when I'm surprised, I quickly know why. Like you, the left flank was where I broke through, but I recall some strongpoints on other parts of the line, with good overwatch, that needed to be eliminated before the left flank was properly open
  11. Some few years ago, when I had the time and energy to play PBEMs, I found good opponents on the Blitz forums. Having said that, it's been about 5 years...
  12. Your assumptions are both churlish and groundless. And why don't you start your own thread and get that locked down, instead of doing to thread where other people are having an interesting discussion.
  13. I really think that would have been enough. By the time the freezing temperatures came, Hitler had destroyed a huge part of the Soviet armed forces - the remainder were hanging on by their fingernails. Zhukov's Siberians had the advantage of being winter-trained and equipped, which would have counted for little or nothing if the encirclement of Moscow had begun 6 weeks earlier. Without the ice-road, Leningrad would have been fully encircled too. Kiev, Leningrad and Moscow accounted for most of the USSR's industrial capacity, and European Russia contained almost all the Soviet population. They would have had no human or economic resources left. The morale effects of such a loss might well have broken the extremely precarious hold the Communist Party had on the Soviet people. And with Siberia denuded of its garrison, why wouldn't the Japanese have attacked from the East - with nothing to stop them? Truly the fate of the world hung in the balance in 1941...
  14. Yes, that was well said, and you're so gracious Danfrodo - such a rarity on any forum Yeah, the Schlieffen Plan was undone by falling just a little behind schedule; and the evacuation at Dunkirk hinged upon a German pause of mere days. Hypotheticals are inherently incalculable, but six weeks seems like a long time in operational terms to me.
  15. Yeah that was me. I wouldn't argue that Churchill was a great military planner, but he was a great political leader; and he understood the fundamental truth that many military planners fail to, which is that you win wars by taking the fight to the enemy. 'He fights', as the man said. Churchill's objective in Greece wasn't to secure Greece, but to strike at the Nazis however he could. Securing Greece failed completely; striking at the Nazis simply served to delay their invasion of the USSR by six weeks, at great cost; and it led to an uprising in Yugoslavia. However those 6 weeks of good weather - in a 1941 campaign of only about 24 weeks, interrupted by mud and freezing weather - made a huge difference. Similarly with the Italian campaign, with all its many failures and setbacks - it took the fight to the enemy, and hitting your enemy hurts him, which has consequences that may not be foreseen or even observed.
  16. In fairness, 1300m isn't really very far - you could see a moving tank that far away with the naked eye, pretty easily if it was moving in the open. With a good crew, good German optics and a high velocity gun, it doesn't seem unreasonable to see a high percentage of first-shot kills.
  17. ...or, if you want a term that carries the horror of the time, there's 'the Empire of Japan'.
  18. Everyone is an expert after the fact, but by Winter 1941 the Nazis controlled much of the population, most of the agricultural area and a large part of the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union, plus they had destroyed the bulk of its armed forces. The extra six weeks that were denied them by Mr Churchill's 'foolish' invasion of Greece would have been six weeks of good weather and dry roads. Had they taken Moscow and Leningrad, which seems conceivable with 25% more time, they would have crippled the Soviets' industrial capacity and would have controlled most of its population. They might then easily have driven the forces on the northern plain east of Moscow back to the Urals, an easily defensible barrier against a much weakened opponent, allowing reallocation of troops. Operation Blue would then have taken place on very different terms. It's easy to say one outcome is 'stupid' or 'impossible' because it didn't happen, but even as it was, it took numerous mistakes by the Germans, excellent generalship by Mr Zhukov, and incredible stoic resistance from the Soviets to prevent Hitler achieving his objectives. Leaving aside the fact that Hitler almost won the war in 1940, freedom hung in the balance in 1941 too, for real. Even in 1942, Soviet victory was far from guaranteed, and was only achieved by Zhukov's masterful husbanding of his resources. The outcome of war is not predetermined by economics or logistics - if it were, we would probably all be speaking Sumerian or Akkadian...
  19. Exactly - you do rolling barrages using TRPs. It's fun, in a stealing-candy-from-a-baby sort of way, and it works fine
  20. I would say that Operation Barbarossa was extremely winnable, that Hitler came within a hairsbreadth of winning the war, not just then but the next year, and it was only by the grace of God, and the immense sacrifice of our forebears, including millions of brave Soviet troops, that he didn't.
  21. I'm a CMFI tragic - I just love this title (with its modules) so much..! I play the others, but it's been my number one ever since the GL module came out. The thing I love the most is that it has New Zealanders, my own little country, which can not be seen anywhere else - but there are other reasons. It covers the widest period of time - going from '43 to '45 - so within each nationality, you can play through a real change of equipment and units. It has the most varied nationalities. The Italians are an almost 1939-style army, or earlier, and yet they have their strengths. On top of this, you have a range of US units (including Rangers, Paratroopers), a vast array of Commonwealth (all with wonderful evocative graphics, such as the Indian Army), Free French (US gear but very different unit structures). As Germans, it has Heer, Luftwaffe and SS. It has a very wide variety of map types; the city maps in the GL release offered some of the best street fighting I've ever played; and there are mountainous, agricultural, rural, arid and forest - plus (shameless self-promotion) you can play on the maps in my Map Pack . It has all four seasons - and with this and all of the above, you have the widest range of WWII combinations, in one of the most gruelling phases of the war. --- Having said that - I've had huge fun with all titles (I play everything except Afghanistan), and apart from FI, I've particularly enjoyed CMRT (where I love playing Soviets), CMFI and CMBN....
  22. Personally I find it fun - I started by adding terrain feature to existing QB maps I'd already played so I could play them as if they were new, and then just got more and more into it and enjoyed it... ...and the newer releases often have amazing Master Maps (the Fire and Rubble ones are very cool) - and it's fun to go through them, pick out some terrain you think would be interesting to fight over, put together a generic QB map (or several), leave it for a week until you've forgotten how you set it up (that step may require you to be a gamer-drinker, but I have that angle covered ), and you can choose exactly what sort of situations you want to game out, which is actually really fun.
  • Create New...