Freyberg

I was thinking about this one... I would say the CM convention is the opposite. There is usually some part of each side's setup zone that is in LOF of the other side, seldom the whole zone, but some part of it. You have to do a quick check of LOF where you set up if you want to be sure of being in defilade. Most QB maps are like this - and I think it's a good idea.

No - I've never seen that. Could they in fact have triggered a mine...? Or an IED if it's a modern title.

I've never tried to destroy a tank obstacle with engineers, but the satchel charges do make a big bang when they go through other obstacles. I have occasionally had charges fail to clear an obstacle, but it always been either because it was oddly positioned and the engineers went the wrong way (such as at the corner of a wall), or there was something else about it that was odd, such as a stone wall flush with the wall of a house.

I'm pretty sure the Hunt order hasn't changed - if it has I haven't noticed it with CMFI...

I agree with you to a point. If all scenario designers broke the rules, it would be very annoying - but when the rules are broken once in a while, in a creative and exciting way, it's actually kind of immersive and fun. As for briefings - I always assume they are flawed. I thought lying in briefings was a convention

There was discussion in the general forum about scenario replayability, including this perspicacious comment from MikeyD... ...I find myself doing something similar with QBs - playing the same, similar or related forces again and again, against similar but varied enemies, on different maps, in different weather conditions and so on. I particularly love the British and Commonwealth forces - CMFI has a marvellous range of these, covering a good chunk of the war. These days, I've found myself playing with variations on the MG Company/MG Battalion/Support Group used in conjunction with Infantry or Motorised Infantry. There are many subtle variations of the Support Group/Support Company, as well as variations of the Motorised Company - and I am getting much better at using the combination of massed Vickers MG (with extra ammo of course), heavy and medium mortars and good old British/Commonwealth infantry. An MG Platoon (or two) can put out an amazing amount of suppressing fire if concentrated on a single target (they don't get many kills, but they can paralyse most soft targets at up to 1000m). Heavy mortars are inaccurate, but fire comes in quickly. Combined with the ubiquitous infantry smoke mortar, there are all kinds of fun tactical plans to experiment with - plus there are on map mortars, carriers and so on to utilise. I must be up to about my 20th consecutive QB with some combination of these forces from one of the Commonwealth nationalities and I feel like I am still just beginning to come to grips with the use of these two units in combination. Thanks yet again BF

There's a whole bunch of them available for download in a thread in the 'Maps and Mods' section of CMFI - They're still a bit messy, in terms of missing descriptions, thumbnails etc, and missing AI plans for both sides (usually just an AI plan for defender), so I haven't put them on the Depot. Over Christmas I'll try and finish them off properly (there are a lot of them!), and upload a big map pack to the Depot

The best way to clear a building is to flatten it with HE or flame it; the second best is to bust through a blind wall with satchel charges and pour in (although you have to watch out for enemy troops immediately outside the building on the other side waiting to ambush you. If those two methods are out - I use heavy suppressing fire and approach the building slowly and carefully before sending a squad or so to charge in from close range. You have to accurately estimate how many enemy are in the building - the AI sometimes packs buildings with more troops than you might imagine. If, from a distance, you're regularly seeing one or two enemy in there, there may well be more than a whole squad. If you're seeing what looks like a squad, there's probably a platoon...

Agreed. I recall reading that casualties in intense combat always have been and remain quite high, but the relative number of troops on the cutting edge at one time has changed over time. CM casualty rates are high, but not unrealistic, given all the variables.

In the current update of CMFI (the only up-to-date title I am playing at the moment), Commonwealth troops will never pick up SMGs unless the soldier actually administering aid is armed with only a pistol - and will only pick up SMG ammo if the soldier actually administering aid can use it. Otherwise they will pick up LMGs, AT weapons, rifle, MG and AT ammo, and mortar rounds sometimes. There is a limit how much ammo they will pick up - e.g. if administering aid to an HMG unit with a surplus of ammo (thousands of rounds), they may not pick it up.

So many favourites, but one formation I really like is the British Recce Company in CMBN. All those different carriers and armoured cars, a platoon of Motorised Infantry in every squadron - it's just such an interesting mix.

I find Firefies are lethal if you use them with extreme stealth: keep at least 1000m, or more, from the enemy, creep up in cover to a point where you don't quite have LOS. They will generally spot first, after a little while, and often kill with the first shot.

I have great QBs against the AI. 1) First, I use my own maps, which are larger than the typical QB map, with more AI groups (very broad and simple, but multiple groups just seems to make a difference) and lots of long-range fire opportunities. 2) I choose both sides myself, based on 'suggestions', but tweaked a little, usually infantry only or combined arms, but I give the AI tough forces. I don't scrutinise the suggested forces too much, just make sure they're reasonably tough (adding AT guns, MGs & light flak usually, and deleting any turkeys) - if you have more than one QB running at the same time, you quickly forget precisely how many of what unit or vehicle the AI has. 3) I also choose high morale and experience for the AI. I have lots of fun - it's not too easy and it's not dull. NB - oh, and I don't use TRPs or pre-planned artillery...

The Mix setting is unavailable for Indian troops - I haven't looked at Brazilians yet. So you can't have vehicles with Indians - they're still a fun nationality to play though. The Sikhs look excellent and the Indian formations, like all Commonwealth-based forces, have their own idiosyncrasies. Oddly, when you select Infantry Only with French forces, you have access to all their AFVs, even M10s. Minor inconsistencies though - I've been binge-playing CMRV since it came out and I'm still loving it.

A possible 'simple' improvement would be the ability to: 1) import and export AI plans; 2) name AI groups and objectives with recognisable names ('infantry recon'; 'phase line one'; 'long range fire position' and so on) Then the top designers could design cool generic plans, that just needed tweaking and having suitable objectives applied, and we less skilled map & scenario makers could exploit them.

The most important variable for a good fire mission is nice clear, wide LOS.

Some battles have been so good, I've played them again (the Road to Mounteburg springs to mind, and the CMSF2 one where you're clearing the big valley - there are others). It can also be fun to get into the editor and try it with a different but equivalent attacking force, of a different nationality. I share the frustration with having to replay campaign battles though - I'd usually rather give up...

Well, if it's a QB, you should always buy a supply platoon...

That sounds about right. When I was doing Sallust at uni, I read a journal paper that described a typical formation in the late Republic being a series of ranks, typically around 4-6, separated by as much as 50m. In each line the men were around 2m apart. It was a detailed article and they were extremely flexible formations - easily combining ranks from open order to close order; one falling back through another or reinforcing another; one rank using their missiles while another was engaged; and so on. I had imagined the Romans to have been a well-trained force, but I was still surprised by the complexity of their battle tactics. Their default battle formation was also more spread out than I had imagined.

I'm had 20 years of enjoyment from playing the various Combat Mission games, having bought every title and module except 'Afghanistan'. There's a lot to learn, in terms of gameplay, tactics, unit capabilities, and so on - it's endless. Mistakes are messy. That's why it remains such fun. When you want something different - there's a whole world of map, scenario and campaign design (I love making and playing my own QB maps). It's an amazing game - the frustration is part of the challenge. Just buy it

Spectacularly, apparently

The opposite of fun is boring - easy or hard, good graphics or bad, most other computer games are boring after a while, or even right away.

I don't know what technical glitches it had at first, but I bought the CMSF1 big bundle when it was sold on special. By then it was way behind the WWII games, but, even then and even being much more of a WWII fan, I had great fun with it.

It's certainly accurate in direct fire, but I guess all mortars are...

I guess forests or woods become objectives precisely because they contain enemy troops - they do seem to crop up in the history books from time to time...