Freyberg
-
Posts
1,048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by Freyberg
-
-
I love your comics
I was a little sad you didn't get to finish the one for Rome to Victory. This one is also awesome...
-
One quirk I hoped would have been changed with this module is the way enemy AT guns often end up limbered, trudging slowly along as sitting ducks.
-
Brutal...
-
On 12/9/2019 at 5:07 PM, markshot said:
...it usually safe to assume that your setup zone is not already in contact with the enemy, ...
On some of the QB Attack and Assault maps, especially medium-sized ones, it is not at all safe to assume your setup zone is not in LOF of the enemy - first moves can be wild!!
-
I used to always split squads, but the game engine has made that less necessary now, which is great, because it's much easier to play with whole squads.
I still break off teams for special missions - AT, scouting and tricky assaults - but most of the time it isn't required. You do have to be a little careful not to let your squad bunch up on a single action square though.
-
I think surrendering works well and is actually quite complex and sophisticated.
I've never been in a war, but I'm not sure soldiers do often surrender in the heat of battle - or whether they are more likely to surrender when the shooting has died down, which the game also models.
As it is, those little white flags are a real bonus, a little prize in game terms. To get four or five of them at once feels really good and is not easy.
-
I've always assumed the hand of God was involved somehow...
-
My favourite MG scenario has been 'Boys to Men'.
I don't usually play as the 'bad guys', but that one was a ripper. IIRC, I played that map as a QB the other way round too, and it was still pretty good.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Sure, I can see the value in it for those who would want to use it. However, it is not a substitute for a campaign system. Since a campaign system is a mandatory component of any CM game, that has to come first. Any import/export system would have to be a second feature separate from the first. And that means creating and maintaining two systems, which we are reluctant to do. Combat Mission can not be everything to everybody all the time, which means there will always be features not developed even though some % of our audience would appreciate them.
Steve
If we keep nagging, maybe you'll change your mind
I'm pretty sure I've seen that happen before...
-
I never played CM1 Campaigns. It seemed complicated and hard work and I didn't get it.
CM2 Campaigns are also hard work - one or two of them I've given up, but I've played several of them and thoroughly enjoyed them.
I would love to have the option to import units and map damage to QBs though...
-
9 hours ago, umlaut said:
A few shots from the very entertaining "Smokey's Challenge" scenario. Great fun.
That second image is truly glorious!
-
So this Kiwi breach team blew open a wall and - thanks to fortuitous turn-timing which allowed me to catch them just before they rushed in - they shot a whole bunch of Jerries as they were cowering on the ground (8 casualties recorded at game's end). I was reminded of the discussion on another thread about the relative effectiveness of bolt-action rifles. With a cold-blooded killer behind it, every gun can be deadly.
It was brutal to watch - in 2019 it would be a war crime.
That was the previous QB - this is the current one. French infantry, engineers and Spahis (recon troops with Stuarts) running up the slopes of the Gustav Line to bust it open and save the boys at Anzio.
-
I like it the way it is now...
-
I'm up to my third QB, exploring the new units available to the minor nationalities.
The beauty of this game is in the details - I'm finding this module really interesting. Scenarios might have to wait until the holidays as I like to play them carefully.
-
They can take over from the HQ if the HQ is killed, so I usually look after them unless the HQ is very safe.
-
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:
...BTW, I do NOT have this issue with smg squads which go through ammo like crap through a goose.
I love playing Soviets and I seldom have problems with running out of SMG ammunition - the leading squads always seem to obligingly leave behind those little round, red ammo dumps for the squads coming up behind.
-
Bolt action rifles have their own window of effectiveness - you just have to be more cautious, take your time and stay at slightly longer range where they still have good accuracy. It changes the feel of the game significantly.
-
I was reminded of this thread:
...which I found amusing at the time for its intemperately expressed opinions, and which BF Steve and some other contributors make an excellent case for the premises behind the scenario.
The weird thing is that I don't consider myself a top player (when I had time for PBEMs I lost more than I won), but I didn't find crossing the river especially difficult. You just take your time, accept the casualties and keep pushing forward. It was fun.
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
My hyperbole aside, it makes perfect sense to me. If you dip into some of those older threads you'll see how passionate people are about a wide variety of incompatible concepts. And even when a subset agrees with a broader type of campaign structure, they quickly go in different directions within the concept. That's because Campaigns are more about how a story is told instead of what the story is about.
Steve
2 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:Sadly, as we have seen so often in the past, anyone who thanks Steve for his input, and takes on board what he says, gets abuse.
Thanks, Steve - I love the game and really appreciate hearing from you
-
12 minutes ago, Combatintman said:
Lightweight
That's adjusting US dollars to Kiwi money
-
I find the Garand is a pretty hard hitting weapon. A couple of squads of Armoured Infantry can unleash a lot of firepower - a lot more than the equivalent number of British troops.
It's fun playing with troops that have less modern rifles - it changes the whole feel of the battle.
-
2 hours ago, 76mm said:
I have to agree with this; it seems quite bizarre that any necessary engine upgrades are not included with the cost of the module, or that early buyers of a game have to pay for subsequent upgrades, not not later buyers.
Over the last 9 or so years, I have spent around $500 on CM products, which works out at about $50 a year. I spend around that much a week on alcohol, and it gives me less escapism that this game...
-
2 hours ago, VendoViper said:
Here we have the exact opposite situation, and the behavior I had come to expect from playing on engine 3 for years. Fired up Fortress Italy to try out the new scenarios, and here the completely badass veteran american infantry have opened up fire with their rifles...
In fairness - that squad have no casualties, they're under command and their morale is good. Also, that doesn't look like a reverse slope. Even so, less than half of them appear to have LOF.
I don't know what things are like under the hood and it may be my imagination, but Soviet infantry seem to be more reliant on being under command than other nations, which doesn't seem unreasonable, given the type of army it was.
Also, you noted that the Soviet team was receiving MG fire. Is the same true of the US squad...?
-
17 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:
@Freyberg Nail well and truly hit on the head.
In the meantime without giving too much away, apply the second word of the campaign title, to your tactics in the first mission. It might help a bit.
I really enjoyed Hammer's flank
It taught me to enjoy using Soviet tactics - if the attack fails, throw in another platoon! ...but do it cunningly...
I was a little sad you didn't get to finish the one for Rome to Victory. This one is also awesome...
I'm pretty sure I've seen that happen before...
With tanks on the prowl should squads alway be split?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Here's a squad rushing for cover - they're well spread out. I don't see the need to split squads these days, unless it's for a specific little mission.