Freyberg
-
Posts
1,048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by Freyberg
-
-
I like those blurry shots
-
Nice screenies! I love this thread.
-
Regarding force selection, it would be super if there were a 'balanced' random force selection for QBs, like the old 'combined arms' setting from CMx1. It would be even better if there were a greater range of force selection presets, or that players could define their own force-selection rules, which could include bonuses. So players could elect to fight extremely balanced QBs - which many of us already do - or one player could select a heavier force at the expense of some points.
There could be a series of presets like:
- combined arms, recon
- balanced combined arms
- armour-heavy combined
- armour-light combined
and so on, but you could buy outside these constraints at a points cost.
With a bit of thought, this could add a lot of variety, and still remain fair.
As for AI plans. Some of the setup rules are problematic. It would be useful if setup areas on the map could be allocated to particular types of units, instead of to 'group 1, group 2' etc. So the map designer could mark parts of the map as useful to AT guns, armour, HMGs, minefields, and so on. There would only be a fairly limited number of different possibilities. I don't play against the AI that much, but I've had some real wacky AI setups when I have, such as rows of empty foxholes or the whole enemy force clustered together in one strange part of the map.
-
This was a great game from the American perspective. There were some good approaches for recon troops. Got close, got a sot on the AT gun, and came in with the tanks giving covering fire, took the gun out with mortars then took the position from both ends.
-
You can use two Shermans to keep the Panther at bay and still have one left over to grind down the enemy infantry.
-
Some cool vehicles in that list on BFC. Hellcat. And Challenger !!
-
I haven't noticed the problem in CMGL, but I've noticed it in CMBN. Are they both the same?
-
It's certainly galling to watch a Tiger tank ride straight over a beautifully placed square of mines - big bang, no damage....
-
That looks fabulous!
-
The unrealism lies in the nature of wargaming itself - an artificially limited time-frame within an artificially limited area - rather than CMx2, doesn't it?
-
I recall reading that German troops were often issued with Speed. I don't recall the source, but it was in the context of a discussion of war crimes.
-
-
Having said that, hurry up and implement that huge list of stuff in the wishlist thread
-
I'm not a rich guy, but I think the CM games are quite good value for money. The handful of other games and other 'entertainment software' I've owned over the years had vastly less to them. The wealth of informational detail in CM - vehicles, units, weapons, all that historical jazz - is really quite remarkable.
For example, I've learned more from the CM series than from a dozen of the military history books I read.
-
It'd be a cool feature, especially if they went all the way with turrets and tracks blown off and so on, but I understand perfectly that that would be hard work.
-
How about instead of setting up for a QB - create a scenario. Then, since the effort you put into setup isn't wasted as others can play it, it may feel less arduous.
-
A couple of pacifists surrendering to each other.
-
Actually, firing through smoke is very effective. It can be difficult to set up grazing fire with the right angle, but the effect on those surrounded by smoke and being fired on by an unseen enemy is extremely demoralising.
-
The maps in CMBN are very good, but the ones in CMFI/GL are superb.
-
Sorry, when I said CMFI, I meant with Gustav Line. I agree that CMFI on its own was a bit basic.
-
EF will be extremely engaging - and I also think that is the most interesting aspect of WWII by far - but I've always been very interested in the Italian theatre (did I mention there were New Zealanders there?).
Normandy is great too, but historically it was for the most part an exercise in brute force.
The maps and scenarios in CMFI offer some really interesting tactical puzzles. I've found them much more engrossing so far than CMBN (or perhaps bocage is just too hard for me) and they simply look great too - the earthy colours of the terrain and the vehicles - even without mods (my old computer is too slow to handle mods).
I'm currently playing a QB PBEM on barren mountain tops - it looks like Korea, or another planet. Have to pay a lot of attention to undulations in the terrain - it's terrific: difficult, but not in a frustrating way.
-
The scenarios that do ship on CMFI are excellent though. I've enjoyed scenarios like 'In for a Pound' and 'The Quarry' much more than the ones on CMBN.
-
Personally, I'm enjoying CMFI much more than CMBN. The maps are much better, the period is fascinating. I just have more fun with it. (Plus it has New Zealanders)
There are a lot fewer scenarios though - that is one drawback.
-
Fantastic. Wish I could run graphics like that on my old Mac
Market Garden Questions?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Hindsight is wonderful. I think it was a good plan.
It was foolish to expect it to be easy, but if the US paras had done a better job, it would probably have worked. It was certainly a much better strategy than banging senselessly at the West Wall.