Squallion
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Squallion
-
-
Not clearing the forest. Huhmph. Yeah. Seems necessary to do so a lot in the RU campaign. The road and the empty gaps seem so much more dangerous. I'll definitely keep that in mind, though. Thanks for the advice. All of it will come in use, I'm sure.
-
Q: How should I go about clearing forests?
A1: Carefully, using split teams leapfrogging with Slow and Hunt and overwatch and small moving units and area target orders.
A2 (semi-joking): with unsplit Russian SMG squads on Assault.
A2 is what I've been doing. The assault squads succeed, but die rapidly.
-
I seem to take serious losses when clearing forests.
I usually send men through with the "assault" command.
-
I'd simply like to have a little window that displays losses and when the losses occurred. If I miss the blinking unit icon, I don't realize that someone has died.
-
I just picked up CMRT recently and loving it so far. I played CMBN too but don't have a lot of experience with the system. Some of the battles in the campaigns are a little on the large side for my taste/competence level so I've been playing around a lot with the quick battle system. The OOB and troop selection screen, while workable and relatively straight forward, is not the most user friendly and I'm having trouble selecting two evenly matched forces.
I'm looking for some suggestions of troop selections that will make a fun quick battle. I'm more interested in the "small" point allocation but would be interested to hear what other players go for regardless of size. I generally pick the opposing force myself too. Knowing what the enemy has is not a huge advantage for me at this stage as I'm not particularly good at the game, plus, sometimes, if playing against the Soviets, the AI seems to go very heavy on the rocket artillery which really ruins my day.
From reading the forums I know that there are others out there who like the smaller scale battles, what sort of force composition do you like in quick battles?
I have not yet played a quick battle, but I do want to comment on battle size.
I was wondering if I'm the only one that prefers small/medium maps. Some of these campaign maps(at least soviet that I've seen) are GIGANTIC. I can barely handle it. lol.
Ultimately, I think it's the time limit that makes the HUGE battles difficult for me to handle.
-
I often find myself going through a first turn ritual that on top of the setup that I wish could be streamlined-dolling out ammo and weapons like zooks and mortars to my squads.
I have to move them to a vechicle and in the case of Bren carriers break down a squad to load them. I allocate ammo then move my pixelmen to where I want then.
It would be nice if this could be streamlined.
A better process would not only streamline things, but may also prevent the situation I face in my current game. I'm the British and there are 4 jeeps loaded with 30 cal and 30 cal M1 ammo...oops.
I agree and I think that several things could be streamlined.
However, I am pretty sure the devs have had this discussion a million times. I say that because I read a few posts by them and they seem to be quite competent.
It's most likely something that they are actively working on.
-
I'm running an 8 core 4.0ghz processor (AMD 8350)
GTX780
8gb DDR3 RAM
Asus Sabertooth motherboard
7200 RPM HDD
and an adequate power supply.
I trounce most games.
I can disable shadows for more performance, but even then it's questionably bad.
Is it normal for the game to feature extremely low performance or is there maybe something I should change in Nvidia control panel??
-
Thanks for all of the welcomes, advice, and opinions, gentlemen.
My foray into multiplayer is out of sight. I simply enjoy single player too much. I enjoy sort of roleplaying, taking the time to remember the men that actually died in the war. It hits a sweet spot for me. I have several iterations of singleplayer before I go H2H.
-
Head to head- playing against people rather than against the Artificial Intelligence of the game. It's much more challenging and much, much more rewarding. But it is appropriate to learn the game at first by playing the campaigns, which can not be played h2h.
Glad to have your enthusiasm here; it is entirely warranted.
Playing against a human is a good way to get my face stomped. Maybe in a year or more XD.
-
You're mistaken-its not love. Its a disease. Quit while you still are able to.
Soon you will looking at mods, then you will be wondering why can't they do Viet-Nam, the Arab-Israeli and modern Asia.
You will then start watching videos on you-tube. You will be lying in bed watching videos on your mobile device.
Then you will start h2h and its all over.
What is H2H?
-
This game.
This is the first Combat Mission I've purchased(and not the last).
I used to think that I was a great tactician, but I was wrong. After playing through the Russian campaign on "warrior" difficulty, I have learned more in four days about realistic tactics than I learned in years of gaming otherwise.
I'm not sure why people argue that WEGO is the more realistic path to take. I've seen people say "it takes a while for orders to arrive", but it doesn't take an order from the company commander to know to move and duck for cover when you discover an AA gun, machinegun, or AT gun. I.E.: One of my last full squads of solders was mowed down by an AT gun, I was playing on WEGO and couldn't stop them from running towards it once it was discovered.
I faced defeat on half of the missions, however, the campaign continued anyways. I'd prefer it this way. I don't want to be stuck. I'll be back to have victory in those battles on iron mode. One day...
This game just has me drooling at CMFI and CMBN. They are complete and have expansions. So much content, it will never end.
I mean this literally. I'm not sure I'll ever play another game again. What WON'T pale in comparison to this?
I know it takes a certain kind of grognard to enjoy this. I'm getting older. I guess this is how my tastes are changing. I feel no shame.
This thread is nothing particularly productive. Just sharing my newly found love for a hidden gem of a game.
Close Combat is not half bad, either!( I still can't bring myself to play it instead of this.
PC specs and performance
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Well. Perhaps my performance isn't really complain worthy, but I thought my system would run it a tad better.
I can run it steadily at 30fps with everything balanced, shaders on, shadows on(sometimes the shadows knock it down), trees on.
I run it at 30fps on purpose to get a smooth camera. I turn the Nvidia setting for v-sync to adaptive(half). Without the 30fps limit, I'll get slightly higher frames, but a horrible camera jarri-ness.
It could very well be the intel. I won't battle about it. I only chose AMD, because I was told it was the best when I started building PCs years ago.
However, I do feel that it may be something odd. A setting, perhaps. Or that some of my hardware is being under utilized for some reason.