Jump to content

Ridaz

Members
  • Posts

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Ridaz

  1. 4 hours ago, Mord said:

    If you dig memoirs, I highly recommend Donald R. Burgett's books; Currahee, The Road To Arnhem, Seven Roads To Hell, and Beyond The Rhine, as well as To Hell And Back, by Audie Murphy. They are jammed packed with action and WWII coolness. Perfect books to get you in the mood for some CM kickassery. They are among my favorite first person accounts of GI combat.

     

    Mord.

    Awesome recs, I'lll check them out.

  2. 35 minutes ago, Macisle said:

    Man, I would SOOO love to have the saved map state functionality for campaigns. This map is tailor-made for that. As things stand, I'm leaning heavily towards letting players create their own damage each battle, even though that means map slice overlap areas will magically repair themselves. Pre-battle damage would add nice atmosphere, but I think that's outweighed by the undesirable reduction in tactical possibilities that canned damage would cause. That, and it's fun to destroy the map yourself!

    At this point, the campaign scenarios will likely tend to have fairly centrally-located victory locations with as much room around them as frame rates will allow. That way, the defender can make use of overwatch locations deeper within his overall defensive zone and have room to maneuver in reinforcements and/or mount local counterattacks. Likewise, that will allow the attacker the ability to maneuver, flank terrain objectives, and perhaps bottle up defenders in ineffective areas. This will also allow for reasonable time limits (maybe 60-90 minutes average), as the distances to objectives will not be great in actual meters, but it will require lots of time and careful play to actually take and hold onto them.

    Going back to arty,  I think the Soviet attacker will find himself often walking in the footsteups of his real-world historical counterparts in making extensive use of carefully choreographed pre-planned barrages. Wielded well and with luck, he will have a mighty bludgeon there that may well be the key to "shock and awe" his way to a foothold on the objectives. Once the battle is underway, the lesser speed and accuracy of his artillery will likely make it less effective than his opponent's. On the other hand, the German player should have a good chance to have adequate combat power survive the Soviet opening barrages with careful use of the terrain and smart deployment. Then, his experienced SS units will be able to call faster, more accurate artillery -- and not just the small stuff. Exensive artillery duels may be fairly common. And, the Soviet player may find himself reserving his mortars for AT duty more than he is used to.

    Excellent!!!! I seriously can't wait to get CMRT and the new module and try out your map! 

  3. On 1/18/2018 at 12:32 AM, jonPhillips said:

    I have to disagree – written with a completely pro-US bias, any volume that hero-worships Mark Clark has to be questioned.

    For a balanced, well written book of one the key campaigns in the battle for Italy, try 'Fatal Decision: Anzio and the Battle for Rome' by Carlo D’Este. Despite the fact that it focuses a little too much on the political in-fighting between the senior Allied commanders, it remains an excellent and well-researched account.

    I can't find Battle for Rome by Casrlo D'Este but there is one by Robert Katz.

  4. 6 hours ago, IanL said:

    OK now I am totally confused. The first time I clicked on you link just like @Ridaz I saw no number 6. The link went to the start of the thread. Not list no number 6. But now that I added my link directly to the post that has the numbered list you quoted both links open that post.

    Wired - or maybe just me (and @Ridaz :-)

     

    5 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

    I think it depends where you click in the link.  I just experimented around with it.  When I clicked on the top in the blue on Batttlefront.com replied to a topic it took me to the post.  When I clicked on Another Reason............. it took me to the beginning of the thread.  It also took me to the beginning of the thread when I clicked on By Battlefront.com October 12, 2017.  So three choices and only one linked to what I wanted :P.  Damn technology............:D

     

    Oh no wonder I had problem looking it up. I also look through and found that post 6 and page 6 were irrelevant.

  5. 1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

    Steve said "beyond the current story line".  Marines and NATO can easily (and I believe are) in the current story line.  No worries.  I think he was referring to mission creep and having CMBS turning into some other war (Arab, Israeli etc.)  CMBS can have expansions, packs etc. that are relevant to the conflict in Ukraine.  It's all good my friend.       

    Thanks awesome! Sorry i misunderstood, I am new here. I would love to see more expansion, especially campaigns. 

  6. On 1/15/2018 at 12:28 AM, Battlefront.com said:

    Then let me answer that ;)

    There are no plans to expand CMSF or CMBS beyond their current storylines.  Which does mean that requests for Merkavas and Armatas and whatever are all falling on deaf ears over this way.  Not because we don't think it would be cool to have them, but because we have other things on our plates and can't see a time when we'd ever get to that stuff. 

    If we do find ourselves at a point where we think "hey, we have some time to expand either CMSF or CMBS" I can promise you that any conversations had years earlier won't be on our mind at that point.  By that I mean I do remember people posting here wanting IDF forces simulated before CMSF had even been released (i.e. 10+ years ago), but whatever that conversation was won't have any influence on what we do.  Instead we'll take a fresh look at whatever the options are, at the time, and make a decision based on that.

    Steve

    Oh now what a shame! I was really looking forward to future expansion like Marines or Nato for CMBS. I can definitely understand not wanting to expand CMSF as it already has 3 expansion but CMBS only has a battle pack and zero expansion. :(

  7. 21 minutes ago, kraze said:

    CMBN was my choice because Big Bundle. That is - a lot of content, but not just missions (87 single battles alone and 7 campaigns not counting 2 tutorial ones) - sides with a lot of branches (from fanatical SS to badass US airborne) and a pure vehicle porn (so many tanks). It's a great Western European front war library and to me a nice starting point in CM WW2 series with all the content.

    Oh how I wish to buy them all and hug them in my sleep~

  8. 1 hour ago, HerrTom said:

    I don't think Battlefront has complete ownership over the assets used in CM:A for some reason - I think a split with their co-developers over it?  As such, I wouldn't hold your breath.

    (Would be wicked cool, though)

     

    1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    That's a negative.....Steve has stated that BFC's involvement with this title is done sadly (it's my favourite in some ways).  :(

    Yeah I was afraid of that. I wonder if BFC make a sequel by them self without any partnership and maybe renaming to something else to avoid legal troubles. :unsure:

×
×
  • Create New...