com-intern

Honestly people are panicking way too much over Steam reviews. To the point that I actually question whether people commenting actually use the platform. Here are some reviews for "serious wargames" many of which look significantly worse than CM. Some of these are literally chits on a map.

Command Ops 2: Very Positive
Graviteam Tactics: Very Positive
Flashpoint Campaigns: Very Positive
Armored Brigade:  Very Positive
War in the East: Very Positive
War in the West: Very Positive
Decisive Campaigns: Very Positive
Command (CMO/CMNO): Very Positive
Scourge of War: Very Positive
Take Command: Positive

Any thoughts on Steam Workshop integration?

The heavily limited "modding" capabilities of CM make it an almost perfect candidate. Command Ops 2 and Armored Brigade are using the workshop to great effect and make it simple to download new scenarios.

Any thoughts on Steam Workshop integration?

The heavily limited "modding" capabilities of CM make it an almost perfect candidate. Command Ops 2 and Armored Brigade are using the workshop to great effect and make it simple to download new scenarios.

Any thoughts on Steam Workshop integration?

The heavily limited "modding" capabilities of CM make it an almost perfect candidate. Command Ops 2 and Armored Brigade are using the workshop to great effect and make it simple to download new scenarios.

People on Steam usually only complain about graphics when they feel they've been misled to think the game would look better than it actually does. There was a big argument over Rome: Total War II where they released promo videos that looked way better than the game actually does in action. Also Witcher 3 had a bit of that, where people complained the graphics had been downgraded compared to early footage.
But in the case of Combat Mission, nobody is trying to hide what the game actually looks like. So very few people are going to complain about that.
We have to let go of the idea that people outside of this forum are generally stupid and unreasonable. There are all kinds of gamers on Steam.

Honestly people are panicking way too much over Steam reviews. To the point that I actually question whether people commenting actually use the platform. Here are some reviews for "serious wargames" many of which look significantly worse than CM. Some of these are literally chits on a map.

Command Ops 2: Very Positive
Graviteam Tactics: Very Positive
Flashpoint Campaigns: Very Positive
Armored Brigade:  Very Positive
War in the East: Very Positive
War in the West: Very Positive
Decisive Campaigns: Very Positive
Command (CMO/CMNO): Very Positive
Scourge of War: Very Positive
Take Command: Positive

Honestly people are panicking way too much over Steam reviews. To the point that I actually question whether people commenting actually use the platform. Here are some reviews for "serious wargames" many of which look significantly worse than CM. Some of these are literally chits on a map.

Command Ops 2: Very Positive
Graviteam Tactics: Very Positive
Flashpoint Campaigns: Very Positive
Armored Brigade:  Very Positive
War in the East: Very Positive
War in the West: Very Positive
Decisive Campaigns: Very Positive
Command (CMO/CMNO): Very Positive
Scourge of War: Very Positive
Take Command: Positive

Honestly people are panicking way too much over Steam reviews. To the point that I actually question whether people commenting actually use the platform. Here are some reviews for "serious wargames" many of which look significantly worse than CM. Some of these are literally chits on a map.

Command Ops 2: Very Positive
Graviteam Tactics: Very Positive
Flashpoint Campaigns: Very Positive
Armored Brigade:  Very Positive
War in the East: Very Positive
War in the West: Very Positive
Decisive Campaigns: Very Positive
Command (CMO/CMNO): Very Positive
Scourge of War: Very Positive
Take Command: Positive

Also remember that the enemy within the core of the woods is effectively out of the fight. As soon as you push them deep enough into it that they cannot see out you can leave a small group of men to screen your force from it and move on.

Split the platoon into fireteams.

Step #1: fireteams on line and within LOS of each other. One team advances a short distance forwards using hunt (about half of LOS maybe less) and then sits for maybe 20 seconds.

|

| -> |

|


step #2: Other fireteams then advance inline with the sacrifical element and waits 20 seconds or so before repeating.

| -> |
.     |
| -> |


It will take a long time but it allows your mean to move forward bit by bit and gives them time to spot and engage any enemies. Once you locate the enemy you can then engage them on your terms. You can make this slightly faster by just having your troops do a similar style of movement but with having them firing into the woods as they advance using target light.

The reason you use hunt is that you want the team to immediately hit the deck should they suspect anything is going wrong. Going prone in woods gives them a lot of concealment and the accompanying fireteams should be close enough to provide supporting fire quickly.

 

Split the platoon into fireteams.

Step #1: fireteams on line and within LOS of each other. One team advances a short distance forwards using hunt (about half of LOS maybe less) and then sits for maybe 20 seconds.

|

| -> |

|


step #2: Other fireteams then advance inline with the sacrifical element and waits 20 seconds or so before repeating.

| -> |
.     |
| -> |


It will take a long time but it allows your mean to move forward bit by bit and gives them time to spot and engage any enemies. Once you locate the enemy you can then engage them on your terms. You can make this slightly faster by just having your troops do a similar style of movement but with having them firing into the woods as they advance using target light.

The reason you use hunt is that you want the team to immediately hit the deck should they suspect anything is going wrong. Going prone in woods gives them a lot of concealment and the accompanying fireteams should be close enough to provide supporting fire quickly.

 

iirc the reason the contacts in CMx2 are better is because they are not sound contacts but poor visual contacts.

"was that a man or a bush" as opposed to "I heard metal clinking"

This is sorta linked into why we dont have vehicle misidentification

Also remember that the enemy within the core of the woods is effectively out of the fight. As soon as you push them deep enough into it that they cannot see out you can leave a small group of men to screen your force from it and move on.

No, that was tank battalion "Avgust", which also mostly consisted of Russians. Tank breakthrow had to support cossack company of 6th regiment, but they had low motivation and after several close hits of UKR shells rejected to attack.
Wagner's convoy was badly beaten three days after near neighbor VOP "Serhiy" in 4 km to the north from VOP "Valera" (in the article mistakingly pointed that Wagner was defeated also by "Valera" garrison, but this is mistake of the source). Also 21st of Jan first attack on VOP "Oleksiy" was repelled. These three failed attempts forced the enemy to reject from the plans to cut off UKR group in Myronivske-Svitlodarsk line and shift own main efforts on other flank to Vuhlehirsk (rus. Uglegorsk). By unknown reasons official UKR version of battle recognizes the start of Debaltsevo battle from the moment of assault of Vuhlehirsk, cutting off all successful defensive clashes 21-28 Jan.  Maybe because this version is profitable to our political establishment, which was explaining the loss of the city by total superiority of the enemy. Of course, examples of battles on eastern flank, when platoon-sized strongpoints were successfully repelling much stronger enemy attacks don't fit in this conception.
Good article, but I'm again wonder how some western researchers write about some facts and even give the links on the sources, but if we open that sources, we will not see anything about it. I'm about this
Svitlodarks was never captured. The enemy only shelled it two times 24th and 27th Jan. The source 43 says nothing about this, source 44 says "In fierce fighting on 23-24 January the enemy managed to seize the villages of Troitskoye and Svetlodarsk, posing a threat to the M-103 highway. Obviously, the goal was to completely surround the Debaltsevo group and take the road. However, the Ukrainian command was prepared for such enemy actions. A timely counterattack by Ukrainian armour allowed the Ukrainians to drive the enemy from Troitskoye and establish a reliable foothold there. Simultaneously the enemy was ejected from Svetlodarsk". I suppose the author was confused by unappropriate translation "ejected from Svitlodarsk". It means the threat was driven off the town vicinity (why village?), but not "enemy was expelled from the town itself". This is about enemy attemts to trumple our defense on our eastrn flank since 21th Jan.
Again incorrect. There weren't "violent tank clashes", though yes, the usage oh armored vehicles in this battle was large. Enemy lost most of own armor on AT-mines, and could hit some UKR armor with tank guns and further with ATGMs, during UKR assault attempt, but that all had the "surprise!" characther, not controlled action. The company of 13th mot.inf battalion with tank and AT support, defended the Vuhlehirsk had the bad commander with CM COMMAND/MORAL level maybe -2, they also had not so good training and low than average motivation, more - after the assault started, commander left the battlefield. MT-12 crews of support even didn't stand to the guns. 9P149 Shturm-S reacted too late, when enemy already was in the town, so one was shoot out directly in the center of the town, when it drove to the own position, other either was abandoned by crew and destroyed or captured by the enemy, I can't сall to remind now 

I'd argue that from a realism stand point the usual culprit is too large a force on too small a map. Rather than vice versa. The pain in the ass that is scenario design makes it clear why we have that problem. I've done some personal editing of scenarios and increasing the size of the map and adding/moving some of the supporting troops out of the immediate combat zone has usually worked although for obvious reasons the new terrain isn't terribly detailed.

Which from a gameplay perspective I think works just fine because the player is never meant to walk over there.


@RepsolCBR

Just being able to have persistent map damage would be fantastic. Literally just exporting the map out as is would be nice.

iirc this issue predates any of the more recent bugs. I recall running into this way back in 2011.

iirc this issue predates any of the more recent bugs. I recall running into this way back in 2011.

I've been waiting for a CMBS module for 5 years now...

Bingo. Map's too small for the given scenario and forces involved. The player doesn't really have many options and the one he has is very exposed to return fire. 
The map i'm looking at seems appropriate for a squad+ size engagement at most. Even a pair of Platoons can make a 500m area pretty lethal. 

The ASSAULT Command isn't a true assault but is just bounding overwatch. This can be done far better with QUICK and PAUSES but neither are true assault commands.

What is really needed is a command the prioritizes shooting over maneuver. Which we have none of right now.

Almost every scenario & campaign ever made for CM (even officially) are semi-historical at best... do not overestimate the historical accuracy of the computer game that you play.
I suspect far more people play CM because of the decent 3D graphics & sound (for a wargame), fairly realistic physics &, at least plausible, infantry behaviour than they do because of accurate OOB's... if BFC decided to go back to TACOPS style graphics for CMx3, but increase the OOB accuracy, I can certainly imagine that it would hurt sales.
Heaven & Earth is a fantasy & although, technically, the modded aspects are graphics & sound mods only it also comes with unique maps, concepts, content & unit compositions... it very often requires a different playstyle & mindset compared with CMSF2.
Either way, it was the best that could be done given the modding limitations. Some of us have been waiting almost twenty years for CM-Vietnam (or CM-WW1) and not everyone has survived that wait.
A lot of what was done could only have been done with the help of people like @sbobovyc & @Aquila-SmartWargames making & figuring out how to use the modding tools... which I think is part of the point.

I dunno. Most players are playing CM single player. So I don't see the harm - who cares if you mode in lobsters.


Really though I would love to see the AI and animations opened up to modding as we could see real gains there in the quality of the sim. The animation mod gives you a taste of the improvements we could see.

If you go over to the tank targeting accuracy thread you can see clearly that being in a hull down position will have a significant increase in the chance for gun damage results. With heavy armor that is likely proof to enemy return fire I would recommend fighting from the open rather than hull ground.
 

I dunno. Most players are playing CM single player. So I don't see the harm - who cares if you mode in lobsters.


Really though I would love to see the AI and animations opened up to modding as we could see real gains there in the quality of the sim. The animation mod gives you a taste of the improvements we could see.

Really the big trick Battlefront is missing is that these games are packed with detail but essentially none of it is explained. If the game explained why something happened or changed it'd go a long way to improving player interaction because right now you practically need your own military library to get much depth out of the series. And while I'm okay spending $80 for Bloody Streets most people aren't so the fact that the game is detailed doesn't really matter.

 

There are a ton of little factors but to engage it in the broadest terms the farther back you go in time the less deadly being spotted is. Essentially combat is a SEE -> SHOOT -> KILL loop but the efficiency of that loop changes.
Black Sea to Shock Force sees a reduction in that efficiency. Shock Force to the WW2 games sees a reduction. '44/'45 to '41/'42 sees a reduction.
  To put it in the simplest in 1941 fighting is quaint. You've got nearly all bolt-actions, the scary 37mm gun, what is a shaped charge? jump ahead to '45 and its MORE DAKKA. More automatics, more semi-autos, more shaped charges, larger caliber guns , etc....