dbsapp
-
Posts
592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by dbsapp
-
-
6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Heh, well to be fair, they are nowhere near under direct fire on mission 2 at the start...indirect and air, sure. You do need to clear that nasty hill though.
Well that is really the Soviet condition, no way they would have moved like they planned and not constantly been getting hit just like in these fights. The US doctrine wasn't "let them form up mass" it was hit them hard first, then pull back. Constant pulses of "active defence".
But 3 is nasty, the trick is to make sure that whatever is firing on your reinforcements is not there by the time they arrive. Not easy but it is the gig.
Well, they are under the sight from the hill and are getting hit by artillery and air in the second mission, but I can agree - it was not hard, especially when my ATGM BRDM performed a true miracle, cured itself from blindness and killed some tanks on the hill. Apart from this incident my ATGMs remain loyal to total darkness and can't see even the enemy found by their team spotters hour ago.
I really see no options to clear the enemies from the hill in the third mission, since my artillery is as useless as my ATGMs vehicles. I placed all of my artillery exactly at m2 locations, but it doesn't bother them at all. Even the dirt from explosions doesn't stop them from firing TOWs.
The best I could do is to use smoke cover. It definitely helped with the first wave, but the rest were not so lucky and the road to mission exits doesn't look attractive at all.
-
22 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
LOL! So what battle are you on?
The third.
I don't know if I gather enough mental health and persistence to march further, because watching my reinforcements arrive directly under the enemy fire for the third time (after the same trick in the first and second missions) seems too much even for me.
-
Guys, the Soviet campaign was a mistake.
I mean MISTAKE.
-
This house definitely posed an airborne threat.
-
1 hour ago, Artkin said:
I guess this is different from CMRT, where you play (moreof) as breakthrough units as opposed to CMCW where you are the front line
At some point of this campaign I understood that this is a roleplaying game and I assumed the role of a cleaner. My assignment is to clean the dirty forest, meter by meter, and to do it in limited time.
And I forgot to mention that by mistake I'm playing March or die variant.
-
38 minutes ago, Bufo said:
Usual forum advice: "Never send a platoon where a squad hasn't been, never send a squad where a- section hasn't been, never send a setion where a single guy hasn't been."
Me: "Yeah yeah."
I sent them all, one by one. And they all died, horribly.
-
This pic sums up my impressions of CW Soviet campaign so far.
-
I would prefer downvotes only, no upvotes.
To make discussion more heated, it would be wise to make several types of downvote, like "contempt", "hatred" and "despise you" options that could be involuntary pinned to the user's profile.
-
5 minutes ago, Artkin said:
Friendly fire incident:
That was no accident!
Their KGB officer wasn't vigilant enough.
-
4 hours ago, Bufo said:
I like this better, the other has that needless unofficial thing in it's name.
This topic is OFFICIAL.
Approved by the USSR Council of Ministers.
-
6 hours ago, LukeFF said:
There's already a very lengthy screenshot topic on page 2: https://community.battlefront.com/topic/139037-cmcw-unofficial-screenshot-and-video-thread/
My bad!
I did a quick search and found nothing. No wonder I can't manage battalion sized battles properly.
-
-
If your party isn't this lit, don't bother inviting me
Some pics of "The Grieshof Meet and Greet" scenario, first one among CMCW campaigns and battles, that I genuinely liked.
-
8 minutes ago, domfluff said:
If you got this kind of impression from my comments above or elsewhere, then that was not my intention.
The NTC campaign is brutal, and it's supposed to be, as is the real NTC. You are supposed to treat it like a proper training scenario - failing forward, and potentially retrying different approaches.
As a quick point- almost everyone I've seen has gone for the hasty attack option at first. The briefing mentions that you'll have "more room to manoeuvre", which is presumably the appeal. Manoeuvre with what, precisely? You're essentially a platoon of tanks in supporting combined arms company, and you're trying to attack into a Motor rifle battalion. One side there needs more room, and it 'aint you. This is the kind of lesson it's trying to teach.
As a personal anecdote, which obviously is entirely relative - for comparison, I lost a total of one TOW launcher in the first mission, and one tank and an empty M113 in the second - all losses which were avoidable. The first was me not being aware of how bad an idea ATGM duels are, and the latter because I was hasty and didn't cover a specific sight line. This was done blind and without reloads, but there was a lot of planning involved, including reading a couple of field manuals for preparation. The third I had trouble with, but that was pre-patch, so I was stuck with the option I didn't choose for the third mission - so two total victories and a minor defeat - the latter mostly due to the enemy air. The NTC campaign was one of my favourite experiences in Combat Mission, ever. It was very testing, and it forced you to learn a whole bunch of things really fast - most notably, that Shock Force teaches *some* really bad habits. If the tanks in NTC were replaced with Abrams, with no other changes, I imagine there would be very little challenge in that campaign.
Cold War is definitely pitched more difficult than usual for the CM games. There are no safety wheels - you can't use your M60s like Abrams, nor rely on Javelins (or Panthers, for that matter) as a fix-all solution to every problem. Even where there's an advantage, like the quality of the Soviet armour, using them correctly is far from simple.
So, is "CMCW difficulty out of touch with reality"? I don't think so. It's hard, certainly, but I don't think I've seen anything be unwinnable, and especially the (superb) campaigns give you a variety of real problems to solve.
The Tutorial missions are something which I think CM really needs more of. I've seen many comments of things like "Jackals are awful" in CMSF, or "2 inch mortars are pointless" in CMBN. Having a presentation of the thing working as it's supposed to work doctrinally gives you a good intro to the basics - as in, a textbook WW2 British platoon attack, supported by the 2 inch - if there was a scenario which could show how it's supposed to look, and if you can't win this, then you fundamentally don't know what you're doing.
The Soviet attack scenario is supposed to teach two things above all - the priority of mass, and the need for coordination between armour and massed fires. This is the baseline Soviet stuff, but doesn't represent a scenario you're ever really likely to see. The Meeting engagement tutorial is a far more realistic scenario, and does a good job of taking those principles and applying them to a vastly more complex and fluid battle-state. It's still a textbook engagement, so you shouldn't come close to losing when you understand what you're doing, but this represents a baseline that the scenarios and campaigns can build from. The first scenario of the Russian campaign is extraordinarily brutal, but it's fundamentally the same tactical problem as the second tutorial, just much more complex, with a far more active opponent. "It's like this, but..." is the foundation of most tactical problems.
So no, I don't think Cold War is "out of touch with reality", or even "too hard". It's hard, certainly, but the challenges can all be overcome, with the time and effort. Obviously that challenge may not appeal, and that's completely valid, but I don't think it's correct to claim that this is anything more than your opinion, and not some kind of objective measure of the thing.I'm fully aware that I may be wrong and I'm not trying to claim any rights on universal truth.
Anyway, every man to his taste. Maybe it's not my cup of tea, that's all.
In the manual NTC campaign is presented as training that player should go through before moving on to the US, and finally to the Soviet campaigns. Well, judging by your description its something more like a hell of a challenging mission intended for players with 10 years of experience in CM that tricks you into believing things you shouldn't do.
-
Just now, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
I'm not saying it should teach you anything, I'm saying perhaps Bil designed this campaign to mimic the NTC training that is notoriously rough but is winnable if you think for yourself and make the correct assessments.
Not sure what you were expecting from a campaign based at the NTC, I went into it expecting a rough ride.
MMM
Perhaps. But my bet it's just bad and intellectually lazy.
Mission are so simplistic and basic that I can hardly find anything to "think for myself and correct assessments". For example, if I could move my units between those 2 hills under smoke screen and hit enemy in the soft spot, that would be tactically beautiful. But it's not the case.
Again, maybe I'm only a noob and this campaign is for pros. Maybe.
-
11 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
Doesn't it depend on what it's trying to teach you? Maybe it's intended to teach you to be wary about the briefing you receive from higher ups and make an assessment on how to proceed given the terrain, knowledge of the enemy and how they fight and considerations such as preservation of force? That terrain is not inducive for a frontal assault, it's a defender's dream. If that's the case then surely it's a good mission design? Especially as the campaign is based at the NTC, training is the name of the game.
MMM
I have more simplistic attitude towards PC games in general and CM in particular. I don't want them to teach me anything and don't search any enigmatic truth that they may contain, like biblical parables.
I want them to be interesting, entertaining and worthy of the effort. Challenging and clever - yes, boring and stupid - no.
-
3 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
I do agree the level of difficult is high, especially as the OPFOR's soft factors are set very high. I think had I tried to advance the two platoons down the right flank I would have not been able to get a victory, getting a major or total victory would be a real challenge and may not even be possible without losing all your forces. Time was a factor too, I didn't even advance the tanks until there were about 10 minutes left in the scenario.
I fully understand that there may be different opinions, but it sounds like bad mission design to me.
-
8 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
*** SPOILERS ***
I just finished the pursuit scenario with a Tactical Victory. I didn't rush headlong into anything, despite the name of the scenario as, and it's hinted at in the briefing believe, the FSE may well be in retreat but the main body would be behind them and it says to expect tanks from the main body to be in the AO. So basically I played it cautious, put some OPs on the hills, called in helis on the right flank (they took out a few BMPs and at least 2 tanks), the FOs on the hills called in some cluster munitions that took out another two tanks and I then used my M60s on the left and the M150s to snipe at what was left on the right flank using shoot and scoot There's also a small knoll on the left that is a great firing position.
Once I was happy that most of the threats on that side were dealt with I cautiously advanced the M60 platoon down the left flank skirting the sides of the hills with overwatch from the M150s and destroyed another two tanks that were counter-attacking.
The two platoons that enter the AO on the right flank barely moved, they were there as fire support and I employed shoot and scoot tactics to try and eliminate the tank platoon on the left flank but I lost one M60 and another got it's gun knocked out doing so with no kills to their names. They did force them to pop smoke though.
I didn't make it to the first PL but I got the victory for destruction of forces, which was the commander's intent afterall.
MMM
Thank you for this piece of advice.
I know, that no matter what you are complaining about, somebody will definetly say that they made it and it's ok:)
I'm absolutely positive that this mission could be winnable, but its concept and design don't provide any joy. It's more like a tedious headache.
-
I wonder, if CMCW difficulty is out of touch with reality.
I went through Soviet tactics educational missions and found them quite ok and relatively easy.
Now I'm struggling with NTC and it's different. The first mission was normal, but the second and the third became an unpleasant surprise.
In the second mission you have to pursue the enemy, defeated in the first. What it means: you are given the forces roughly the size of the enemy (including reinforcements that arrive in absolutely inconvenient part of the map). Basically you are in the desert with few opportunities to hide your movement. Only the one way is open - forward, where "running away" enemy forces, t72s and bmps with ATGM, are waiting you in line.
First, I thought the trick is to go between the 2 hills in the left part of map and strike at the back of the enemy forces. I employed smoke screen and reached the hills, but it turned out that the train their is impassable.
M60s have night vision, but can't see through the smoke.
So you left with the option of exchanging fire with prepared enemy line in the desert. I used forward observing teams, c2 lnks, air strikes... Nothing helps.
The third mission (I accessed it after defeat in the second) is not much better.
So far it looks really bad.
-
After the second mission of NTC campaign, when you are given the option to "delay" or to ""attack" in the third mission, no objectives are visible on the map.
I pressed Alt-J, no changes.
-
Are you sure that there is no simple solution?
I guess it's only a matter of chaging some .ini file from "lod=1000" to "lod=3000"
The truth is out there
-
Was googling possible solution for the issue of LOD and disappearing trees and found this thread.
Sad that there is no mod\magic trick to fix it. It spoils the overall impression indeed.
-
How is "realistic level of casualties" measured? I guess, some average number could be calculated after the end of conflict (in fact, those numbers are never accurate and Soviet\German losses are disputed till this day). But even this virtual number will encompass the days of heavy fighting and month of boredom.
Not to mention that it all depends on billions of factors, like time, front, weapons, skills etc.
CM like every other game couldn't be fully realstic by definition (you should participate into actual conflict for full realism, not to sit in front of PC screen), but to claim it's not "realistic" in certain aspects you should know for sure what "realistic" is.
-
42 minutes ago, ng cavscout said:
If you buy through BFC, you get the opportunity to redeem a steam key and have it on that platform as well
Thank you
So you just got your hands on CMCW...now what? Designers Q&A thread.
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
I double-checked it. No, you don't have airpower from the start.