Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • CM2
    • Combat Mission - General Discussion
    • Combat Mission Cold War
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 2
    • Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
    • Combat Mission Black Sea
    • Combat Mission Red Thunder
    • Combat Mission Fortress Italy
    • Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
    • Combat Mission Shock Force 1
    • Combat Mission Afghanistan
    • Combat Mission: Touch (iOS / Android)
  • CM1
    • Combat Mission Campaigns
    • Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
    • Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
    • Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
  • General Discussion Forum
    • General Discussion Forum
  • Repository Updates
  • TacOps
    • TacOps 4
  • Opponent Finder Forums
  • Archives
    • Strategic Command
    • CM Archives
    • T-72: Balkans on Fire!
    • Dan Verssen Games
    • Theatre of War
    • DropTeam
    • Assault Wave
    • Empires of Steel
    • PT Boats

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location:


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 8 results

  1. Why is there not a unlimited or custom points amount in quick battles? For a game like this such an option seems like basic requirement, but it doesn't exist. Me and a friend is making/playing a h2h campaign with CMFB and we use QB to play out the battles. But at times the battle sizes can exceed the QB points. The largest battle we had on our last campaign was with allies having a full tank battalion, full airborne battalion, 11 aircraft and lots of artillery. Axis side (me) had a full heavy panzer battalion, pzgren battalion, volksgren battalion, 3 seperate infantry companies, 1 stug company, 1 marder company and lots of artillery. This resulted in my points exceeding 22000 which is what you get with 150% addition for attacker side. This ment we had to set all this up in scenario editor which is a much longer process and some TO&Es are even different there making it harder to have consistent units. Size of battle seems to be non-issue as we played 3 hours in real time and finished the game with allied surrender.
  2. So, WW1. A famously static war, at least In the West. Why would I want a Combat Mission set there? (and yes, I was thinking of the western front. I don't really know enough about the eastern front to make a proper request for it). Essentially, I want a game set on the western front of WW1 because the commanders on that front get such a bad rep. I think that facing the tactical problems of trench warfare could be educational, helping explain why WW1 generals chose the tactics they did. Players would get the opportunity to try out tactics such as creeping barrages, night raids, stormtrooper tactics, and early tank warfare. Fire support would pose a unique challenge, as you have even worse communications than in WW2, favoring greater use of pre-planned bombardments- just like the real war. Having to set up, say, field telephones in order to call in artillery from a recently-captured enemy trench, and then dealing with enemy shells cutting the line, would be a unique tactical problem. In summary, a Combat Mission set in WW1 would be educational. It would teach players the following key concepts: Why Militaries used the tactics they did Why and how so many WW1 attacks failed Why and how successful attacks were carried out. I hope this post gets at least a couple of ideas in people's heads. Obviously, any implementation of this idea would take a long time, but I wanted to put a unique setting out there as an option for future games.
  3. I'm in the progress of trying to make a bastogne map for CMFB. Bastogne's main road is offset 40° from North so I'm making the map at a 45 degree angle to have North in the correct direction. However I have now run into issues with the buildings. Not all building types are available in 45° orientation. Like all church parts only exists in 0°. Several modular buildings also lack 45° orientation and I feel I need those building types for more historical accuracy. I don't understand how several building types don't exist at 45° orientation with how limited the rotation is for buildings. It seems backwards to map making to not have all options in all possible orientations. This is most likey a problem with all CM games and I can't imagine it beeing much issue to fix this. Just make all buildings available in 0 and 45° with a patch or something.
  4. First off, let me say that for the most part I'm satisfied with the fortifications in the CM series. I think in scenarios the fortifications are great (although some Osprey titles could be more closely consulted in designing historically appropriate set-ups for given nations, formations and terrain). In QB, the AI defenses are generally okay, although with obvious and understandable limitations. However - the placement of player fortification in QB is tedious. It would be time-consuming enough to manually place obstacles, but they are scattered all over the map! Not only do I have to place all the wire by clicking individual pieces, but unlike units which are intelligently grouped at the bottom of the map, I have to pick the wire out from the clutter of the mines and other fortifications spread everywhere, and either place one piece at a time and then find the next or place them all into a pool where at least they occupy the same place on the screen, though I still have to place them, move the camera from where I was looking, click a link and then place it. An infantry team occupies one foxhole, with a section occupying between 2-4 so to have just a company dug-in results in a huge amount of foxholes scattered all over the map, and sometimes an hour or more of set-up. It's very very frustrating and time consuming. I think there are a few ways this could be improved: The first, and I think single most important would be to place foxholes like CM1 titles and SPWW2. When defending units are placed in the set-up phase of a QB, their foxholes are automatically placed under them. For trenches, mines and wire, ideally a system like SPWW2 would be used where fortifications other than foxholes would be purchased on the purchase screen, as now but would not appear on the map initially during the set-up phase. Instead, they would be placed with a click, maybe from a tab like air support and artillery. This keeps everything organized, there is no clutter on the map, and no on-map item needs to be located to place a fortification. As above but with click and drag placement of wire and trenches. From the tab suggested above, a "place line" option would appear. This would act exactly like linear fire missions - On-map the cursor would appear with the "strike target" cursor used for artillery maybe with the fortification symbol in the middle rather than the crosshairs. Clicking would draw a line, terminated again with a cursor reading "set end point". Once the line is set, trenches and wire objects would be placed along the line by the game. If this can't be done during the set-up phase, placing the lines and having the fortifications appear during the start of the battle would still be great, so long as the glowing lines remained viable after placement, like when selecting the FOO of a linear fire mission so the general layout of fortifications would be visible while placing units. If these suggestions are too difficult, at the very least grouping fortifications by type and placing them together at the start of the set-up phase would be a big improvement over the random scatter.
  5. I was just musing on how great an addition hit decals and uniform variations are and thought that maybe having an additional option to have unit insignia would be a good addition. Here are Russian unit patches spotted in Ukraine, that would fit nicely in to CMBS. http://euromaidanpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/russian-arm-patch.pdf
  6. When getting a new Combat Mission, one thing is obligatory for me: Getting Mord´s high vis hit decals in order to better analyze hits. I don´t know how many are like me but I really love to check all vehicles on the battlefield, what hit them, from where, how often, and the consequence. Can´t tell how much work this would mean but I really would like to see this getting expanded with more detail information like incoming trajectory (the decals only allow a guess on the angle) and/or damage to subssystem and personnel (i. e. "damaged/disabled main gun" or "wounded/kocked out driver").
  7. I wonder if is possible that german forces receive the zeltbahn as a clothes for wearing, and not only as a complement for carrying on the back. It could be used as standard piece in maps with rain or with wet condictions, but also as a random clothing in any other maps, since the zeltbahn was used often as a camouflage sistem, in fact, it was as used as camo smock which there is in game currently.
  8. I think buddy aid is way too easy and highly unrealistic. Why not make it more realistic? Instead of current behaviour I think a two stage procedure could improve realism a lot. Instead that buddy aid is finished with one unit, a second unit should be needed to complete the task. The first one does buddy aid, the second one simulates a route for transporting away. More realism: The number of the needed headcount of the second unit could be set double as high as the number of wounded to transport. Example: Two wounded. Phase 1: Buddy aid conducted like it is now but after finishing the casualties do not magically disappear, but stay where they are (in the UI the status could be marked differently, for example showing a strechter). Phase 2: Since there are two casualties four different heads would be needed to move up to the casualties to make them disappear from the battlefield after some time. Even more realism: Time could be taken into account. The longer it takes to finish Phase 1 and 2, the higher the chance of a fatality.
×
×
  • Create New...