WimO Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Wow! For just $9-$13 (depending on country of purchase and local taxes), I find the BP2 to be a great value! Given that I know from first hand experience how much work goes into creating maps and scenarios including all the time necessary to test if the A.I. plans are working properly it is a good deal. I find that for every hour of playing time, creators will have spent 5 to 10 times that amount laboring over their works. So a big "Thank you" to the designers, authors, and play testers involved in creating BP2. 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Yeah, here it Limeyland it came to the grand total of £8.44. Great value for money in my book. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ithikial_AU Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Thanks Gents. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM Stuff Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 9 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said: Thanks Gents. Very nice job @Ithikial_AU beautiful mod this scencamp represent really the brutality and the hell s fire on the beach, I like following in a scencamp a specific unit like @WimO did... Hopefully you will work on a bp3 from another sector and unit, Juno, Gold,... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ithikial_AU Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, JM Stuff said: Hopefully you will work on a bp3 from another sector and unit, Juno, Gold,... Cheers mate. Never say never but I think the girlfriend would kill me if I jumped into another one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 7 minutes ago, Ithikial_AU said: Cheers mate. Never say never but I think the girlfriend would kill me if I jumped into another one. Just buy her a few nice things, and a game that she can play in another room, and everything will be fine. Trust me I know about these things. He says, as Elizabeth's brew kettle bounces off of his Noddle. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM Stuff Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) " nice things, and a game that she can play in another room, and everything will be fine" Edited June 11 by JM Stuff 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM Stuff Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 9 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said: Cheers mate. Never say never but I think the girlfriend would kill me if I jumped into another one. 9 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said: Just buy her a few nice things, and a game that she can play in another room, and everything will be fine. Trust me I know about these things. He says, as Elizabeth's brew kettle bounces off of his Noddle. @Warts 'n' all has resumed the situation with some few nice words, "buying nice things in another room and all will be fine"...but hey !! keep in mind that, when childrens are gone from home, there is nobody more to play the referee, and in fact, stay only you and her, until the end. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 I'm presently playing Mission 2 "Drop to Destiny" after getting a Draw in the Pathfinder first mission. Great mission, reminding me "Boots on the Ground" from @WimO 's Mission Boston campaign. Very interesting AI programming, leading to epic ambush moments… Some sharp tongues will certainly point out that @Ithikial_AU's sole purpose with this scenario was to demonstrate that both C2 and planning are just pointless in Combat Mission… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WimO Posted June 20 Author Share Posted June 20 @PEB14 I am also playing Mission 2 at this time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Captain Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 9 hours ago, PEB14 said: I'm presently playing Mission 2 "Drop to Destiny" after getting a Draw in the Pathfinder first mission. Great mission, reminding me "Boots on the Ground" from @WimO 's Mission Boston campaign. Very interesting AI programming, leading to epic ambush moments… Some sharp tongues will certainly point out that @Ithikial_AU's sole purpose with this scenario was to demonstrate that both C2 and planning are just pointless in Combat Mission… Same here and agree with you. Oh, the irony. I'm in the slow condensing phase.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 3 hours ago, Phantom Captain said: I'm in the slow condensing phase.... Nice way to describe it! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 No more input regarding the campaign? I've finished Mission 3 yesterday. While I cursed along most of the mission because the time allowance looked much too short, I had to admit that it was pretty well calculated, even though I needed some minutes of extra time. Nice little scenario! (Just let me point out that I found the briefing somewhat confusing regarding the friendly forces available: it mentions a straggler ad-hoc force that is not tagged as such in-game, so I wondered for some time if I should expect some more reinorcements or not). I've just started Mission 4. And… Well, I've a lot of respect for scenarios creators, so I don't want to put in negative statements that might sound disrespectful. Especially as, whatever the creators do, they'll always meet discontent people… Based on this cautious introduction, you've understood that I'm the discontent guy as far as the Utah Beach landing scenario is concerned… First of all, having to play on a huge map where less than one half is of any use is a VERY, VERY bad idea. I've read in the briefing that there are some technical reasons behind this choice, but I don't think they're worth enough considering the amount of trouble they generate. As a matter of fact, not all of us play with super computers and super graphic cards. My game didn't crash, but it's painfully slow, and it's impossible to have a correct, wide view of the terrrain except at close range; by example, impossible to have a view of the beach showing the shell holes, which would be useful to draw movement. I have to zoom at close range to have them appear. This is a standard issue with my computer when maps are too big. And I'm certainly not the only one. Second, I must confess that I'm not found of the author'choice to change the Utah landing into some kind of mini-Omaha bloodbath "for gameplay" purposes. Uuh. That's a Utah Beach battlepack, isn't it? Just FYI, after less than 10 minutes of battle, I have suffered 45 casualties (24 of which from the 50 Pak gun in the bunker). That's roughly 1/4 of all causualties suffered by the whole 4th Infantry Divison during the 24 hours of the D-Day… Additionally, with all due respect, fighting against a gun in a concrete bunker with barehanded infrantrymen is not my conception of "gameplay"… As I don't want to fight a bloodbath on a gigantic map through more than 150 minutes at sluggish game speed, I decided to ask for an early ceasefire. And there I shall point out the quality of the campaign design which allows to proceed through the campaign. No doubt I'll pay it later, but thanks a lot anyway! Now, let's go for Mission 5! PS: If there was to be an updated BP2, please consider to build a revised version of this scenario with a smaller map. I think this would be worthy for many players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ithikial_AU Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 5 minutes ago, PEB14 said: Second, I must confess that I'm not found of the author'choice to change the Utah landing into some kind of mini-Omaha bloodbath "for gameplay" purposes. Uuh. That's a Utah Beach battlepack, isn't it? Just FYI, after less than 10 minutes of battle, I have suffered 45 casualties (24 of which from the 50 Pak gun in the bunker). That's roughly 1/4 of all causualties suffered by the whole 4th Infantry Divison during the 24 hours of the D-Day… Additionally, with all due respect, fighting against a gun in a concrete bunker with barehanded infrantrymen is not my conception of "gameplay"… As I don't want to fight a bloodbath on a gigantic map through more than 150 minutes at sluggish game speed, I decided to ask for an early ceasefire. And there I shall point out the quality of the campaign design which allows to proceed through the campaign. No doubt I'll pay it later, but thanks a lot anyway! Now, let's go for Mission 5! PS: If there was to be an updated BP2, please consider to build a revised version of this scenario with a smaller map. I think this would be worthy for many players. Um.... you have giant naval guns from the start, and a company of Shermans turn up in a few minutes as per their historical arrival. (They were late). One bunker shouldn't be too much of a problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 18 minutes ago, Ithikial_AU said: Um.... you have giant naval guns from the start, and a company of Shermans turn up in a few minutes as per their historical arrival. (They were late). One bunker shouldn't be too much of a problem. They're not giant naval guns, they're just destroyer's guns! Give us the Rodney's! Anyway, I've pounded a long, heavy preliminary bombardment on the German position (I even CHEATED and restarted the game to include the bunker in the bombardment area… ) but even though the artillery scored a direct hit on the bunker, it stayed unscathed (while the rest of the position was practically wiped out). That's precisely what I don't understand. The WN5 can be easily wiped out by the preliminary bombardment, while the bunker itself is pretty much impervious to anything but direct Sherman fire. So basically, there is nothing for the player to do but wait and count his losses until the Sherman tanks arrive… What's the point from a gameplay point of view? Anyway, your design, your choice. And I certainly could have played the mission through the bloodbath as it is, but the sluggish game speed and graphical issue is definitively a no-no. So, please, consider making the map smaller! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurian52 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 15 minutes ago, PEB14 said: First of all, having to play on a huge map where less than one half is of any use is a VERY, VERY bad idea. I've read in the briefing that there are some technical reasons behind this choice, but I don't think they're worth enough considering the amount of trouble they generate. As a matter of fact, not all of us play with super computers and super graphic cards. My game didn't crash, but it's painfully slow, and it's impossible to have a correct, wide view of the terrrain except at close range; by example, impossible to have a view of the beach showing the shell holes, which would be useful to draw movement. I have to zoom at close range to have them appear. This is a standard issue with my computer when maps are too big. And I'm certainly not the only one. I had the same comment on the map being too large. All that extra unused terrain doesn't help with performance issues. Unfortunately there was no easy way around it. As I understand it it's basically functioning as a master map, with the idea that other scenarios can be set on different portions of the map (I haven't played La Madeline yet, is it set on this same map?). But unlike other master maps there's no easy way to use just a portion of it for any given scenario because of all the fortifications. With the way the scenario editor currently works there's no easy way delete just the fortifications on the unused portions of the map. So the overly large map in this scenario is absolutely a problem. But it's a known problem. And if there's a solution, no one has thought of it yet. 35 minutes ago, PEB14 said: Second, I must confess that I'm not found of the author'choice to change the Utah landing into some kind of mini-Omaha bloodbath "for gameplay" purposes. Uuh. That's a Utah Beach battlepack, isn't it? Just FYI, after less than 10 minutes of battle, I have suffered 45 casualties (24 of which from the 50 Pak gun in the bunker). That's roughly 1/4 of all causualties suffered by the whole 4th Infantry Divison during the 24 hours of the D-Day… Additionally, with all due respect, fighting against a gun in a concrete bunker with barehanded infrantrymen is not my conception of "gameplay"… I don't think there's anything ahistorical about either the enemy forces or the tools you have to deal with them. I also took heavier than historical casualties on the beach. But I've seen other players take much lighter casualties, so it's definitely possible to get a much more historical result. I identified a couple problems with my own tactics that certainly contributed to my heavier casualties. I had my whole force charging forward off the beach on the second turn. But it probably would have been better to let the naval artillery work for at least another turn or so. Having the infantry hide for the first turn or two might also be a good idea (it's not like their fire is contributing much compared to the artillery at this stage of the battle anyway, so having their heads up might just be an unnecessary risk). When it does come time to move the infantry, there's no sense in moving the troops on the left (the ones under fire from the anti-tank gun in the bunker) until the bunker is neutralized. Neutralizing the bunker is fairly easy to do once the artillery has cleared out the enemy infantry protecting its flank. Just don't approach it from the front and you'll be fine. In any case, while both of us took heavier than historical casualties, neither of us took Omaha level casualties. If this had been a mini-Omaha we would have been stuck on the beach for hours and would have lost more than half of our troops available for the whole scenario. Our casualties were more on par with Sword, Juno, or Gold beaches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurian52 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 12 minutes ago, PEB14 said: Anyway, I've pounded a long, heavy preliminary bombardment on the German position (I even CHEATED and restarted the game to include the bunker in the bombardment area… ) but even though the artillery scored a direct hit on the bunker, it stayed unscathed (while the rest of the position was practically wiped out). That's precisely what I don't understand. The WN5 can be easily wiped out by the preliminary bombardment, while the bunker itself is pretty much impervious to anything but direct Sherman fire. So basically, there is nothing for the player to do but wait and count his losses until the Sherman tanks arrive… What's the point from a gameplay point of view? That's actually realistic. The bunkers proved pretty much impervious to naval gunfire. Not completely impervious of course. They could be destroyed if the ships moved in close, aimed their guns directly at that specific bunker, and then demolished it with prolonged fire. But the occasional direct hit that a bunker might take as part of a larger area bombardment would just leave a visible crater in the concrete without doing any appreciable damage to the interior (though the inhabitants could get pretty shellshocked). So bunkers tended to survive the preliminary naval bombardment, only being knocked out by direct fire from tanks, ships that had moved in closer to provide more direct support, or infantry that had flanked around and could storm them from behind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 7 minutes ago, Centurian52 said: So the overly large map in this scenario is absolutely a problem. But it's a known problem. And if there's a solution, no one has thought of it yet. Well, there is an obvious solution, but I perfectly understand that @Ithikial_AU didn't want to get into it: it was to cut the map to the proper size and then to check hex by hex that the fortifications were at their position. Boring like hell. But from the player selfish point of view, the only worthy one… 7 minutes ago, Centurian52 said: I don't think there's anything ahistorical about either the enemy forces or the tools you have to deal with them. There defintively is. According to my historical sources, the WN5 had been very heavily damaged during the preliminary bombardment (naval and air). TWO hours of naval bombardement. So if one wants to make it really historical, one should get 5 times more of artillery assets AND air support BEFORE there is a single troop on the beach. But as I stated in my previous message, this is not the main issue: even though I don't like it, I respect @Ithikial_AU choice as a designer's. And I don't feel cheated either: he clearly indicates in hte briefing the the German positions' condition is ahistorical. 7 minutes ago, Centurian52 said: I also took heavier than historical casualties on the beach. But I've seen other players take much lighter casualties, so it's definitely possible to get a much more historical result. I identified a couple problems with my own tactics that certainly contributed to my heavier casualties. I had my whole force charging forward off the beach on the second turn. But it probably would have been better to let the naval artillery work for at least another turn or so. Having the infantry hide for the first turn or two might also be a good idea (it's not like their fire is contributing much compared to the artillery at this stage of the battle anyway, so having their heads up might just be an unnecessary risk). When it does come time to move the infantry, there's no sense in moving the troops on the left (the ones under fire from the anti-tank gun in the bunker) until the bunker is neutralized. Neutralizing the bunker is fairly easy to do once the artillery has cleared out the enemy infantry protecting its flank. Just don't approach it from the front and you'll be fine. FYI, I made very little movement in front of the bunker during the preliminary bombardement, except a few shifts to get out of its covered arc; but whether they moved or not, the troops in front of the bunker gun were pounded turn after turn. And as stated in my previous message, that's why I don't understand this design choice: in front of the bunker, once the bombardment is finished, there's basically nothing to do but to wait for the tanks (I've found no smoke save the squad leaders grenades). And once the tanks arrive I guess it's a matter of seconds before the bunker is down. That's the reason why I don't like this design choice: it provides only frustration, adds very little in terms of gameplay (tactical skills won't have any influence on the outcome), and is ahistorical… But, once again, it's a matter of personal taste, not an universal truth. I can understand people like it this way. Obviously, by giving up early, I missed all the remaining part of the scenario which is probably very nice. But as already stated: big map, sluggish play, etc. etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 On 8/2/2024 at 5:46 PM, Centurian52 said: I haven't played La Madeline yet, is it set on this same map? Sorry, very late on this. Yes La Madeleine is on the same map. You can even see the bunker discussed above, with an intact AT gun and crew looking the wrong way out to sea. No problem but it did briefly distract my tanks . Anyway for me, La Madeleine played fine once I reduced the complexity of first turn orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 On 8/15/2024 at 7:41 PM, Vacillator said: No problem but it did briefly distract my tanks . That's a problem with bunkers in this game. Once troops have a bunker in sight, even if it's looking the other way, troops get wild with firing at it, and even worst it's not possible to use the Hunt order anymore to bypass it, which makes turning bunker with infantry nightmarish. Do you have tricks to avoid this Hunt order "issue"? (units getting mad are easy to get rid of with a fire arc order) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 21 minutes ago, PEB14 said: Do you have tricks to avoid this Hunt order "issue"? (units getting mad are easy to get rid of with a fire arc order) Hi Pierre. Not a trick, but I set arcs and at the same time moved them further up towards La Madeleine, out of LOS of the bunker. Worked okay, thankfully they weren't taking any AT fire whilst they were distracted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 1 hour ago, Vacillator said: Hi Pierre. Not a trick, but I set arcs and at the same time moved them further up towards La Madeleine, out of LOS of the bunker. Worked okay, thankfully they weren't taking any AT fire whilst they were distracted. Sorry Tim, I'm not specific about La Madeleine. My observation was more general: once a unit can view a bunker, it cannot move using the Hunt command anymore (as units go to ground instantly). Obviously you can object that this is true for all units and not only bunkers, which is perfectly right. But the bunker case is really different: - it has a limited arc of LOS, so moving close to it out of its LOS is much easier than for other units; - it has a high profile, so closing up without viewing the bunker is nearly impossible; - it's basiccally impossible to pin down bunker inoccupants with MG fire only, which is quite realistic but calls for tactical alternatives. As you've not always got a tank or a direct fire gun on hand, closing up and grenade the bunker is generally the best option. So I'm always bored when I have to turn bunkers and close up without the help of the Hunt order, as they are usually part of a defensive complex and thus covered by other units that might target me during the manoeuvre… or amidst a minefields which will cause bigger damage if I use another command… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 5 minutes ago, PEB14 said: Sorry Tim, I'm not specific about La Madeleine Ah okay, understood. Yes I see the problem. In my case I ignored the bunker and drove away, but that's not the usual situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurian52 Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 I don't want people to think that I'm always dismissive of every complaint about the engine (I chime in a lot to say that this or that complaint actually isn't as bad as so-and-so says it is), so I'll chime in here and say that I think that the tendency of troops to get distracted by bunkers is a real problem. I've found it to be very annoying on multiple occasions, and it does make the hunt command very difficult to use. The best mitigation is to use target arc commands. So long as the bunker is not inside the arc, your troops won't get distrated by it and they will be able to follow hunt commands. This comes with costs, since you might find that you didn't make the arc large enough, and there are enemy troops outside the arc that you want your troops to stop and shoot at. But it's the best workaround anyone's found so far. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PEB14 Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 (edited) 16 hours ago, Centurian52 said: I don't want people to think that I'm always dismissive of every complaint about the engine (I chime in a lot to say that this or that complaint actually isn't as bad as so-and-so says it is), so I'll chime in here and say that I think that the tendency of troops to get distracted by bunkers is a real problem. I've found it to be very annoying on multiple occasions, and it does make the hunt command very difficult to use. The best mitigation is to use target arc commands. So long as the bunker is not inside the arc, your troops won't get distrated by it and they will be able to follow hunt commands. This comes with costs, since you might find that you didn't make the arc large enough, and there are enemy troops outside the arc that you want your troops to stop and shoot at. But it's the best workaround anyone's found so far. I see that I'm not the only one. The additional cost of the "target arc command mitigation" (which is also my way to mitigate the issue, by the way) is that you may get under fire from enemy units without having targeted troops go to ground (as hunt command is useless). Losses guaranteed. Edit: and by the way I share your concern regarding engine complaint. I also believe the engine works pretty well (otherwise I wouldn't be here to complain as I would be playing something else). But some issues (which are not really bugs) are indeed annoying. Bunkers are one of those. Iindirect fire with German on-map mortars, which proves impossible more often than not for reasons still unclear to me, is even more exasperating. Edited August 18 by PEB14 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.