CMA scrubbed from Battlefront.com

[Redwolf]

16 hours ago, Vacillator said:

 

Could it be released somehow for free circulation?  I doubt it as the legal side of the original agreement probably still governs and unless it's seen as some sort of demo for the wider series it doesn't help those with a tenuous commercial interest in it.  And being an old (but good) title doesn't really push the demo argument.

With an unknown ownership component nobody could just release it for free.

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Bootie said:

Be interesting to see how many people still actively play it?

I want to get back to CMA as I recall it being enjoyable and very different from the other titles.  Of course there is now so much content in all the other titles it's hard to keep up.

[Vacillator]

2 hours ago, Bootie said:

Be interesting to see how many people still actively play it?

I only got it some months ago so I'm just starting to play it.  In between other stuff like PBEMs and testing of course.

[Centurian52]

2 hours ago, Bootie said:

Be interesting to see how many people still actively play it?

I actually just wrapped up a CMA scenario this morning (Valley of the kings, Total Victory, I inflicted 120 casualties and suffered 13). I've decided to jump forward in time after spending a while in WW2, and (after getting through about 100ish WW2 scenarios from Sicily to the slopes of Monte Cassino) deciding that I really needed a change of eras (I still intend to get through all of my CM2 content, but it seems I can't get through it in purely chronological order like I originally intended (that would mean not playing anything modern for about another 4-5 years, given how many WW2 scenarios I've downloaded)).

CMA always seemed to me like a good way to ease back into the modern era after spending a while in WW2. The 80s technology is at a good midpoint between WW2 and modern technology (and the Mujahedeen still have a lot of WW2 rifles (it's always interesting to see Lee-Enfields used alongside FALs, AKs, and M16s)). While the asymmetric matchup between the Soviets and the Mujahedeen does a significant amount to take the edge off the transition between eras.

Interestingly, while it is clearly an asymmetric fight, it's not as asymmetric as CMSF. By all rights the Mujahedeen should be at an even greater disadvantage than the Syrians in CMSF. They have no artillery (just the occasional light mortars), no armored vehicles, older RPGs (mostly RPG-2s (which only have a range of 200 meters and cannot penetrate the frontal armor of a T-55), with the far more capable RPG-7 being relatively rare), and many of them are even armed with bolt-action rifles. And yet it's a decidedly more even fight than CMSF. Some combination of the terrain, the older 80s technology, and poor Soviet force structure is very noticeably closing the gap (the lack of body armor on Soviet soldiers definitely makes firefights between Soviet and Mujahedeen infantry much more even than firefights between NATO and Syrian infantry, and the smaller Soviet squads cannot absorb casualties very well).

I have to constantly remind myself, as I'm frustrated yet again by my (light by WW2, CMCW, & CMBS standards, but heavy by CMSF standards) casualties, that I cannot hold myself to CMSF standards in CMA. In WW2 I feel like I'm doing well if I can get a 2:1 loss ratio. In CMSF I feel like 10:1 is really the minimum loss ratio that I can be satisfied with. In CMA I'm currently averaging 5.7:1, though that is dragged down a bit by DRA forces. If I split out the DRA and the Soviets I'm actually averaging 3.1:1 as the DRA (DRA vs Mujahedeen actually feels like a near-peer fight (even so I'm sure I'm doing much better than the historical DRA)), and 6.8:1 as the Soviets.

[Centurian52]

34 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

I only got it some months ago so I'm just starting to play it.  In between other stuff like PBEMs and testing of course.

How are you enjoying it?

[Vacillator]

2 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

How are you enjoying it?

Don't think I've played enough to really comment but it looks good and is interesting to me.  Of course it's a little bit modern and I'm still learning modern big-time .

Have you got it? ...

[Centurian52]

Just now, Vacillator said:

Have you got it? ...

Yes. I think I actually got it around when it first came out. I didn't discover Combat Mission until 2009, by which point both Shock Force and the Marines module were already out. But I got every CM game and module after that as soon as they came out (actually it took me a couple years to get CMSF2, since for a while I figured CMSF1 was still perfectly good). I even got CMAK and CMBB when I realized they could give me the early-war content that CM2 never got around to.

I gave my thoughts on CMA one comment further up from the one you responded to.

[Vacillator]

3 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I gave my thoughts on CMA one comment further up from the one you responded to.

So you did, oops .  I like your analysis, which is far deeper than I usually manage.

I was thinking we could play a H2H at some point but at the moment I'd not be much of a challenge. 

And probably just like yourself, I also have some other lovely folk waiting patiently for me to get my finger out .

[Centurian52]

While I'm constantly frustrated that I'm not doing as well as I'd like, it's occasionally worth reminding myself that I'm probably doing much better than the historical Soviets. These are Wikipedia numbers, so take them with a grain of salt. But the Soviets apparently took 68,470 casualties in the war, if we take them at their word (14,453 killed, 53,753 wounded, 264 missing). The upper estimate of Mujahedeen casualties is 180,000. Which means that the Soviets achieved at most a 2.63:1 loss ratio. That's before we account for the fact that DRA forces (which apparently suffered at least 174,000 casualties) probably inflicted a portion of those 180,000 Mujahedeen casualties. Suddenly my 5.7:1 loss ratio (3.1:1 as the DRA, 6.8:1 as the Soviets) doesn't look so bad. That would be a bad loss ratio if this was CMSF. But CMA isn't CMSF. Remembering that can alleviate a lot of frustration.

[Centurian52]

Ok, I've finished this playthrough of CMA. Final tally:

Mujahideen casualties: 5039 personnel (569 (356 killed, 187 wounded, 26 missing) against the DRA, 4470 (2822 killed, 1503 wounded, 145 missing) against the Soviets), 79 other vehicles.

DRA casualties: 380 (182 (86 killed, 74 wounded, 22 missing) suffered against the Mujahideen over several scenarios, 198 (121 killed, 47 wounded, 30 missing) against the Soviets in Operation Storm 333).

Soviet casualties: 726 (714 (336 killed, 360 wounded, 18 missing) against the Mujahideen, 12 (5 killed, 7 wounded) against the DRA in Operation Storm 333).

I can't break out which red vehicles losses are DRA and which red vehicles losses are Soviet in the Combat Mission Career Recorder. But total red vehicle losses are 3 tanks, 48 armored vehicles, and 2 other vehicles.

DRA vs Mujahideen casualty ratio: 3.126:1

Soviet vs Mujahideen casualty ratio: 6.26:1 (I did rather poorly in the last few scenarios, so it dropped from the 6.8:1 I had earlier)

Soviet vs DRA (Storm 333) casualty ratio: 16.5:1 (now that's a bit more like it! I wish I could have managed those kind of numbers a bit more often).

Soviet and DRA casualties may not be exactly right, since some scenarios had both Soviet and DRA troops present. In scenarios in which there were more Soviet than DRA troops all red casualties were marked as Soviet, and in scenarios in which there were more DRA than Soviet troops all red casualties were marked as DRA. It would be nice if I could select a "joint" option for Red/Blue force nation in the Combat Mission Career Recorder for scenarios in which more than one nation's forces are present.