Guest GriffinCheng Posted May 12, 2000 Share Posted May 12, 2000 Okay, just got this one from the HPS Mailing list. It is not my opinion, but it may make you think: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For those who haven't heard, Combat Mission Gold Demo is out at http://www.battlefront.com/products/worldwar/cm/index.html I'd love to hear what you all think. Me, I'm not much more impressed than I was with the beta demo (visual improvements are welcome of course). I'm not particularly happy tanks don't have a hierarchy like infantry. If they mean to simulate reinforced battalion-sized engagements, tank battalions will be but a mass of independent vehicles. There are other things to pick at too, like bazooka teams without small arms. I haven't researched Battlefront's bulletin board so I don't know what's it going to look like in the end. Ciril <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Griffin @ home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted May 12, 2000 Share Posted May 12, 2000 I don't know about an AFV command structure, you'd have to deploy a platoon (or remanants thereof) of AFVs in each scenario. It would be nice for the heavy-weapons teams/bazooka teams to have some sort of small firearms in addition to their main armament; pistols or carbines at the least. I guess we'll have to wait for a patch if it is really warranted (as I have no proof whatsoever of heavy-weapons TOE). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted May 12, 2000 Share Posted May 12, 2000 There was considerable discussion at various points on this board about both tank hierarchy and small arms for teams- the end result was nix to both. I tend to agree that this is the way to go. At the scale that CM will GENERALLY be used at, tanks would have been allotted in penny-packets as support, not in case-lots. Having teams with small arms would tempt people to use them as regular infantry once their main weapon (MG, bazooka, mortar, etc)ran dry. This would tend to both unbalance a scenario, and be a little gamey. Not to say it didn't happen in reality- there are examples of it having happened. I don't think it would fit within the parameters built into the game. You have specially trained soldiers to use special weapons- it would not be too good to have all your mortar/MG/bazooka guys run forwards and get chewed up. Who would man the weapons in the next round of the campaign/battle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GriffinCheng Posted May 12, 2000 Share Posted May 12, 2000 Agreed. I think it is a matter of scale. In ToP and PitS, The smallest AFV unit is usually, iirc, a platoon of 3 or 4 AFVs. OTOH, CM is modeleed at a company level with others as supporting unit. More like the scale of SP IMO, I see no reason why tank command hierarchy. Shall post a reply later tonite. Griffin going to sleep... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts