Detroit Guy Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 I've been reading in the fourms that there are non-historical units in Combat Mission. I dont know enough about WWII hardware and troop formations to notice the difference, unless I see Patriot missles being fired off. I would guess you can choose just "not to use them"But it seems bad form to have non-historical units in a game like this. Hardcore gamers play this kinda stuff partly for historical "feel". Comments? Detroit Guy (yes i am the same guy that has yet to buy the full version, LOL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Guy Posted June 26, 2001 Author Share Posted June 26, 2001 please note: Patriot missile just an example, no one stated anything about patriot missiles in the fourms. I think it had to do with airborne units and other infantry "choices" that where non-historical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 Detroit, you have to keep in mind that BTS originally made the game for wargamers (As opposed to computer gamers in general) and never felt that there would be a need to limit purchases that would be ahistorical (i.e. 20 40mm AA guns a 1 14" spotter as a team...) as real wargamers would never make set ups like that, and they never even thought the game would be as popular with non wargamers as it is. There are many who "play what you brung", but there are also many who don't like the notion of such "gamey" set ups. I'd imagine most CM players fall somewhere in the middle. The limitations on the set ups should at the very least be agreed on before hand. Then everybody is happy. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 Detroit Guy, all the units in the game ARE historical. The comments you may be seeing about things non historical are the combinations of units people use sometimes. Most people do purchase units that are historicaly correct but it is possible to get combinations that may not have occured in real life. The units themelves are historical though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Detroit Guy: Hardcore gamers play this kinda stuff partly for historical "feel". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some hardcore gamers also like a little "what if?" from time to time. Different strokes... I wouldn't worry too much. I've yet to see a Super Pershing in a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Guy Posted June 26, 2001 Author Share Posted June 26, 2001 Thanks for the clarification guys! the units themselves are historical but the formations may not be. I only dabbled in things like Squad Leader (board game) and other Avlon hill stuff, so my "hardcore wargamer" creditials are fairly limited. Basicly warhammer 40k is my old standby. (Military Sci-Fi tabletop miniatures game) In 40k you start with a points value (2000 points for example) and you build your army before the game with these points. While "thougher" units cost more points, it became clear early on that there were several "broken" combinations of units that lead to imbalances in gameplay and made more than one army a "trick" army. This leading to many a heated debate as to what was good play and what was a "cheesy army" i guess it'll be the same here... (heads out to order up a copy of the full version) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 The expression we use here is "gamey bastard"....As in "That gamey bastard Peng bought 6 Super Pershings and a battalion of Polish conscript infanty and 20 British piat teams." Buying the game will be the bet $45 you ever spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 There is also the term "cherry picker". As in the guy buys British tanks, US infantry, British PIAT teams, US artillery, Canadian APCs, US Hellcats, etc., to get a dream team. MAYBE it could have happened, and QBs are not all that historical (more like "could be scenarios"), but it annoys some people not because it is just a game, but because it takes some of the immersion away from the experience. Just like when someone talks behind you in the theatre, it is distracting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Guy Posted June 26, 2001 Author Share Posted June 26, 2001 Maybe if you agreed to play Single-Country setups. Seems like at such a small scale as this game, that all US or all German ect skirmishes (if you can call it that) would be in the 99 percentile (historicaly) as from what few books i've read on WWII combat, most of the combined actions (US-British, ect) seemed to come with larger scale actions. If that made any sense. Detroit Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Guy Posted June 26, 2001 Author Share Posted June 26, 2001 Unless there is one single country that is "better" than the others... also seems like , in the demo anyhow.. that tanks are king.. is this historicly acurate? D Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 First point: the demo is a taste of the full game, it's not necessarily representative of it. Second point: at least half of my tank kills come from either AT guns or LATWs, which is pretty close, statistically, to being spang on historically speaking. Third point: buy the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StugIII Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Detroit Guy: as from what few books i've read on WWII combat, Detroit Guy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Get ready to start reading alot more WWII books. Once you get the full version you wont be able to help yourself P.S. A fellow Detroiter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 Detroit guy, a fair number of the people you'll run into on this board tend to prefer the single country settings (no mixed forces). This means an allied player plays as American, American airborne, British, or British Ariborne alone. No mixing of these types together. Not everyone plays this way and there are some exceptions to this. In the end just find the way you like to play the game and find some oppoenents who like to play the same way and kiss the rest of your life goodbye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis: Detroit Guy, all the units in the game ARE historical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like Stuart 'roos and Sherman IICs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subvet Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Detroit Guy: also seems like , in the demo anyhow.. that tanks are king.. is this historicly acurate? D Guy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't speak for the demo, but in the full version of CM I strongly disagree with that. Infantry is king, the tanks just support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrold Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 So youse gots yerself a lotta nice stuff der Detroit Guy. Be a shame ta loose it wit from some sorta ya-know...accident. Da way I sees it, the best protection ya can git is to just buy da freakin' game already. Dis makes it nice n' easy see and nobody gets hurt. Jes a little friendly advice der. BDH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Detroit Guy: Unless there is one single country that is "better" than the others... also seems like , in the demo anyhow.. that tanks are king.. is this historicly acurate? D Guy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, that's not true. Almost every game I've played against competent humans has resulted in all or near all tanks knocked out. Yes, tanks can deal a lot of damage if they've survived the entire battle, but it's not too common. Once you buy the game you be saying this phrase a lot: "Well, there's another 140 points down the drain" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted June 26, 2001 Share Posted June 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: There is also the term "cherry picker". As in the guy buys British tanks, US infantry, British PIAT teams, US artillery, Canadian APCs, US Hellcats, etc., to get a dream team. MAYBE it could have happened, and QBs are not all that historical (more like "could be scenarios")<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I certainly don't agree with the "cherry pickin" but I'm ok if my opponent uses two different nationalities that did happen historically. One of the most common were British Armor and U.S. Infantry/Airborne. Market Garden, 84th Division & Gaurds Armoured Divsion near Gilenkirchen (spelling is wrong), and the latter stages of the Ardennes battle. Also, I think there were some U.S. and French collaberation near the Siegfried line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Guy Posted June 26, 2001 Author Share Posted June 26, 2001 In prior games , (StarCraft,Sid Meijer Civil War games,Age of Empires, ect) i was of the opinion that if the game allows it (within reason) then it is fair game. As im still playing the demo i dont yet have an opinion really on the subject but i like discussions like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlapanzer Posted June 27, 2001 Share Posted June 27, 2001 hey Detroit guy GO BUCKS MICHIGAN SUCKS! from just down the road near Toledo, Ohio. I would like to kick your Maze & Blue ass in CM as soon as you get the game. -------- It's good to be at the top of the food chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detroit Guy Posted June 27, 2001 Author Share Posted June 27, 2001 LOL , i take my previous comment back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cos Posted June 27, 2001 Share Posted June 27, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mlapanzer: hey Detroit guy GO BUCKS MICHIGAN SUCKS! from just down the road near Toledo, Ohio. I would like to kick your Maze & Blue ass in CM as soon as you get the game. -------- It's good to be at the top of the food chain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OOOOH a maze and blue vs that other team battle. Well U of M's fight song isn't Hail to the Victors for nothing (well at least until they get to the west coast) Love from Monroe, MI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted June 27, 2001 Share Posted June 27, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Like Stuart 'roos and Sherman IICs? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oooh Babs, you are such a bitch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted June 27, 2001 Share Posted June 27, 2001 LOL! The devil made me do it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen-x87H Posted June 27, 2001 Share Posted June 27, 2001 Tanks can be real biatches. But most of the time it comes down to one side losing thier tanks while the other side has 1 tank left. AT guns do thier job pretty well After that it is inf on inf. I like this game in the sense that if you take some real world tactics it can actually work to a degree Personally I dont care about cherrie picking. I like to see how others pick thier units and how they use them. I learn the most from somebody who comes in with a totally new concept of unit selection and usage and works me over real good. I then change my unit selection just a bit and my tactics. Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts