Guest Guest Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Adam1, I’m not sure what you are trying to achieve here. How can you compare CMx1 (designed for the Second World War) engagements with CMx2 (designed for modern warfare - however well or badly)? How can you compare modern tank engagements with stab, ballistic computers, larger calibre weapons with earlier ones, or how can you compare ATGM’s with AT guns? Or have I missed the point of your post entirely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Yeah, it's a bit too different to make much of a comparison. As we've all discussed a bunch of times, small arms lethality in particular has gone WAY up from WW2. Other factors, which could be equalized out, are also much more deadly in modern vs. WW2. Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if CMAK (the only really applicable one to think of) allows more room for error in terms of infantry handling than CM:SF. In fact, it should be that way. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I think the more interesting thing would be for BF to include a remodelling of one of the smaller "Normandy" scenarios from CMBO in CMx2 Normandy. It would probably be a platoon level scenario but I'd hope we could find at least one which could be converted across. that way we could see the differences between the two and make an assessment. It would never be a direct comparison because of differences in game play and particularly the scenario scripting but it would be interesting and fun. Any scenario suggestions people, something small with Shermans. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Well surely “Chance Encounter” would have to be a walk up start for that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 gibsonm, Is that the start scenario with the 2 Sherman's moving up the road and the US Infantry company in the woods to the right meeting the German platoon with two PzIV,s. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 No its one of the pre production demo / proof of concept scenarios for CMBO (the teaser before it actually came out). A meeting engagement between 4 x Shermans and 3 x STUG and a bunch of Infantry on both sides. Just thought it would be good to bring the thing full circle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 gibsonm, Is that the one where the Panther turns up near the end? If it is I thought it might be a bit big given that as I recall it had over a company on both sides. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Peter, No, that's Valley of Trouble (fixed emplacements for the Germans, and a 150mm gun which is a nasty surprise when you first encounter it) Chance Encounter is the US forces (4 shermans plus a company of infantry) advancing up a road with farmland to the left and woods on the right. The Germans advance into the centre of the map from behind a set of woods, with a church set in a copse of trees in the German centre. A road with a few scattered houses cuts the middle of the map at right angles to the axis of advance on both sides. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: gibsonm, Is that the one where the Panther turns up near the end? If it is I thought it might be a bit big given that as I recall it had over a company on both sides. Peter. Peter, No it isn’t as I explained in my first answer to the same question. No Panthers, just some Stug’s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Originally posted by Adam1: Isn't a Syrian squad just a 2xLMG/4xMP44/3xMP40 squad? I can't recall the exact combos but I think there are some fairly "modern" German late-war squads. The CE scenario is a bit large and the units don't translate well. No its isn’t. As we have already said what you want to do is compare Apples to Pineapples. What Peter was asking for (and I was answering) was for a CMX1 scenario that could be re-done in the CMX2 Normandy version so we could compare CMX1 Apples to CMX2 Apples. Does that clear things up? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 gibsonm, Fair enough, I just can't remember it as I haven't been able to play CMBO since I switched to OSX. Any chance of some screen shots to jog my memory, Indeed anyone who has a candidate scenario from CMBO post some shots. Something that would make a good CMx2 Normandy demo scenario as a showcase for the game to old CMBO players. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Peter, Two AAR’s here (both with pictures): Close Encounter AAR’s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 OK well you turn up in your Tiger II (or whatever you consider the best German tank of the CMX1 period) and I’ll arrive in my M1A2 SEP. [ March 17, 2008, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce70 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 FWIW, I'm sure Adam1 is talking about red vs red. (and probably CMBB) Perosnally I'd be interested to see the results, but I certainly wouldn't try to draw any conclusions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuirassier Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 When Adam 1 said post WW2 WP he was likely talking about Warsaw Pact equipment only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Well unfortunately he didn’t actually say that did he. Originally posted by Adam1: No, I don't have any to hand out this time I was just curious if anyone had tried to reproduce a situation from CMx1 in CMx2 and compare the results as well as the character of how the situation played out. I notice in general, that CMx2 can spit out the same results as CMx1 but that you have to be that much more involved with your infantry, and your own errors will be punished more heavily than they would in the original series. There are also some particular situations where CMx2 and CMx1 don't translate well, defending bridges is one example. Any interesting observations? But in any case, if he turns up in a “plain Jane” 75mm M4 (typical western tank of CMBO vintage), I’ll happily arrive with a T-55, T-62 or T-72 (all of which were / are made in large quantities). As I said before the comparisons just don’t stack up (regardless of which side of the fence you are on). [ March 17, 2008, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 No of course they are. Are you somehow suggesting that an M1 Garand from 1944 is similar in some way (apart from being a rifle) to an M16 or a M4? Or that a Javelin somehow equates to a Panzerschreck? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Well certainly in some very small well defined areas (like water bottles or maybe pistols) there might be room for comparison but overall it just doesn’t work. You can argue that the AK-47 is similar to the MP-44 (basically because it can be suggested that the Soviets built one based on captured stocks of the other). But how does that extrapolate to trying to see how a combined arms battle from 1944 (where people had a whole lot of weapons apart from rifles) equates to the units with similar roles fighting the same battle somewhere in the near future? A Mech Inf Platoon (or whatever nationality) is light years ahead of its counterpart (or opponent) from 1944. SS PzGdr in SdKfz 251 Vs US in Bradley? US Armoured Infantry in M3 Halftracks Vs German PzGdr in Marder? US Armoured Infantry in M3 Halftracks Vs Soviet MR in BMP-2? It just wont work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Originally posted by gibsonm: No of course they are. Are you somehow suggesting that an M1 Garand from 1944 is similar in some way (apart from being a rifle) to an M16 or a M4? Or that a Javelin somehow equates to a Panzerschreck? Are you suggesting that the Germans used M-1 Garands, or that the Warsaw Pact use Javelins, M16s or M4s? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 No. Just trying to indicate that such a comparison isn’t valid. Had a win so far with AFV’s, now trying to address small arms. 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.