Still hard to beat

[Titan]

( have to say the others look good but this is still had to beat

[jtcm]

yep, yep, yep

[JasonC]

Um, what are you talking about?

[Dave H]

I'll go out on a limb and say Titan is talking about CMBB. If that's the case I have to agree. The next generation of WW2 Combat Mission titles is going to have to be pretty amazing to surpass CMBB and CMAK. We all know these games aren't perfect simulations of WW2 combat but after all these years I haven't seen anything I like better.

[JasonC]

Ah - I thought it was about some specific scenario or something.

Yes CMBB remains the best of the CM titles in my not so humble opinion...

[Kanonier Reichmann]

That's interesting. Despite the fact (as you've frequently acknowledged) that the game has "German physics" in it to inflate the real resistance of Axis armour plate, the ahistorical inability of T34's with their 76mm gun to penetrate the fronts of Stug IIIG's and above plus the widely known bug involving fortifications?

To be honest I'm pretty shocked by your statement. I would have thought you regarded CMAK as a better historic representation of WWII combat on the tactical scale.

Regards

KR

[JoMac]

That's interesting. Despite the fact (as you've frequently acknowledged) that the game has "German physics" in it to inflate the real resistance of Axis armour plate, the ahistorical inability of T34's with their 76mm gun to penetrate the fronts of Stug IIIG's and above plus the widely known bug involving fortifications?

To be honest I'm pretty shocked by your statement. I would have thought you regarded CMAK as a better historic representation of WWII combat on the tactical scale.

Regards

KR

Come on Kanonier, we all know CMBB has some flaws. He is simply saying, CMBB is still the best of the 3 CM titles.

[JasonC]

KR - I've said it many times before. I've also explained many times before all that I think is required to avoid the modeling issues in CMBB. It doesn't require anything from the programmers, just a few simple fairness rules from the players, as to force selection and in game actions.

Specifically - decide before any game in which forces are chosen by the players whether it is "no holds barred" or realistic. If the former, rariety must be off and anyone can take anything they please. Captured weapons, airpower, the rarest tank or towed gun. But both sides know before hand and everyone can grab anything they like.

If instead you want realism, then the following tank type restrictions apply, by side and year.

In 1941, no KVs for the Russians (1 or 2).

In 1942, Germans should take Marders and Panzer III longs, but not StuG longs.

In 1943, Germans should take Panzer IV longs, not Tigers or StuG longs.

1944 and later, no restrictions.

The only in game rule that needs to be observed is not placing guns so close behind a crest that the LOS line forward visibly "kinks" near the gun. This exploits the way the code allows units within 15m of an obstruction to ignore it for purposes of firing out. With infantry that isn't a big deal because infantry fire will still hit them, coming back the other way. With guns it is, because they are modeled as height zero and incoming rounds will strike the hill ahead of them, while the gun can fire "through" the hill.

None of the other realism issues with the game require any adaptation or "house rules" to be livable. Sure, high caliber HE is overmodeled, especially on map; strafing AC are overmodeled, especially the IL-2; light flak is overmodeled, especially its ability to cause gun damage or track hit immobilization against targets it can't penetrate; HEAT ammo is too scarce; molotovs are too weak but other infantry AT is too strong, etc. But none of it in game breaking ways.

As for CMAK, I don't consider it an improvement. The only area where the realism meaningfully improves is the presence of dust. Even there, the sort thrown up by artillery fire dissipates too rapidly, while vehicle made dust is a bit too easy to manipulate as a smokescreen. The biggest single drawback is the overcosting of reactive artillery modules, which has the net result of limiting the use of indirect artillery in QBs way, way, below the level actually used in historical western allied tactics. At the same time, the Germans have enough low cost modules they can typically afford modest medium arty support. Thus the side that had the least arty gets some and the side that had tons of it usually gets nothing, or in large fights gets a small amount in return for a much weaker force in other respects.

I'll take CMBB thanks.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

The way to get around the problem of too expensive Allied artillery in CMAK restricting the choice of a decent infantry force is to set the casualty level at 30% or above with purchase points of at least 2,000. This ensures you can afford to purchase battalions (which can have its own organic off board artillery) plus a module of some decent sized artillery to boot.

Unfortunately there's no guarantee that some of the off board artillery won't get the chop but you would have to be unlucky and the same risk applies to the Axis side as well.

Regards

KR

[JasonC]

No, they are still just hopelessly overpriced, the lumpiness isn't the only issue.

CMBB is just better...

[SKELLEN]

I also have to agree CMBB probably the best of the the trilogy.