Sequoia Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I hope some one wouldn't mind answering a related question that I've seen asked but hasn't been confirmed. Will we have trucks be able to tow anti-tank guns/ on map artillery in the initial release? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Well I’m not sure how you read my disagreeing with you as an aggressive response. But if you took it that way, please don’t. I was just quoting your response to Steve. Steve said it “wasn’t as necessary” and it seemed to me that you interpreted that as a comment to the effect that “it didn’t happen”. But anyway. Why would you assume my response was to Steve when I did not quote Steve or address him by name? Read the whole thread before making assumptions and jumping to the defense where it is not needed. I am clearly in total agreement with Steve here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Sequoia, I'm too lazy to insert a link here, but this definitely can be seen in one of the screenshots we got for Christmas. Towing guns is certainly in the game. Check out the screenies in the TO&E section of the CM:BN page. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Will we have trucks be able to tow anti-tank guns/ on map artillery in the initial release? One word answer: Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 My interest in tank riding troops is not historical. Many pbem scenarios are meeting engagements. The purpose, for me, of these multiplayer games is not to simulate history as much as it is to create a tactical challenge for both myself and my opponent. An ability to mount otherwise unmounted troops would get them to the point of contention more quickly and in better condition(note: I'm not advocating driving them into firezones). Personally I'd rather see this feature than some others currently in discussion on the board, but I understand I'm just one of many and my livelihood doesn't depend on the production choices being made. As I've said before, I'm glad BF is making the game and I'm sure I will love it when it's released. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 From a MP meeting engagment game stand point,which I used to play much of in Cmx1, it was always a crucial part in my opening to grab key ground first. This was the best way to get slow moving heavy machineguns in place. I found agressive speed to be a key tactic in my victories especially when playing as USA vs. Germany."Who ever get's there firstist with the mostest usually wins the flags". Looking forward to its eventual inclusion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Except of course that’s not what a Meeting Engagement is. Meeting Engagements are just that you “meet” (or dare I say blunder into) the enemy. The whole idea of a Meeting Engagement being a planned activity where units sprint forward to seize the decisive / key / important terrain does seem to me at least a bit bizarre. But that’s just an opinion, glad you are enjoying how you play it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Ironically, an "oops we bumped into each other" is possibly the most realistic situation where tank riding would come into play. As in "oh ****, get off quick". I think tank riding to enable gamey scenarios like rushing to a meeting engagement victory point is a not a good one to be asking for. As I said earlier, its possibly a _good_ thing that tank riding isn't in, so this sort of silliness is lessened. It also ought to be the case that the more realistic victory condition thing lessens the occurence of "rush to the middle flag" scenarios, though I don't have experience to tell me that. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finalcut Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Ironically, an "oops we bumped into each other" is possibly the most realistic situation where tank riding would come into play. As in "oh ****, get off quick". I think tank riding to enable gamey scenarios like rushing to a meeting engagement victory point is a not a good one to be asking for. As I said earlier, its possibly a _good_ thing that tank riding isn't in, so this sort of silliness is lessened. It also ought to be the case that the more realistic victory condition thing lessens the occurence of "rush to the middle flag" scenarios, though I don't have experience to tell me that. GaJBut then again,Vinnart is paying good money for the game so he should be able to play how he wants.Kinda the reason German Aircraft are included even though they were not a big factor in Normandy but were included by the developers to allow us to play our way.Thats why we love Battlefront games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 From a MP meeting engagment game stand point,which I used to play much of in Cmx1, it was always a crucial part in my opening to grab key ground first. This was the best way to get slow moving heavy machineguns in place. I found agressive speed to be a key tactic in my victories especially when playing as USA vs. Germany."Who ever get's there firstist with the mostest usually wins the flags". Looking forward to its eventual inclusion. The thing is neither side has the ability to do "gamey rushes" as you describe them in CM:BN, therefore no problem will arise from it being gone. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 But then again,Vinnart is paying good money for the game so he should be able to play how he wants.Kinda the reason German Aircraft are included even though they were not a big factor in Normandy but were included by the developers to allow us to play our way Difference is it took little effort to have German aircraft because the code already existed. Just had to put in some different graphics and weapons data. But adding tank riding, correctly, will take quite a bit of time to develop and perfect. So while in theory it's nice to give customers choices, even gamey choices sometimes, reality says that's only possible when necessary or practical. Unfortunately for little pixeltruppen riding tanks, it wasn't really necessary or practical. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Meeting Engagements are just that you “meet” (or dare I say blunder into) the enemy. The whole idea of a Meeting Engagement being a planned activity where units sprint forward to seize the decisive / key / important terrain does seem to me at least a bit bizarre. The reason that the victory flag was crucial in CMx1 was to give the opposing sides motivation (especially one controlled by the AI) to come together. My impression is that in CMx2 this is no longer necessary. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 To be honest I wont miss them that much. In Meeting emgagments the tank-passenger rush won battles from the first turns. I used it extensively but I always thought this is not very realistic. It will force us to buy some HTs instead, which is a good thing for variety. No real harm here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I'm not sure how the QB system will work, but I think armored infantry will come with half tracks, but you won't be able to purchase HTs for regular infantry - maybe trucks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 I don't think my tactics were gamey at all according to the mission, which in this case was a MP meeting engagement. I used principles of the Art of War such as foreknowledge of the type of battle it would be, and the direction the enemy would be coming from along with speed to grab key ground (not necessarily speed to a flag at first) to form a battle plan according to CMx1 game play allowances. Many time’s I would use transports to move HMG’s, AT Inf, & HQ’s during the game according to the flow of the battle if terrain allowed. Like Steve said, since no one can transport it is an even playing field so it’s not the biggest deal for a first installment. Just have to adapt &”Be Like Water” Bruce Lee. The lack of the feature will not prevent me from getting the game, but like all I look forward to it’s inclusion, along with flamethrowers, & other cool features in future expansions. I miss playing MP PBEM ww2. It was like a cliffhanger episode every day to escape to for a little while to enjoy. At any rate the game looks great, and can’t wait to play it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Well... I've seen and played lot of CMSF QB maps that use the same formula as the CMx1 meeting engagement maps and I have enjoyed every minute of it... I must be a gamey bastage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I used principles of the Art of War such as foreknowledge of the type of battle it would be, and the direction the enemy would be coming from along with speed to grab key ground ... Sure but without trying to be too semantic, that’s just the point. In RL a ME results because you don’t have “foreknowledge of the type of battle it“ or know “the direction the enemy would be coming from“ and arguably therefore don’t know what is the “key ground“. Its like being told you are going to a surprise party and then being asked to act surprised. Your ME has in reality become an “advance in contact“ or “quick attack“. I’m not saying “don’t play them“ as no doubt lots of people get lots of enjoyment from them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Yes, what gibsonm said. Meeting engagements, in real life, weren't usually "race at top speed to get that flag before the other guy does". It doesn't mean playing ME battles with these tactics aren't fun or enjoyable (I've done my fair share and enjoyed them ), but we should never confuse fun with realism or realism with fun. Often times they overlap, but sometimes they don't. Meeting Engagements in QuickBattles are probably the least realistic type of way to play Combat Mission, past present or future. But they might be one of the most fun ways, depending on the individual. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 I do know the difference between meeting engagements in real life as opposed to how a game must be set up to play like a fun game. What I do enjoy so much about military games especially CM is that you can apply the principles of The Art of War, and real life military experience can be adapted to improve your game no matter the strategy game. I prefer meeting engagements for my MP play because I find them to be the most even terms, and more dynamic battles as opposed to attack/defend even though they are the gameiest. There are no meeting engagements in real life where the goal is to grab a flag in the middle of the map, but they are fun to play. I find the similarities to a CM meeting engagement are so similar to chess in that it can be broken down to 3 stages. The OPENING deploy: The initial deployment plan to dominate the middle where most flags are. In my case I prefer to be bold with speed over caution for my opening. This is riskier, and I do lose units on the way in from time to time depending on terrain. The MID game: The flow of the battle where control usually tips in one players favor. The END game: Holding on to the flags to win. CM meeting engagements are so much more complex than chess making it for such a fun game for us strategy lovers. Long live CM! One of the greatest, fun games ever created! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Well, again there's a difference between fun and realism sometimes. But in the case of CM:BN, there's no conflict. We have Meeting Engagements and if that's all you want to play, that's an option that is open to you. No problemo. But certain "gamey" strategies/tactics people like to use might not be available to them. Either now or in the future. Some, like the infamous MG behavior change made for CMBB/CMAK, might take strategies/tactics that were once quite successful and make them unsuccessful. The primary reason is that CM is all about trying to simulate real life as best as possible and since "fun" is always in the eye of the beholder, sometimes "fun" is gained and sometimes it is "lost" when we make a feature change. It's all about personal opinion. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Can we get a Fun option that can be toggled on and off? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 You already have one. It's on your monitor and it is most often referred to as a Power Switch. Guaranteed that if you flip that off you won't have much fun Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Can we get a Fun option that can be toggled on and off? There are several, but most of them are illegal without a prescription. Michael 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.