|
Control Volume posted:Well after trying the demos of both, whoever it was saying Combat Mission was better than Close Combat was spot on. Battlefront games don't go on sale. I deviate from my usual line here to say that $85 is fair value (accepting that you are paying a little bit of a wargaming premium) for what you are getting. Unlike the Matrix 'hundreds of hours of gameplay (so long as you replay all the content 50 times over)', every expansion adds an army or two to the game and a campaign plus a couple of dozen scenario to go with it. It's awkward that buying it all at once is the most cost-effective method yet simultaneously a huge plunge, but if you are playing that demo lots you can get a sense for whether you'll get your money's worth. I'm still playing Shock Force every now and again.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
I'd recommend not buying all CM add-ons at once. Depending on how OCD gamer you are, the stock games should last you for months or even years, especially if you get into quick battles, custom scenarios/campaigns and multiplayer. Base game plus one module is lots of playable content and still affordable. Battlefront doesn't do sales, but their latest game's prices do go down a few notches every time a new game is released. I'd expect Fortress Italy & Gustav Line price to drop a bit when Red Thunder comes in a month or two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
In that case what'd be the cheapest way to get into the series without missing out on any critical updates/patches?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:In that case what'd be the cheapest way to get into the series without missing out on any critical updates/patches? Yeah, I have to wait until I get a better computer, but what is the deal with the 2.0 and 3.0 stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:In that case what'd be the cheapest way to get into the series without missing out on any critical updates/patches? This is the other thing. The patches are quite critical (2.0 in particular fixes a problem with Machine guns accuracy) and there's no cost effective way to buy them without diving in for the full package.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:In that case what'd be the cheapest way to get into the series without missing out on any critical updates/patches? For games where that's necessary (Normandy) you pretty much have to go whole hog on it from the go. If you're looking to get one of the new games I'd say just wait a few weeks and try out Red Thunder or get the base game for Italy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:Yeah, I have to wait until I get a better computer, but what is the deal with the 2.0 and 3.0 stuff? I'm giving people advice to wait for Red Thunder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Yeah the other thing is that the plan after Red Thunder is released is to spend a month or two back-porting all the engine upgrades to Normandy and Italy (that's the 3.0 thing), which you'll likely have to pay the customary :tenbux: for. Given that, unless you have an absolutely burning desire to play in those theaters rather than the East, the best bet is to get Red Thunder which is coming out soon and then wait for the upgrades to the older game lines to roll out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Personally I don't see why 3.0 upgrade is absolutely necessary to play and enjoy CMBN or CMFI. CMSF's engine is older than CMBN and will never be upgraded to the newer standards, yet it's still a lovely game. The only big thing I can vision is functioning AAA (AA guns are not even present in CMBN base game so you need MG module for that), CMFI Italians being able to split their squads into more tactically viable teams, and if you want to play H2H you both need compatible versions. Tank riders or some new artillery rules aren't that big of a deal to affect you unless you really have to have the latest upgrades. I'd leave that decision until the next modules roll out, as they will certainly require 3.0 and there'll likely be a bundle offer then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Personally I don't see why 3.0 upgrade is absolutely necessary to play and enjoy CMBN or CMFI. CMSF's engine is older than CMBN and will never be upgraded to the newer standards, yet it's still a lovely game. Actually one of the things they've made noises about is a new version of CMSF ported up to 3.0.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
I thought that was specifically the original CMSF Syrian theater content being ported to the new Black Sea game's engine - whether as a module or stand-alone or something else, I'm not sure. But it seems like the original Shock Force and Afghanistan games are non-upgradeable as the engines are different enough to the later games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Personally I don't see why 3.0 upgrade is absolutely necessary to play and enjoy CMBN or CMFI. CMSF's engine is older than CMBN and will never be upgraded to the newer standards, yet it's still a lovely game. The biggest things in addition to the changes to the AAA and the air support model will be decals, which are seriously awesome, flamethrowers, which granted you will have to wait for a new module to get, ammo dumps, and wego tcp/ip multiplayer. All four are huge deals, and frankly the entire 3.0 patch pretty much fixes any complaints I once had with the series. That last one was the worst problem for me as my pc is not top notch and in the early years desyncs were pretty much the end of my cm multiplayer days until I finally got comfortable with dropbox. I played the first few cm games multiplayer far more than any other game in my life probably, it was sad to see it go. Ammo dumps are also going to change the game so much for the better it is going to be crazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Yeah, ammo dumps are going to be sooooooo great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:The biggest things in addition to the changes to the AAA and the air support model will be decals, which are seriously awesome, flamethrowers, which granted you will have to wait for a new module to get, ammo dumps, and wego tcp/ip multiplayer. All four are huge deals, and frankly the entire 3.0 patch pretty much fixes any complaints I once had with the series. That last one was the worst problem for me as my pc is not top notch and in the early years desyncs were pretty much the end of my cm multiplayer days until I finally got comfortable with dropbox. I played the first few cm games multiplayer far more than any other game in my life probably, it was sad to see it go. Also AI that can react to triggers. That's 3.0, isn't it? (isn't going to fix old scenarios but is a major upgrade for all future content).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
I finished a Commander the Great War 1914 Entente campaign yesterday. in the west I managed to stall the german advance pretty quickly, never even got the event popup about paris being threatened and that front remained mostly static for a year and a half, I totally cockblocked the austro-hungarians in serbia, that front was even more stable than the western front and in the east I managed to fight a successful fighting retreat towards the dnieper and western dvina rivers without getting totally overrun. italians joined the war and I started pushing east into the balkans, around the same time something happened with the AI, maybe the morale was dropping too low or manpower or something because I noticed big gaps in the eastern front. pushed my russian troops forward and began a huge counter attack in late 1915 all along the front and launched some big attacks in the other fronts. mid 1916 I was pushing the central powers back on every front into their home lands and sweeping away almost everything they could throw at me, managed a few large encircling manoeuvres too. loving bastards wouldn't surrender though so I had to occupy every last loving city in germany and austria-hungary. romania joined the war on the exact same turn that I occupied the last A-H city  the bulgarians never joined the war. before I launched my huge counter attacks they were 3-5 turns of joining the war but it seems they changed their minds after the russian hordes started moving west. the Ottomans were the last to fall in sometimes august-september 1916, the fall was hastened by landings in izmir and the occupation of istanbul by some italian troops. now europe is occupied by huge russian and anglo-french/italian/serb forces. the cold war begins in 1916.I keep on starting games as the central powers but I keep on losing way too many troops, loving serbs are op.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Yeah whenever I play CP I stall out in Serbia early, and usually barely capture Brussels before I get stopped in the West, and then have nowhere near enough troops to hold the Russians back. Turns out that without the French relentlessly battering themselves on the fortified frontier in Alsace-Lorraine, and the Russians falling into a Tannenberg-style trap, the Central Powers are in a really loving lovely position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Thanks guys, I think I can squeeze out some more gameplay out of Barbarossa to Berlin until Red Thunder comes out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
I was in the beta for C:MANO but holy poo poo 80 dollars
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
If you break it down its only Edit: I've lost my ability to do math...
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
What would be some good reading material to go with Combat Mission? I played through an assault scenario last night and it was immensely satisfying to put fire-and-maneuver tactics to good use, but I get lost as soon as the game/force-size moves beyond small. Also, what movement order should I use if an enemy is in direct view but is already suppressed? The manual doesn't make it seem like Hunt is an appropriate command, but Move is supposedly when you don't have contact yet and Slow is too, well, slow for crossing some distance. Finally, at what distance should I issue the Assault command? I know well enough that I should flank and close in, but I don't yet have a feel for how close is close enough beyond "when I'm out of cover and so the last so many meters has to be taken at a run"
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What would be some good reading material to go with Combat Mission? I played through an assault scenario last night and it was immensely satisfying to put fire-and-maneuver tactics to good use, but I get lost as soon as the game/force-size moves beyond small. Check out the FM for the Infantry Rifle Company or the Infantry Rifle Battalion. The concepts in those manuals can be applied pretty readily to Combat Mission. Use fast or quick when you need to get somewhere in a hurry. If the enemy is suppressed and you know that's the only guy who can shoot back, just have your dudes sprint to the next cover. Or alternatively, use the assault command, then they'll move between waypoints in fire teams. Good when moving from cover to cover and you want the least amount of men visible at a time. Only down side is that it takes longer, so it might take a full minute to move a squad using assault when it would only take 20 seconds using fast. Just have to balance the risks. If you are within 50 meters of the enemy and all your guys can shoot, then you are close enough. You don't need to get literally right up on the enemy, you just need to get close enough where you guys can make accurate shots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/ has some interesting mini-AARs on Combat Mission using tactics from real field manuals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I was in the beta for C:MANO but holy poo poo 80 dollars I was going to make some snide comment about it looking like enterprise software, but if you think about grognards as an enterprise suddenly everything makes so much sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What would be some good reading material to go with Combat Mission? I played through an assault scenario last night and it was immensely satisfying to put fire-and-maneuver tactics to good use, but I get lost as soon as the game/force-size moves beyond small. Is this CMx1 or CMx2? CMx1 is all about the Advance command, it is best for when you are in contact but not taking heavy fire (or probably even when you are taking it if you have to move). You should be leapfrogging squads forward about 40-50m at a time, or even less if the situation warrants it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
EDIT: Thanks for the advice Tonysnow!gohuskies posted:Is this CMx1 or CMx2? CMx1 is all about the Advance command, it is best for when you are in contact but not taking heavy fire (or probably even when you are taking it if you have to move). You should be leapfrogging squads forward about 40-50m at a time, or even less if the situation warrants it. V for Vegas posted:http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/ has some interesting mini-AARs on Combat Mission using tactics from real field manuals. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
I don't own many hex games but I have the entire CMBN, entire CMSF, ArmA 2, ArmA 3, most of DCS, IL-2, two copies of Rise of Flight (because their account system is loving retarded), Dominions 3, and a few more things in this genre. It's not a question of cash, it's a question of time. My HOTAS/pedals haven't been connected for a couple months because if I play any Unreal Engine game (and some that aren't) they detect them as a controller and spin the camera to the left CONSTANTLY. It really is time, not money that's an issue. I can't play all of them at once, and that's just my grog-esque games, that doesn't include MMO's, shooters, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Is the radar model in CMANO good enough that you could test whether or not you get separate returns for two aircraft flying closely together or merely one as in this MH370 theory?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What would be some good reading material to go with Combat Mission? I played through an assault scenario last night and it was immensely satisfying to put fire-and-maneuver tactics to good use, but I get lost as soon as the game/force-size moves beyond small. Definitely never use the assault command at anything over 50 meters. Honestly the best thing to do is to just concentrate fire on them until they break by firing at the ground. Yes, it costs ammo and time, but you will save the lives of your little pixeltruppen. I never really use the assault command unless I know I'm heading into an ambush, like moving through woods that are too deep to just fire into but definitely going to have a fight in them. Or house to house. Usually ends bad because in real life you pull back and call in some artillery, and since it is a game I either don't have it or I just don't care. As for reading, a lot of the best info I've gotten has been from the people on the battlefront forums. There is a great one up now about soviet tactics apropos of the new game. I own this: http://www.amazon.com/Yourself-Nazi-Bashing-Guerrilla-Warfare-Manual/dp/1612000096 which is a reprint of the soviet partisan manual of 1942. Fun stuff like how to plan an ambush and field strip most of the small arms and how much snow according to how it's packed will stop a rifle round, but probably not very much information on what you want though there is a little.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:Definitely never use the assault command at anything over 50 meters. Honestly the best thing to do is to just concentrate fire on them until they break by firing at the ground. Yes, it costs ammo and time, but you will save the lives of your little pixeltruppen. CMx1 Assault ≠ CMx2 Assault. CMx1's assault order is a short range, all guns blazin' n' grenades thrown, full squad dash to the target with a slight morale bonus. As such it's a bit of a gamble to be used against entrenched fanatical enemies who you need to approach to get into hand to hand combat. CMx2's assault on the other hand is bounding overwatch where the squad's teams alternate in overwatch and leapfrog roles. It's the same as if you split the squad into teams and then gave one of the teams FAST order some way forward while the other team watched. As such it's best used when under fire at medium ranges, or closer if you can pin all your enemies. You may not always know where the fire is coming from, but you can at least give light or brief targets at suspected locations. This won't consume much ammo as only one team will be firing at a time. At close ranges it may become worthwhile to micromanage your men more - split squads, give your enemies as little time to target your troops as possible so use shorter movements, movements from cover to cover, apply smoke & area fire liberally, crawl short distances if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
I know what the cmx2 assault command does and I stand by my advice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
You definitely should never use CMx2 assault order at ranges below 50m.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
I've moved away from using it entirely. It's almost always a better idea to split your teams if you need maneuver elements and then direct each bound to actual cover rather than an arbitrary point on the line. Also use hunt to move to contact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:You definitely should never use CMx2 assault order at ranges below 50m. From going to heavy cover to heavy cover over short areas of no terrain like across a street or into a house from close woods is the only time I use it, and that is always under 50m. If you are at medium ranges, say 50m to 150m and you are under fire you stop and fire back unless you have no cover and and you will take too many casualties, otherwise you move everyone quick. Leaving your best guys, the lmg, in the open providing negligible suppression fire so your piss poor rifles can make it to a range where they cannot use their most effective weapons, grenades, and hope they will then provide said suppression fire is foolish at best. I mean certainly I can pull up images in my mind where this would work well but most of the time it is either I start at 150 meters moving and then get ambushed by someone I can't see so assault is dumb, or I start within 150m of someone I know about and it is better to just shoot at them. I realize I picked 150 meters as an arbitrary definition of medium range but anything over that and the rifle/smg is pretty much useless and I don't get why you would rely on it unless you had a squad with 2 lmgs in it. Then of course assault is awesome at pretty much all ranges but that is not the norm for me. I tend to play with the crap infantry because I'd rather have more bodies for the points. The nice thing about all the cm games is there is no one way to play it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
I really do wish for less retarded troops in CM:SF though. Yeah HMG team, way to reveal yourselves by shooting at that T-55 from your cozy little house. Wouldn't want that javelin team that's about to get LOS in 10 seconds get all the glory now would we? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Ah that makes sense... I was thinking of closeness to enemy, you of closeness to cover. A very slight difference  Assault comes handy when you have a bunch of companies and don't want to micromanage them in the presence of a minor hazard, such as harassing mortar fire landing around the place. That way if you get a shell strike nearby your squad, only one team becomes vulnerable. I'd still use multiple short leaps (40-60m) rather than one assault waypoint across an opening, to reduce the time for enemy snipers and machineguns to get their aim right. Once the going gets rougher, it probably becomes necessary to split up a bit more or try something different. Often so you get close enough to id the threats so you know where to lay fire. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Is the radar model in CMANO good enough that you could test whether or not you get separate returns for two aircraft flying closely together or merely one as in this MH370 theory? I dunno; I just tested 2 A/C right on top of each other and they were detected as separate contacts. My guess would be no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
For CM assaults I usually either just dash infantry from cover to cover until they get eyes on enemy infantry and shell the hell out of the area with tanks or something, or if it's in forests I send infantry in at a move pace with tanks right behind moving slowly behind them, then curl up and cry when it doesn't work because they have a bazooka or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I dunno; I just tested 2 A/C right on top of each other and they were detected as separate contacts. My guess would be no. Cool, thanks for trying it anyway!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
John Tiller's Campaign Series okay? Worth it for 15 bucks? I need something that feels like Steel Panthers but runs on Windows 7 64 bit and not like garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
Chump Farts posted:John Tiller's Campaign Series okay? Worth it for 15 bucks? I need something that feels like Steel Panthers but runs on Windows 7 64 bit and not like garbage. I personally find the scale a little odd because it's higher level than CM/CC but you still need to worry about loading men and guns into their organic transports, but I probably just need to get more used to it. The good news is that it has a LOT of content: West Front, East Front AND Pacific Theater, plus I think there's a modern day mod floating out there, dynamic campaigns, scenarios and a random battle generator. With the huge 2.0 patch that was released last month it also runs like a champ in modern systems and even supports windowed mode now. It's not exactly Steel Panthers scale AFAIK though - vehicles aren't individual, but I could never really get into Steel Panthers in the first place so that's fine by me. I'll try to upload some pictures so you can judge if the graphics are for you. EDIT: Almost forgot - the 2.0 patch introduced an animation speed control which makes fire/combat results go by quickly. The 3-5 seconds of waiting every time a unit fired a shot in a John Tiller Panzer Campaigns game kept killing my interest in it despite otherwise being a simple and easy-to-learn system, so it's nice that they managed to get rid of that here. Yes, you could set Panzer Campaigns to "fast AI resolution" which eliminated the problem from the AI side, but there was no way that I've ever discovered to speed it up as a player Screenshots:  This is the default 3D view from the Rising Sun (Pacific theater) module of Campaign Series, with a US Heavy Machine Gun Platoon selected in purple. In the upper right corner you'll see 6 key stats of the unit: Strength is how healthy the unit is, Action is the action points remaining for the unit, Assault is how strong the unit is in directly assaulting another hex, Defense is how strong the unit is at repelling an assault, Fire Cost is how many Action Points are needed to be able to fire (you can set the game to "reserve" APs for firing, similar to XCOM), and Morale is self-explanatory.  A zoomed-out 3D view  A 2D view if you want to play like this The basic pattern of gameplay is to shoot at units with ranged fire until they become Disrupted, and then Assault a disrupted unit from multiple hexes, although at the scale represented in the game it's also possible to kill off units entirely or cause them to rout/break from heavy fire and casualties. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Mar 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 17:02
|
|