|
Fast vs. quick is basically a full sprint, which a unit can only do for about a turn maximum, probably more like 30-40 seconds, and a quick jog. When they do fast and wear out they'll automatically knock it down to quick, which you can "effectively do forever."
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
I keep trying to get into Combat Mission but the micromanagement is so drat intense and fiddly. That scenario in Red Thunder that starts you off with 20 tanks and halftracks in column in the middle of a densely wooded road is the worst to try to deploy in. I am convinced that the true joy of Combat Mission is making a quick battle and giving yourself nothing but artillery and aircraft, and watching the map explode for 10 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
The campaigns are a pain and not really good for beginners, they're more aimed at people willing to sperg out over them. The exception I've found has been Shock Force, in which the main campaign seemed to do a very good job of starting exceedingly easy and ramping up over the course of it. Both quick battles, and multiplayer are the main draw. Setting yourself up for an easy victory is occasionally fun for the sheer slaughter. For the most part it's the near victories/defeats that are really fun to me, as they mean gg. The scenarios are also pretty solid, since they don't require the commitment of the campaigns and you can very easily scrap it and try it again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
gazza posted:I keep trying to get into Combat Mission but the micromanagement is so drat intense and fiddly. That scenario in Red Thunder that starts you off with 20 tanks and halftracks in column in the middle of a densely wooded road is the worst to try to deploy in. I've only ever played Combat Mission on the smallest maps with the smallest force sizes set to pure infantry. I'm not man enough to handle anything larger  but I do find it entertaining regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Yeah, I think CMx2 games really shine at the lowest levels. I really don't like scens with more than a reinforced company, and I adore the platoon-level scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
I only really ever played cm multi, I'll do as large as you want but against the AI I just never really seem to care that much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Is Shock Force worth playing? A modern warfare CM-style game sounds appealing but so does Red Thunder, which I'm mainly holding back on because it's just released so I'm guessing it could use a little patching first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
I would wait until Black Sea to be honest. SF is missing all the cool 2.0 upgrades and it likely won't be getting them. It seems the more likely path is to release Black Sea on the 3.0 system, and port all the SF content forward, as weird as that is. That said, I highly enjoy SF and its modules, you just have to keep in mind that it plays WAY different from WW2 so you'll have to play it radically different. It's awesome that one guy in a modern squad has more firepower than an entire WW2 American squad. That all said, SF is pretty cheap so it won't break the bank to pick it up. Just look at ALL the options as it has a weird way to buy everything for less than the "buy everything" option if memory serves correctly. Something like buying the SF+USMC bundle then the NATO and British separate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
If you do play CM:SF, take it easy on the Javelins if you play as US Army. The US Army forces have TONS of javelin missile launchers that just completely own anything and everything. The British, Marine, NATO or Syrian forces are a bit more balanced to play as, or just play as Army and don't abuse the javelins. It'll make for a more fun game. This is for quick battles - for the campaign, anything goes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Also don't play Syria. QB, scenarios, campaign, anything. Never do it. It's frustrating and unfun. I watched two dudes try to break the system by giving the Syria dude multiple times of the US guy's point value and the US dude ONLY taking Humvees with squads inside. US beat the poo poo out of Syria regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
I played a fun syrian campaign. It was hard as balls but it was basically just a series of ambushes which are always fun when they work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
The problem with Shock Force is that early engine and scenario design limitations aside, it's really difficult to make conventional warfare against a third world army fun because in open combat you just win and when they're being asymmetric you just take casualties without really being able to do anything about it. Only in the British and NATO campaigns do they start to nail down 'fun' Night Assault on the other hand is what made me fall in love with Red Thunder almost instantly - it's just a tiny platoon vs platoon fight but it's one that's chock full of atmosphere, and in order to win it you have to apply all the principles of fire, maneuver and reading terrain that the game is supposed to be about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
So I have been thinking about getting Command Ops Battle from thr Buldge. It looms decent, I just have a few questions: It is in real time, in the view shown in the screenshot? How accurate is the damage calculations for flanking, etc. Only ground forces? Or are air forces and navel forces a thing as well? e: Also, is the AI really as good so they have to mention it like 20 times on their sales pag
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Kickass Harpsichord posted:Yeah, I think CMx2 games really shine at the lowest levels. I really don't like scens with more than a reinforced company, and I adore the platoon-level scenarios. That actually makes me feel a lot better that it's not just me and I'm not some slow-thinking grog-babby Michaellaneous posted:So I have been thinking about getting Command Ops Battle from thr Buldge. It's in real-time. There's a demo if you want to check it out, but I don't know how updated it is with regards to patching and game improvements and whatnot. I don't have it myself, but this thread raves about it every so often.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
Michaellaneous posted:e: Also, is the AI really as good so they have to mention it like 20 times on their sales pag It's quite good, you can give orders on a fairly high level and expect the AI to come up with a reasonable plan of action for individual units.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Battles from the Bulge is one of those games I wish I had time to play more of. The demo is easy and great fun, and the game has improved by leaps and bounds in terms of combat fidelity since release. I can recommend it as something to have on the wishlist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
So when you play WitP, does anyone else feel a need (not a spergy grognardy compulsion need, but an actual necessity in order to get through the game) to write the poo poo down that you're doing each turn/plan to do the next one, because there's just SO MUCH poo poo to do (at least at the beginning of a campaign)? I've probably played December of 1941 like a dozen times just because I can't remember the plans that I had started/the supplies and troops I had moved/the organization I created in the previous play session and instead say "gently caress it" and restart. I feel like opening a notebook and just taking turn notes on this, but I feel like that's a grognardy line that one should be wary of crossing. That's a step before printing out a dozen spreadsheets and plastering them around your desk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
I didn't do that for WITP (yet), but I did make a Google Spreadsheet of the German OOB in WITE so I could keep it all in my head, so yeah, those games do require note-taking at some point because of how many moving parts there are and how long it takes for long-range plans to develop. We might not need it if the interface was more like that of EU4 or Civ 5, but alas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
I did start writing down what all my convoys were doing and whatnot, but then I never referred back to what I had written so I stopped doing it. I have a general idea that there are a bunch of CS convoys shuttling from the USA to the South Pacific, and there are a bunch of convoys moving stuff from India/SA to Australia. But I just monitor the stockpiles of supplies and fuel at the major bases - if they're running low I will just line up some more xAKs in a new convoy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
I've been watching a let's play of Advanced Tactics Gold and really enjoying it and was wondering, does anyone here had any opinion of it? I downloaded a free strategy guide and, scanning over it, it seems very in-depth but for some reason the actual manual doesn't seem available anywhere. I'm mainly interested in whether the AI can put up a serious fight and cope with a possible land, sea and air strategy. In the let's play, he seems to steamroll the enemy but the options he set maybe restricted the AI a bit and he only used tanks and infantry/artillery (up to the point I've watched, anyway).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:I did start writing down what all my convoys were doing and whatnot, but then I never referred back to what I had written so I stopped doing it. I have a general idea that there are a bunch of CS convoys shuttling from the USA to the South Pacific, and there are a bunch of convoys moving stuff from India/SA to Australia. But I just monitor the stockpiles of supplies and fuel at the major bases - if they're running low I will just line up some more xAKs in a new convoy. This, and then realizing that as allies against the AI it really doesn't matter if a few ships sit idle a few days extra. I have a worse time organizing my squadrons, and planning who goes where whilst juggling withdrawal dates and ensuring I don't run short on a particular plane type in a theatre. Early war it was lack of dive bombers and fighters for defense of Port Moresby/Darwin/Rangoon (who held with the aid of 3rd Indian corps), now (summer 43) it's lack of fighters for covering newly captured bases on the front lines without leaving the big jump-off bases underdefended, whilst having marine dauntless squadrons out the wazoo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
I write down most stuff, notes about wite and strategic objectives, build orders for the first parts of the war in AACW, items in dominions 4, etc. I like it because I forget stuff and/or have been drinking ane helps me keep track.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Rapacity posted:I've been watching a let's play of Advanced Tactics Gold and really enjoying it and was wondering, does anyone here had any opinion of it? I downloaded a free strategy guide and, scanning over it, it seems very in-depth but for some reason the actual manual doesn't seem available anywhere. I really want to love it, but there's an enormous amount of micro to assemble and organize your units. That might be your thing though! My impression is that you have to give the AI a solid production advantage to get a serious challenge, but I haven't really played extensively enough to give a solid assessment of the AI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Rapacity posted:I've been watching a let's play of Advanced Tactics Gold and really enjoying it and was wondering, does anyone here had any opinion of it? I downloaded a free strategy guide and, scanning over it, it seems very in-depth but for some reason the actual manual doesn't seem available anywhere. The big problem with AT Gold is that you have to do manual reinforcements. If you could auto-reinforce units it would be an incredibly good game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
^^I don't mind.Fintilgin posted:I really want to love it, but there's an enormous amount of micro to assemble and organize your units. That might be your thing though! I'm very inexperienced with grog strategy games but, judging from the videos, the micro is fine for me. I'm more interested in whether the AI can actually use all the systems that the game offers. I'd be happy to hear that it's capable of surprising you with an amphibious attack or even that it can use air somewhat effectively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The big problem with AT Gold is that you have to do manual reinforcements. If you could auto-reinforce units it would be an incredibly good game. I own AT Gold and this is my hang-up as well. You don't even have anything like a template or a reference as to what makes a good single on-map unit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Rapacity posted:I've been watching a let's play of Advanced Tactics Gold and really enjoying it and was wondering, does anyone here had any opinion of it? I downloaded a free strategy guide and, scanning over it, it seems very in-depth but for some reason the actual manual doesn't seem available anywhere. Wasn't Grey Hunter talking about doing an Advanced Tactics Gold LP?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Drone posted:Wasn't Grey Hunter talking about doing an Advanced Tactics Gold LP? Yeah, as soon as the Paradox LP wraps up. That's stuck in the modding phase between games, and I've not had time to work on it atm. but ATG is up next!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies. I'll wait on the LP then, should be awesome. I'll just keep playing CoE3 in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Funny patch notes, War in the East edition:quote:1. Fixed critical bug with combat values going below 0 (integer overflow) resulting in easiest capture of strongest hexes. quote:Fabulous. Thanks to morvael for these fixes. Losing West Moscow during blizzard because of this bug was no fun === quote:3. Hopefully fixed important bug with Corps Artillery Regiments being recognized as Corps units (which resulted in wrong support unit assignment besides other undesired effects). quote:Soviet Corps Artillery Regiment units were before this fix recognized as corps sized due to 'Corps' being part of the text string. quote:Worst problem was that the game assigned sapper regiments to those "corps", which effectively disappeared from the oob and so the ai hand to build more and more... I know personally that at least one AAR was ruined by this bug over a year ago when the Soviet player kept losing dozens of Sapper units from the AI auto-reassignment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
The solution is to just assign them all manually!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
uPen posted:The solution is to just assign them all manually! That's always the answer for everything with the possible exception of distant worlds. (But I run that with all automation off as well)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
It just hurts my (amateur) programming sensibilities to have something like that defined by unit's name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Drone posted:So when you play WitP, does anyone else feel a need (not a spergy grognardy compulsion need, but an actual necessity in order to get through the game) to write the poo poo down that you're doing each turn/plan to do the next one, because there's just SO MUCH poo poo to do (at least at the beginning of a campaign)? I've probably played December of 1941 like a dozen times just because I can't remember the plans that I had started/the supplies and troops I had moved/the organization I created in the previous play session and instead say "gently caress it" and restart. I can't say my notes are that thorough, but during the WEGO portion I do jot down notes of what's happening/what I need to do next turn. EG "Battleship sighted W of Borneo" "CV spotted N of Rabaul" "Pause attack on Buna" "Shock attack at Moulmein" "Cancel bombing runs on Rabaul" It's really easy to lose track of what's going on and what you need to do next turn unless you write poo poo like that down. Consequently, my note taking system for WitE is more sophisticated than any notes I take for work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Tip for Red Thunder: play on turn-based mode. It isn't just easier to keep track of all your forces and make sure they all have orders, it actually promotes better strategy by forcing you to think one minute ahead rather than just plodding along and reacting to things as they happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Holy gently caress they put War in the East down to 40 dollars. If you want a great game at an almost reasonable price, now is the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:Holy gently caress they put War in the East down to 40 dollars. If you want a great game at an almost reasonable price, now is the time. Hold my hand, I'm going in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Figures that the expansion packs are still full-price. I still don't have Don to the Danube
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Figures that the expansion packs are still full-price. I still don't have Don to the Danube Is 12 EUR the normal price for those expansions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Mokotow posted:Is 12 EUR the normal price for those expansions? Yup. If you're planning on jumping into the deep end though I would NOT recommend getting Don to the Danube, as the scenarios aren't that good (I'm just a completionist). The Lost Battles though is a worthy addition particularly since it adds a new, Sudden Death variant of the Grand Campaign, and the smaller scenarios are a more fleshed out and playable set.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 13:30
|
|