Combat Mission 2: likes and dislikes

Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Location
Ohio, USA
Country
llUnited States
With the full game out now I figured I'd start a thread to share our likes and dislikes about the new game.
 
Last edited:

KG_Jag

KG Vice Kommandir
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
180
Location
New Braunfels, TX/Reno, NV
Country
llUnited States
The thing that I like the most is that I finally got it yesterday. For those in the US who ordered mutiple copies, or like me, included other Battlefront games with their CMBB order, you will probably get it by UPS ground like I did. Battlefront said that they got all preorders (except those made at the last minute) out on 9/20. It's just that some of us got UPS ground instead of priority mail.

Having played one game, I can tell you that I really like seeing the early war weapons. The 1941 tanks are very different than anything in CMBO except the Hotchkiss, which is from the same era. The T-34 is a super tank. Fortunately for me the AI was stupid enough to drive it next my infantry in a heavy building who had molitav cocktails. They raised their glasses and tosted the T-34.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Location
Ohio, USA
Country
llUnited States
Just to see the soviet tanks moving across open fields is a thing of beauty. Except when they waste 3 out of 5 tanks that was once a platoon of pz-IV's, right Scipio? :dead:

He's stompin' on me pretty bad.
 
Last edited:

Lurker

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
1,526
Reaction score
0
Location
Clearwater, Florida
I haven't played the game in any depth yet, just the demos so far. I have looked over the mechanics and numbers though and these are my impressions.

PROS:
1. new infantry movement - very badly needed. No longer will we suffer moronic troops following waypoints to their obvious death before arriving.

2. improved to hit, to kill and penetration tables - desperately needed. Hopefully common place cmbo impossibilities have been removed. How often have you seen a buttoned up enemy tank moving fast across open country, gun and viewport bouncing around, instantly spot your tank, that fired and missed, even though it's 800 mtrs away and camo'd in a thin screen of trees and hull down. Meanwhile it spots, rotates turret, acquires and places a one shot kill and all within 10 seconds.

3. covered arcs - very needed. Finally the ability to hide and ambush at the desired range and not having to reveal hidden guns that previously automatically gave away their positions when an enemy half squad showed itself 600 mtrs off.

4. improved artillery - I haven't looked at this yet but any improvement is a good thing.

CONS:
By the fire power factors (fp after this), here are my first impressions.

1. feeble German rifle units - in CMBO the heer and Brit rifle were quite feeble and few of my opponents ever picked them, instead choosing the strongest inf they could buy. In CMBB in 1941 the average Russian rifle squad is 172 to 185 fp while the standard German rifle is 124 fp. A sizable difference there and at first glance I'll give a big edge to the Russians.
While on the subject of fp differential, the Russians have abundant cheap SMG units ranging from 7 to 11 man squads at a huge 350 fp to a terrifying 550 fp! There isn't a German unit in the game, particularly in 1941, that can stand up to this. Of course I haven't played this out yet but my money is on the Russian SMGs.

2. a greatly pared down MG34 - the MG42 light and heavy is 50 and 155 fp while the MG34 is 36 to 120. Does anyone know the historical truth of these guns? Was the MG42 that much better?
My understanding is these are basically the same weapons with the '42 tweaked and improved. They both had cyclic ROFs of 1200 rounds per minute though, so I wouldn't give the '42 that big of an edge. This has the effect of making the German rifle even weaker than in CMBO.

3. no nationality traits and generic qualities in terms of morale, training, discipline and leadership to all units of all nations.

QUESTIONS:
1. was the MG42 that much better than the MG34?
2. at 40 mtrs the MP40 is equal in fp to the MG34. Considering about 450 RPM for the MP40 and 1200 RPM for the MG34 would this be accurate?
3. the Russian SMGs (PPD and PPsh) are rated at 46 fp and 50 fp making them even more effective than the Thompson. Is this accurate? Are the Russian SMGs that superior to the MP40 at 36 fp? I always thought the thompson was equal to or better than any SMG of that era.
4. there's nothing in 1941 that can touch a KVI or II frontally except the 88mm AA gun and obviously those won't be racing around the battlefield. How did the panzer units deal with this historically? I'm guessing they relied on out manuevering the KV's to get flank and rear shots with their 50mm L\42's?

Overall the fp numbers seem to give the Russians a big edge. Imagine several Fusilier COs facing off vs several Brit rifle COs. There's a big advantage to the Fusilier in fp - 324 to 161 or 163 fp. This edge is potentially greater in CMBB, particularly if SMG heavy battles are played. Here we're looking at 324 vs 550 = 226 fp, or worse: 550 to 350 vs 124 = 426 / 226 fp differential!!
If completely unrestricted QBs are played I can see the Russians using vast numbers of dirt cheap SMG units. Apparently unit restrictions may be necessary.

In 1941 the Germans blew away the Russians, capturing vast numbers and gaining much ground. This was done with superior tactics of blitzkreig on a large scale, pincer operations, destroying rear communications and causing great panic, etc, etc.
In a tactical level sim like CMBB this success is very difficult to portray, particularly without nationality traits. The on-paper numbers are quite misleading and given the current values one would think the Germans would have had their asses kicked in 1941 rather than the opposite. These numbers will probably give quite different results in QBs than what really occurred.

Just my first impressions, likes and dislikes; feel free to rebut.
 

MajorTaktik

Recruit
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Lurker
I haven't played the game in any depth yet, just the demos so far. I have looked over the mechanics and numbers though and these are my impressions.

PROS:
1. new infantry movement - very badly needed. No longer will we suffer moronic troops following waypoints to their obvious death before arriving.

2. improved to hit, to kill and penetration tables - desperately needed. Hopefully common place cmbo impossibilities have been removed. How often have you seen a buttoned up enemy tank moving fast across open country, gun and viewport bouncing around, instantly spot your tank, that fired and missed, even though it's 800 mtrs away and camo'd in a thin screen of trees and hull down. Meanwhile it spots, rotates turret, acquires and places a one shot kill and all within 10 seconds.

3. covered arcs - very needed. Finally the ability to hide and ambush at the desired range and not having to reveal hidden guns that previously automatically gave away their positions when an enemy half squad showed itself 600 mtrs off.

4. improved artillery - I haven't looked at this yet but any improvement is a good thing.

CONS:
By the fire power factors (fp after this), here are my first impressions.

1. feeble German rifle units - in CMBO the heer and Brit rifle were quite feeble and few of my opponents ever picked them, instead choosing the strongest inf they could buy. In CMBB in 1941 the average Russian rifle squad is 172 to 185 fp while the standard German rifle is 124 fp. A sizable difference there and at first glance I'll give a big edge to the Russians.
While on the subject of fp differential, the Russians have abundant cheap SMG units ranging from 7 to 11 man squads at a huge 350 fp to a terrifying 550 fp! There isn't a German unit in the game, particularly in 1941, that can stand up to this. Of course I haven't played this out yet but my money is on the Russian SMGs.

2. a greatly pared down MG34 - the MG42 light and heavy is 50 and 155 fp while the MG34 is 36 to 120. Does anyone know the historical truth of these guns? Was the MG42 that much better?
My understanding is these are basically the same weapons with the '42 tweaked and improved. They both had cyclic ROFs of 1200 rounds per minute though, so I wouldn't give the '42 that big of an edge. This has the effect of making the German rifle even weaker than in CMBO.

3. no nationality traits and generic qualities in terms of morale, training, discipline and leadership to all units of all nations.

QUESTIONS:
1. was the MG42 that much better than the MG34?
2. at 40 mtrs the MP40 is equal in fp to the MG34. Considering about 450 RPM for the MP40 and 1200 RPM for the MG34 would this be accurate?
3. the Russian SMGs (PPD and PPsh) are rated at 46 fp and 50 fp making them even more effective than the Thompson. Is this accurate? Are the Russian SMGs that superior to the MP40 at 36 fp? I always thought the thompson was equal to or better than any SMG of that era.
4. there's nothing in 1941 that can touch a KVI or II frontally except the 88mm AA gun and obviously those won't be racing around the battlefield. How did the panzer units deal with this historically? I'm guessing they relied on out manuevering the KV's to get flank and rear shots with their 50mm L\42's?

Overall the fp numbers seem to give the Russians a big edge. Imagine several Fusilier COs facing off vs several Brit rifle COs. There's a big advantage to the Fusilier in fp - 324 to 161 or 163 fp. This edge is potentially greater in CMBB, particularly if SMG heavy battles are played. Here we're looking at 324 vs 550 = 226 fp, or worse: 550 to 350 vs 124 = 426 / 226 fp differential!!
If completely unrestricted QBs are played I can see the Russians using vast numbers of dirt cheap SMG units. Apparently unit restrictions may be necessary.

In 1941 the Germans blew away the Russians, capturing vast numbers and gaining much ground. This was done with superior tactics of blitzkreig on a large scale, pincer operations, destroying rear communications and causing great panic, etc, etc.
In a tactical level sim like CMBB this success is very difficult to portray, particularly without nationality traits. The on-paper numbers are quite misleading and given the current values one would think the Germans would have had their asses kicked in 1941 rather than the opposite. These numbers will probably give quite different results in QBs than what really occurred.

Just my first impressions, likes and dislikes; feel free to rebut.
I agree with you, Lurker. I think the fp factors are unbalanced and not based on reality. How can a MP 40 produce the same amount of killing power as a MG? Not very likely.

I also understood that the MG34 and MG42 were almost the same weapon, except the MG42 had a tripod and often came with a sight. These additions should not create the huge disparity between the two weapon systems.

In order to maintain the "historical" nature of the game, then rarity MUST be used. Otherwise, tourney style play will resume right where it left off in CMBO. Everyone takes SMG and the best tanks. Thankfully, arty has been brought back to reality in CMBB, so the perfect sugical strikes and FOs dashing around and calling in strikes like modern day SpecOps are gone. Once more, with rarity, players will have to PAY for all the heavy stuff so often favored.

It is my opinion, though not by any means perfect, CMBB is much more realistic than CMBO and requires a greater degree of RL tactics to be successful. Most of the controversial gameyness that creeped into CMBO seems removed. Of the ongoing games and tests made so far, tank warfare is more realistic. You will not find lazer beam shots from tanks while moving at top speed over open terrain any longer. One shot kills seem greatly reduced as well. Tanks have assumed thier rightful place as the Arm of Decision!! :)

Once more, flag rushes and Turtle style play are a thing of the past with variable game length and the feature of importing custom maps into QBs. Players will actually have to manuever during an ME rather than wait around till the last 10 turns to make a move, since the long, shallow, symmetical setup zones can be done away with. This delights me to no end :)

I think scenarios will replicate history more than open-ended QBs, since the Russian player can be forced to deal with conscripts and Green troops in the early wars. I also understand in the early years, Russian troop quality is a level lower than German when setting up QB parameters. This will help with historic accuracy as well. Combine this with rarity and imported maps and QBs have a whole new life.

My HOs.

MT
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
75
Reaction score
1
Location
Ohio, USA
Country
llUnited States
The eastern front has always been the a interesting subject. To finally play in this piece of history in 3D is a great feeling. The graphics are great and do not take away from the experience, the sound is good too. The only thing I will say that is negative is that as a 1 player game it is lacking. The AI is still inferior to you. Also if you want to play a single player game all you get are the missions, granted the game is called combat mission. But I would have liked to see a campaign game. Because it gives you a greater purpose to fight and to win.
 

Scipio

Member
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
370
Reaction score
2
Location
Germania Inferior
Country
llGermany
The MG34 was complicated and expensive in production (150h, 312 Reichs Mark), and it was very sensitive to soiling and frost. The ROF was 800-900 rpm. The MG42 was much simpler and cheaper in production (75h, 250 RM), the breech was a complete new technical development. The MG42 was not an improved version of the MG34. The ROF was 1500 rpm.

The ROF of the PPSch is 1000 rpm. I guess this is very much firepower on a short distance. However, the FP value is not only the ROF (AFAIK). Even if it is shown in Rambo movies, you can't use a MG like a MP. The MP is much more flexible, you can get it faster on target, you can carry it better etc. But the MP troops were improved for CMBB. The higher the FP, the less ammo they have. A russian MP squad has only 25 ammo. Another point is, the MGs are improved, too. Once you are close enough with your MP squad, the MG is dead meat - but try to get close enough, especially over open ground!!!
 

arkai88

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Eastern USA
Country
llUnited States
MG42 Tivial Info

Just as a side note, the MG42 was used as both a squad LMG and as a HMG designed as a platoon/company level support weapon. The main difference being the use of the tripod and traversing mechanism in the HMG role (might have also used a heavier barrel, anyone know whether the 42 had 2 different barrels?).
Also the high ROF gave the MG42 a very unique sound, a sound which terrified enemy troops, often to the point where troops that weren't even being fired that simply heard the MG42 firing would hit the dirt. This got to be such a big problem that the US Army actually made a training film aimed at curing the GI's fear of the MG42.
 

Lurker

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
1,526
Reaction score
0
Location
Clearwater, Florida
Interesting. I know the MG42 was supposed to be a terrifying weapon. I think the slang term for it was 'burp gun' wasn't it?
According to research by the ASL designers, they modeled three MGs based on the MG42: Light, medium and heavy. The differences being that the light had less ammo, only a barrel support (I don't know the technical name for it), and I don't think any extra barrels and could be fired by 1 or 2 men. The medium had a tripod, a bigger crew, more ammo and an extra barrel. The heavy was same as the medium but with a bigger crew, mucho ammo, a long range scope and possibly several extra barrels. Barrels were apparently very easy to replace when they started over heating.

The MG42/34 differences I find interesting. This would mean that the MG42 was the only superior small arm that the Germans had and possibly the best of the war. If you go by the CM numerical values then the Germans had inferior small arms to their 3 main rivals, particularly when using the MG34. Albeit a small inferiority but never the less an inferiority - by these numbers anyway.
It makes me wonder then how their infantry achieved such remarkable results in the face of typically bad odds and with inferior small arms. Could this have anything to do with a possible superiority in morale, leadership, training and discipline (am I opening a can of worms here)?
To my knowledge these 4 elements are only reflected generically in CM and individual nations do not get any added bonuses in a given situation as they do in ASL.
Mybe this will be implemented in CM3.
 
Last edited:

Scipio

Member
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
370
Reaction score
2
Location
Germania Inferior
Country
llGermany
AFAIK, the MG42 was known to the GIs as 'Nazi saw'. This weapon has some kind of tradition in my family. In my military service I was the MG gunner of my squad during boot training, using an MG3, that is mostly identic to the MG42, and my father was MG gunner, too - on the East Front at the age of 16 in the last three month of the war.

So, BTW, nobody needs to come up with 'you can't run with an MG!' as I have seen it so often on the BTS board. Be sure you can!!! You can even run with a diasambled 120mm mortar (four men crew), and this things weights 150kg.

The Germans had excellent small arms, but what is really funny, Adolf H. has personally intervent and hampered procuction, because he had his 'feelings' about that weapons, like the MP-44 or the G-43, or they suffered from general productions problems, like the FG-42, an excellent weapon that inspired for example the French FA MAS F3, the Austrian Steyr AUG77, the Spanish CETME and not to forget, the US M60.

Well, I think the training issue is a very difficult thing. I don't think that a support for some nationalities or even branches or divisions is a good idea. Just look at the Waffen-SS, their quality ranged from terrible to excellent.
 

Lurker

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
1,526
Reaction score
0
Location
Clearwater, Florida
Originally posted by Scipio

The Germans had excellent small arms, but what is really funny, Adolf H. has personally intervent and hampered procuction, because he had his 'feelings' about that weapons, like the MP-44 or the G-43, or they suffered from general productions problems, like the FG-42, an excellent weapon that inspired for example the French FA MAS F3, the Austrian Steyr AUG77, the Spanish CETME and not to forget, the US M60.

Well, I think the training issue is a very difficult thing. I don't think that a support for some nationalities or even branches or divisions is a good idea. Just look at the Waffen-SS, their quality ranged from terrible to excellent.
I wasn't trying to imply that they had inferior small arms in reality; rather the CM numerical values assigned to them vs their allied counterparts would seem to imply a relative inferiority, unless I'm missing something in the CM modeling.

On the topic of Hitler's interference I had read somewhere - 'Panzer Battles', 'Panzer Leader' or 'Lost Victories' most likely - that German researchers were inverstigating the use of helicopters for military purposes before the beginning of the war but Hitler had decalred them as 'obsolete' for modern military affairs and so stopped any research in that area. I think it was mentioned that he had also postponed jet research early on as well so as to concentrate on more conventional aircraft and that they picked up the research sometime later.

By the way, what is AFAIK?
 

arkai88

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2002
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Eastern USA
Country
llUnited States
T-34 Gunnery

Well, after playing a 3000 point meeting engagement against the AI last night, I certainly have found a dislike. I consistently used the speed of my T-34's to get flank shots on the Germans' Marder-III's and Wespes' - only to have them miss almost every time. I had a regular unit miss a Marder-III twice under 50m! CUt me a break - I've never been inside a tank and I could hit at 50m.
 

Lurker

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
1,526
Reaction score
0
Location
Clearwater, Florida
That's funny - I'm guessing it's pretty random. I had T34s hit me with almost every shot and I was thinking 'this hasn't changed at all'. I'm glad to hear they can miss :D
 

ArmchairGeneral

Recruit
Joined
Aug 14, 2002
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
Perth, Scotland
Country
llUnited States
No likee

The thing I dislike most about the game is still not having yet!

Is there anyone in the UK who has received it all?

Help...let me know I'm not all alone.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Location
Hamilton, Ontario, C
Country
llCanada
MG34/42

just a post note on the MG34/42 issue mentioned above. Scipio is right, 2 noticeably different weapons. The Mg 34 was effective, but the Mg42 was excellent. The only reason the Mg 34 production continued was because the Mg42 could not fit the mountings in the tanks without a redesign of the mountings, otherwise they would have stopped production of the MG34 alltogether.
 
Top