New QB DAR started at BF

[junk2drive]

There aren't going to be many maps to fuss over anyway, so what's the big deal?

-dale

Why do you think that?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Why do you think that?

I'm curious as well.

It may well be that the new game engine itself is a dud; I certainly didn't like the direction they took. Others have felt differently. As we've been talking about for years, though, the big litmus test is now upon us. We will see, now that the game engine has returned to the popular and original World War II setting, how large the community grows again. Part of that test will be in how fast the user-made scenarios and map building progresses.

I suspect dalem is, in his sparse style, predicting that the community will still be small and that map building will be an indicator of lack of success.

I'm more than willing to try the game first before making any predictions, myself. It will certainly be interesting.

By the way, I posted the Opening Moves (two part post) portion of the AAR just a few minutes ago.

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[dalem]

Why do you think that?

MD has it pretty much right - I think that, if it is released, it's going to be a quiet game with a small footprint and reach. Why do I think these things?

Because I have no reason to think anything else. In the last 4 years BFC has given no indication, absolutely none, that they can set or meet expectations with regard to their products. I may be wrong about this one, but then again, I may not be. My view is pessimistic, but not without justification.

-dale

 

[junk2drive]

I'm hoping that they added something to this version that is lacking in SF. It will still be different than CMx1, but maybe we can learn to like it.

 

[dalem]

I'm hoping that they added something to this version that is lacking in SF. It will still be different than CMx1, but maybe we can learn to like it.

They did - a QB unit purchase system.

-dale

 

[junk2drive]

Then we have Elvis telling us that if we don't like SF, we won't like BN. hmmmm

 

[dalem]

Then we have Elvis telling us that if we don't like SF, we won't like BN. hmmmm

Set up might be better, but it's doubtful that their combat model could be much improved. Single guy-pictures are going to behave just as frustratingly in a meadow in Normandy as they do around corners in FantaSyria.

-dale

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Set up might be better, but it's doubtful that their combat model could be much improved. Single guy-pictures are going to behave just as frustratingly in a meadow in Normandy as they do around corners in FantaSyria.

-dale

I'm especially curious to see how they tackle the bocage; things like breaching hedges, filtering squads through breaches, focusing machine guns in the defence on these avenues of attack, etc. I can see why it would take so long to program these things, if that is what the delays have been. If done right, it may be the first game to truly capture the flavour of this type of fighting with any accuracy. CM:BO fell fall short of the mark in modelling bocage, as good as it was at so many other things.

 

[Geordie]

Then we have Elvis telling us that if we don't like SF, we won't like BN. hmmmm

Well they may have added a QB system, but the game mechanics remain as in CMSF I imagine, and so if you dont like the way CMSF actually plays, then I doubt you will like CMN.

 

[Geordie]

I'm especially curious to see how they tackle the bocage; things like breaching hedges, filtering squads through breaches, focusing machine guns in the defence on these avenues of attack, etc. I can see why it would take so long to program these things, if that is what the delays have been. If done right, it may be the first game to truly capture the flavour of this type of fighting with any accuracy. CM:BO fell fall short of the mark in modelling bocage, as good as it was at so many other things.

I dont think you should get your hopes up for super specifics. Bocage = infantry and the infantry model wont be changing soon.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I dont think you should get your hopes up for super specifics. Bocage = infantry and the infantry model wont be changing soon.

On the contrary, 1:1 representation = super specifics.

Bocage = infantry is a silly statement. A large difference-maker, acknowledged in the official histories, was Culin's hedgerow device and the ability to get armor thruogh the hedges in support. Given that tactical games of this nature - and especially Combat Mission, and especially CMX2 - have always been "tank-heavy", I would expect this aspect to be part of the appeal of bocage scenarios. Even in those scenarios without Rhino equipment, I will be watching to see how underbelly hits, resistance to movement, etc. is modelled.

It's also worth noting that the first use of Napalm by tactical aircraft was at Coutances just a few days before Operation COBRA began. This was another tactical solution to the bocage; it wasn't just a problem for which "more infantry" was the solution.

 

[Mad Russian]

Bocage = infantry is a silly statement. A large difference-maker, acknowledged in the official histories, was Culin's hedgerow device and the ability to get armor thruogh the hedges in support. Given that tactical games of this nature - and especially Combat Mission, and especially CMX2 - have always been "tank-heavy", I would expect this aspect to be part of the appeal of bocage scenarios. Even in those scenarios without Rhino equipment, I will be watching to see how underbelly hits, resistance to movement, etc. is modelled.

But definitely not 'tank country' by anyones definition.

It's also worth noting that the first use of Napalm by tactical aircraft was at Coutances just a few days before Operation COBRA began. This was another tactical solution to the bocage; it wasn't just a problem for which "more infantry" was the solution.

Napalm is mainly an anti-infantry weapon. That just supports Geordies argument.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[vulture]

I'd hope that the 1:1 modelling will inrect awell with e.g. narrow openings in hedges and hegderows that you can't cross though but can set up firing positions within to cover the other side will make the bocage much more interesting. Attackers will be more realistically funnelled by the terrain, defenders can use the hedges to provide concealed fields of fire over the fields in front of them and easily break contact and fall back when it is time to do so.

Of course it is one of those things that we just have to guess about until we actually see how things play out in practice, but from what I've seen the elements are in place, so I am cautiously hopeful.

 

[Geordie]

On the contrary, 1:1 representation = super specifics.

Bocage = infantry is a silly statement. A large difference-maker, acknowledged in the official histories, was Culin's hedgerow device and the ability to get armor thruogh the hedges in support. Given that tactical games of this nature - and especially Combat Mission, and especially CMX2 - have always been "tank-heavy", I would expect this aspect to be part of the appeal of bocage scenarios. Even in those scenarios without Rhino equipment, I will be watching to see how underbelly hits, resistance to movement, etc. is modelled.

It's also worth noting that the first use of Napalm by tactical aircraft was at Coutances just a few days before Operation COBRA began. This was another tactical solution to the bocage; it wasn't just a problem for which "more infantry" was the solution.

Super Specifics.....

I forget that you havent played much CMSF and dont own any of the modules.

While I admit that the infantry model has improved a lot over the last 4 years, its nothing like super specific.

I also have to admit that I get confused about your apparent confusion of the game (CMBN) with reality (Operation OVERLORD). The two are very different beasts.

So just like street fighting = infantry in CMSF, then I imagine Bocage = infantry in CBN. I wil gladly give you a game in the Bocage, you take your US Armour and I will have my German infantry. No guesses who would win.

A few tanks maybe, but armour heavy, definitely not.

Cheers

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Napalm is mainly an anti-infantry weapon. That just supports Geordies argument.

If you had left out the word "mainly" you might have been right.

But definitely not 'tank country' by anyones definition.

And the "tank country" south of Caen, where British Shermans could be picked off at 1,000 metres+ by emplaced German anti-tank guns was somehow better?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Super Specifics.....

I forget that you havent played much CMSF and dont own any of the modules.

Don't start that crap here. I was on the beta team and took part in the conversations when the game was being designed. Where were you? The modules aren't what change the game engine, incidentally - it is the free patch updates that accompany them. Any wager on how far my copy of CM:SF has been upgraded?

And you know that as well as everyone else, so stop talking crap.

While I admit that the infantry model has improved a lot over the last 4 years, its nothing like super specific.

I also have to admit that I get confused about your apparent confusion of the game (CMBN) with reality (Operation OVERLORD). The two are very different beasts.

So just like street fighting = infantry in CMSF, then I imagine Bocage = infantry in CBN. I wil gladly give you a game in the Bocage, you take your US Armour and I will have my German infantry. No guesses who would win.

A few tanks maybe, but armour heavy, definitely not.

You seem awfully certain about the representation of tanks in a game you haven't played yet.

We've seen two AARs so far. How important has bocage been in either?

And how important have tanks been?

I'd love to see some all-infantry CM:SF AARs. No APCs, trucks, or tanks.

 

[Geordie]

Don't start that crap here. I was on the beta team and took part in the conversations when the game was being designed. Where were you? The modules aren't what change the game engine, incidentally - it is the free patch updates that accompany them. Any wager on how far my copy of CM:SF has been upgraded?

And you know that as well as everyone else, so stop talking crap.



You seem awfully certain about the representation of tanks in a game you haven't played yet.

We've seen two AARs so far. How important has bocage been in either?

And how important have tanks been?

I'd love to see some all-infantry CM:SF AARs. No APCs, trucks, or tanks.

No need for the language Mate. Someone seems to have got out of bed all wrong today.

What I mean is that you obviously havent played much CMSF. If you had been playing it you might just have mentioned the fact over the last few years.

Beta team or not, your not that experienced with CMSF or CMx2, or at least you dont seem to be.

Im basing my pre-conceptions on 4 years of experience with CMSF and how things work in that game system.

Of course armour is important, I never said it wasnt. But infantry is the Queen of the Bocage or Street fight, of course you must know this as you seem to be quite well read in the WW2 Normandy area. Me, Ive never read anything that says Bocage was fine Tank country, I could be wrong though.

However, its a game system after all and I imagine loads of guys will take Tigers into the Bocage. Oh BTW, theres no close infantry assault of armour in CMBN, just remembered that.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Im basing my pre-conceptions on 4 years of experience with CMSF and how things work in that game system.

I have 4 years of experience with CMSF as well. The number of hours you've spent on it seems a bit irrelevant with regards to understanding the basic limitations of the system. I don't need to play Meeting at High Altitude 27 times to understand how the ammunition resupply works. Only to get better at the game. And frankly, I couldn't care less about being better, or worse, than someone else at a video game.

Of course armour is important, I never said it wasnt. But infantry is the Queen of the Bocage or Street fight, of course you must know this as you seem to be quite well read in the WW2 Normandy area. Me, Ive never read anything that says Bocage was fine Tank country, I could be wrong though.

Not the point at all.

However, its a game system after all and I imagine loads of guys will take Tigers into the Bocage.

Exactly the point. Scenario designers will always throw tanks into scenarios because that is what people want to play with. Particularly if the infantry game is weak. I think you alluded to as much above.

Take a look at any ASL product that centred around Normandy. Here are two: Beyond the Beachhead and Operation Cobra, from Bounding Fire Productions. Both are set entirely in Normandy, same scale as Combat Mission, and of 25 scenarios how many don't have AFVs?

Scenario AFVs
BtB1     4
BtB2     7
BtB3     2
BtB4     8
BtB5     3
BtB6     2
BtB7    11
BtB8    14
BtB9     0
BtB10    0
BtB11    9
BtB12   12
BtB13    3
BtB14    5
BtB15   28
BtB16   15
BFP14    0
BFP15   11
BFP16   10
BFP17    9
BFP18   15
BFP19   17
BFP20    0
BFP21   35
BFP22    8
BFP23    1
BFP24   35
BFP25   28

Bearing in mind that the module was written to highlight some rules written specifically to depict Rhino tank counters included in the game, and make use of them. But then again - so will CM:BN, right?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Hedgerow Hell was an ASL product set specifically in the bocage country. All eight scenarios were set on the deluxe "bocage" boards, and "bocage" terrain was in effect. The AFV count?

Scenario US Ger
DASL11   1   3
DASL12   2   3
DASL13   4   0
DASL14   3   0
DASL15   8   1
DASL16   0   0
DASL17   7   5
DASL18   8   0

Just one scenario without tanks. But I thought all the fighting in the bocage was horrible tank country!

Someone must have forgot to either tell the "real guys of OVERLORD" or else the scenario designers.

The point being, the scenario designers of Combat Mission will likely be just as taken in by AFVs to include them in their own scenarios. It's what draws players in.

Oh, and bear in mind average map size in these scenarios was 600 metres by 560 metres. I would expect CM:BN scenario designers to go a bit bigger, and consequently, include more AFVs.

 

[Geordie]

Well I have no idea about anything to do with ASL, as far as I know its a bunch of guys sitting round a table arguing about rules. In fact what Ive learnt from here is that knowing the rules of ASL is more important than playing the game.

Also, I dont know why your harping on about Bocage and tanks as we both seem to be agreeing. Namely that tanks werent hughely used in the Bocage but that in games they might be.

As for your experience with the game, well I just dont get the impression that it has gone much beyond the original SF. So apologies if Im wrong there but you haven't really given much indication over the last few years that your very familiar with it.

I also re-stress, if you are, then you shouldnt be expecting any more out of your infantry because from what Ive seen and heard from the Beta testers their [CMNB Infantry] behaviour hasnt changed.