New QB DAR started at BF

[Geordie]

Anyway, back on topic...

The Panzer models do look good though, its a pity we cant have a little bit of video in this AAR, or DAR. Id like to see how they move.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

You can't possibly know what I am expecting or not expecting. I've stated several times now I will be downloading the game when the preorders are up and not pre-judging it until I've seen for myself what it offers. What part of that is unclear to you? I have no interest in judging it based on what older games did or didn't do.

You keep posting as if you're an authority on the subject, because you played CM:SF a lot. The fact is, when CM:BN is released, you and I will both be starting out at the same level of experience with it. I'm comfortable with that.

 

[Geordie]

You can't possibly know what I am expecting or not expecting. I've stated several times now I will be downloading the game when the preorders are up and not pre-judging it until I've seen for myself what it offers. What part of that is unclear to you? I have no interest in judging it based on what older games did or didn't do.

You keep posting as if you're an authority on the subject, because you played CM:SF a lot. The fact is, when CM:BN is released, you and I will both be starting out at the same level of experience with it. I'm comfortable with that.

Im not posting as any more of an authority than you are. Of course if the game system is the same, then naturally I will find it easier as Ive played a fair bit. From what youve been posting I just get the feeling that your expecting a wee bit too much.

All Im saying is don't expect the Moon. I have talked to a lot of Beta testers and the impression they give is its better than CMSF, but still the same engine.

 

[Mad Russian]

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

I did the first post, then came back and edited it. Because they did use napalm against vehicles if they needed to. It's not as effective but it wiill work if you hit them directly.

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?

To be considered tank fighting country instead of infantry bound battles? Yes.

Keep in mind as an ex-combat engineer, ASL gamer, historian, I firmly believe battles are mainly won by the PBI.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[dalem]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen! You can't fight in here - this is the War Room!

Oh BTW, theres no close infantry assault of armour in CMBN, just remembered that.

I thought we tossed this back and forth last year and Elvis proved that there is.

-dale

 

[dalem]

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

Oh, come on, MD, you know that it was. Horrible PERSON country too, when the hurty bits are flying about; but that doesn't mean you don't have to go there and soldier, and where the soldiers are, the tanks will be there too, optimally-used or not.

-dale

 

[Michael Dorosh]

and where the soldiers are, the tanks will be there too, optimally-used or not.

I'm going you one better. I don't think you need to prove that tanks were there at all before gamers and scenario designers will just assume they were, and start throwing them into every scenario. Other vehicles also, particularly if ammo resupply will require it, though I seem to recall that that may not be an issue in CM:BN. I thought that ammo was stored in a Kübelwagen in Elvis' AAR, but I thought there was talk of non-vehicular ammo resupply also.

Anyway, the point being, it doesn't matter if tanks were used historically or not; gamers are going to use them far more often than was the case because they're more interesting. And, I think they will always be over-represented in games.

Not really appropriate for the scale of the new engine, if your comment about it being a "platoon shooter" is accurate. While CM:BO could accurately portray a company or battalion action, which was as often as not supported by tanks, it was a different thing to expect every platoon or company(-) sized patrol to get a tank platoon of its own in support. But we've had this discussion before many times also.

Like I said, I'll wait and see how well the game handles these things before criticizing anything.

 

[dalem]

I agree with your point 100% that scenario designers and DYOers (including myself) usually include too many AFV because AFV are cool.

-dale

 

[Elvis]

I thought that ammo was stored in a Kübelwagen in Elvis' AAR, but I thought there was talk of non-vehicular ammo resupply also.

If I remember correctly Jon used a Kubelwagon to ferry a team that had either AT assets or ammo for his sniper unit on the Kubelwagen. The vehicle itself did not have the ammo. In CM:BN extra ammo is available through 2 sources. On some vehicles, that can be retrieved by the unit needing it, or ammo bearers. Ammo can be shared in other ways as well but these are the 2 main ways to resupply. The funny thing is that whenever I think of ammo bearers I think of you. They were added to a beta build and less than 2 weeks later you made a very long post (that can't be found with this forums poor search functionality) posing that exact idea. At the time I wondered if you still somehow had access to the beta forums because it was shocking to me at the time that you would talk about that specific feature right after it had been added. You were saying something to the effect that in WW2 resupply didn't happen by going back to vehicles, it happened by ammo runners whose main purpose was to resupply units on foot.

Not meaning to be cryptic and because it has already been publicly discussed elsewhere, a couple of the other ways to resupply are buddy aid and ammo sharing. Buddy aid has been talked about enough. Ammo sharing is a different deal and I can't remember if it is in Afghan and CMSF of the top of my head. How it applies to CM:BN would be if one depleted squad from a platoon were near another depleted squad from the platoon and one had a bazooka but no ammo and one had ammo but no bazooka, the squad without the bazooka would give his rounds to the squad that had the baz. It applies to other weapon systems as well..that was just an easy example to type...

As Eric the Midget (actor) would say: "Bye for now"

 

[Elvis]

Then please explain the following statement to me :

And yes, I do expect there will be some gnashing of teeth and whining about this by the 2nd player. Our standard answer to that is... if you find someone trying to screw you over in multiplayer, refuse to play with him again. Works every time

If both players can preview the map, then why would one of them have to be gnashing his teeth and whining ? And how could one player be trying to screw the other one over ?

The only logical conclusion that could be drawn from Steve's statement is that only one player (the one that sets up the game) can preview the map. If that is contrary to the facts I am not at fault for that.

I think Jeph can give at least one example of a logical conclusion that can be drawn. My first thought when I read Steves post was if someone took an exisiting map and altered the set up areas so that he could set up in your backfield too. That might cause some ill feelings. I'm sure there are plenty of other logical conclisions that someone could come up with to show how looking to be a cheater could try to cheat you, if you use your imagination a little. Name calling a system you didn't (or don't) grasp does not have to be the only conclusion.

You are also hereby advised that if you choose to continue with this pedantic, condescending tone you will be answered in kind.

You are hereby advised that when you make an a-hole toned comment you should expect an a-hole response. You condescended first, cowboy. And it was answered in kind. Just as when I condescended in returned I expected you to condescend back. Which you predictably did. You were an a-hole and treated like one. Then I was an a-hole and treated like one. That's how it works when you are trying be an a-hole. Now that I have condescended to your condescension I expect that you condescend back, as it is the only decent thing you can do at this point...Short of saying something like "ya know what? Maybe I should have asked a question or two before bashing something I don't understand or have real knowledge of yet". But I don't expect that. That would mean "man-ing up".

As Eric the Midget (actor) would say: "Bye for now"

 

[Sgt_Kelly]

Name calling a system you didn't (or don't) grasp does not have to be the only conclusion.

Name calling a system? Grow the **** up.

You are hereby advised that when you make an a-hole toned comment you should expect an a-hole response. You condescended first, cowboy.

I made a comment about something Steve said. What does that have to do with you ?

Maybe I should have asked a question or two before bashing something I don't understand or have real knowledge of yet".

Is it my job to go doublechecking if what Steve says is actually correct ?

But you know what ? Fair enough. I won't comment any further on your precious game until it's actually out.

 

[dalem]

All we are is Elvis dust in the wind...

-dale

 

[Redwolf]

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

I think it was clear from the start that if you have a real problem with CMSF's "messy" aspects, including some crazy spotting, you will have the same problems with CMBN.

However, the addition of fortifications with FoW should enable real attack/defense scenarios, hopefully in combination with finally modeling cover and concealment from vegetation. And it is a symmetric fight.

These factors should bring some people over the edge of not worth playing to worth playing.

 

[junk2drive]

It's good to see that so many of us are optimistic after all these years of hand wringing.

 

[Redwolf]

It's good to see that so many of us are optimistic after all these years of hand wringing.

That's because it can't get worse

 

[Mad Russian]

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.

Mike, it's not about Normandy being either good or terrible tank country. It's about the Western Allies being overloaded with equipment. By German standards there were few, if any units in the US Army that wouldn't qualify as at least PG. Every infantry division had a tank battalion attached. There are LOTS of vehicles in the US Army. Those show up.

I thought your issue was about tank fighting in the bocage. Not the presence of vehicles. In this case you are entirely correct. MOST battles vs US troops should always have some vehicle support. Having said that of course there are exceptions. There are those times when only the infantry are present. They make great scenarios usually. But yes, in the bocage the Americans usually attached tanks to any action that was a serious attempt at breaking through German lines.

I think BilH can give us all a great insight. Having worked with Bil before I respect his opinion. What he's already said about the differences between CMBN and PCO is more insightful than what's been said before because, to my knowledge, he's the only one that's been on both sides of the fence to this point.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[Mad Russian]

That's because it can't get worse

I don't actually think any of us are worried about it getting worse. I think we're worried that things haven't gotten better.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[Michael Dorosh]

it's not about Normandy being either good or terrible tank country.

So why did you bring it up?

I thought your issue was about tank fighting in the bocage.

I don't have an issue; I just mentioned that tanks are over-represented in most tactical games. Which they are - not that this is an "issue", it's simply because they are more interesting and most games invest more time and energy into modelling them. The original Squad Leader had attempted to do something more generic, but the fanbase revolted. Combat Commander seems to be resisting the movement - so far.

I just took a look at the CM:BO release disc. The Normandy scenarios released for the original CM:BO didn't feature tanks - most were airborne scenarios, but in fact, there is a battalion sized mission as well featuring the 29th Division fighting to cross the Elle River, without a single AFV in it. I just went through the scenario list, and I don't think there is a single scenario featuring U.S. tanks in the bocage. I'm not sure what that says - there were not a lot of gems on that release disc - but different game systems do have their quirks. Usually a reflection, though, of the personalities of the designers.

I did, however, get sucked into a quick game of St. Anne's Chapelle.

 

[Mad Russian]

So why did you bring it up?

I was responding to what I thought you were trying to say.

I've taken my meds now so all should be better soooooonnn........


Good Hunting.

MR

 

[dalem]

Combat Commander seems to be resisting the movement - so far.

I've pre-ordered their AFV-focused game - Fighting Formations. I think the fact that they are using a whole new game to run vehicles in means that Combat Commander will stay free of them.

Of course, at the platoon scale it's pretty much a miniatures game and I already have plenty of those but...

I'll be interested to see how it scores on my Hetzer Test.

-dale