And its 8245 files.
Man, am I glad I have FAT32.
And its 8245 files.
Man, am I glad I have FAT32.
You have CMBB? Sorry to hear that, man… Hope for a quick recovery. Is it curable?
Be sure and pick up the patch at battlefront.com.
I hear casual gamers and wargamers alike can enjoy Combat Mission.
Some fella named Jeff Lackey gave it a 94 over at Gamespy. With Gamespy’s new emphasis on middle of the road scores (as described by one Tom Chick), that’s like a 112 at IGN.
Although, I get the idea that he (Lackey) does not know as much about history as he does about games. :wink: Maybe Jason McCullough can tutor him.
Now that’s funny. Since I took over at FS, I’ve emphasized lower scores as well. There are so many good (not excellent) games out there that they become average by default.
Anyway, I think 94 is a bit high for it, but still perfectly reasonable. It’s not that there will be people turned off by the game, I just think the interface is utter cess. =] Too bad there isn’t a continus campaign where you get to lead your own force (a la Steel Panthers: World at War.)
Otherwise, it’s a stellar title. Possibly the best wargame since Panzer General, though it’s obviously not as newbie-friendly.
I’m beginning to think this “emphasis” only applies to Tom Chick reviews.
It took 6 green 1942 T-34s to take out a Tiger. One of the T-34s routed because he was so suppressed by that deadly bolt-action rifle fire from an infantry squad. groan I have to stop making scenarios where Russians get green troops.
It took 6 green 1942 T-34s to take out a Tiger.
Bruce is kicking my ass in the Kursk scenario and I was convinced it was because he had better tanks. After all, it seemed like his Tigers were routinely poking holes in all my T-34s. Those 88mm guns were just kind of laughing at my rounded armor. Oooh, rounded armor, how scary…
When I complained, Bruce shot back some snide doctor-ey comment about “Actually, your tanks are better than mine”. I was hesitant to believe him. Now I know better.
I’m on to you, Geryk!
Tigers are better. Obviously my situation was a freak event helped along by my troops being green, but Tigers are better than T-34s.
Of course, for the money (particularly availability costs), it does lean towards the '34. On certain terrain types - like hill cover, and the T-34s can close the distance to where their guns are effective, it’s almost an even match 1 on 1.
Then again, on the Russian steppe, with wild open spaces… Tigers can take out two or three T-34s before they come within range :D
I was playing around with some homebrewed scenarios as test cases. The Tiger actually fares better against the T-34 in extreme conditions than a King Tiger does. Extreme conditions being a town or heavily wooded area. The King Tiger will sooner or later get outmaneuvered and won’t be able to rotate in time to save its ass (literally.)
No kidding – the AI on green troops is really frustrating. Then there’s conscripts.
I still maintain that your main tank type, the T-34/76, is superior to my main tank types, the PzKw III Ausf L and the PzKw II Ausf all of them. I think your problems may arise from your employment of armor as “single use pillboxes.”
Also, Solaris rules!
I still maintain that your main tank type, the T-34/76, is superior to my main tank types, the PzKw III Ausf L and the PzKw II Ausf all of them.
Fair enough, but what’s got me stymied are all the Tiger tanks “complementing” your PzIIIs.
Also, Solaris rules!
Yes! It rules the field of obtuse molasses-paced sci-fi!
EDIT: I corrected the misspelling of “complementing” so that Bruce’s next post makes no sense. Ha! Take that, Geryk! Feel the power of my “Edit” button!
I know, they are very polite and never say a bad thing about anyone.
I wonder how CMBB might model Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz Von Gross-Zauche und Camminetz. (That was really his name). You can read about some of his exploits here:
It’s a good thing the Germans didn’t have a few hundred commanders like him.
Therein lies the rub with many of these games, much as I like them. Modeling the effect of someone like the good Graf is no easy task.
I remember playing one board wargame where the rules wouldn’t let you blow down a building with a self-propelled artillery piece by direct fire. After all, it was an artillery piece, not an assault gun or tank. But that’s how SP arty was used by Americans in much of the Western front. Rules can be such limiters to creativity.
The T-34,like some other AFVs in the game,such as the Tiger II,is handicapped somewhat because the CM engine doesn’t account for narrow front turrets when calculating hits.The front turret armor on the T-34(as on most tanks) is weaker than the side turret armor,but this is somewhat compensated by the small target area-except in CM this is not taken into account.Apparently the current engine can’t model this,but it is planned for the revamped engine in CM2.
Anyway,it seems to me that the early T-34s are more vulnerable to smaller caliber guns than they really should be.Call me a nit-picker…
Anyway,it seems to me that the early T-34s are more vulnerable to smaller caliber guns than they really should be.
Ah-ha! I knew it! Geryk’s wrong and now I will dance a little jig.
-Tom, a poor maligned wargamer who loses only because Bruce gives himself more powerful tanks
This lack of a continuous campaign (not even a dynamic one - just linked missions and some logistics considerations) is my biggest complaint. My next biggest is the graphics (which are improved over CMBO at least). This is followed a real desire to see individual soldiers modelled along the lines of Close Combat. Naturally, my desires conflict with the wargamers who like the huge online battles and see more detailed treatment of soldiers or extended campaigns as fluff that would take away from more important design considerations (which vary depending on which grog you ask). Still, a company that could pull off a CM-SP-CC hybrid successfully complete with random maps (I love the quick battle engine) would have a huge winner.
Unfortunately GI Combat ain’t gonna be the one.
There was a scenario include with CMBO that attempted to reenact Wittman v. British 7th Armored. It failed, especially if the poor AI had to try and be Wittman.
That’s strikingly dumb for the designers to do, considering the widespread use of SP artillery for direct fire by the Americans. Any wargame designer worth their salt should know about the use of big SP artillery by the 26th Regimental Combat Team in Aachen, or the reduction of the Citadel at St. Malo. A 155mm or 203mm shell is remarkably persuasive. I need to throw in a link for Dave, so there is a picture of one of the 26th’s guns in action, as well as a picture of a reinforced concrete wall after one shot, on this page: http://www.ida.org/DIVISIONS/sctr/cpof/MOUT-Aachen-1944.pdf
I agree, though I didn’t know any better at the time. I wish I
could remember the game, but maybe it’s one of those titles
best forgotten anyway.
However, any game that tries to simulate reality with rules will always have gaps or be incomplete. It’s the nature of the animal. Besides, it gives rules lawyers and people who “game” electronic games something to do. :-)
Nice CMBB review. I’ve been waiting for someone to review CM like it was a normal video game you can have fun with, not like some kind of strict simulation.