|
Pimpmust posted:By Odins beard! I just tried this scenario and got massacred. They rushed two of those tank companies down into the river valley in the middle of the map before my Abrams arrived. I took out two of them with javelins while they were on the move. Once they were down there, I didn't want to attack them with those enormous numbers waiting for me at close range, so I thought I would sit back. I tried hiding in the treelines near my edge of the map, slowly picking off Russian vehicles one by one. I destroyed a couple of BMPs along with an ATGM team, but eventually those two tank companies in the valley launched this ridiculous massed headlong charge straight at me at full speed, all at once. It was so sudden that my thin line was overrun and annihilated within like two minutes. I didn't even slow them down. 
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
Are there any good medieval-era grog games?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:I've heard good things about this: http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Products/JLSSG/Vengeance/Vengeance.asp Oh I've been totally addicted to Pike and Shot lately. Those Italian Wars scenarios where the armies still have a lot of late medieval-style units mixed with the early gunpowder have made me wonder if there were other games like it set earlier. That Vengeance game looks neat, especially if it has a decent single player mode. I never have anyone else to play these games with. Unless it was someone on here I guess. I've always wanted to see what a really groggy medieval military campaign simulator could look like. Not battles, but actual campaigns. It seems like it would be perfect for a game. Those wars were all about highly mobile armies trying to outsmart and out-maneuver each other over long campaigns, constantly playing cat and mouse games, skirmishing and ambushing and shadowing each other over vast distances, like with the great chevauchée raids deep into France by the English. You would have your army raid and pillage, living off the land for months at a time deep inside hostile territory, a hundred miles from the nearest friendly base. You would try to do as much damage as possible before escaping, while shadowed by strong enemy forces the whole time, hoping they don't catch you by surprise or cut off your escape route before your army withers away by attrition, disease and starvation. The only games I can think of at the moment that try to tackle that subject would be the Hegemony games perhaps. I tried the Greek one but not the Roman one. You have to deal with raiding and skirmishing and maintaining supply lines over large distances and that kind of thing, and they have a cool history flavor, but they're not realistic at all. There's Crusader Kings, but the wars are the weakest part of the whole game there. You just try to get more men than the other guy and then click on his province. Boom, you've won. Total War has really cool battles but the campaigns are weak there as well. I don't know about that mod though. I don't get how there is so much massive interest for mock-medieval fantasy poo poo but not real history.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Combat Mission Black Sea is quite entertaining. It actually seems a lot more forgiving and less brutal than Shock Force was. The *LASER WARNING* systems that the vehicles get mean they can save themselves so much more easily than in Shock Force, where they would just get blown up instantly with no warning. You get second and third chances to keep your vehicles alive until your smoke rounds run out. The active protection systems that some of the vehicles get means that I'm no longer terrified of ATGMs like I was in Shock Force. I've been a lot more aggressive with my vehicles. Vehicles seem to dominate the battlefield more than before. Javelins are still so nasty though. From a few pages back: Michi88 posted:It was mostly something i came across while doing a campaign mission, where it says to preserve certain buildings that included a large apartment block full of Russian rpg teams and infantry. I ended up using heavy Mg teams to lay into the windows and door until the first floor enemys ran, then cleared from floor to floor. It ended up costing me about half a squad because of how fast the enemy went from cowering to dropping the first guy in the room. If this is what I think it is, then I just now finished that mission. This is the second mission in the US campaign right? The one where you have to clear all those gigantic concrete Soviet-style apartment blocks? The preserve orders on those buildings only apply for leveling the entire buildings to the ground. Walls don't count, so feel free to blast down walls all you want. You get a whole bunch of breach teams with demo charges for that purpose. Those big concrete buildings are really hard to take down completely. You get a lot of off-map artillery, including a 155mm battery. Call in heavy fire missions onto those buildings. Just blast the poo poo out of them with tanks, artillery and autocannon fire. It will take a while for the whole building to go down unless it's really small. Small arms fire will suppress infantry, but they will sometimes get up and shoot back at really close enemies even when pinned, just out of self-preservation. You want to blow them up. Only send in assault teams after the whole area has been thoroughly saturated with large quantities of high explosives. Really, there is only one way to play CM, regardless of what the objectives are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZVbVvZqBJM EDIT: Chump Farts posted:Edit: Anyone want to do Commander the Great War? I tried to play single player since I haven't in a while and I was in Berlin by May 1915 on normal. I don't think the AI has kept up with the patches. Can I try? I've never played the multiplayer for that before. It's been ages since I've played it at all in fact. It was pretty cool though. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jun 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:What scenario and side do you want? How about a short one, like the 1918 Kaiserschlacht one? I'm not too picky about which side I'm on. Maybe the Entente?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Speaking of Close Combat: Gateway to Caen... Anyone want it? HQ26G-L5G5J-WEYYM
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:Because Scourge of War runs worse on a modern rig than Crysis did at launch on an Apple II. I have no idea why, but the 2D terrain sprites totally kill that game for me. If I press T to turn off the terrain, it runs fine, even with huge armies marching around. The Gettysburg map in particular runs like poo poo with all the wheat and corn fields. Antietam runs a bit better but not great. Chancellorsville runs perfectly fine. No slowdown whatsoever. I really liked Take Command: 2nd Manassas, and it ran great even when I was marching the whole army of the Potomac around. I don't know anything about computers or graphics or programming, so it's confusing how there is such a dramatic difference in performance in the sequel, even though it doesn't really look much different. The color palette looks different, and there is a bit more detail on some of the sprites I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Well it appears that I have been defeated by Chump Farts in Commander: The Great War. I could not get the damned Allied war machine going strong enough before the end of 1918. I was confused about when it would end though. At the bottom of the screen it said there were 60 turns, and the game was nowhere near that point when it ended. That was a fun game nonetheless. I managed to encircle and pocket the bulk of the Ottoman army in Palestine, and I launched a failed Gallipoli Part Two. I suppose if I wanted to win though, I should have ignored the Ottomans entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Anyone tried the new battle pack for Combat Mission: Normandy yet? I'm annoyed that it requires their vehicle pack, which is $20. Which means I have to pay $30 total in order to play that battle pack. Maybe that's not worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
LordPants posted:I'm genuinely interested in getting CM:N because there seems to be a lot of content to it, it seems ridiculously well supported. Yep and if you factor in all the user-created scenarios/campaigns (many of them very well made), I don't know how anyone could actually play them all honestly. It will sometimes take me hours to go through a single turn in some of the really large scenarios. Anyone fancy a PBEM game at some point? I have all the CM games.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
drat I wanna get that Mius Front game. Looks like Combat Mission but much prettier and bloodier. How big do the engagements get? The maps look enormous. The only thing is that I wish it had a WEGO thing like Combat Mission so I could rewind and look up close at the pretty tanks and men getting all blown up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:I think CM looks pretty good in motion, especially when modded up a bit, but the allied attack map looks like complete dog poo poo! I really hope they just rushed it for the demo but there are lots of obvious errors in terrain height and that new stream texture they added in parts doesn't match up from tile to tile. Kinda disappointed because I felt the map design had come a really long way and is probably the biggest strength of the series. A couple of the standalone scenarios in CM: Black Sea had really poor map design IMO. Forests that looked like they were just smeared onto the map in five seconds using a large brush, using nothing but the heavy woods tile for the entire forest, with no thought to making it look natural, and other things like that. Some of the other maps looked good though. Battlefront seems to take scenarios from a whole bunch of different people so the quality varies quite a bit. I still want that drat Bulge game though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Fortress Italy Goons, The Churchill is some sort of elaborate prank, on you the British player, right? The whole British army is an elaborate prank. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Any protips for not getting your rear end kicked in the tutorial in Pike & Shot? Which tutorial? There are a few of them. The most difficult one for me was the third one, where you go up against some really tough Swedish salvo foot. I thought the fourth one was easy by comparison. They smashed right through my center and I almost thought I was gonna lose, but I was still able to pull through by routing all their cavalry on the flanks. The kurassiers you get are superior to the Swedish horse. I didn't rout a single one of the Swedish infantry blocks. They were still rampaging around my center and I had only disrupted one of them when I hit the 60% routed enemy troops mark. Pike & Shot usually seems to come down to keeping your forces together and in good order while concentrating fire as much as possible. When a unit routs, it causes a morale check to adjacent friendly units, which can disrupt them. So it's usually a good idea to pick out a vulnerable enemy unit and focus your fire on it until it breaks as quickly as possible, while ignoring other enemy units. Rapidly causing a lot of casualties to a unit, or hitting a single unit with artillery and musketry at the same time has the best chance at disrupting it. Even when an artillery salvo causes zero casualties, it can still disrupt enemy units. Also, that Pike & Shot: Japan game looks loving great. I want!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
I just noticed that there is already a Sengoku Jidai mod for Pike & Shot.  food-rf posted:The Pike & Shot tutorial where they give you cavalry against entrenched foot was great. It's a bit of a slog while dealing with the enemy cav on the flanks. But once my cavalry charged the flank of the enemy foot, a single cavalry unit rolled up the entire enemy defense in one turn with a huge "Charge -> Rout -> Charge" chain, resulting in an immediate victory This happened to me a while ago, but it was my own flank that was rolled up.  It was the Battle of Edgehill, in the English Civil War. I was the attacking Royalists, and my cavaliers were a lot better than the Parliamentarian horse, so I got overconfident. All that the Roundheads had on their left flank were a bunch of inferior horse mixed in with foot skirmishers. On their right they had some light horse and not much else. So right when the battle started, I immediately charged all my cavaliers on both flanks ahead, without waiting for my main body of advancing infantry to catch up, or keep pace with the flanks of the cavaliers. I was hoping I could get a head start on overwhelming the enemy flanks before my main body was engaged, because my infantry was inferior to theirs. At first, the cavalry charge on the enemy left went well, and I was beginning to drive back the flank. However, one single unit of Parliamentarian horse managed to slip out in front of their big checkerboard line of pike and shot, right before my main body got there. One of my infantry units managed to get off one volley into it before it charged right into the left flank of my cavaliers, causing a massive rout and my whole right flank was gone before the infantry was even fully engaged. This game really punishes mistakes. If I was more patient, and advanced my troops together in a concentrated, coherent front, that wouldn't have happened.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 10:23
|
|
.
|
From like 5 pages ago:PleasingFungus posted:I've been playing Pike and Shot, and I absolutely cannot get anywhere in the first Italian Wars mission. If I focus on arquebusiers and rodeleros, I can get a slight edge over the Swiss pike, but by then I've lost the cavalry battle and am getting rolled up from my right. If I focus on gendarmes and jinetes, I can fight the French at roughly even terms, but then my infantry collapses. Should i give up on the stream and go back to the hill behind me starting on turn 1? What sort of advantage does the stream give me, anyway? I can't get the UI to give me any info on it. This is one of the hardest scenarios in the game, and historically the French just rolled right over the Spanish with barely any effort IIRC, so the scenario is true to that. The stream doesn't do much. All it does is count the terrain as "not open" so that it has a chance to slightly reduce the impact damage of cavalry or pike keils (I don't remember if the Swiss pike blocks in that scenario actually count as keils, since they are smaller than normal). After impact though, the stream doesn't do anything, so you're better off in the hills. I never beat it but some posters on the Slitherine forum did by falling back to the hills. Since each scenario is standalone, I think it's better to just move on to the other scenarios after watching yourself get run the gently caress over by gendarmes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Fortress Italy: Holy gently caress, Italian tankettes are deathtraps. I mean I wasn't expecting them to stand up to anything "anti-tank", but outside the front they die to regular small arms at like medium ranges. I think that's my favorite part about Fortress Italy. It's a nice change from the ridiculous IS-2 supertanks on the eastern front. So many fond memories of sending US troops on banzai charges against swarms of those cute little Italian tankettes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
I just noticed that the CMFB patch 1.01 fixes the posture of German half-track passengers, so their heads don't stick way up over the sides in such a ridiculous way anymore, exposing them to fire. I remember bitching about that on the Battlefront forum a long time ago. There was a flame war with the die hard grognard loyalists who always insist there's nothing wrong with the game. Battlefront listened though! It only took them five games to do it! 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
I want a Combat Mission: Star Trek. There's plenty of spergy/groggy spaceship crap for all the Star Trek nerds, where is the ground war poo poo? I want to play some Bajoran resistance fighters ambushing a battalion of Cardassians dammit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Because star trek ground combat is men in rubber suits: Ah, but obviously in Star Trek Deep Space Nine Season 5 Episode 4, there are mortars too!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
What did they do to it to gently caress it up so much?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Oh hell yeah I really wanted an Ultimate General: Antietam but looks like I get that and a bunch of other poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:This totally depends on the context. What size unit, what is the "experience" level/status (e.g. are we talking the iron brigade or the stonewall brigade) of the soldiers, and who is their commanding officer? All of these things would have an impact on how the answer to that question would look. I feel like even Scourge of War has its units with way too high morale. At Antietam, supposedly the cornfield changed hands at least 15 times over the course of the morning. In all these Civil War games, objectives almost never seem to change hands more than once or twice before a battle is over, and when a unit breaks, it's often broken for good after taking enormous casualties. The real battles were a lot more fluid. I suppose if one part of the line took a really bad hit, like from a shell impact, the shock could create a ripple effect down the line, causing the whole line to waver and gradually fall back, only for the momentum to shift a short while later, and they advance again. And the cycle repeats over and over. Scourge of War only simulates morale on a regimental level, so the flow of battles consist of lots of regiments falling back one by one as they each take heavy losses in turn, rather than an entire division falling back at once and reforming to push ahead again like they would do in reality. It seems like lots of grog games don't do this kind of stuff very well. No matter what the war is, whenever I read memoirs and battle descriptions, I tend to read about units attacking over and over again, like "Company X attacked the enemy positions 6 times over the course of the afternoon, getting thrown back each time." In a typical video game, the whole company would be destroyed after one attack.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
TonySnow posted:The tactics used during the ACW weren't stupid, since fire and maneuver is difficult with a 5 foot long rifle that can shoot 3 rounds a minute and leaves huge butts of smoke. The best way to defeat 100 dudes taking pot shots from the tree line was to send 1000 dudes right back at them. The only way to achieve sufficient mass and drive off the enemy was to put many men in a tight formation and point them in the right direction. You can't do anything more with a single shot weapon, rifled or no. The only appreciable development in tactics was the trench, which was eventually defeated by the very sophisticated strategy of going around said trench (and starving them to death). Yeah it was still the most effective way to fight back then. Battles regardless of time period are won by fire superiority. This video tries to recreate the sound of 700 rifles firing, sounding like "hard rain on a tin roof." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOdxbkuAM9c Imagine thousands of men all firing together. They could put forth an enormous amount of firepower despite the slow-firing and clunky weapons. The Battle of Spotsylvania was noted for a big oak tree that was cut down entirely by rifle fire (as well as lots of nasty trench fighting and the guy who said "They can't hit an elephant at this distance" right before being shot in the face). Keeping the men closer together also made them easier to control with 19th century communications, so there was no reason not to fight that way. Saros posted:Okay so any book/source reccomendations about the USCW? I have to admit my knowledge goes from about Napoleonics to the Russo-Japanese war with little in between other than everyone took the exact wrong lessons from RUS v JPN. It's about one battle but I found this pretty fascinating: Antietam: The Photographic Legacy of America's Bloodiest Day It has every photo taken from the battle, and the author tracked down the exact location that every photo was taken and mapped them all out. The movements of the troops involved are re-traced to some pretty insane detail. The book is pretty grim to read, with the photos of fields of bloated corpses with detailed descriptions of where on the field they fell, what unit they were in, and how they were killed. The book is peppered with short biographies of common soldiers who fought in the battle and what happened to them as well. It's good at giving a picture of how the battle played out from the ground level.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
The Antietam map in UG: Civil War is all wrong. The Dunker church didn't even look like that. And the rail fence alongside the Hagerstown Turnpike is missing. And the outlying farm buildings like the Mumma farm didn't look like that either. Pffft, what is this even doing in the grognard thread. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I haven't played Scourge of War: Antietam, but the Sharpsberg mod of Take Command: Second Manassas if loving awesome. The guys who made it put a lot of work into getting the map right. That game was the poo poo. The Scourge of War Antietam map is pretty accurate as well, despite the crappy graphics. They got the unit placement down and even went so far as to make sure the Mumma farm building is on fire, as the Confederates had set it on fire to stop it from being used by Union sharpshooters. The fire created a massive column of black smoke that could be seen by both sides everywhere on the battlefield, and both sides used it as a landmark to orient themselves throughout the day, since the rest of the battlefield was just featureless oceans of wheat and corn. It's a detail that's usually overlooked in depictions of Antietam.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
This Ultimate General game is pretty hilarious. I still haven't tried the campaign mode yet, but playing the Confederates at Antietam, I managed to cause nearly 50,000 Union casualties, losing 20,000 of my own. Artillery really seems to be the king here. Several of my batteries had over 2,000 kills each. It's so dramatically different from Scourge of War, where artillery doesn't do a goddamn thing outside of canister range. I also love how the whole battlefield turns into a blasted hellscape of thousands of artillery craters after a while. For most of the battle I was just barely holding on, and for a while I thought I was going to lose after the final wave of Union reinforcements showed up across the river. At that point they drove me out of the sunken road, and I was only holding the Dunker church by a hair. As long as I kept my guns well fed with ammo though, they never completely broke through and eventually ran out of steam, and I was able to retake the sunken road and Burnside bridge right before the battle ended.  
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:So correct if I'm wrong, but the new Ultimate General seems a lot like one of the Total War games without the irritating as gently caress and mostly useless strategic layer. Which makes it interesting as hell to me, despite not really giving a single gently caress about the American Civil War Yeah if you like Total War stuff then you would get the hang of Ultimate General pretty easily. Like Total War, it's not a serious grognard game but it's not completely silly either, and it has the semi-historical flavor and so on. Pretty much any tactic you use in Total War you would use here as well. Take the high ground, use cover, use combined arms, flank the enemy, break their morale, concentrate fire on weak points, etc. It's very easy to learn.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Is there a compendium of general advice for the pike and shot games? Other than the manual I dunno. Best thing is to pick a weak enemy unit and cause as many casualties in one turn as possible. When their one-turn losses get too high they take a morale check, and they take another if they're targeted by both artillery and muskets at the same time. I've seen units get disrupted by artillery even if the salvo caused no casualties. Anyway I got Scourge of War Waterloo in that sale they had and it seems fun so far. I know nothing about the history but those Napoleonic battles were pretty nuts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Anyone play grog games for ipad? I was browsing the app store with a new ipad and I never realized how many of these hex-based war games there are, with silly names like 'World Conqueror 3' and 'Glory of Generals' and 'Open Panzer' and 'Panzer Corps' and 'Panzer Tactics HD' I've played Panzer Corps before on PC and it was fun, but I don't know what else out there is any good. They all look really similar to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Chump Farts posted:Not that groggy, really, but I put so many hours into the Battle Academy series on iPad at boring family events (I'm a grown rear end man). It is a very stripped down Steel Panthers like system. Speaking of that engine, Pike and Shot works on the iPad, but the cool campaign features no longer work. Awesome, thanks for this post. I also happen to be a grown rear end man who plays these things during boring family events. What better way to spend a holiday with the family than to conquer the world for the Nazis? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
im_sorry posted:A couple months ago, I noticed that I had bought Combat Mission: Shock Force a few years back, and ended up impulse buying all of the expansions on Battlefront. I've learned the basic mechanics and stuff, but I still have little idea what I'm doing in this game. Are there any good tutorials out there? It looks like a really interesting game. I've always been fascinated by grognard-y type games, but I seem to have some trouble when it comes to actually getting into them. Check out this dude's site: http://battledrill.blogspot.com/ There's a bunch of little tutorials on different military maneuvers and whatnot, like squad attack drills, played out in Combat Mission. There's also a nice video series on Combat Mission tactics, and it serves as a good tutorial on the game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6dDlqye9Q These all use the WW2 games, but Shock Force isn't really all that different, and is probably easier than the new ones. It's fun to play as the Americans and blow the gently caress out of everything. The most important thing to know is that troops are always most vulnerable when moving, and the more you shoot, the fewer casualties you will take. Just use lots of mindless area targeting and shoot and blow up everything, while pausing now and then to let your men look around. Then start shooting again. If you're advancing, always be shooting. This is especially true for Shock Force. The Americans get so much ridiculous firepower and tons of ammo, and every single infantry squad gets its own Stryker or Bradley loaded with missiles and grenades and thousands of rounds of extra small arms ammo, so you usually never have to worry about running out, unlike the WW2 games. You want the ground in front of you completely swept by your fire, and as you advance, you will find empty enemy positions you didn't even know were there, filled with dead bodies. Some of the Shock Force scenarios can be completed with zero casualties by doing that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:hearts and minds! More like  ~Shock and Awe~ 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Combat Mission Shock Force gameplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPGyt3ZDv2Y
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Battles in Normandy and Battles in Italy are top-notch. Seconding this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Zamboni Apocalypse posted:Assaulting a building? No, you *never* assault a building. You've played Shock Force and never blown up a building?  It's fun to blow up entire buildings with airstrikes and artillery, and then move in to find a dozen bodies lying in the rubble. When assaulting buildings though, it can help to try to surround the building first (especially if it's a really big building or compound), or at least get some fire on it from multiple different angles, but that's not always practicable. When you move the assault teams in, have them stop outside the door and then give them a fire order on the building and a pause order of like 20-30 seconds before you move in. They will start shooting and chucking grenades through the windows and then storm in. And it can help to have one squad hug the walls outside the building, watching through the windows while another moves in to clear it. The more eyes you have looking, the better your chances of getting the jump on the enemy. I think that's probably the best you can do outside of blowing up the entire building, or blasting through the walls with breaching charges. You can also blast down walls with tank shells or other HE fire and the big hole will give defenders less cover and concealment. An interesting thing about these games is that different types of buildings provide better protection than others, and their protection changes based on distance. Red Thunder is filled with lovely wooden Russian houses and barns that you can just hose down with machine gun fire and kill everyone inside, while the Normandy game is filled with strong stone buildings that are a goddamn pain in the rear end to clear without lots of explosives. Saros posted:Battle Brothers is excellent, you run a small merc company (~12 members) in a fairly harsh low fantasy world. The tactical combat is very tight and rewarding. There's a thread in games about it. Yeah this game is great. It's not historical, but you build up a company of Germanic dudes that can form Viking-style shield walls with Viking-ish looking shields and axes. And then you make them fight and die horribly in hex-based, turn-based battles. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Dec 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 01:52
|
|
)
|
TonySnow posted:PaperTiger's campaigns for CM:BN (can't remember the names, but he has one for the base game, the UK expansion, and the Market Garden expansion) are the only ones that are worth playing in the entire series. All the others either have lovely maps or are entirely too complex. Paper Tiger's stuff hits the perfect balance in force size and difficulty and he creates beautiful maps. I don't think he's done any other stuff for the other games. I enjoy the larger, more complex campaigns, but yeah the Paper Tiger ones were probably the best (I haven't played every campaign in every game though). The Allied campaign for Market Garden was probably my favorite from the whole series. The maps are nice, the missions are varied, some are short, some are long, it switches back and forth between US and British missions, and there are a lot of different types of Germans that you go up against so I never got bored with it, despite it being a pretty long campaign overall (like 14 missions?). Alchenar posted:Yeah it''s a mistake to play Combat Mission for the campaign per se, they're strings of scenarios that are no better or worse than the standalone scenarios. That's not really true though - some campaigns give you choices to make, like do you go left or go right, or attack or wait etc. Sometimes you will get different missions and different maps depending on the choices you make or whether you win or lose a battle. Like in one of the German campaigns for CMBN for example, I lost a battle and then had to conduct a fighting withdrawal for the next one, with Allied troops attacking from all directions, and I wouldn't get this battle if I won. Troops and sometimes ammo will carry over from mission to mission too so you have to worry about preservation, while in a scenario you can just throw everyone you have into the meat grinder and have your battalion HQ personally lead an attack with his pistol or whatever and it won't matter. Some campaigns are obviously better or worse than others though, and some are not much more than strings of scenarios. There are also good user-made campaigns you can download.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Nice to see that they didn't change or fix the shaders in the new Combat Mission update. I always have to turn the shaders off because of how god-awful they look.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
I think Battlefront's definition of a "patch" is bug fixes only. From reading their forum, looks like they tried putting in a vehicle "follow" command to make convoys easier to move around but couldn't figure out how to get it to work properly. It only worked some of the time so they scrapped it. Also, the hull down command was something they had as far back as the CMx1 engine, and now how many years has it been for them to put it in the new one? It's nice that the infantry no longer move around in those silly single-file conga lines, but yeah, they're charging just to get the engine to work right.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:46 |
|
|
algebra testes posted:I may be in the minority here, but what loving blows my mind is if for example, base fortress Italy was up on steam on sale right now for 20 dollars it'd be a no brainer buy. Are they really getting full price buys right now? Why not put it up on Steam with it's massive market and try and get some tail on it? Their argument seems to be that since Valve takes like a 20% cut of every sale you make on Steam, it won't be worth it since they don't think enough people will buy it to offset that loss. They seem to think that the only people who are willing to play CM are old men who can afford the enormous prices I guess. The CM devs are a bunch of risk-averse old men. If they put the games on Steam for lower prices and actually had some kind of marketing campaign for it, I bet they would make a poo poo-ton though. There's a huge market for tactical games out there. The CM games aren't that complicated and I first started playing them when I was like 13 or some poo poo. The CMx2 games would have been like my dream games back then. WW2 tactical battles where you can smash hundreds of little army mans and tanks together with the 1:1 scale representation and everything? Where you can zoom down and watch all of the infantry men running around shooting each other and getting blown up while yelling ACHTUNG and yet still be realistic at the same time? gently caress yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 15:31
|
|