Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

G'day,

Well done, sir. Good job.

If you have the time would it be possible to have a 'how to' on the strategic side? The manual covers moving units on the strategic map, initiating combat but not much else. Very confusing. Particulary reinforcements, replacements and supply.

Cheers,
Lancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

G'day Remarkus,

Hey, I like that!

Tried it out with the demo (waiting on the patch till I buy) and it was really interesting.

Cheers,
Lancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

Very good work to overcome the concerns some player may have, redmarcus4.
I think, this games is a very good one and stands on an equal level in comparison with "Normandy" (or on a higher lever ?).
So hopefully, it gets a wide spread attention in the community.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

Very good work to overcome the concerns some player may have, redmarcus4.
I think, this games is a very good one and stands on an equal level in comparison with "Normandy" (or on a higher lever ?).
So hopefully, it gets a wide spread attention in the community.

It's a different game of course, covering a very different front. I own both games, but I was really disappointed when Battlefront decided to return to Normandy instead of doing a remake of CMBB. Until K43 and APOS came out, there was nothing to compare to launching a 1941 offensive in CMBB, in my view.

Both game series sit at the centre of my collection and I will continue to support both. For me, the main differences are:

1. Superior AI in APOS that will adapt to your movements and dispositions, get around your flanks and kick your butt.
2. Better infantry modelling in CMBN, with defenders who stay hidden and who can really ruin your day. The APOS AI infantry are rather suicidal at times - in fact, most of the time!
3. Bigger battlefields and much more replay-ability in APOS; every battle seems to play out differently each time, while CMBN can feel rather scripted.
4. A much better campaign system in CMBN.
5. Much better briefings in CMBN. In APOS you need to figure out your missions for yourself.
6. A much, much easier scenario and campaign editing system in CMBN.
7. A Quick Battle system that really works in APOS, giving you a proper AI challenge, whereas I find the CMBN QBs rather lame.
8. A solid PBEM system in CMBN for when the AI just isn't good enough to keep you guessing. APOS really needs this addition!
9. Bigger deployment areas and tactical options in APOS. In CMBN, many battles start with you already in contact, or close to being in contact, and you have no chance to try different avenues of approach.

Overall, I recommend both of them highly, although I see APOS as being the more advanced of the two. It's good in a way that they cover different theatres so that we don't have to choose between them :)

(in reply to Redmarkus5)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DerGrenadier

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

Very good work to overcome the concerns some player may have, redmarcus4.
I think, this games is a very good one and stands on an equal level in comparison with "Normandy" (or on a higher lever ?).
So hopefully, it gets a wide spread attention in the community.

It's a different game of course, covering a very different front. I own both games, but I was really disappointed when Battlefront decided to return to Normandy instead of doing a remake of CMBB. Until K43 and APOS came out, there was nothing to compare to launching a 1941 offensive in CMBB, in my view.

Both game series sit at the centre of my collection and I will continue to support both. For me, the main differences are:

1. Superior AI in APOS that will adapt to your movements and dispositions, get around your flanks and kick your butt.
2. Better infantry modelling in CMBN, with defenders who stay hidden and who can really ruin your day. The APOS AI infantry are rather suicidal at times - in fact, most of the time!
3. Bigger battlefields and much more replay-ability in APOS; every battle seems to play out differently each time, while CMBN can feel rather scripted.
4. A much better campaign system in CMBN.
5. Much better briefings in CMBN. In APOS you need to figure out your missions for yourself.
6. A much, much easier scenario and campaign editing system in CMBN.
7. A Quick Battle system that really works in APOS, giving you a proper AI challenge, whereas I find the CMBN QBs rather lame.
8. A solid PBEM system in CMBN for when the AI just isn't good enough to keep you guessing. APOS really needs this addition!
9. Bigger deployment areas and tactical options in APOS. In CMBN, many battles start with you already in contact, or close to being in contact, and you have no chance to try different avenues of approach.

Overall, I recommend both of them highly, although I see APOS as being the more advanced of the two. It's good in a way that they cover different theatres so that we don't have to choose between them :)

I totaly agree. I also own both. When Iam in the mood for some Western Front action I choose CMBN and Eastern Front ist for me APOS. I think they could coexist. Also I must say that I think that the terrain in APOS is far more superior to CMBN.

BTW are you German redmarkus? If yes you should look at his excellent AAR for APOS, in German.
http://www.si-games.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23992

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

You can also mount or dismount troops during the setup phase, based on your tactical plan, as well as at any later point in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass
Just bought APOS and I am learning it, is it possible to mount tanks with infantry? Some screenshots show infantry on tanks but if I select an infantry squad near a tank E key does not work and the Mount button is greyed out...?