Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. I am in agreement with that, even if the same problem would arise with regard the 1st (surviving) squad leader. As far as I know, C2 links do not reconfigure as casualties start to whittle down the command structure.
  3. Though I want to say yes.. I think it would be tough to make a determination with those HQ units with regard to C2. But really that kind of micro-managing should be left within the Platoon structure.
  4. Yes, that is the effect I was thinking of, and I agree that it is likely much more relevant in the modern titles than the WWII titles. My thinking didn't extend past area target commands, though I'm sure it could be extended to cover more, like the target arc rule you mentioned. I also agree with @IanL and @domfluff that additional rulesets should be streamlined. They are right to point out that a single turn in CM can already take a while to tackle without additional rules/conditions applied on top. Though, I would point out that in the case of my area target idea, I don't think it would negatively impact either side that much. OpFor would require higher levels of leadership to do the same thing as BluFor, yes, but at the same time OpFor is meant to be played at a higher scale anyways. Platoons are more like large squads, and companies like platoons, in practical effect on the battlefield. If anything, the additional 'national characteristics' may encourage players to play more towards the doctrinal strengths of each side. An OpFor platoon that acts more as a single cohesive unit is more effective in combat than if they are split up and used like a BluFor platoon. I could go on but I don't want to belabor the point and distract from the AAR. That said, I do think the rules as they are are good, and I'm excited to see how they play out once both sides really come into contact.
  5. My bad - that was written on the go too. The second part refers to AF-Types 1 and 3.
  6. Here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tm8epst5n7umwjj/Latakia Airport (LRG).btt?dl=0
  7. Miguel, that rule was to allow units that are on recon duties or separated from the main body the ability to recon by fire or protect themselves. Not sure about the second part of your question as the PL is not required for this rule.
  8. Does ANYONE still have a copy of the FULL map? At teh few good men, i can only find the cropped version .
  9. LW Infantry arm/infantry have the traditional german army coal scuttle helmet with LW airborne wings markings. I believe this is correct. I am NOT a TOE uniform expert however. Airborne infantry wears the prized jump helmet.
  10. Oh right - I mixed up my Panzer killers. Yeah no panzer Fausts at 150 that's for sure.
  11. @BTR Is there any chance that you might redo your BMP-3 to repair the nasty things that happened with the CM:BS 2.01 patch please (IR laser/spotlight and colour change).....It would be very much appreciated, I'm sure.
  12. Yesterday
  13. Hi @Bil Hardenberger what is the intent of this rule? To account for reaction fire? And if the Platoon leader gets fragged, can you use the Coy CO or XO instead? PS: Apologies if the question has been already made up thread, writing this from my phone.
  14. I'm pretty sure the national characteristics are already built in.....Blue's (ie: modern western forces) advantages are (IMHO) already modelled in their undirected (TacAI controlled) fire and their vastly superior communications/spotting. Surely adding what will effectively become further bonuses in play would only serve to increase their already considerable advantage?
  15. I think you might call this the 'Russian Maximum Optimism' thread.....It has a Ukrainian sibling. A lot of us would like to see newer & more content.....While we might get the latter pretty soon, we've already been told that the former is not on the cards. Nobody's shooting you down.....Just trying to save you some catching up. By my estimation that's about a battalion-set, three per company & HQ.....Hardly a vast contingent and while driving T-34s off the production line and straight into battle was fine in Stalingrad, things like a BMPT do require a bit more training.
  16. Now you are talking.....Bon Scott version of Highway to Hell: He's dead so he can't sue you!
  17. Yea, strictly speaking there is a case for limiting many vehicles ie Oplots. On the topic of UCAVs the idea is not new and predates the 2011 incident in Iran, for example there was Skat desighn, etc. Pic related. Skat began development in 2005 but finished in 2012 as it's competitor was lifting off so to speak. Okhotnik-B contract was signed in 2011 after the MoD voiced desire to develop such an aircraft in 2009.
  18. You can always move.. regardless of your C2 state... as for losing a leader, well someone will always be in charge so the game will take care of that. For example, lose a Platoon Leader and then 1st Squad Leader takes over.. the other squads in that platoon will be out of C2 until the 1st Squad Leader can collect them. In the current rules C2 really only effects Area Fire anyway. Bil
  19. A question regarding command and control, if the platoon leader is killed or if the platoon HQ is wiped out are any fire orders/movement orders allowed at all?
  20. I do think this line is worth calling out, and I 100% agree with you. Bil
  21. @domfluff interesting arguments... however we aren't talking logistics and unit organization limiting effects, but command and control as I'm sure you understand. A western style unit in WW2; US, British, or German, had much better lower echelon control than did the Soviet and Italian armies. In 1940 the Germans were far more tactically flexible than the French and this showed up most dramatically in the tank war where the Germans with their radio equipped tank formations could easily out fight the French even though in many cases the French had the superior tank designs.. same goes for the early war in Russia... the infantry war was similar, though I admit that in WW2 the armies on the Western front armies would not be too different from each other, other than the Italians.. however in the modern games (CMSF 2, and CMBS) the Russian or Russian proxy units would be far less flexible than the NATO and US formations. That is the type of effect that I am sure @IICptMillerII is interested in.. me too as it turns out.
  22. To be honest, I think a lot of what might be termed "national characteristics" in ASL (or Crossfire, Combat Commander, or anything similar) are doctrinal or logistical differences, which are often baked into the unit structures, equipment, or not relevant at CM scale. For example, three-tank Syrian/Russian platoons can't effectively perform bounding overwatch in buddy-sections, since there's no easy way to break down the unit. That means that you're lead towards using them as a single unit, and bounding with six tanks total, one platoon covering the other. In a similar vein, the WW2 British infantry section breaks down into Bren group and manoeuvre element, and the default squad splits support this behaviour in-game. Simulationist design has had this argument for decades, of course - whether you should model, say, Italian soldiers as inherently worse, since they performed comparatively badly in WW2. The position that CM takes is ostensibly that Regular troops are Regular troops, regardless of nationality (which I think is actually the more complex position to take, ultimately), but clearly equipment does make a difference. Body armour, Night Vision gear, a full set of magazines, etc. certainly push a Regular US infantryman over a Regular Uncon with an AK and a hope. I think there's room for both models, but it's worth being careful how one models "Design for effect" versus Cause.
  23. I don't know Ian, I think there is room for a few more rules.. .. as long as they are simple to understand, are easy to implement, and still support the intent of these rules which is to emphasize command and control. You are right though... they need to be kept manageable. I do think the Cover Arc use as outlined above could be improved, and I do like @IICptMillerII's idea of national characteristics... I think that would be simple enough to implement and could add an interesting twist to the game play. Bil
  24. Thank you, Bil. I had a good teacher, and you be him.
  25. Thanks, Ian! When I look back at this and the two unfinished (but to be continued!) comics, I see exactly where I was with RL stuff in my life. That's true! I've seen PanzerSchrek shots out that far; I just don't recall feeling very threatened by PanzerFausts at that distance.
  26. I dunno about shot down, but going by Wikipedia at least: and from the Black Sea Manual: Now, you can absolutely make the case that US armour shouldn't have APS systems, since they certainly didn't at this time. I have no idea what the logistical chain would be to get Trophy onto Abrams in June 2017, and how plausible that is, but I imagine you could argue that it's not okay. I'm not sure why you'd argue for kit that doesn't turn up in the period depicted in the game though.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...