Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/19/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    kevinkin

    Urban Combat Training Article

    This is a recent opinion piece from West Point: https://mwi.usma.edu/getting-beyond-door-kicking-four-tasks-urban-warriors/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB 9.19.18&utm_term=Editorial - Early Bird Brief Nothing will teach you how to play CM better. But it's a quick and interesting read. Kevin
  2. 2 points
    Lethaface

    Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

    I don't think anyone doubted the existence of certain articles (although thesun? seriously? 🙂 ) Anyhow it's still bullocks. Besides; how does 'a growing population' equal to factual tangible pressure to 'include' Sharia law.? Also, like... what laws? Stoning people for 'avin a pint? Come on get yourself a break and go meet a Muslim near to you. He or she probably won't bite. They might invite you for tea though. Personally I feel the 'politics' line was crossed with your first post about the Muslim subject. I had to reply but I'm happy to steer it back to the more on topic macro geopolitical / military stuff. --- It will be 'interesting' to see what happens in the region after the, sort of, inevitable regime (Assad) victory over the rebels in Idlib. I hope it's not just the next phase of conflict, but I have some fears. There are a lot of players on the board, with converging interests. Turkey will be among the first with the ball in their court. Will they pull their (proxy) forces out of Syria and how about the Kurds? The Iranian block becomes stronger. Israel is not happy, there is always something about oil, wuddabout US, 😉 etc.
  3. 2 points
    Wicky

    Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

    Your WSJ article is an opinion piece with the writer freaked out by Muslims in general. I studied in Leicester and survived and got into curries, and my cricket team in Colchester plays on the Army Garrison cricket pitch with a multicultural inc Muslims team of players - heck Ismail Mohamed picks up the keys every Sunday from The Parachute Regt guardhouse and hasn't been shot yet. The surgeon who operated on me a few years back was a Muslim, and the Consultant Anaesthetist was a handy bat / bowler for oppo club. Yes you get a few crazies but the main problem is with ultra nationists finding folks different to themslves a problem...
  4. 1 point
    after Microsoft's micro code update; I decide to test the game launch today; and guess what, It works again!!!! lol just in time for the new one..
  5. 1 point
    Combatintman

    Steam players for multiplayer

    Bren gun tripod anybody? 😉
  6. 1 point
    So is thisbthread the wargamer equivalent to women fan clubs going to ted bundys trial, or richard ramirez, etc? Lol
  7. 1 point
    Not that it matters too much and of course nowt to do with you mate but it does seem strange that the demo scenario didn't ship with the game. Anyway - all fixed now.
  8. 1 point
    Just to confirm, as I'm the original author, this is not the original scenario. To reiterate the demo version is Rolling Thunder (which is what the OP is discussing), the (my) original version of that, which I could have sworn was on the original scenario depot, is Rolling Thunder_v1. The one you have lined to @IanL is 'a' version someone else has done, based on my orginal, and is NOT the one the OP is discussing. I'll upload the (my) original as used for the demo to TSDIII on Thursday (I'm away from my PC just now) as a standalone scenario. Cheery! EDIT to add It is on the FGM site http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/combat-mission-black-sea/rolling-thunder/b-15.htm?action=scenario&id=11869 This is the ORIGINAL as used in the CMBS demo. For background, my original thread re the scenario (note the dropbox and repository links no longer work) From this thread, it was originally uploaded to the repository but does not appear to have migrated over to TSDIII, which, as I said I'll fix tomorrow (Thursday)
  9. 1 point
    rocketman

    Pixeltruppen Planning Problem

    Jelly-fish was a known menace in the frozen hills of "the Bulge".
  10. 1 point
    Vinnart

    Steam players for multiplayer

    That is EVERY major retailer. I have dealt with large companies with Spencer's Gifts being probably the biggest. True, one will make less profit with a heavy hitter with a lot of leverage over dealing with a Mom and Pop shop , BUT you will make it 1000 fold in volume big time which will allow one to develop their product, and the exposure will develop ones brand. Example of volume difference - "I'll take dozen" vs "I'll take 3,000, but i'll pay #" so I had no problem dealing with them making less profit per unit. It is just another line in the water, and a link is allowed on the store page on Steam to lead someone to buy it direct instead if someone wants. My 2 cents on the whole matter as a business man. Put as many lines in the water as possible and suck it up to catch as many fish both big and small as they all add up. In the end as long I got my CM i'll sleep good at night whether BF ever Steams or not. However, I do think they would make more money in the long run if they did though. Perhaps even enough to develop CM for 6v6 real time multiplayer Now to the original reason for the thread. In order to play REAL TIME multiplayer games one needs a message program to get it going unlike WEGO which email is surface. Battlefront does not have this here nor any support really for playing the game in real time, However Steam does. Hence the logic for the thread. I'll add you Aquilas and perhaps we will get a game sometime. I prefer my CM WEGO in it's present state, but dabble in real time to break it up sometimes and for the different experience. I really only like playing real time with a platoon or two of infantry only . Anything more is just too much to mange in a game like CM compared to other RTS.
  11. 1 point
    Chops

    Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

    Here is a shot of the original map.
  12. 1 point
    c3k

    Pixeltruppen Planning Problem

    This is not a pixeltruppen planning problem. It is, instead, the implementation of the pixeltruppen peeing procedure. See, after a long ride in a halftrack, with bullets pinging off the armor, and poor Hans getting nailed while manning the machinegun, every pixeltruppen was imbued with the need to urgently urinate. So, they hopped out and peed. Of course, with your gridded terrain mod, you've blocked the "yellow snow" terrain change. (This is somewhat related to the "browning of the shorts" mod when your troops' morale plummets.) As soon as their bladders are emptied, they'll charge forth. Give 'em a moment.
  13. 1 point
    Erwin

    Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

    Not making it up. WSJ article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-visit-to-islamic-england-1535581583 Also: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3001087/sharia-law-uk-muslims-islamic-legal-system/ While Sharia Law does not (yet) overrule UK law, the problem is that as the population grows the pressure to include Sharia will inevitably grow. It's kinda like that saying "The difference between a cult and a religion is that a religion has gained political power" applies to "the difference between unenforceable laws and enforceable laws".
  14. 1 point
    Raptorx7

    Steam players for multiplayer

    Dead Cells, Terraria, Undertale, Unturned, Stardew Valley, Stanley Parable, Player Unknowns Battle Grounds (Which is pretty crap but successful nonetheless), Momodora: Reverie Under the Moonlight, Insurgency, Guns of Icarus (Pretty old now with a dwindling playerbase but it was great back in the day), Don't Starve, FTL: Faster then light, Door Kickers, Cold Waters, Atlantic Fleet, Mount and Blade Series. All of those games are just from my Steam, and I do think countless is a good word for what I was talking about. All of these games were extremely popular due to the exposure/availability they have on Steam, if you asked them what the primary cause of there success was it would probably be that there game was fun to play in the first place and Steam allowed them to promote/sell it. Especially games like Cold Waters which is a niche submarine combat game benefited from the exposure it got on Steam, people who have never played sub games gave it a shot and liked it and it was financially beneficial to the guys who made it. You can tell because they released free updated for a year and an entire new campaign in the South China Sea with new units and the like. I'm well aware there's plenty of crap on Steam and they do a god awful job of managing all of it but the fact of the matter is that Steam helps way more then it hurts in a lot of cases. The phobia of Steam on this website is frankly hilarious and the world zips on by as all of you laugh into the wind at a service that millions of people benefit from and enjoy. We're way off topic now, I hope the OP actually got what he wanted from this thread even after it was derailed right off the bat by a useless, toxic comment.
  15. 1 point
    Lethaface

    Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

    I'm glad there is no mention of those sorts in the article, for I would have stopped reading them. I'm not going to debate these subjects, I think it is suffice to say that both ('floodgate muslim immigration from Turkey' and the 'EU Sharia') are populist myths. Also, I miss how those are correlated? Turkey doesn't feature a Sharia law; besides there is no such thing as 'the Sharia law'. In The Netherlands (and I suspect the UK also) there already is the possibility for mediation, instead of formal courts, when parties want to settle a civil dispute. If they do wish the mediation to follow certain religious rules, that is fine as long as it is within the boundaries of the law (and all parties agree to it). Different religious groups do make use of this freedom and have been doing that for a while. It is nothing new, nor is there any small chance of our constitution being replaced with religious books.
  16. 1 point
    Erwin

    Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

    Interesting article. However, I only skimmed it and didn't notice the important aspect of EU coming to realize that incorporating Turkey into EU would open the floodgates to massive Islamic immigration - an increasingly serious problem in Europe already. The WSJ recently had articles illustrating how Muslims are well on the way to creating a parallel Sharia legal system, where they can go instead of to British courts etc.
  17. 1 point
    Kaunitz

    Reverse slope/grazing fire.

    Here is a diagram I've quickly tossed together, showing the effect of distance and muzzle height in relation to the aimpoint. If your aimpoint is at a different height than your muzzle, increasing the distance to the aimpoint results in a flatter trajectory, which can be used for grazing fire. Note that for the two muzzle points at lower height (red + blue), the intended grazing zone would be reverse-slope and could not be targeted. (Of course there is always some random inaccuracy/deviation from the "ideal" lines. This is not shown in this pic.)
  18. 1 point
    Good to hear its working as intended! The key to being successful in this is doing effective combat recce and making good use of the undulating terrain If you can unmask/spot enemy AT assets you can then neutralise them more effectively. Despite the name its a scenario to play cautiously, slowly and carefully. Good luck with your next playthrough. Cheery!
  19. 1 point
    Raptorx7

    Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

    Are you serious? We need to produce well armored slow moving "bulldozers" to deliver explosives on defensive positions instead of tanks that can move quickly and shoot? Somehow this armored "bull dozer" will also remove the need for GPS guided air dropped munitions? I honestly have no idea what the heck you are talking about. If you can't see the tactical value of being able to drop a bomb that can land within 1-2 meters of a target from 36,000 feet at 520mph then i'm afraid you need to read up on modern warfare.
  20. 1 point
    SimpleSimon

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    Issue to me is that the guns are usually too common than that they're too fragile or not. It's not uncommon for many of the game's scenarios to have 2 Pak40s covering a 500x1500m map with spare heavy AT assets. Players are usually not informed enough to realize that no one would realistically expect them to fight their way through defense lines as deep as usually encountered in a CM scenario.
  21. 1 point
    JasonC

    Soviet Doctrine in WW2 - 1944

    The basic German defense doctrine was the one they developed during WW I to avoid being defeated by local concentration and artillery suppression, and it remains the basic system the Germans used in the east. That tactical system has been called the denuded front, in comparison with practice near the start of WW I of lining continuous front line trenches with solid lines of riflemen. Instead it was based around a few fortified machinegun positions, concealed, and cross fired to cover each other rather than their own front, in an interlocking fashion. The idea being to make it hard to take out just a piece of the scheme. Most forces were kept out of the front line to let enemy artillery "hit air". Wide areas were covered by barrage fire and obstacles (in WW I generally just wire, in WW II plenty of mines as well). Barrages and obstacles have the feature that they multiple in their effectiveness the more then enemy sends; his local odds does not help him, it hinders him or raises his losses instead. The MG and outpost network is meant to defeat penetration by smaller enemy numbers, while barrages crucify their masses if they overload those. Then the main body of the defending infantry defends from considerably farther back, and executes local counterattacks into portions of the defensive system reached by the attackers. The idea is to spend as much prep barrage time as possible deep in underground shelters, and only come up and forward to mix it up with enemy infantry after they are mixed in with your own positions and hard for the enemy to distinguish and coordinate fires on them etc. This also was meant to exploit the confusion that even successful attackers were generally in, after crossing the outpost and barrage zone described above. That is an effective enough system, but it isn't foolproof. The thinner front and separated strongpoint positions it uses are vulnerable to stealthy penetration, night infiltration e.g., rather than frontal attack on a large scale. The local counterattack part of the doctrine can be taken to extremes and get rather expensive for the defenders, resulting in mere brawling inside the defender's works, and just exchange off with the more numerous attackers. What it really relies on is the enemy being defeated by the artillery fire scheme and ranged MG fire over most of the frontage, so that the counterattack and brawl stuff only happens in a few exceptional spots, where the defenders have a safer route to the front, better information about where the enemy is, what routes are left clear of obstacles, and the like. The main line of resistance, once hit, generally tried to solve the fire discipline dilemma by firing quite late, when the attackers were close enough to really destroy them, not just drive them to ground. Harassing mortar fire and a few "wait a minute" MGs were all that fired at longer ranges, to delay the enemy and prevent them being able to maneuver easily, mass in front of the defenders safely, and the like. At a higher level, the division's artillery regiment commander, divisional commander, or regional "Arkos" tried to manage the larger battle by choosing where to intervene in the outcoming attack with the weight of divisional fires. They didn't distributed those evenly, or according to need. Instead they would have a plan of their own, to stop the Russians cold in sector B, and just make do in sectors A and C. They divide the attack that way. Then shift fires to one of the break ins, and counterattack the other one with the divisional reserve. The basic idea is just to break up the larger scale coordination of the offensive by imposing failure where the defenders choose, by massing of fires. They can't do this everywhere, but it can be combined with choices of what to give up, who pulls back, what the next good position is, and the like, as a coordinated scheme. The function is "permission" - you only get forward where I let you get forward, not where you want it. If the enemy tries to get forward in the place the defenders "veto" in this way, they just mass their infantry under the heaviest artillery and multiple their own losses. I should add, though, that those doctrinal perfect approaches sometimes could not be used in the conditions prevalent in parts of Russia. In the north, large blocks of forest and marsh are so favorable for infiltration tactics that separate strongpoints with only obstacles in between just invite penetration every night and loss of the position. The Germans often had to abandon their doctrine in those areas, in favor of a continuous linear trench line. And then, they often didn't have sufficient forces to give that line any real depth, but instead had to defend on line, manning that whole front as best they could. In the more fluid fighting in the south, on the other hand, the Germans could and did use strongpoint schemes. The Russians got significantly better at night infiltration as a means to get into or through those, as the war went on. Against Russian armor the German infantry formations also had a harder time of it. In exceptional cases they could prepare gun lines with enough heavy ATGs well enough protected and sited to give an armor attack a bloody nose, but normally they were not rich or prepared enough for that. Keep in mind that the Russians were quite good at tank infantry cooperation in their mech arm - by midwar that is, early they hadn't been - but lagged in the development of tank artillery cooperation. Which is what tanks need to deal with gun based defenses efficiently. The German infantry formations themselves tried to just strip tanks of their infantry escorts and let the tanks continue. The Russians would sometimes make that mistake, and send the tanks deeper on their own. That put them in the middle of a deep German defense that would know more about where they were and what they were doing than vice versa. But that is really an "own goal" thing - if the Russian tanks just stayed with their riders and shot the crap out of the German infantry defenses, the Russian doctrine worked fine. On a deeper level, the Germans relied on their own armor to stop Russian armor. Brawling frontally with reserves, often enough, sometimes aided by superior AFVs. Sometimes by counterattacks that sought to cut off the leading Russian spearheads, and prevent their resupply (with fuel above all). That worked less and less well as the war went on, however, because the Russians got better at keeping multiple threats growing on the map, gauging defender strength correctly and waiting for all arms to consolidate gains, and the like. There was also just less of the fire brigade German armor later in the war, and it had less of an edge in tactical know-how. There are also some weaknesses of the Russian doctrine that the Germans tried to exploit. It can be quite predictable. You can let them succeed at things to draw them in, in a pretty predictable way. The Russian mech way of attacking was at its best against infantry defenses, or vs armor against heavily outnumbered defenders. If they pushed too hard at a strong block of armor, they could get a brigade killed in a matter of hours. If you have such an asset, you can try to string the two together - let them hit a weak spot precisely where you want them to come on hard into your planned kill sack. They aren't doing a lot of battlefield recon to spot such things, they are mostly relying on speed to create surprise. If you let them think they just made a brilliant and formula perfect break in, they are apt to drive hard trying to push it home, and not to suspect that its is a trap. But a lot of things get easier if you have a Tiger or Panther battalion lying around, don't they?
  22. 1 point
    JasonC

    Soviet Doctrine in WW2 - 1944

    There was nothing wrong with Russian interwar doctrine - which incidentally was not copied from the west. In so e ways it was the best in the workd, particularly the understanding of the need to sequence multiple large scale operations, the logistics limits on them, what the role of new mechanized forces was going to be, and the like.n it wasn't as good as the German doctrine in tactical details, combined arms principles, and some of the German maneuver tradition going back to Moltke the elder, but nobody else had that stuff down, either. Tbey had their internal political fights over it - the party basically feared that proper modern doctrine made generals tech heroes in a manner they feared was essentially tied to fascist politics, which was both paranoid and stupid, and they destroyed the brains that had come up with it in the purges, set back training and adoption etc. but the military acadamies had taught it to a fair portion of the senior officers, especially the younger ones who would rise to top commands during the war itself. The more basic problem on the doctrine side was that it was still just academic theory. It had not had time to reshape the army along the lines of its thinking, and where it had, it had done so in impractical ways, for lack of serious experiment and training in full scake exercises and the like. The army could not implement the mobile part of the doctrine. The officer corps in particular, its lower ranks especially, was not remotely up to the standard of the Germans or even of the professionals of the western armies. In training, education, time in grade, staff work, etc. Bravery they could do, obediance they had done, about all there was to work with. Yes that reflected the purges, but also the scale of the force and its rapid expansion to that scale, its reliance on reserve mobilization (necessary given that scale in any event), lack of wartime experience, etc. at most, a small cadre had some battle experience from Spain or the brief fight with Japan - and the party tended to distrust those with the former experience. The Finnish winter war had been a disaster and showed how unready the force was, and didn't correct that, though a few of the officers involved got started off its lessons. The two biggest weaknesses were combat service and support (CSS, more on it below), by far the biggest, and poor combined arms handling at the tactical level, particularly all cooperation with armor. They compounded each other, with weaknesses in the former forcing departures from book doctrine on the latter, that then failed. Behind the CSS failures lay inadequate staff ability, the officer management bandwidth to conduct the mech arms orchestra flawlessly. This was made worse by overly large mech formations with an org chart that wasn't streamlined enough and put extra levels of command between the key deciders and the execution, by lots of obsolete equipment (think early 1930s era T-26s, flocks of them) in a poor state of readiness, by inadequate facilities to keep anynof it working, and by lack of realistic large scale training (as opposed to unit level training or carefully staged set pieces). On the org aspect, a prewar mech corps had two tank divisions, each with its own brigades, and those tank heavy. It had 2000 trucks at TOE, and 600 to 1000 tanks, depending on the makes. There were dozens of these. A huge portion of the tanks were old T-26s and the types were mixed, as were the truck types. To get a formation like that to move over a limited dirt road net from point A to point B with gas for everyone where and when they needed it, without traffic jams and without roads blocked by broken down tanks, with repair and spare parts to get the fall outs moving again, and then exoecting them to arrive with all arms together and coordinated, in communication with each other across weapon types, form them up into fighting combined arms teams, and go in to a schedule to hit the enemy in a well coordinated way - all proved beyond the capacity of one schooled muckety muck and his staff of four high school graduates with a pack of index cards, a phone and a couple of pencils. I exaggerate slightly for the sake of clarity. What actually happened is they didn't manage it, one column got stopped by a T-26 regiment running out of gas, holding up 200 trucks behind, carrying the infantry expected to be part of the show; the other tank division got a brigade of newer BTs to the jump off point and looked around for all the folks supposed to attack with them, waited three hours, finally heard they wouldn't be ready until tomorrow morning, thought "that's crazy, this battle will be over by then", and drove down the road unsupported and attacked off the line of march as best they could. After scaring the German front line infantry, lost in the defended zone, they blundered onto a gun line and lost a bunch of tanks. They try again with minimal changes an hour or two latter and the Germans are readier for them than ever, and fails. The next day, an infantry battalion detrucks and tries, but expects the BTs to lead and do things for them; the try and fail, the infantry presses, and gets killed too. Nobody has heard from the artillery, which is 20 miles away in a traffic jam. The CSS failures are huge by western or even later war Russian standards. A third of the tanks fall out on a road march. There are not planned arrangements to pick them up and fix them. The front moves and a road is cut. A full brigade worth of tankers get out and walk, in retreat, leaving their broken down hulks just sitting there. Another brigade follows the wrong dirt track, runs out of gas, and the trucks with the gas went someplace else, and by the time it is even sorted out whar did happen - let alone what has to happen next - there are Germans across the intersection between them. Up at the operational level, a full mech corps hits the German lines, two days of confusion are reported, the corps is now a brigade, and the Germans resume their march. The Russian officers report losing their tanks to swamps (the swamp monster, I call it, because it appears over and over in these excuses). It fiesn't help that the Luftwaffe is strafing the columns making traffic jams worse, and German signals intel locates every radio with a range of more than a few miles and has told the Luftwaffe and army artillery where the Russian HQs are within hours, whenever they switch the set on. So soon the officers are trying to coordinate this sprawling mess with dispatch riders, who do or don't arrive with orders hours old that were issued without a clear picture of everything in the first place, and were nonsense on stilts two hours later. Then every muckety muck tries to clear it all up with their own orders, and the regiment commander has one order from brigade and another from division and a third (12 hours okd) from the original corps plan, but his (tiny) staff is telling him he can't physically do that anyway, because support X hasn't cone up and route Y is clogged and there is only enough gas to reach Z. Now decide. You have five minutes. It all goes pear shaped pretty quickly. Some of this clears up as the decreipt T-26s drop out of the force. Some as the screwiest commanders ger killed. Sone as people learn their jobs better. But above all, the army reduces its ambitions and goes to tank brigades and gets thise working, the recreates division sized tank corps with a much flatter structure only after those are working. The types get more uniform, with the reliable and cross country capable T-34 becoming the workhorse. They only go back to trying to run tank armies after all those are working properly, and they use thise only with a lot more planning, and only a handful of them (with lots of independent division scale tank corps working for combined arms armies instead). The staffs get bigger and much more professional, and it all gets real and realistic. Just, a ,ot of poor slobs get killed in the meantime. FWIW.
×