Jump to content

MikeyD

Members
  • Content Count

    21,989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by MikeyD

  1. The early turret T34-76s were getting applique bow armor. One got type even thick enough bow plates to make it 88-proof! Then the new bigger 76mm turret showed up and the suspension began showing the strain of the extra weight. When the 85mm gun turret showed up extra bow armor was entirely out of the question.
  2. The US had all sorts of design concepts for improving Sherman's armor protection, including a much lower silhouette. But they couldn't afford to interrupt tank production. Russia had the same issue, having designed a replacement for T34 with thicker armor and torsion bar suspension, but they were simply unwilling to interrupt the T34 production line to get it into service. Both Sherman and T34 did get new turrets out of those programs. Eventually the US design concepts evolved into Pershing while the Russian 'universal tank' project became the (much modified) base for the Stalin series. We tend to forget that US active involvement in WWII occurred over a relatively short period of time. From the Operation Torch landing in NA to VE day was about 31 months.
  3. That glorified Powerpoint presentation reminds me of Pentagon presentations from the 1990s touting 'force multiplier' integrated technology advances, exotic systems still under development that worked-as-advertised perhaps 25%(?) of the time. Most of the stuff (vaguely) mentioned in that presentation isn't applicable to CM scale. If a supply network is disrupted or an ammo depot hit 200 km away that will only show up on the tactical battlefield as reduced ammo and fewer tanks. If battlefield comms is interrupted that's CMBS's ECM setting (that few people touch because its annoying to play). I'm reminded of players who wanted Panther D's low mechanical reliability modeled in WWII. Well, that's modeled in those scenarios where Panther D isn't present. Because it had broken down 100km back a few days ago, outside the scope of the game.
  4. The '72 (Yom Kippur) war might be the least 'politically sensitive' of the batch to pursue, not to mention with the most even balance of forces. Everything else is a political hot potato. differing factions would become enraged and offended at the least little error in the history, they'd get even MORE mad for being too historically accurate!
  5. Something similar happened to me recently. On cease fire I thought the number of listed alive and casualties on one side were half the number that the game had at startup. Something to investigate, it appears.
  6. As near as I can recall, the weapons systems you'd expect to use WP use WP, the ones you expect to use HC use HC, Thrown smoke grenades and medium mortars should be HC. 120mm mortars and heavier artillery should be WP. There was a debate at the time whether Sherman 75 should be firing HC or WP. It fielded both I was advocating for HC, but I think the powers-that-be came down on the side of WP.
  7. Its been awhile since I looked at this and I only half-remember my results. It seems WP is considered 'hot' so you may see the cloud of smoke lifting off the ground somewhat before it dissipates. The other type (HC, I suppose) tends to hug the ground until it dissipates. WP is also considered 'bad stuff', if you march your infantry through a WP cloud you may get scattered injury casualties as a result. I've seen opponent forces relocate out of buildings that were hit with WP... I think. Like I said, its been a looong time since I looked at this.
  8. You look up past conflicts and it becomes apparent that there are 'popular' wars that give the right social messages, wars that were once 'popular' to reference but fell out of favor (the Franco-Prussian was of 1870 for example), and there are wars best forgotten. Nobody outside of China talks much about the Opium wars to force China to import drugs being produced by Britain in India. That conflict arose because the US and Britain didn't have much of anything to trade for valuable Chinese goods. So they hit on a scheme to get China addicted to drugs. But China was naturally averse to the idea. So we went to war, China lost, and the British aristocracy became filthy rich.
  9. In the editor you have all of the formations, specialist teams and individual vehicles at your fingertips. You can pick-and-choose what you want, drop individual specialists into squads and companies and they'll become linked to the chain of command. If certain items/forces are date-sensitive you can move the scenario date forward to pick up the unit or vehicle then change the date back again. The scenario editor is much less constricted than the QB picker . Its kind'a funny how some players seem to be allergic to the editor. The scenario editor and map maker are half the fun of the game! CM is producing historical tactical combat sims. Breaking the force structure to be a-historical goes against BFC's mission statement.
  10. A major project would be putting new leaves on trees. Current leaves can be used for everything from elm to birch to apple but they don't cut it for ash, oak, chestnut, maple or sycamore.
  11. I've joked before that BFC must have a limited list of (ahem) 'popular' wars to cover. The world is full of conflict but there's little sales potential in producing a 1979 China vs Vietnam war title or one covering the 1974 Cyprus invasion. In the past Steve had previously shown an interest in the modern Chinese army but there simply isn't a marketable 'counterfactual history' to set such a title in. I suggested the Chinese invasion of Taiwan but that got poopooed. WWII North Africa would naturally be on any short list of legitimate contenders. Wild speculation, just knowing how BFC thinks, I'd guess a North Africa title would start at Operation Torch with a Kassarine Pass campaign included. Modules would bring in the Brits and take the timeline up to the Sicily invasion. And EVERYONE would complain because it doesn't include El Alamein.
  12. Building sturdiness is basically WYSIWYG. Barns are porous, cathedral pieces are massive, big stuff is sturdier than small stuff. It used to depend on what theater you're playing as well (Italy has lots of stone construction, modern Ukraine has lots of stick construction), but I don't know if that survived the big V4 game engine upgrade.
  13. Umlaut's posted picts remind me that some people have a much better graphics card than I have.
  14. A vehicle without a commander is a bit like a headless chicken. Morale plummets, situational awareness drops, and they start doing stupid things. There's another thread that argues that WWII tanks' spotting ability is too high. If you want to correct that just get your commander shot.
  15. A reminder, 'maneuver' isn't fighting. If you want to build a giant map just to drive around on a for a few hours then go for it. Once you come in contact with the enemy, though, it becomes a standard CM tactical engagement. About not being able to reproduce huge city buildings, I constructed an entire Texas highway-side shopping mall complex all the way back in CMSF1 days. Here's a CMBS very large building I threw together is just a few minutes. The problem is map makers hate building them, hate fidgeting with the countless interior walls, and players are loath the enter them because they're death traps. So usually they just get pummeled with artillery.
  16. Be careful what you wish for. As an experiment, try going into the editor and making a rudimentary map at the game engine's current max size. Include a few hills and houses and trees. Then place units on it and try driving/walking across it from corner to corner. For one thing, it takes a LONG TIME to traverse, especially if you've got infantry walking and you're wary of ambushes. Then there's the problem of even finding the enemy to shoot at them on maps that size. I read awhile ago that LOF in the European theater rarely exceeds 1500m, often its much shorter. There's always that line of trees on either side of a distant stretch of road, or that cluster of building or that wooded lot separating fields. I spend a lot of time on Google Map Street View and often you'd can't even see the horizon for the intervening hills and trees and houses. As a test I (virtually) went to central Ukraine and randomly picked a rural spot that might offer good long distance fields of fire. When I dropped down to Street view I didn't see anything that couldn't be reproduced in the CM editor as it currently stands.
  17. A LOT of German stuff is basically 'cannons mounted on mobile platforms for ease of movement'. They're not assault tanks, they're just mobile, minimally protected guns. Brummbar was designed to be in the enemy's face blasting away. Stummel not so much. So you shouldn't use Brummbar combat tactics with Stummel. Yeh, German training doctrine can be very aggressive. But remember they lost 27 thousand dead and 110 thousand wounded in just 46 days of fighting when they invaded France. Germany's aggressive tactics weren't tailored to minimize casualties.
  18. I'll admit one scenario map type I'm not particularly fond of is where the players are on hills on opposing sides of a map and there's an open valley in between. What in heck am I supposed to do with that? It may look pretty but the only tactical solution seems to be to kill everything on the opposing hill first before you can descend the slope safely. Not many maps are like that, though. As map makers get more into recreating historical locations the maps get better and better to play on with lots of so-called 'micro-terrain' details. After being out of the game for a few titles (years) I finally got back into map tinkering with CMSF2. Now I'm going map making crazy for CMRT Fire and Rubble. If you've only played scenarios on standard maps you're missing half the fun of CM. Recreate your own neighborhood in the editor then send in a wave of 'fighters' to take over the place. You'll gain a new appreciation for that big shopping mall parking lot up the road next to the highway, and the copse of trees at the end of the street.
  19. Reference the domestic US election of 2016.
  20. Infantry play a role in getting themselves spotted, too. If they're out of contact with their HQ and/or they're green or low morale they're less likely to be disciplined. That's when the opponent starts seeing sound contact icons and brief glimpses of the unit pop in and out of view. I would joke that an Elite Fanatic unit is able to hide like the Predator monster. Green units with low morale, not so much. I read that Patton was so frustrated with the quality of replacements coming in from the US that he would send out directives that were little more than basic tactics tutorials. Stuff like don't try to hide in the treeline and only rely on intervening terrain features for cover. The game prioritizes who to shoot first. FOs and heavy weapons teams don't last long once they get spotted.
  21. I recall a Tiger I bug had been discovered and fixed early-on. The (invisible) buttoned tank commander was sitting sideways in his seat so wasn't looking out of his optics properly. That speaks to a level of detail hidden 'under the hood' that we can only guess at. A T34-76 early's situational awareness is very much less than a PzIV's with the commander sitting in his cupola. A tank with optics for the loader and hull machinegunner has more 'eyes on the battlefield' than a two man turret or a tank without the second hull position. A buttoned Hetzer is going to have difficulty spotting close-assaulting infantry. Still, its not sound tactics to rely too heavily your opponent being blind and slow.
  22. I recall an anecdote heard (in the series 'World At War'?). A young woman being trained as Volkssturm near war's end fires a Faust for the first time and scores a direct hit. But she also got a shower of propellant in the face. So every subsequent attempt she missed the target because she tended to flinch on firing. Faust can miss a VERY close range because their such unwieldy weapons. But with some luck and skill and a big enough target they can hit targets out to their max ranges of 30, 60 or 100m.
  23. In the age of the machine gun dodging and weaving like a boxer as you run across open ground (the topic of this thread) probably won't do you much good. People can't dodge incoming bullets like in The Matrix. You're as likely to dodge into a bullet as dodge away from it. The closest we've got to this in the game is the 'assault' command which few people use correctly. Up-run-drop-up-run-drop. The 'fast' command basically tells your troops to run like hell to get themselves out of a 'situation'. CM terrain is more 'micro' than you may realize playing the game at camera level 3 and higher (as most people do). When you're down in the weeds with the troops you're better able to spot the dips, folds and bumps (if the map designer added them). An old joke of mine is people tend to play at a camera height where you start to lose the fine detail - then they complain the game lacks fine detail. CMSF2 is desert, of course, which tends to have fewer terrain features. CMFI Italy goes microterrain crazy on most maps.
  24. I recall reading during Winter' 44 frostbite was much more common among US tank crew than infantry. Inf could snuggle into a nice warm foxhole to keep warm while tankers basically sat in a refrigerator.
×
×
  • Create New...