Jump to content

BlackMoria

Members
  • Content Count

    460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by BlackMoria

  1. It is a scenario. The scenario designer is just giving a shout out to the map designer as the scenario designer is using someone elses map
  2. The game does not per se have civilians in it ( ie. pixelcivvies moving around the map) so any consideration of civilian issues is including victory conditions to simulate such issues. Likewise, there is no pixel CNN or media following your pixeltruppen around to report your 'disregard for civillian casualties' and that is the real issue. Morality aside, it is very bad press to be the side committing atrocities or perceived atrocities. ROE are not set to represent the moral high ground - they exist because of political reasons. Seeing video of your troops shooting unarmed civilians doesn't play well to public opinion at home, opinion among populations of your allies and is political capital for your enemies. Most of these considerations are not factors in the game. If a person wants to play with such political correct baggage, then do so. But to consider it gamey is it is not played that way is not supported by the game engine per se (though it would be fun to have pixelmedia in the game chasing after your units and their presence would give or take away VPs based on what your forces are doing while in their LOS). Remember, in WW2, both sides bombed the crap out of civilian populations centers and it was 'accepted' conduct of war for that time period. No one batted an eye. The 'aversion to casualties' is a construct of late 20th century western democracies - aversion to civilian casualties, aversion to too many friendly troop casualties. Once can argue whether such notions have any role in a tactical level wargame like CMSF. Gamey is what you (and your pbem opponent) make it. Play how you like to play.
  3. That will be in the eventual 'Space Lobsters' module.
  4. *** Spoiler Alert *** This scenario is a challenge but can be done. Keep in mind my comments below pertain to the AI plan I got (I don't know if there are multiple AI plans) Your 'problems' Lack of good cover. The high ground in the center seems the most likely spot to defend but the high ground is a killing field. I would avoid it. First, he has his artillery registered on the hill. Second, most of the high ground and buildings on Red's side of the map have good observation. His heavy weapons don't appear to leave the back areas of the map and they are placed for optimal observation of the hill. Your left approach is basically flat. There is some dead zone you can use and a defile/wadi. The trouble is the wadi gets you closer to the enemy forces and nowhere else. Your left is compounded by the fact that the terrain on the enemy side favors him as there is lots of dead ground and buildings for him to use. The right approach is better. For one, you have some buildings you can use for cover. While there is no defile in your near ground, the ground slopes gently up and you can use the center hill and the sloping ground for a cover approach. The enemy's side of the map has terrain that doesn't favor him. This is the best approach in my opinion for your forces. Your advantage is you have stand-off fire power with the LAVs but that is tempered by the fact he has some limited AT capability. Your chief disadvantage is the terrain favors the enemy but he has to move so plan your battle on that fact. My plan was to use the right side and use the gentle slope to get as close to the near right hand buildings as I could. I dismounted the infantry back and worked up towards those buildings with dismounted infantry working with the LAVs. You may have to use smoke for make it safely into final positions. What you what to try to do is the following: Get a spot in his heavy weapons as they are the most dangerous to you and take them out with artillery. If you can neutralize them, you will have a easier go of it. You are going to have to stay nimble. His artillery is going to zero on you if you go 'firm' too long in a location. I used my LAVs to tease his forces into revealing themselves so you got to move out of cover, take some shots and suck back to cover and keep doing this or you will end up with smoking LAVs. Stand off - you don't have to take Raccoon and Caribou to win if you inflict enough casualties on him. Use the 25mm on the LAVs to tear him up at range. If you close, particularly early in the game, you will pay dearly for it so keep your distance and use the firepower of the LAVs. Let him come to you, don't go after him! Using the above, I got a total victory with about 4 friendly casualties (1 KIA, 3 WIA) but the terrain will make you work for that outcome. You don't have the ground or positional advantage to sit there and pound on him so you are going to have to use the little terrain that favors you to wipe out his ranged AT capability and then hose his infantry squads into giblets with the fire power of the LAVs. Don't take too long to push his forces past the tipping point while they are moving as they might go 'firm' on the objectives and then you will have to go after him. Remember - you don't need to take the objectives to win. Fight him at range and tear him up and you should do okay.
  5. Yes. I have observed troops and they are damn hard to identify by type and purpose at any range over 300 meters unless you are using good optics. A generic soldier icon fits the bill. Identifying a HQ section is nearly impossible because at least in modern western armies, binoculars and radios are everywhere and are not restricted to just command level troops. Heavy weapons sections are easier to identify, principally because the average joe in a rifle section is not usually lugging around a HMG or a mortar so if you see several of those, you know it a weapons section. Edit: I reread your response and got a different interpretation from the question. Is it possible to have a generic tank or apc icon or is the game system going to label it (ie. T62 or T72) on the initial spot? If the game engine is going to label it, you should just stick to a generic soldier icon.
  6. I have seen lots of military equipment during operations and I could always tell if a vehicle was a tank, a tracked apc type vehicle, a wheeled apc or a soft skin transport, even at distances up to 2 kms (with binos at 3-4 kms). That is assuming I could see enough of it. Much harder if the vehicle is stationary buried in a treeline with a camo net over it. Point is, I can tell if the vehicle is a tank. I may not be able from a distance be able to say what nationality and what the model was but I could say it was a tank and not a self propelled artillery gun or an APC. I would say that for most people familiar with military equipment, identifying the TYPE of equipment from a distance (the max size of a CMSF map) would not be an issue. Identifying the nationality and model is much harder unless it is sitting there in the open. Vehicles in cover have the terrain to break up the distinctive shape of the vehicle making identification hard and moving vehicles usually throw up clouds of dust.
  7. We think alike. I was an artillery officer and not recce, but I know the importance of recce and doing it right. There was a saying - 'Time spend on recce is seldom wasted time.' As for your challenge, try this one out: Halt Hammerzit! - NATO stand alone scenario. I have gotten a total victory just using the Aufklarungs and observers and not moving the main force reinforcments out of the urban area blue starts with. All red casualties except for one BMP were dealt with by observers and Aufklarungs. It is a great scenario for moving the German scouts around to find the enemy positions and then using artillery to pound the red forces to paste. I play RT so I have no replay but I might try it again and see if I can get a video but it will not be an exciting video watching the scouts crawl and hunt their way through the map.
  8. *** Warning - Contains Spoilers *** For snake_eye: Very nice scenario. Gives a very nice feel of 'Outside the Wire' operations that occur on a day to day basis in Afghanistan. Units mount up to do a 'security' op and they know they are most likely going to get hit but don't know where and when. Setup: I know what Erwin means about the deployment areas. About half the blue force is 'fixed' in place and not moveable and I wonder why you didn't go with setting most if not the entire airfield as a deployable area. You might have a reason but if you did have one, the ability of blue forces to quickly reorganize in a minute or two negates that. I personally don't have a problem with the setup as is because of ability of blue to reorganize and redeploy in a few minutes but it seemed somewhat odd to 'fix' some of blue's forces in place in the first place. Force Ratio - good balance. If you are going for an Afghanistan feel, you might want to give the Red another unit of mortars or give them more ammo. It seemed after the first 20 minutes, red ran out of artillery to use as I encountered no indirect fire from red for the rest of the game. Reinforcements: You might want to look at timings for red reinforcements. I was on all objectives and had pretty much wiped the Syrians from the board and sat around waiting for 20 minutes for something to happen. Some players are going to go 'What now?' if the victory condition screen doesn't come up shortly. I know that I did. I wasn't certain what was happening so I saved and then hit the 'surrender' to check the map. All Syrians except a small squad in a deep ravine and the observer were gone and the victory conditions stated that I only met two of my terrain objectives despite me having troops in all of them. Knowing that you do excellent scenarios and that such a oversight most likely to NOT likely to happen, I went back to my save and waited on the clock. Sure enough, after about 20 minutes, more forces appeared, got hammered and then I got the total victory screen. Assessment: Excellent scenario depicting the dreaded 'route opening' operation. For my tastes, red ran out of mortars too soon but get more feedback from others about this before you change it. I like indirect fire so I my bias is showing. Scenario could be shorter. I was on all objectives in two hours and I thought I was very cautious. Again, wait for more feedback before changing as it could be just me and others might need the time. Reinforcements timings need looking at or in the orders, hint at a possible insurgent attack is possible during the operation so that the player knows that he is to take and hold certain objectives rather than just pass through them. The insurgent attack on the Al Farouk hamlet near the end was only detected and dealt with because I had returned a ANA section and ANA HMG back there prior because I wasn't clear if the objectives were 'touch' or 'hold' (the orders aren't clear on this) so I sent forces to all objectives I had previously passed through (this was during the long period of time that nothing appeared to be happening so I thought the objective might be 'hold' rather than 'touch') Great work and other fine scenario, snake_eye!
  9. I haven't played any of the CMx1 games so don't know what these armor penatration tables look like but the CMx2 damage system is so sophisticated that I suspect the CMx1 tables are largely irrelevant and unhelpful as a reference tool.
  10. Odd that. I have killed hundreds of vehicles with artillery and mortars in CMSF but that was direct hits on the point target setting. Most vehicles in CMSF need to be hit directly to be adversely affected, but impacts beside the vehicle can result in mobililty kills or damage to equipment and tracks. Are you referring to airburst fragments penetrating the top of the Tiger or Panther perhaps?
  11. As I understand from a previous thread about this on the CMSF forums, each round is 'tracked' from muzzle until the round terminates (by hitting something). Each vehicle is a collection of zones the round can interact with so the calculation for trajectory determines which 'zone' gets hit. Calculation for penetration are done and subsystems within the zone are checked for damage or destruction. This determines if the vehicle is destroyed or damaged and how personnel within and beside the vehicle fair in regards to damage applied to personnel. Yes, in CMx2, a 'brew-up' can kill or injury personnel beside or nearby the vehicle. I have experience the rare 'double kill' in CMSF where a tank round did a complete penetration of a vehicle (a BMP if I recall) from the side and still had enough kinetic energy to penetrate the BMP halted beside it, knocking both vehicles out of the fight. CMx2 vehicles 'degrade' when hit, even if not sufficiently penetrated. Optics, radios and other systems can be effected in a system that goes from a bright green cross (everything ok) to a bright red X (destroyed) with a number of steps in between. Since the track system includes the suspension and the suspension married the tracks to the hull, I think a hull hit may affect the tracks, even if the tracks themselves seem to be in cover. Also, the height of the Jagpanther above the Sherman means the 'hull down' most likely is not as hull down as Elvis thought. I don't know about the CMx1 games as I have never played them but in a CMx2 game, you most likely will not have a Tiger sitting at long range taking round after round of 'seemly inconsequential' tank fire and shaking it off. After a while, the Tiger's systems will degrade to the point the crew is going to want pull the vehicle back out of harm's way. There are others who most likely will weight in about this as I don't claim expert knowledge about the CMx2 system.
  12. I disagree. Green troops or conscripts lack experience. That is all. Green troops know how to clean their weapons, load weapons, fire weapons, how to march, how to run and how to crawl, etc. That doesn't mean better trained troops could run faster or crawl faster or further. Or shoot more accurately. A green unit doesn't know the travails of combat and will individuals will hesitate or not fire their weapons. Individuals will freeze in place while experienced individuals know that moving is the best thing to do at the moment because the area he is in is a kill zone and he has got to get the hell out of it, even if it means moving while the MG42 is firing in your direction. Fighting a few battles doesn't mean that individuals suddenly become better marksmen or can run or crawl with a field pack better than green troops. Fighting a few battles means the green troops have experience the terror of combat and know what to expect and how to react better to the crucible of warfare. They are now more inclined to fire their weapon rather than cower, to advance in the face of fire because their Sgt screams at them to do so rather than lay there in terror not doing anything. This is in CMx2 already. Green troops don't fire as often and are more inclined to rout when under fire than experienced troops. I don't see a command delay system really contributing meaningfully in a huge way to the game. Elite troops are NOT supermen, tearing the tracks off tanks with their bare hands. They are troops who experience has taught how to move and survive on the battlefield and are more likely to do something remarkable under fire than keep their heads down and wish they were back in bootcamp.
  13. Euri: The methodology and tactics I use quite successfully (I have very few if any vehicle casualties usually) are as follows: Study the ground and note covered postions and dead ground in relation to where you suspect enemy positions are. Whenever possible, use approaches that allow for cover and concealed movement. The fastest or easy going route is not necessarily the best route to get from A to B. Think about where the enemy forces might be and you do that by thinking where would you put forces to defeat yourself. In nearly 100% of scenarios, the enemy ATGMs are near the back of the map to maximize engagement ranges so you spend the max time in their engagement envelope and minimize your weapon response (ie. out of your small arms effective range). So, if you suspect ATGMs look for possible deployment areas like hill features or building near the back of the map and see if there is a route you can with minimal exposure to the feature. Also, use artillery or air strikes to hit suspected positions. Yes, it is a crap shoot because you might be engaging nothing but for myself, I have found that there is something there about 80-85% of the time - not perfect clairvoyance but guessing right 80-85% of the time that something is there is damn good and I have killed potentially troublesome ATGMs without they ever have seen me and opening fire. At setup, get eyes on your manuever area whenever possible. Don't be so quick to get moving. Watch for a few minutes. Usually, if you got good troops and in good observation, you can spot a few enemy positions. Work units into overwatch firing postions or have them already setup. Now, short run some units towards the nearest cover on your selected route. If there is enemy nearby, they most likely will start engaging your forces. Watch and determine the direction of fire if you don't get any revealed units. Since I play RT, I usually pause at this point and visually back track along the trajectory of fire and look for something that may conceal a enemy, like bushes or trees, a small height elevation or a building. This is the most likely location of the shooter. Now areas fire into this area to hopefully surpress or kill the hidden enemy. Assuming your lead units make it to the waypoint of your short leg, organize them into overwatch positions and move your rear elements forward and into overwatch positions. I prefer to 'caterpillar' move where the rear elements move up to the forward elements rather than 'bound', where the rear elements pass the forward elements and become the new 'leads' but either method works. Keep your bounds short. Use smoke on longer bounds you have to make. If engaged, return fire decisively. If you are in a situation where you have only one vehicle or section who can engage multiple enemy, your will ultimately lose out in the firefight. Pop smoke and move back out of observation. Your aim is to make the fight as unfair as possible. You want two or three sections/vehicles beating on one enemy. If you are heavy into it, only move when the enemy is suppressed (pinned), so time your moves for just after you hit the enemy with effective fire of some sort and keep the move short. Supressed enemies either will not fire back or their fire is ineffective. Hope that helps. Do note that most of the tactics I use work optimally in RT so if you use WEGO, you have to adapt them somewhat. Hope that helps.
  14. Most unfortuate. I was so looking forward to Operation Nemesis. I do hope that it wasn't individuals being over forceful trying to get some rules changed. I thank sdp for his efforts in this. To work for a year on this and then decide it is best to stand down and walk away has got to be very hard.
  15. It is playable and easily winable even without the panzerfausts. At least I found it so after two playthroughs with the latest patch.
  16. The key issue in my mind is how do you differentiate between activities ordered by higher headquarters and local orders. Case to illustrate. Higher HQ wants the forward section to advance and occupy a house and move out of the open. Yes, should be a command delay to simulate the time interval of higher HQ formulating this plan of action and passing it by radio, or runner to the section commander and then for the section commander to order his men accordingly. Now, the other shoe. Section commander orders his men to occupy the nearby house and move out from the open. Shouldn't be a command delay because he is right there with the men. Issue: How do you differentiate one from the other when the player action with the mouse and keyboard is exactly the same to implement either action? Edit: Clairification - I am opposed to a mandatory command delay. If a worthwhile optional system can be done for those who love this sort of thing, let they have it. Further illustration of inherent flaws. Order a tank down a road. Order could be 'advance slowly up the road to the crossroads'. Now, for a straight road, this is most likely just a one leg waypoint. Little to none command delay. Now make the road a winding one and you accumulate command delays for each 'leg' of waypoints. The only difference is how straight is the road yet under one you have almost no command delay to lots of delay due to the curves in the road. Bogus. Unless this can be addressed (if it can be addressed), I am opposed to command delays because they are not 'command delays' - they are action delays. The more actions and waypoints you issue a unit, the more delay you incur. Action/Waypoints (actions inputted by player) =/= 'Commands' (actions ordered by unit / higher commanders to subordinate units). That is the crux of this issue, IMHO. Clarification - I am opposed to a mandatory command delay system. Obviously, some people want one so if a worthwhile 'optional' system can be done, let those who like that have it.
  17. The only pictures and videos I have seen of western troops riding atop tanks is the drive through already secured villages/towns and up roads with infantry lolligaggling in relax march mode alongside the armor. That tells me that tank riding for american and commonwealth forces was more an administrative move type of thing, rather than a rolling into combat sort of thing. Personal feeling - if the choice is to ride atop a tank into a battle or walk/run/crawl into battle, I opt for the latter. Tanks are bullet magnets...
  18. Since victory conditions are dependent on the scenario designer, I would say that such things are possible and unlikely that we will ever get away from such issues. Case in point - CMSF scenario Afternoon Delight. Take any casualties at all and the Syrian side racks up more points than you can by taking all objectives and wiping the Syrians from the board. Rather galling to get a defeat by wiping the Syrians to a man, taking all objective points but losing because I had 2 wounded men. Don't know if this got fixed but the point is such weirdness does happen and it proves that scenario design is more art than science to get an exciting well balanced scenario. My hat is off to the many designers who do get it right and make good scenarios that are enjoyed by many. As for casualty points, a fair number of scenarios in CMSF reflect the western armies aversion to casualty taking in the victory conditions. Different mindset from WW1 and WW2, where casualties were the norm and minimizing casualties was not high on the mission parameters of commanders of the time.
  19. RT only for me. I find it the best mode of play for my tastes and temperment as I can micromanage as much or as little as possible. With some scenarios, I don't hit pause that much, with others, I am all over the pause button as I move vehicles in precise hull down positions or implement a complex fire and maneuver plan.
  20. Are you playing WeGo or RT? I have found that one can get better vehicle / troop placement (like hull down, etc) and better fire control by micromanaging matters in RT. Granted, not everyone plays RT or likes the work required by micromanaging individual vehicle / troop placements. I play RT and I don't mind the level of micromanagement to get the level of precision I want. I have finished all campaigns with Total Victory as a result. I have yet to try a campaign doing WeGo but my suspicions are that it is much harder because the lack of precision compared to RT and alot can happen in the one minute turn that you have can't react in a timely fashion to - like that BMP opening up on your troops 10 seconds into the turn, leaving you at the mercy of the tactical AI to handle your reactions for the remaining 50 secs. My two cents.
  21. Well, in 1939. I think CMSF II will be set in a much later time period.
  22. Really? From the article: "Nerves were further set on edge last year when the Russians staged exercises simulating an invasion of the Baltic states and a nuclear attack on Poland" Interesting that. Not gaming out defensive strategies, which is to be expected if the cold war is truly over. Gaming out offensive operations - not offensive operations in Georgia or Chechena or Ukraine. Offensive operations into NATO territory. That implies a lot. Of course, if Wikileaks reveals that NATO has been gaming out the invasion of Russia, then I would say you are most likely correct though that type of paper exercise is not prudent in my opinion. Exercises simulating the invasion of your so called 'ally' can only be considered in the worst possible light. Putin says one thing and does another. I wouldn't take the downsizing of the Russian army and Putin's rhetoric as anything other than cost cutting and the usual political rhetoric of saying one thing while contemplating another.
  23. So, it seems the cold war is not over ... it just took a long overdue vacation. Makes a good case for a possible default campaign setting for CMSF II. Which would make a number of people happy because many people are hoping that CMSF II would feature a NATO vs Russia/NATO vs Warsaw Pact campaign. I support this, as long as it is current or near future. I would be less enthusiastic about a 1980s-1990s era NATO vs Warsaw Pact showdown.
  24. Well, not completely useless. I use them for AT-14 bait. Run them like crazy around and draw fire. If the vehicle gets smoked, no big loss... and hopefully another spotter spots the shooter. And yes, my comment above is somewhat sarcastic but that is the only way they spot anything.... by drawing fire.
  25. I have seen a small (about 25ft x 25ft) single story wood structure constructed to western building standards blown down to floor level - ( ie. no ceiling or walls left) by a single 155 round. I think a middle east house of similar dimensions made of earthen brick work that would be insufficent by western construction standards will not fair any better. It is not the brick but the mortar between the bricks that is the weak point and would be the point of failure. I think the overpressure from a 155 round direct hit on that structure is going to level it after a round or two, making a scattered field of bricks. Let's put it this way - if I had a choice of taking cover in a ditch or taking cover in that structure, I would opt for the ditch...
×
×
  • Create New...