Jump to content

DMS

Members
  • Content Count

    562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    DMS reacted to 76mm in Fire and Rubble   
    Actually most of us Bolshie lovers won't get too upset, because those red bastards got the last laugh, so to speak, and we are too-well-used-to wargame developers pandering to players that glorify the German military.
    That said, I have no idea why you'd consider that "honoring the last stand of the Wehrmacht" would be more "fair" than honoring those that defeated Nazism after it had treacherously invaded their country?  Weird...
  2. Upvote
    DMS reacted to danfrodo in Fire and Rubble   
    Bolshie lover?  uhhhhh, the wehrmacht et al killed around 25M folks in soviet russia.  Russia did not attack germany.  So yes let's 'honor' them??  for a war of murder and extermination??  Hitler's plan was for the enslavement, banishment or murder of 160M people.  So yes, the russian invasion was certainly a most 'honorable' endeavor.  As long as we all agree that those 160M weren't actually people, but some sort of subhuman eastern hordes like all those twisted german memoirs always say (I've read piles of them).    
    The last stand of the wehrmacht was utter madness, not something honorable.  It was the reckoning of their murderous actions.  Having said that, I am really looking forward to fighting on the Oder and in Hungary.  As either side.  Yes, well, I have to reconcile that somehow.....
    And having said that, I am currently fighting through Blunting the Spear as wehrmacht, so where do I really go with this......
     
     
  3. Upvote
    DMS reacted to AttorneyAtWar in Fire and Rubble   
    Yes, the last stand of the "glorious" Wehrmacht!
    Fanatics, 15 year olds and old men who were either forced to fight by threat of death or made sure that the suffering continued needlessly for the last few months.
    Luckily your line of thinking is finally dying out now that our understanding of the war has moved on from Guderians memoirs. Christ.
    Edit: And those "Red bastards" you speak of were the true heroes, they endured the whole sale slaughter of their families and countrymen to finally destroy that disgusting organization and naziism in general. I'm no fan of Stalin but I have to call out the absolute deafness in your post. Go read a history book that wasn't written by a German general who desperately tried to save his career.
  4. Upvote
    DMS reacted to MikeyD in Was lend-lease essential in securing a Soviet victory?   
    In winter in other titles you get an 'appearance' choice between 'greatcoat' or 'winter' uniforms in the editor. CMRT will be following the same practice. Russian greatcoats have shoulder boards so rank and arm of service are differentiated. The padded winter uniform doesn't which makes texturing them easier. The game has a third option, for fall and spring I think, of standard Russian uniform but with a rolled-up greatcoat draped across the body (often mistakenly called bed rolls).


  5. Like
    DMS got a reaction from Aurelius in Is there anything that comes close to the CM games?   
    Well, in 1941 Germans also used to concentrate tanks. This tactics became expensive in 1943, when Red army started to widely use "pak fronts". If you read Soviet documents, you often see: "Enemy attacked with 50 tanks at direction..." Why not, if Soviet battalion had only 2 anti tank guns.
  6. Upvote
    DMS got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in BBC Article on Kursk Prokhorovka controversy.   
    In the article was rude enough statement: that "victory monument" (chapel is a "victory monument") has no foundations. Some Russian journalist translated that monument should be destroyed, for hype, I think. Everyone reposted... And that revisionists attempts to find a victory in any defeat are amazing. 
    It's fun that Germans so much like to talk about shooting dozens of T-34 year after year. It is anniversary of "Bagration" offensive, when thousands German soldiers died because of militaristic madness of their country. But who cares? Victims are boring, stories about crushing 50 T-34s are fun.
  7. Like
    DMS got a reaction from 76mm in BBC Article on Kursk Prokhorovka controversy.   
    In the article was rude enough statement: that "victory monument" (chapel is a "victory monument") has no foundations. Some Russian journalist translated that monument should be destroyed, for hype, I think. Everyone reposted... And that revisionists attempts to find a victory in any defeat are amazing. 
    It's fun that Germans so much like to talk about shooting dozens of T-34 year after year. It is anniversary of "Bagration" offensive, when thousands German soldiers died because of militaristic madness of their country. But who cares? Victims are boring, stories about crushing 50 T-34s are fun.
  8. Like
    DMS got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in Splitting Russian groups into teams.   
    I think that reason of more tight Soviet formations is different. Messengers. In 1941 TO&E in company was 1 messenger and in platoon 1 messenger. Absolutely not enough, Germans had 4 in company HQ and 2 in platoon HQ. In 04/550 TO&E (12.1942) (that I posted above) no messengers at all! Second reason is that Soviet divisions were always under strength in 1944-1945. It is Stavka decision: to keep 7000-men divisions. If your company has 70 men, it is not reasonable to use 15-20 men platoons (with 1-2 machineguns) independently. 
    What's about NCOs, well, they were able to keep soldiers in line. To make line formation in the game you have to split squads.
    By the way, in BUP-42 (Infantry combat manual - 42) is said that SMG gunners must act by groups of 4-5 men. SMG platoons ("avtomatchiki") were considered as "special" infantry for infiltrating and surprise attacks from flank or rear, not like rifle platoons. 
    I am eager to help with documents from electronic archive pamyat-naroda.ru. 
  9. Like
    DMS got a reaction from Aurelius in Splitting Russian groups into teams.   
    I think that reason of more tight Soviet formations is different. Messengers. In 1941 TO&E in company was 1 messenger and in platoon 1 messenger. Absolutely not enough, Germans had 4 in company HQ and 2 in platoon HQ. In 04/550 TO&E (12.1942) (that I posted above) no messengers at all! Second reason is that Soviet divisions were always under strength in 1944-1945. It is Stavka decision: to keep 7000-men divisions. If your company has 70 men, it is not reasonable to use 15-20 men platoons (with 1-2 machineguns) independently. 
    What's about NCOs, well, they were able to keep soldiers in line. To make line formation in the game you have to split squads.
    By the way, in BUP-42 (Infantry combat manual - 42) is said that SMG gunners must act by groups of 4-5 men. SMG platoons ("avtomatchiki") were considered as "special" infantry for infiltrating and surprise attacks from flank or rear, not like rifle platoons. 
    I am eager to help with documents from electronic archive pamyat-naroda.ru. 
  10. Upvote
    DMS got a reaction from MOS:96B2P in Splitting Russian groups into teams.   
    Yes, of course, I mean IRL. Just wanted to note it, may be developers or beta testers will see my post. Excuse me if it sounded rude, yes, language issue.
    In 1941 in TO&E were no assistants, may be that's why in the game we don't see them. 
    Machinegunner assistant was called "machinegunner" and machinegunner was called наводчик, I translated it as gunner.
  11. Upvote
    DMS reacted to Trooper117 in After the next 2 modules?   
    All I would like to see is CM Barbarossa... if CM3 is somehow in the works, what a great first module that would be!
  12. Upvote
    DMS reacted to Kaunitz in Additional fortifications?   
    I really hope we will see some improvement in regards to defensive features at some point in the future. But somehow I doubt it, given that many people don't seem to have any problem with it. I wonder whether this may also be linked to the preference of Meeting Engagements in H2H games? I rarely ever see people pick fortifications anyway.
    The fact that infantry dies like flies despite all your best, terrain-fiddly efforts to work around the problem is becoming a major deal breaker for me personally. It sucks the enthusiasm right out of me when it comes to map-creation. Infantry simply depends on using the protection provided by terrain. In CM, protection by terrain doesn't work that well as there is a lack of properly working defensive structures and issues with soldier placement (make good use of cover without completely ignoring LOS), which I understand must be a pain in the **** to code. This lack of staying power for infantry makes it quite hard to simulate real engagements. 
    Sometimes I wished we could just paint abstract levels of "small arms + shrapnel protection for infantry" areas on selected action-squares of the map (directional would be ideal...). I'm a big fan of the ballistic model in the game, but I think it reaches its limits when every single cm counts, which is the case if we're talking about cover for infantry. Elevating or depressing 8x8m areas is not a sufficient mean to create cover for infantry and is also extremely fiddly and unreliable. The implementation "abstract protection modifiers" would just swipe away all the fiddlyness with one god-sent blow. No more worrying about unreliable soldier placement, no more worrying about overexposed soldiers (also: soldiers deciding switch from prone to kneel every now and then...), no more worrying about lack of LOS if the soldiers are not overexposed.
    /rant mode off
  13. Upvote
    DMS reacted to Kaunitz in Additional fortifications?   
    I still don't believe in trenches. Here is a short test video to back up my opinion: 
    Explanation: I set up 27 guys in some trenches (which had a bit of zig-zag in them to stop shrapnel?). Originally, I wanted to test different calibres of arty. But after testing the 81mm mortars, I felt there was no need to continue the test with heavier calibres. Admittedly, I placed the target for the 2x2 mortars perfectly on the trenches, and I set the strength and duration of the fire mission to "max" (but this would only speed things up). The first test in the video demonstrates what happened to units who had no orders to remain prone ("hide"), but instead kneeled: Out of the 27 men, 21 were casualties, only 6 survived. Many of the casualties were inflicted by the buggy "run to the crater" behaviour: In the middle of the artillery barrage, troopers leave the trenches to seek cover in craters. But as I zoom in, you can see that most casualties were still inflicted in the trench itself. The second test in the video uses the same setup (27 men in trenches versus 4 81mm mortars). Results were almost the same - 19 casualties, 8 survivors. 
     
    (video will be available shortly)
    No, I don't believe that trenches are working properly. The trench is by far too wide. When hit by artillery, it's only a matter of a few seconds before the shells hit right into the trenches. Therefore, the currently available trenches offers almost no protection against artillery (which ought to be their primary purpose).  
     
    @RockinHarry
    Hehe, the trench looks nice. I came up with something very similar for my Gerbini map (picture: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125278-highlanders-the-battle-of-gerbini/?do=findComment&comment=1747980). But the problems described above in my short test still remained.
    I'm curious about that scenario of yours, given that you also seem to pay a lot of attention to defensive works. I'm really tempted to buy CM:BN for it. ...
     
  14. Upvote
    DMS reacted to Kaunitz in Additional fortifications?   
    I believe the problem is the same as for the other fortifications? It seems to be impossible to make features sink into the ground/terrain mesh. Take a look at the current trenches: they protrude from the ground, which of course, is not how they're supposed to work. In my opinion, fortifications are really the one major thing that is not handled well by Combat Mission games, and it makes infantry die like flies, especially to indirect fire and direct HE fire. While the mechanics do work as you'd expect, with ground stopping shrapnel effects, any attempt to recreate foritifcations by messing with elevations is rather futile, as the action spots come at a size of 8x8 meters (a depression of such a big size does not offer protection from arty), can't be camouflaged and also the troopers' placement within the depression is a roll of dice.
    Ideally, dugouts/trenches/pits should have these characteristics: 
    1) They should not be visible for the opponent in the terrain/ground mesh and have an excellent "hiding value" themselves, so that they're only discovered when you're right on them.
    2) They should increase the hiding-value for units positioned in them (i.e. provide concealment).
    3) They should be deep and narrow with sharp edges. The width of the trench is directly linked to the protection it provides against indirect fire. Every meter counts.
    4) Troops inside the trench should position themselves in a way that exposes them as little as possible (head + raised weapon), while at the same time gives them good lines of sight (assuming that the surrounding terrain is flat...). 
  15. Upvote
    DMS got a reaction from General Liederkranz in Red Thunder bugs   
    I saw some division equipment lists. Usually tables don't have separated column for SVTs, only for rifles in general. When it has - in the best case division had hundred or two of SVTs. Some examples from my notes:
    143 rifle division, 22.02.43: 4059 rifles, 155 SVT, 103 lmgs, 549 smgs, 15 AVS (rare weapon!)
    243 rifle division, 18.06.43: 3776 rifles, 181 SVT, 1007 smgs, 196 lmgs.
    2-3 SVT for a platoon. I can post document scans for 2 cases above. SVTs weren't produced since 1942. (1 million in 1941, 200 thousands in 1942) It is fun that despite this in organizational charts till the end of war weapon of a rifleman was SVT. (letter "a" in "weapons" column - autorifle) This may confuse researcher.
     
  16. Like
    DMS got a reaction from domfluff in Syrian and Russian Mech infantry doctrine   
    This is line tactics. Like in old times, but with wider intervals and vehicles. Company columns deploy there, platoon columns deploy here. I read textbooks, they are focused on right formation. Russian 2000 manuals are different, more fire and maneuver elements. In late Soviet - no. Infantry manual of 1938 is more sophisticated than manuals of 70-s.
    Soviet style attack is attack in ideal line formation, perfectly timed. Infantry attacks behind tanks last 300m, bmps stand back and support by fire. (Squads maintain 50 m intervals so bmps wouldn't hit them in backs) In open terrain without big obstacles this tactics is very dangerous. But it can be ruined by defile or any obstacle that must be passed: corner of a wood, hill, town. Or minefield. One platoon will slow down, second will be too fast and line crashes... Bunch of bmps make ideal target for a ATGM battery.
  17. Upvote
    DMS reacted to Ultradave in A Plea to Developers   
    Doesn't need to be present day with all the cool toys either. I was an artillery officer, before the days of GPS and digital anything, so my experience is actually much closer to WW2 and Korean War techniques than present day. We would call fire on grid coordinates that were not observable. You can calculate firing data to anywhere. Look at the map, hear some vehicle noises and conclude they MUST be coming down that road that's behind the treeline. Of course, both in CM and real life, you could be way off, but it takes no longer to compute firing data to an unobserved point than to an observed target. Either way, the FO is passing grid coordinates. The difference is that unobserved, you FFE immediately. No adjustments possible. Another example would be looking at the map and making an educated guess as to where their mortars are set up, like at the edge of a far treeline. Linear FFE on the treeline.
    Now normally on offense or defense you would have recalculated TRPs, and then could call shift missions off of those, and you can do that in game. Not too many scenarios give you TRPs, but in QB they are certainly available to purchase.
    So there's my FA perspective, from someone who was a FIST Chief, Battery Fire Direction Officer, Brigade Fire Support Officer, FA Battalion Asst S-3 (S-3 is operations), and Battalion Fire Direction Officer. I've called for, planned, calculated a whole lot of explosions  (this pedigree is for the guy in the other thread who seems to be under the impression that BF had never talked to a military or former military person 🙂  )
  18. Upvote
    DMS got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Over-Powered Artillery and general game lethality   
    I think that artillery is not overpowered, fortifications are underpowered in most scenarios. I am making scenario where I set ditches with 1-2m depth and trenches inside. I call 122mm howitzers exactly on this place (heavy, long), a lot of Germans survive.
  19. Upvote
    DMS reacted to absolutmauser in What would be your priority wish? More Families, or more content for existing Families?   
    It's good the balloon never went up, because there would probably be fewer customers for Combat Mission: North German Plain! 
  20. Upvote
    DMS reacted to Frenchy56 in Red Thunder bugs   
    Soviet rifle platoon leaders (which are embedded inside the 1st rifle squad) have the wrong uniform. They show Private ranks.
    This kind of thing shows up as well for a few HQ units like the ATR platoon or Machine gun platoon.
    Then again, you can see the number of SVT's reach a number that's in fact closer to pre-war numbers (8 SVT's per platoon, when DMS pointed out 2 would be a reasonable number for this timeline).
     
    I've also noted that platoons are commanded by Captains and companies by Majors according to the UI, and I have never seen any Soviet officer under the rank of Captain in this game.
    I think this has something to do with the UI being incorrect (I've tested it with and without Juju's UI mod, and the ranks are the same).
    The UI's senior officer ranks, in other words over Captain, are also incorrect (the stars are silver when they should be gold).
  21. Upvote
    DMS got a reaction from Artkin in What would be your priority wish? More Families, or more content for existing Families?   
    Field fortifications pack. With below ground trenches and shelters. If someone chooses to use gamey and scan terrain for folds - ok, he spoils gameplay for himself.
  22. Upvote
    DMS got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Red Thunder bugs   
    I saw some division equipment lists. Usually tables don't have separated column for SVTs, only for rifles in general. When it has - in the best case division had hundred or two of SVTs. Some examples from my notes:
    143 rifle division, 22.02.43: 4059 rifles, 155 SVT, 103 lmgs, 549 smgs, 15 AVS (rare weapon!)
    243 rifle division, 18.06.43: 3776 rifles, 181 SVT, 1007 smgs, 196 lmgs.
    2-3 SVT for a platoon. I can post document scans for 2 cases above. SVTs weren't produced since 1942. (1 million in 1941, 200 thousands in 1942) It is fun that despite this in organizational charts till the end of war weapon of a rifleman was SVT. (letter "a" in "weapons" column - autorifle) This may confuse researcher.
     
  23. Like
    DMS got a reaction from Artkin in Red Thunder bugs   
    I saw some division equipment lists. Usually tables don't have separated column for SVTs, only for rifles in general. When it has - in the best case division had hundred or two of SVTs. Some examples from my notes:
    143 rifle division, 22.02.43: 4059 rifles, 155 SVT, 103 lmgs, 549 smgs, 15 AVS (rare weapon!)
    243 rifle division, 18.06.43: 3776 rifles, 181 SVT, 1007 smgs, 196 lmgs.
    2-3 SVT for a platoon. I can post document scans for 2 cases above. SVTs weren't produced since 1942. (1 million in 1941, 200 thousands in 1942) It is fun that despite this in organizational charts till the end of war weapon of a rifleman was SVT. (letter "a" in "weapons" column - autorifle) This may confuse researcher.
     
  24. Like
    DMS got a reaction from Blazing 88's in Barbarossa   
    You can't truly understand German mechanized tactic without researching Barbarossa. Full strength Wermacht on peak of its might against nearly equal Soviet forces: with modern weapons but obsolete tactic. Old fashioned army with separated branches against combined arms Kampfgruppen. In 1944 everyone had understood new style of war, Americans created their tank divisions with task forces, Soviets reorganized tank forces in tank corps. But in 1941 tactical difference was the largest. It makes Barbarossa game interesting for anyone who is interested in WW2 tactic, I think. 
  25. Upvote
    DMS got a reaction from c3k in Infantry and Armour Tactics Info?   
    W. Schneider's "Panzer Tactics" is great book. Company formations, attack by bounds, armored infantry tatctics. Probably the best I read.
    And... Read manuals!  British one: http://wartimecanada.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Infantry Training Part I- The Infantry Battalion- 1944.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...