Jump to content

DougPhresh

Members
  • Content Count

    504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by DougPhresh

  1. DougPhresh

    Tank tactics: why the regression?

    I think it's a better command, I'd just also appreciate being able to have individuals within teams move in bounds.
  2. DougPhresh

    Tank tactics: why the regression?

    If there's one command I'd like back from CM1, it's the individual fire-and-movement. I think it was called assault? up, he sees me down, as opposed to the current assault which seems to resemble the CM1 advance.
  3. If anything, I'd like to see this formation type in all series. I imagine Russian mechanized forces would be more likely to encounter ad-hoc Ukrainian forces than coherent units after a day or so of a hot war.
  4. DougPhresh

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    @ASL Veteran think of it in the context of the Napoleonic Wars: sure the Old Guard and Horse Grenadiers draw all the attention, but they were a very small part of Napoleon's Army, and while present at Waterloo, the actions of the regular regiments were more significant. Similarly, the handful of elite Germany units (LSSAH, HG, Panzer Lehr) is a very small part of a military that by and large marched on foot and was supplied by horse drawn baggage trains. It would be nice to have more scenarios or campaigns that depict the actions of a typical battalion or company trying to accomplish a typical mission, in typical terrain with typical equipment.
  5. It's worse when you see the crew arrangement.
  6. DougPhresh

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    You would think from how certain segments of the wargaming community go on about fighter aces, panzermen, tank armour, StG 44's and so on that the Wehrmacht had won the war. The better military is the one that wins. Depicting how they won makes for good wargames. Better a Sherman or T-34 that's there than a Tiger with a broken transmission in a separate panzer battalion, 200km down the front.
  7. DougPhresh

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    I think the problem with wargames using the flashiest and biggest is that it contributes to this Axis-biased hardware-obsessed type of amateur history that skews away from an accurate depiction of the second world war. The frontal armour and main guns of Axis AFVs meant very little in the scheme of strategic, operational, or tactical warfare.
  8. That's the standard MSVS. The Artillery and Engineers have a longer cab.
  9. That, was a big part of it. Bisons are overall more useful in my opinion. ML and MS are both not very mobile off-road. The MSVS is not a military truck by design but an International truck modified for military use. I think in a Battlegroup in a hot war zone you would mostly find Bisons.
  10. DougPhresh

    Nijmegen Ported to CMBS

    That's strange. In my experience I couldn't even get them to load in the editor! I wonder why.
  11. DougPhresh

    Nijmegen Ported to CMBS

    Great job! In porting maps to CMBS I've had a very hard time placing brides correctly. Did you figure it out? Additionally, I find every title except for CMBN will port maps to BS, and even then MG and the battlepack port, which leads me to suspect hedgerows are to blame.
  12. DougPhresh

    CMFI Rome to Victory Bones

    I would like to know that if field divisions are coming, the HG will get a second look.
  13. DougPhresh

    The state of CMSF2

    This whole "time" excuse is bizarre. Here are two very small, very complicated, niche wargames. How much "time" are the developers wasting by posting updates? Because they have been hitting their release dates, while updating the community and listening to feedback. http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1445/rule-waves-2-developers-journal http://forum.game-labs.net/topic/22735-work-in-progress-dreadnoughts/
  14. DougPhresh

    The state of CMSF2

    I'm not talking about the content, I'm talking about communicating the content. Is that really much different than an update on a CM title would be? or this https://unityofcommand.net/blog/2017/05/02/developer-diary-10-performance/#more-2339
  15. DougPhresh

    The state of CMSF2

    Here's a one-man wargame that was well-received by RPS and Wargammer and he manages to post on a regular basis, explain how progress is coming along, explain why his updates are occasionally infrequent, and otherwise take the time to engage with the people who will buy his product. http://www.armouredcommander.com/blog/
  16. DougPhresh

    The state of CMSF2

    @Erwin you're going to pretty fantastic lengths to excuse bad communication. As several people have pointed out numerous times, we're not asking for much more than a couple sentences every so often, which would maybe take five minutes to compose. "In CMRT's next module we will be including the Polish First Army as a Soviet force. We had the units and oob largely in game already and used voice files from the other titles. Polish vehicles will display the white eagle crews often painted, rather than the red star."
  17. DougPhresh

    The state of CMSF2

    I don't think anyone is asking for huge dev diaries here. Although if you're looking for an example of a niche company absolutely killing it in once-a-week posts, https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-122-planetary-rework-part-2-of-4.1115992/ In any case, I think people are more asking for simple, general things. - What kind of changes are in the patches - What kind of additions are coming to CMFI - What (broadly) will be coming to CMRT - What bugs/TOE/OOB/suggestions by the community have the devs noticed, and what has been passed on to developers An example of this done right is how BTR's great post in the CMBS tech forum was received What would bring this to a level I think would absolutely impress the community is to say, "Coming with the CMBS patch are the changes pointed out to us by community member BTR back in 2015!" with a side-by-side of fixed models.
  18. The Canadian army had armoured Mercedes trucks in theatre, but we mostly used Bisons (Like the LAV but without turret) for logistics outside the wire.
  19. I'd just like the fortifications to not be scattered all over the map when I start the deploy phase of a QB. It would be so much easier to have them neatly organized like units were, and how they were in the CM1 titles.
  20. DougPhresh

    The state of CMSF2

    I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end. This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch. I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT - titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows? If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs. In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine". The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward. Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory" I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done. I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014.
  21. Not trying to knock you, but I'm trying to puzzle my way through the situation as well. I'm obviously far more familiar with the Canadian side of this equation! Without posting pages from the manual, since you are not conducting a battalion or regimental eschelon attack, would it make more sense to go "by the book" for carrying out the initial phase of a meeting engagement? Move to contact, and then "pile on" with the elements of your force, which is approximately a Forward Security Element and parts of an Advance Guard? If I'm reading the pam right, you would need about 3 vehicles to establish contact, and then can start an attack with 10 vehicles, 4 tanks, 6 mortars, 6 guns, all of which I think you have.
  22. The smallest combat unit that carries out independent action is the Regiment. In the Combat Mission scale, I wouldn't use anything less than a Battalion for an attack. Now, if we take that into consideration and look back at the briefing for this scenario: And the fact that the scenario is a probe, we might re-evaluate the appropriate doctrine. I would suggest that we treat Mike's force as either an ad-hoc formation acting as the Regimental recon screen, or a first echelon force. In either case, there is doctrine for this kind of engagement with roughly the forces Mike has.
  23. While I have always admired your ability to use western techniques like the recon pull, this illustrates issues that I see a lot of gamers facing when using Eastern Bloc forces. Attack by echelon is brutal, simple, predictable and effective. I would suggest focusing on a command push, using the forces you have at hand, and using the appropriate doctrine for them. A T-72 is not a worse Leopard, it is a lethal weapons system when used in its intended role. This post by JasonC in the CMBB forum fundamentally changed how I think about Soviet forces and has made me a much better player at not only CMRT and CMBS but any wargame that puts me in command of units that start with "T" instead of "M". And from US Field Manual 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics. In summary, use the tactics developed for the equipment you have. By analogy, I often see players in CMFI complain about Italian forces. While there are obviously shortcomings with the equipment and organization of the Italian Army in the Second World War, many of the complaints stem from trying to accomplish missions using doctrine tailored for other forces. Take for instance the Infantry Battalion: The Italians do not have MG focused squads like the Germans, and do not break down into small 4 man teams like the Germans and Western Allies. This breaks down the fire-and-movement tactics at the squad and platoon level players are used to. Instead, the Italian Army has an exception light mortar in large numbers that provides the base of fire for platoon attacks and medium mortars and heavy machine guns used to support the company and battalion attack. The Syrian Army will always lose if using tactics developed for NATO forces. As demonstrated in the Golan, and even more-so by the Egyptians in crossing the Suez, Warsaw Pact equipped forces can beat Western forces if used with the appropriate tactics.
  24. I've just noticed on larger maps, when BMP-3s are really lobbing those 100mm rounds downrange, they are receiving "hits" that only disable their 30mm guns, and without taking return fire. I'm guessing at high elevations the vehicle is shooting itself. In my last battle on a huge map, with a full battalion, about 50% had damage only to their 30mm guns, and those were the vehicles that had engaged the most at long ranges.
  25. DougPhresh

    BMP-3M Disabling Own 30mm

    Strangely this has only happened on maps I converted from CMFB and CMFI, maybe that could play a part. I keep having BMP-3Ms with only the 30mm disabled, sometimes as much as 30% of my total force.
×