Jump to content

Bozowans

Members
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bozowans

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

606 profile views
  1. I know I've been playing too much CM when I'm driving around and see a field and wonder how many hundreds of meters there are across it, or whether that building way off in the distance is within rifle range or not.
  2. Bozowans

    RT Unofficial Screenshot Thread

    I was looking through my old screenshots folder and couldn't remember if I had posted these anywhere. An advancing Soviet rifleman stopped to take a shot with his Mosin at a German AT gun across the street. The view from the gun: The gun fired and the shell flew through the wooden fence, between the guy's legs, then through the front door of the house behind him, and then finally exploded against the opposite wall. The shell was flying mere inches from the ground. That was one lucky bastard! The gun crew was not so lucky considering what happened to them a few moments later. I thought that was one of the more unusual shots I've seen in these games.
  3. There is an interesting paper I read a long time ago called Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer, by US Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a512331.pdf You might find it interesting since it goes into a lot of detail about modern infantry doctrine and weapons. It argued that U.S. infantry have been very under-powered for the type of fighting they were doing in Afghanistan. Back in the early 20th century, the U.S. went into WW1 with a professional army and a doctrine emphasizing marksmanship and accurate volleys of long-distance rifle fire. They used bigger rifles and bullets that could hit things pretty effectively out to 500m, and be very lethal even at 1000m. Going into WW2, Korea and then Vietnam, the U.S. had gotten used to dealing with large conscript armies on a very different type of battlefield, and doctrine shifted away from marksmanship and moved toward fire and maneuver tactics, with the emphasis on putting out a high volume of suppressive fire at shorter distances. Current U.S. equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for fighting on level terrain at ranges less than 300m. According to that paper, "Not only is the current U.S. infantryman less equipped to kill his enemy than his World War I predecessor, he is carrying far more weight than him." The 5.56 ammo used these days is less lethal and less effective at long range. In Afghanistan, the Taliban liked to park themselves up on mountaintops and just plink away at distant U.S. infantry using heavy machine guns (like the DShK with those giant 12.7x108mm bullets) and mortars, and the U.S. infantry down in the valleys would not be able to put down effective return fire. The heavily-laden U.S. infantry could not effectively maneuver in the rugged terrain and high altitudes, and would often have to sit there helplessly until they either pulled out or called in big guns and air support. CM seems to simulate this kind of thing pretty well. Weapon ballistics are what these games do best IMO. Sometimes I'm surprised at how under-powered my infantry is and I find myself relying very heavily on my vehicles and big guns in order to do anything. I remember playing many Shock Force scenarios where my U.S. infantry are getting sniped away or getting hit by DShK fire at long range and my infantry are helpless to do anything about it. Or maybe I'll pour thousands of rounds of 5.56 ammo into a building only to realize that it had little effect. I don't know much at all about British or the other NATO forces though, but they seem to be pretty similar to the U.S. I haven't played with the other Western forces very much. At least with the U.S, their vehicles and artillery and air support is their biggest asset. The infantry is there to be bodyguards and scouts for their vehicles. Once the infantry spots something, the vehicles roll up and destroy it. With the Syrians, it seems their best tactics are to either ambush the enemy at close range, or snipe and harass them at long range and then relocate before they can call in those big guns. Getting into an extended firefight at medium range is what Western forces are best at. They carry loads of ammo and their good morale and high volume of fire means they will always get fire superiority eventually and win. With the Syrians (especially the uncons/insurgents), running out of ammo can be a big concern, so you want to either harass and ambush or hit the enemy as hard as you can as quickly as possible with everything you have, to try and overrun their positions.
  4. Bozowans

    Great CMRT period war pic segment

    I love the camera work in that. A lot of stable, wide angle shots and no nauseating shakey-cam like you see all the time in modern film-making. You can actually see what's happening. Looks like an interesting movie too, I'll have to check it out. I don't get to see a lot of East German anti-fascist films.
  5. Bozowans

    A Plea to Developers

    I totally agree with the artillery thing. A while ago I read a memoir of a company commander in WW2 and he described walking artillery fire onto distant enemy positions just by the sound of it. He hit something too because he saw something really big blow up on the horizon. Artillery is obviously really, really loud and you can hear the shells flying through the air. Experienced soldiers can often tell where a shell is gonna hit before it even hits just by the sound it makes in the air. They'll know whether it's incoming or outgoing, and they'll know if they need to take cover or not. I don't care if artillery called in outside of LOS is inaccurate because sometimes you don't need it to be accurate. Also, for years I've wished they would add the ability to adjust the length and intensity of fire missions in progress. If I order a long, slow harassing mission on suspected enemy positions and accidentally start hitting a really important target (like a huge infantry concentration that I didn't know was there before), I want my FO to start yelling into the radio to keep firing and speed it up. I can't do that though. I would have to cancel the mission and call in an entirely new one and wait for spotting rounds to hit a target they were already hitting just a minute ago.
  6. No mention of CM: Stalingrad? Any early war east front stuff would be good. Instead of going back a year to 1943 for their next east front game, I wish they would skip a year or two and go back to when the German tanks were still grey. I'm just tired of seeing yellow German tanks in every game. Also I love playing as the Soviets. Charging into battle with waves of tank riders into a gigantic artillery barrage is an experience you just don't get anywhere else.
  7. Bozowans

    Update on Engine 4 patches

    I take it that means Shock Force 2 is doing well then? It's a shame to hear about the decline of wargaming. I'm quite young myself and it makes me wonder what wargaming will look like decades down the line (if it doesn't just die out). CM is like the dream wargame I had when I was playing with little toy soldiers and reading history books as a kid. I was amazed when I first saw CM with the 1:1 soldier representation and all that. Seems like one big cause of that decline would just be the sheer number of games there are now. It's like we're living in a golden age of video games where there are thousands and thousands of them to choose from. Someone else mentioned Paradox games like CK2 and EU4, and just those alone can suck hundreds of hours of your life away from you. I've spent way too much time with just CK2. Then there's all these other countless genres that I want to try out now and then. On top of that, people tend to work longer hours these days for less pay, and at least in the USA, the vast majority of people here live paycheck to paycheck or are outright in debt. So who has time to sit down and learn how to play complicated wargames? Gamers these days seem to demand infinite replayability for the cheapest possible price and the lowest possible effort, and it's easy to find some cheap game on Steam for a few bucks until you get bored of it and then go on to the next cheap game. It doesn't seem like there is really any answer to that.
  8. I thought the game was about the post-war counterinsurgency just as much as it is about the initial invasion. There are a number of scenarios in the game already that take place long after the invasion and deal with routine occupation forces running into trouble from insurgents.
  9. I've been reading the book House to House by David Bellavia, about his experiences in Fallujah in 2004. He described the insurgents there using mortars quite effectively, walking fire onto the US forces as they charged into the city. Before the assault, he described an artillery duel they got into with an insurgent spotter. They pulled a Humvee up to a ridgeline outside the city and set up an observation post. Eventually they spotted sunlight glinting off binoculars from an insurgent spotter within the city and called in a fire mission onto the guy's location. The insurgent must have had the same idea because a short while later a mortar exploded almost directly on top of their Humvee. A few minutes later though, the insurgent was turned into pink mist when his position was blown to bits. Outside Fallujah there was a five foot high railroad embankment or berm that traversed the landscape and blocked vehicle access to the city except through certain roads. For the main assault, the US plan was to move up engineers during the night to blast holes into the berm and then rush the main assault battalions through the breach as part of a gigantic headlong charge into the city while it was still dark. Once they made it into the city, the infantry would dismount their vehicles and then assault the nearest buildings. This was of course preceded by a massive days-long air and artillery bombardment that destroyed much of the city. Despite the heavy bombardment and the darkness, the insurgents were able to direct pretty accurate mortar fire onto the masses of US vehicles as they moved through the breaches. Bellavia described looking out the portholes of his Bradley and seeing mortars exploding among their vehicles while they were moving along, so the response times of the insurgents must have been pretty fast. The insurgents timed it so they would hit the US forces with mortars, volleys of RPGs and dozens of IEDs as they charged in, and they knocked out or at least damaged a lot of the US vehicles. Bellavia described seeing a Bradley burst into flames and a lot of the other ones get hit, including his own. The insurgents did have a lot of time to prepare for that battle, but it's interesting reading about what they were capable of. Despite being massively outnumbered and outgunned in every conceivable way by a global superpower, they were still able to cause like 700 casualties to the Coalition forces over the course of that battle.
  10. I may have missed it but I didn't see this talked about anywhere else on this forum. They are all invisible in the setup phase, but the moment you hit go you can see the outlines of every enemy trench on the map even if they haven't been spotted by your units yet. Is that a bug or what? That doesn't happen in the WW2 games. It kind of defeats the point of putting those new trenches in the game instead of the ditches from Shock Force 1 doesn't it? Here's one "spotted" trench piece yet you can still see a ghost outline of the rest of the entire trench system: And another:
  11. Bozowans

    Terrain Description

    Maybe I will! Unless someone else had already made one. A short terrain guide would be very useful for these games. Like in Fortress Italy everyone should know to never, ever drive into those vineyards. Yet you wouldn't know that until you end up losing an entire tank platoon by driving into one. That would cause a lot of frustration if you didn't save your game.
  12. Bozowans

    Terrain Description

    A thick, detailed manual? What, like adding two more pages to it? It wouldn't take much to explain what the terrain types are. And yes it would make the game more approachable. Otherwise you wouldn't get people coming onto these forums just to ask how the game works. Do you dislike strategy guides? Because that's all stuff you're supposed to figure out for yourself through trial and error or something? Is it too much to ask for a picture of mud that says "this is mud - increased risk of bogging"? Or a picture of a potato field that says "this is a potato field"? I can write all this out myself if I wanted. It doesn't have to tell you that this exact type of terrain has a 24.67% increased chance of bogging for this type of tank, and a 37.32% chance for this other type of tank on it. And what do you mean, "those that come prepared like in *real life* have an advantage?" You mean like going into the editor and laying out terrain types and testing them? You can't do that in real life. I'm just not sure why you would deliberately want to make the game more confusing for new players. And for those of you talking about how there a billion different variations of a terrain tile because sometimes there can be stuff on top of it, okay I get that. That's not what I'm talking about though. All I want to know is what the underlying terrain texture is supposed to be. That's it.
  13. Bozowans

    Terrain Description

    It's not like this information is unknowable to the player already. Anyone can open the editor and lay out the terrain types and see what they do themselves. Or they can read about the terrain and their exact mechanics on these forums, so you always know exactly what terrain you're driving over in the game. It's just a pain to do all that. If you're playing multiplayer, this also gives the ultra-grognard types even more of an advantage than they normally would over a new player. The grognards would already know all the hidden mechanics of the game that the manual doesn't tell you because they've gone in the editor and tested every little thing, while a new player would not know any of this and all it does in the end is make the game more un-approachable.
  14. I thought this was an interesting firefight in the last game that I played. Russian troops attempt to cross a bridge under heavy fire from Ukrainian positions across the river. The view from one of the Ukrainian positions: ''' An RPG slams into one of the lead vehicles: Seconds later, another RPG crashes into the middle of the infantry huddled behind the vehicles, causing four casualties: The Russian APCs are all destroyed and the infantry are pinned down behind the vehicles, taking heavy losses. With the APCs down, more Ukrainian infantry emerge from hiding and the defensive fire intensifies. The bridge fills with dead and wounded. The Russians have decided they have had enough and are sent streaming back across the bridge in disarray.
  15. Bozowans

    Terrain Description

    Yeah I agree with this. This game is still kind of abstracted somewhat. This is a video game and you can't 100% perfectly simulate the complexity of real-life terrain in a video game. For example, real terrain is almost never going to be perfectly flat like a pool table. Even mostly flat terrain is gonna have small undulations and curves and objects in it that someone could potentially use as cover. Yet in the game, flat terrain is perfectly flat because it's impossible to simulate terrain to that level of detail. Your guys in the game should have a much better idea of what the terrain looks like than you do. You're just looking at pixels and blurry textures on a screen. Sometimes it's really hard for me to figure out what some terrain tiles are. Is it soft ground or mud or is it just dirt or what? Am I gonna risk bogging my vehicles down if I go across it? If you were standing there in front of it in real life you would know exactly what it is. So why don't they just tell you what each tile is in the manual? We shouldn't have to go into the editor and lay out all the different terrain types and test them ourselves just to see what they do.
×