Jump to content

Rinaldi

Members
  • Content Count

    965
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by Rinaldi

  1. Yikes. Imagining asking him that when you can ask him the much more burning question: Who killed Vince Foster?
  2. This, obviously. Though if I was actually able to have a single modicum of influence on what they release next: battlepacks for Black Sea. The team has a well-thought out strategic and operational chain of events for the game that are itching to be fleshed out. In fact, I think focusing on smaller, shorter releases would benefit every title after the next spate of modules. As much as everyone is looking forward to the end-war modules and the hinted-at formation expansions in Black Sea, I'd like to see the singleplayer experience built up some more with the type of small, 3-6 mission campaigns we've seen recently.
  3. Love it, can't wait to replay it in the new engine. Congrats George.
  4. Jesus....mate, I can give it a go in French and Italian if that'll help some.
  5. Others have already commented generally on the differences, or the typical roles. You'll see the recurring theme: XOs, Platoon Sergeants (or Platoon Warrant Officers depending on the nation) tend to have overlap in roles regarding cas evac, combat service support and first echelon supply (e.g.: scooting around with a jeep full of ammo). If you want to get lost in the sauce and split hairs over branches, different countries whatever, then that's your prerogative but I think it's an exercise in futility. The bottom line of all these points is that there's more similarities than differences in how Western countries operate their armies. Now to confuse you: If you're looking for clarification, let me make something perfectly clear, none of this is perfectly clear. Seriously, 'SOPs' are all well and good but the best commander will think on his feet. SOPs are only there for the most general of general situations. Ultimately: the goal of an XO, a 2IC, PSG, PWO or whatever meaningless acronym to say "Number 2" you wish to use, is to help ease the burden of command on his Number 1. This can, and often is, done through the aforementioned means of policing up the rear of a unit or helping evac losses, etc. Now as @Combatintman has already mentioned some limitations in the game (especially regarding platoon NCOs), as well as the fact that CM's mission-oriented scale means you rarely have to deal with Combat Service Support I'll use another example of how a 2IC/XO/Yadda yadda can help ease command. What CM does get right is the information aspect of battles. A commander, as you said, needs to be up front and aware of the situation to effectively command. The flipside of this is he is only seeing a small slice of the pie. Use your Number 2 to help paint a complete picture rapidly. Lets say this: If the Company leader is with say, Platoons 2 and 3, which is making the main effort, keep the XO with Platoon 1 and its attachments. You accomplish several of your desired goals at once: You are putting your XO to use and not putting your entire command network in the same place to die at once. It also means the XO can keep the Commander 'in the loop' about happenings elsewhere on the tactical battlefield, and exert some authority. You're looking for clear answers where there are none, is the gist of what I'm saying. Exert a bit of common sense and do not let an asset as useful as a second in command go to waste sitting on its thumbs. Again you're asking for clear answers where there are none. For the sake of brevity I'll just tell you to look at @Howler's posts again because all I'd do is repeat what he had to say. There is no cut-out answer you can simply paste on to a situation. Identify the problem you need to solve and plan accordingly. If I am absolutely forced to give you a few spitball examples, I might make the best/best lead platoon the main effort in a situation where C2 is likely to be dodgy, such as in built-up terrain. I may be less picky if I'm attacking in open terrain and the virtual CO can exert his influence with greater ease. I'm not even going to address the minutiae of 'which weapon goes into which hands' because it is, to me, trite. Such decisions like that rarely make a meaningful impact past the smallest of unit scenarios, a coherent plan is much more important than which nineteen year old has the HAT. Otherwise, if you are still starving for a general rule you want that is most applicable, refer to @Combatintman 's post: Put your best foot forward for the toughest issues.
  6. Makes me feel better about my performance then. Way back when I was a greenhorn at the game I made an AAR of a H2H against it and got a sloppy, sloppy victory as the Americans. The scenario was a bit janky but played out very well, I thought. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U042G71tyEo
  7. Yes all officers are useless and the Specialist can run the Army, if only someone gave him the chance 🙄
  8. Y I K E S. I'm not exactly sure you know what that acronym means. XOs are usually tasked with dealing with casualty clearance and policing up straggling units. Also, how is an Executive Officer going to exert command or aid his CO if he is 'safe in the rear.' "Hey Joe, can you take x platoon (+) and help ease burden of command?" "Tosh sah, I'll be sitting here waiting in the wings in case you buy the farm." For someone who wants to use real standard operating procedures, you show a remarkable aversion to them.
  9. Rule 1: Never keep recon assets in reserve.
  10. Lovely to see Daryya tank raid being updated @George MC - it's one of my favourite scenarios. Any plans on updating Forging Steel....if so, need play testers?
  11. I have read the thread @Erwin, and scouting is scouting. The bulk of it is dismount work unless the situation is utterly fluid. Having been a recce man myself back in Canada, I say this with some authority. I have a humble request: stop spouting nonsense.
  12. Scouting before you move is something you think doesn't occur in real life? No they're not.
  13. Some whiny SOBs on these forums with huge, unjustified, victim complexes.
  14. I'm familiar with the mission. It's a tabletop-flat terrain for the Syrians to attack over. You have to remember that skilled operators of an ATGMs are constantly making micro-adjustments to the missile's flight line. Couple that with them firing from roofs or raised berms and its completely plausible they're hitting turret-tops rather than glacis. Its not a bug or the game giving MILAN systems more capability than they would normally have.
  15. Sony Vegas Pro 13 is my go-to when I can't use Windows moviemaker (you can still download it from legacy sites). Vegas allows you to crop out the UI without having to tinker with recording software and is quite easy to overlay text. Don't waste your time with Hitfilm, you're better off sticking with DaVinci in that case. Vegas is expensive though, and I'm not going to encourage you to use extralegal means of acquiring it.
  16. Quick update: The AAR isn't dead! I have a series of screenshots but haven't had the time to update. Surplice and myself have also taken a quick break from the game to handle some periods of work in both our respective lives. For the two of you still reading, watch this space.
  17. Same boat as you presently,. Asides from my current PBEM with @BrotherSurplice I'm defending in all my other games - namely because I want some damn practice in it.
  18. Edit: Ninja'd. Better you hear it from the horses' mouth. Not Bil but - you don't necessarily have to move to an entirely new position to avoid this. Baneman's armor presumably had at least tentative contacts in the area; and he had at least one of them positioned on pieces of high ground that would have allowed him to simply roll back a few meters to break line of sight. A combination of rolling forward with target arcs and a pause command, rolling backwards, rinse and repeat may have been enough in this case to keep the majority of threats frustrated. In the modern titles too when info is disseminated so much faster horizontally and vertically, "?" markers from OPs and other units would come pouring in to the tanks relatively quickly, often a matter of seconds, not minutes, making this much more viable. A MBT doesn't need to stare at a piece of terrain for minutes on end to spot targets. If contact isn't imminent even moving a few meters left or right of the position you've currently taken every few turns could help, sometimes even within the same battle position. Again: Baneman had a few armored vehicles positioned on terrain that could have easily masked his shift. Namely reverse slopes, as shown or in foilage which is better than nothing. Finally, try to remember you have instant blooming IR-blocking smoke on most APCs and IFVs in game - when in doubt, have the TC pop some and displace.
  19. Pretty decisive shift in advantage, at least at first glance - but you're right to not take anything for granted. He has Javelins too, after all. An advantage can be squandered fairly quickly that way. Preaching to the choir, obviously... That does make me want to ask though: Are you going to maintain your position at BP1 for a bit and develop things or are you planning on closing in and destroying before he can get some sort of response set up? You've noted quite a few dismounts moving alongside, or in front of, his IFVs. Makes me wonder if he's had the wherewithal to grab Javelins or leave a few behind in overwatch from his Warrior platoon. Based on his movements, my gut says no. Really does look like he was planning to get into objectives/built-up terrain with infantry while the tanks dominated the open space - even if it meant going about it in a pell-mell manner.
  20. I have. I liked it. I'm sure if I did a second viewing I could find quite a bit to critique about it, but the first viewing was enjoyable.
×
×
  • Create New...