Jump to content

Josey Wales

Members
  • Content Count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Josey Wales last won the day on February 2

Josey Wales had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Josey Wales

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

832 profile views
  1. No, the impact on morale from casualties (Combat Stress) for a platoon losing all 4 members of its HQ team is the same as if it lost 4 junior members from from one of the platoon's rifle squads. The only difference would be is, if that HQ unit was providing a buffer against Combat Shock (the effect of suppression on the morale of a unit) immediately prior to being wiped out, then the impact would be greater for those squads that were within it's C2 and under fire as that buffer would now be gone.
  2. Very interesting, perhaps this is what the CM system is based on?!
  3. Yes, a bad use of terminology on my part which I can see may muddy the water. What I should have said was that the permanent impact on morale can only be caused by the build up of casualties (Combat Stress) either within the unit or units closely associated via the OOB (eg same platoon).
  4. No, the impact on morale from suppression is only temporary. As you have seen, you can reduce a unit from OK to Panic with suppression alone, but if they sustain no casualties, they will recover all the way back to OK. Hence the term Combat Shock, as a shock is a temporary effect that wears off. The permanent impact on morale can only be caused by the build up of casualties either directly within the unit or by casualties sustained by units connected via C2 (eg same platoon). This is termed Combat Stress as stress insinuates an ongoing effect. You can cause a unit to Panic using suppression alone, but you will not cause it to become Broken. For that you will either need to kill or maim them or their buddies.
  5. I am not sure that this is correct. The 'Brittle' indicator only appears when troops are in the 'Broken' morale state. The only other states that a 'Broken' unit can be in are 'Shaken' or 'Panic' (which are caused by the Broken unit being under suppression). The Brittle indicator disappears when a Broken unit is Shaken or Panicked, but returns once the unit reverts back to 'Broken'. If I am wrong about this then it would be pretty easy to prove. Just show an image of the Brittle indicator present in any other morale state other than Broken. If I am correct then I am not sure why there is a Brittle indicator at all.
  6. @MOS:96B2P yes the effects of Combat Stress move through the C2 structure. A squad may have taken no casualties, but if the other squads in the platoon have been torn to shreds then they will be suffering a permanent impact on morale irrespective of how near or far they are from the other squads geographically. This can cause some odd effects but in general its a good system.
  7. You're not wrong, work is manic at the moment!! @IanLhas it right The effect of suppression on morale (Combat Shock) is temporary and wears off once the suppression has lifted. The speed at which it wears off is dependent on the Experience & Leadership of the unit. The 'Broken' state is different from all of the other states as it cannot be arrived at by Combat Shock (suppression). A Broken unit which then suffers Combat Shock (suppression) will become either Shaken or Panicked until the suppression wears off when it will revert to Broken. In the video, the first example shows the conscript squad starting at 'Ok', then suffering Combat Shock from suppression and dropping down to 'Nervous'. They then take a casualty which pushes them into 'Panic' as a result of the combined effects of Combat Shock and now Combat Stress. As the Combat Shock wears off (suppression indicator empties) the squad recovers to 'Nervous' as a result of the permanent impact of Combat Stress from sustaining a casualty. I'd be honoured Bil
  8. Video 1 looks like the Indirect Fire bug that @HerrTomhas alluded to. The unit takes 1 casualty and suffers about 70% suppression and drops to the morale state of 'Nervous'. The unit leader is the casualty, but the assistant takes over who also has +1 Leadership. Can a hand grenade cause the Indirect Fire bug? Video 2 looks like a typical auto evade when troops in the 'Rattled' morale state become Pinned. I cannot comment on video 3 as I don't have any information on the unit status. When I see my troops in CM behave in a way different to what I expect, I can typically 'roleplay out' the situation so as to be less dissatisfied with the result. It is hard to make that case here in either of the first 2 vids. In vid 1, the unit does not panic, nor does it suffer from being led by an incompetent. The unit is merely dropped to 'Nervous' and still has a capable leader fronting it up. The unit is also aware of 2 enemy contacts to the north. I would therefore find it difficult to roleplay out the situation that developed and would come to the conclusion that something was wrong with the TacAI. In vid 2, the unit is Rattled and (probably) Pinned whilst moving. The auto evade kicks in but again, I find it difficult to roleplay out that they would run back into the fire that was coming at them. Again I have to conclude that something here is wrong. Having said that I have never witnessed a situation in any of my own games that I have not been able to roleplay out, but I've also never witnessed the Indirect Fire bug demonstrated by @IICptMillerII. That's not to deny it exists, just that I've not seen it in a game I've played. I do not have the Shock Force 2 demo.
  9. Whilst the morale state of a squad is the average of the teams that compose it, the fatigue state that is applied to the squad is that of the team with the lowest state. e.g. 2 teams with a Cautious morale state (not being caused by suppression) join up with their 3rd team which has a Rattled state (not being caused by suppression) will average the squad out to Nervous. However, 2 teams that are rested joining up with their fatigued team mates make the entire squad fatigued. This is because an element can only move as fast as it's slowest sub-element whilst maintaining cohesion.
  10. WeGo, PBEM head to head, the contrast between control and no control and the ebb and flow of a game. Playing CM against a human opponent is like a slow game of chess where you're trying to out think each other. Once everything's settled at home for the evening, I love opening up CM Helper to see my opponent has sent me a turn. Then the nail biting tension as I watch the replay file to see if my attack has worked, or if I've been a dumbass and got my elite pixeltruppen wiped out to a man. CM is a brilliant, amazing, fantastic game. Is it the best game I've ever played? .....Probably!
  11. I watched the fall of ISIS on this website, particularly the battles for Mosul and Raqqa which I watched unfold on here daily. You can look back in time at the territory it held in 2014 and compare it to now. Edit: well you used to be able to, now it seems to only go back to 2017 for that conflict.
  12. The danger of having a split squad is that each individual team will Rattle, Shake and Panic quicker when taking casualties than a combined squad. This is due to the percentages. 1 man KIA in a 4 man team is a 25% casualty rate, whereas 1 man KIA in a 12 man squad is...well you do the maths! There is a case to be made for keeping a squad intact for certain specific tasks. Although this increases the risk of higher casualties from explosives, it can be useful when you want that extra bit of punch and resilience. I will use a combined squad against a weakened position that I want gone but have no other means of getting it done other than to send in the grunts, and am confident that the position has been isolated. Additionally splitting teams in a green or conscript squad is the best way to ensure everyone runs away at the first sign of trouble. Also if you split a squad that is Nervous (when not under suppression), you will have 1 or 2 of the teams become Rattled when split. To add my 2 cents into the 'Fire and Manoeuvre' debate, I think that the concept would be clearer if the drill were renamed 'Fire, Fire, Fire, Fire & Manoeuvre'. The reason that this drill fails in game is typically because equal weight is given to each component. That is to say that a typical way of interpreting 'Fire and Manoeuvre' is to have 1st squad firing and 2nd squad manoeuvring (or 1 team firing and 1 team manoeuvring) If the 80/20 rule is used, then Fire and Manoeuvre becomes much more successful. Therefore; 'Fire, Fire, Fire, Fire & Manoeuvre'
  13. Josey Wales

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    Now now let's keep it civil! So it's not the depth of the line now, but rather the assets the defending force has, the assets the attacking force has, how effective the briefing was, the terrain and how good a player you are? I am interested to know what this unbeatable scenario is, perhaps I'll make a video AAR of it. Is it the Hammer's Flank Crossing the River scenario you keep alluding to?
  14. Josey Wales

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    I wouldn't know how to answer how you would quantify a 3 to 1 advantage against a combined arms defence as I've never had any official training on how you would assess that, but I can understand how you can make the claim that the defenders in a scenario are over concentrated based on this as a general factor. I can even accept that the defender is over concentrated for a given geographic area given the fact that we are dealing with a game that has to provide entertainment as well as realism. However, given that you accept that defensive lines in real life (which were attacked and broken through) can be much larger than even the largest CM map, how do you justify the statement that "players wouldn't be expected to fight through lines as deep as usually encountered in a CM scenario"?
×