Jump to content

Josey Wales

Members
  • Content Count

    83
  • 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

736 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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'
  3. 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?
  4. 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"?
  5. Josey Wales

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    Ok now I understand where you are coming from in regards to over concentration of defensive assets in that an attacker should have a 3 to 1 advantage as a general rule of thumb. As for defence in depth I can give an example where the German outpost positions at El-Alamein were 7km in front of the main line.
  6. Josey Wales

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    So now you've thrown a separate argument into the mix. My response to your original post demonstrates by using an example of divisional organisation, that your assessment of AT guns being too common is incorrect. It also demonstrates that your assertion that "Players are usually not informed enough to realize that no one would realistically expect them to fight their way through defense lines as deep as usually encountered in a CM scenario. " is also incorrect because in reality lines were deeper than can be shown on a CM map and that they were indeed attacked. To address your latest assumption, if you do not think that divisional organisation effects the Order of Battle for a given scenario and that in turn does not then effect scenario design then you are talking nonsense as I am sure one of the many scenario designers will point out to you. If you think the scenarios are unrealistic perhaps you would like to give specific examples so that the designers can address the accusation.
  7. Josey Wales

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    @SimpleSimon I am not sure about you're assertion about AT guns being too common. A PanzerGrenadier Division in 1944 would have 19 AT guns (Pak 40's), 31 tank destroyers and 42 assault guns to support the 6 infantry battalions. This averages out to about 3 AT guns, 4 tank destroyers and 7 assault guns per battalion. It is not unreasonable to assume that a map size of 500m x 1500m would be defended by an rifle company, in which case you would expect to find at least 1 Pak 40, 1 tank destroyer and an assault gun section. I also do not find it unreasonable to suggest that the brigade or division commanders may concentrate additional assets into this area if they had intelligence to support an imminent attack. Earlier German infantry divisions would have had 36 AT guns to support 9 battalions plus another 36 guns in the AT battalion making a total of 72 guns. This averages out to 8 guns per battalion or about 2 or 3 per rifle company if the commanders structured it so. I am also not sure about your second assertion that the defensive lines in a CM scenario are unrealistically deep. The reality is that a single CM scenario cannot portray the actual depth of a WW2 defensive line. German doctrine on defense outlines 3 separate lines to create a defense in depth, a main line, an advance line and an outpost line. An attacker does not always have the opportunity to flank such a position. The best WW2 example of defense in depth is the Russian defense at the Batlle of Kursk. The defensive line was 190 miles deep.
  8. Josey Wales

    Which to Buy?

    @Elcloudythanks for the praise, glad you enjoy the vids. I would suggest just buy one of them. As a newcomer you won't notice the difference. It's only those who got used to playing 3.0 that noticed the differences in 4.0. I play H2H via PBEM on 4.0 and am having a great time. Each battle is a fresh challenge and extremely immersive. My opponent is in the same boat as I am so neither of us are at an unfair advantage or disadvantage. It doesn't really matter which bundle you buy. If you don't like it then so be it. If you do like it then in 12 months time you'll probably buy another bundle.
  9. Josey Wales

    Which to Buy?

    CMFB = cold and forested CMFI = hot and hilly CMRT = open terrain CMBN = close terrain (bocage) I started with CMFI because I came to the CM2 series late, however I would recommend starting with CMBN as it currently has the most expansions. It's also the most popular for multiplayer.
  10. Yes agreed. I have just tried this in CMFI with a Bttn HQ and an Operations Team. When the Bttn Commander is killed the 'Asst' of the Operations team takes over the Bttn HQ function (Icon changes). Not sure why I thought I saw something different when I looked at this this last year but it could well have been the reason you have laid out with regards to the role description in the lower-left-hand green text. Good spot indeed!.
  11. The Coy XO definitely takes over if the Coy Commander goes down. A Bttn XO does not appear take over if the Bttn Commander goes down. It would seem as if from @Bulletpoint's post that the Asst Plt Ldr behaves more like a Bttn XO than a Coy XO. I have no idea or explanation as why it is like this. As for a leader attributes passing down to his subordinate units - this categorically does not happen. I explain this in my post The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue To conceptualise this, imagine the leadership modifier is exactly the same as the fitness modifier with respect to who it affects. An unfit Platoon HQ that gets out of breath walking up a hill does not mean that all of the squads under their command get out of breath walking up the hill. The same for Leadership. A Plt Leader who has a -2 Leadership modifier only applies that modifier to the rest of the Platoon HQ. The squads are dependent on the leadership modifier of their individual Squad Leaders (or team leaders when split). I think this gets confusing for people because of 2 reasons. 1. The Leadership modifier is the only soft factor that can dynamically change as a result of casualties. 2. It is the only one of the factors that is applied to individuals as opposed to the team as a whole. Experience, Fitness and Motivation remain the same for a unit throughout the game irrespective of which individual within the team becomes a casualty. What I mean here is that a unit with +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and is Fit at the start of the game will still have +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and be Fit at the end, even if all but one member is killed and the unit is Rattled and Exhausted. Leadership, however, will change depending on which individual becomes the casualty. If for example the sole survivor of a squad is Sgt Cane who had a +2 Leadership modifier at the beginning, the Squad will still have the +2 Leadership modifier. However if the sole survivor is Private Pants then the Leadership modifier is likely to have changed to -1 or -2. The the other soft factors will remain the same as they were at the beginning because they apply to the unit as a collective.
  12. @11:48 "I see troops but I'm not sure if they are enemy"" Quickly brings up 'genuine WW2 GPS map' showing his exact location and brightly coloured moving markers. Sigh!!!
  13. Josey Wales

    Fatigue test

    @axxe good work. It ties in with my own findings. Fatigue has no noticeable effect on spotting or shooting. The only factor which does is experience.
  14. I go through phases. I feel as if I understand reasonably well how to put together an attack so at the moment I prefer defensive battles. I find mounting a good defense to be technically very challenging. With a defensive battle you pretty much play the game before the first turn, especially if you lack mobility. I would argue that as a defender you need to be more thorough in your METT-T and OCOKA analysis than when attacking as you will typically lack flexibility after the game starts.
×