Jump to content

Snake726

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Snake726

    Urban Combat Training Article

    Given the success of my latest CMBS game, I think the most essential part of urban combat is having a Stryker 105mm weapons platform behind you, and if you take any fire, take the building down
  2. Snake726

    StG 44 in the upcoming CMRT module

    Usually the disagreement is the appearance of the Stg, even in earlier test iterations, in games which occur in 1942, such as Stalingrad. They just weren't weren't being tested there. Late war Berlin? The Ardennes? Sure - still not ubiquitous, but that's primarily where they were.
  3. Speaking of VG "human wave" attacks, I have read that this is really a reported perception, not a tactic. That is, first-hand accounts sometimes report a "human wave" attack, but the argument is that what has in fact happened is that successive assault waves have become tangled up and clumped together due to poor planning and/or poor execution during an attack. We all know that a frontal attack involves, well, getting up and moving forward. But I haven't found a historian yet who cites anyone ordering human wave attacks - not even the Russians, whom I always had assumed had launched these sort of attacks, thanks to media representations of it. For instance, during the Normandy landings and in the Pacific you see some instances of individuals or small units charging unsuppressed machinegun positions, eliminating them, but being killed in the process. This is the sort of thing that happened to larger units. For instance, in Beevor's book Ardennes 44 he describes an American machinegun crew holding off an SS unit all day, noting that the Germans continually mounted charges straight ahead. This was not a "human wave", but a failure to locate and suppress the enemy base of fire before advancing - they were trying to get away with movement without the fire. Similarly, at Cassino, we can imagine what would have happened if the Commonwealth didn't have artillery support, and if the first wave was pinned down crossing open ground. Subsequent assault waves would pile up, and unit leaders would perhaps get men moving forward under fire to avoid remaining in the kill zone. So, a "human wave" attack is really nonsensical as a concept, something that commanders do not order - rather it is advancing under fire, with the perception that a "human wave" attack has occurred when the defenders are overrun or are able to defeat a large attack that wasn't properly supported.
  4. Snake726

    Soviet Mortar Usage IRL

    I believe the primary reason that the Soviets centralized their artillery was because calculating different fires for different guns was an exponential problem - the Americans solved it over a decade and with the help of handheld radios and computer-assisted ballistics research, which provided American spotters with printed cards which assisted them in calling down fire. The Soviets likely could not have mimicked American doctrine, even if they had a radio for every man. That is, the Soviets figured that rather than calculate separate fires for X guns, they could divide those guns into groups and concentrate on the same coordinates. Artillery concentration on a large scale was achieved by all parties in the war - the Americans had a bigger hammer than most, it's just that they were the only ones with access to a scalpel as well.
  5. Snake726

    The state of CMSF2

    Unity of Command 2 is not simple, or 2D - for the second game, two developers are creating an entire 3D engine, and then the game system, and then the content, on top. It's taken them about two years so far. Nothing simple about that. DCS is also not simple - each plane or helicopter is essentially a new, separate physics engine inside of the core game, taking at least a couple years to develop. The John Tiller games are probably the most similar to the current state of Battlefront development - neither team is currently developing a new engine, but rather are developing new content for their existing engines. Whether it is 2D or 3D does not matter in terms of content creation: both require map creation, OOB research, art assets, scenario creation, campaign creation etc. Again, some of these teams are literally two people. Battlefront can find the time if they wish to. You don't need to pay several salaries to write a blog post. If you don't know what you're working on, and so can't think about how to write an update post, then there are bigger problems at hand. Battlefront doesn't *need* to do anything - fans are just suggesting that the series might do well to keep up the appearance that the lights are on. This is why so many other very, very small studios in the same niche wargaming space are making an effort to do so. People are suggesting this as a positive addition, not a criticism to be ardently defended against - as if the Battlefront team needs every waking moment to work, and the rest to sleep - they don't even have time to eat, let alone write a blog post one every 6 months: such a thing will slow down development! [/s]
  6. Snake726

    The state of CMSF2

    True, but there are plenty of examples of studios that are composed of very small teams providing community updates: Graviteam, John Tiller's teams, DCS and their contractors, and hey, the Unity of Command guys post blogs monthly - and their team is two people: https://unityofcommand.net/blog/ Again, not meant as criticism, but lots of people are doing it on a shoestring, nearly alone. VR Designs literally only has one developer (he makes the Decisive Campaigns series), and he provides design blogs as well: http://www.vrdesigns.net/?p=1829 Actually, speak of the devil, the John Tiller guys just posted their first video: http://www.wargamedesignstudio.com/2018/08/23/panzer-battles-north-africa-1941-youtube-video-1/
  7. 1. It's strange because it's not the case; as the OP mentioned, the Marine are in the process of trials to adopt the M27 IAR. In fact, they're wanting to use the same rifle in different configurations for riflemen and marksmen as well - much like the British model. (https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/03/08/congress-grills-marines-over-m27/) The US Army has not followed suit not because they are concerned with the magazine capacity of the M27, but rather because it is chambered in 5.56 rather than 7.62, which brass believes will not solve for what they imagine to be a proliferation of body armour. (https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/02/14/army-wont-follow-usmc-adopting-m27-iar/) One element to consider is that unless the report is factually incorrect, they make a good point if the 3-5 round burst technique employed by SAW gunners is in fact only delivering one bullet on target. If they are just factually wrong about this, or are lying, then you have a point - but there is no way to tell from this one study. 2. The solution seems not to necessarily be a new gadget, but the advocacy of delivering single rounds rather than bursts, at least at the ranges of modern combats. It may well have been that the MG42 did so well because it made a terrifying sound, not because it was terrible accurate past 300 yards. American infantrymen were, after some time in Normandy, advised to get up and bound forward when they ceased to hear the weapon firing - because it indicated that the gun was being reloaded. This indicates that many American infantrymen were effectively suppressed to some degree not even by close proximity to fire, but by knowing that they could be if they stood up. This is likely the suppression effect achieved by cyclic fire or sustained bursts, and may well serve as a counter-argument to the article. Those rounds may not have to hit accurately near the target to suppress them if it is the case that soldiers keep their heads down upon hearing close sustained fire. Likely this varies largely on training, with greener troops being more easily suppressed by proximity fire and the noise of sustained fire, and better trained soldiers ignoring proximity fire and noise as a metric. 3. Not if the Minimi is the SAW employed by a military. The US Army might have the M240 higher up the chain, but the M249 is the SAW employed - they don't have several different types of SAWs serving the same role. Many forces employ it, so it is a reasonable thing to advocate changing - and the article is likely advocating it because the Marines and the Army are actively looking to replace it, and so there is big money there. The article is not the odd man out in advocating this, it is what those services are requesting.
  8. Snake726

    The state of CMSF2

    Good point Alex; the aircraft sim DCS does a good job of this (for Battlefront's reference): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2018-07-27_YAK52/ They just lay out some of the things they are planning, generally to work on, which I think people interested in whichever aircraft is being discussed, find interesting, and gives them the sense that work is progressing - especially when, like these games, it might take one or two years before the product is ever seen. Below is an example of one of their updates: Complete the AIM-7 with addition of FLOOD, Home On Jam (HOJ), and LOFT sub-modes. Integrate AIM-120B/C for STT employment (TWS employment will come later). Integrate AIM-9X Block I. This includes both flight dynamics and new tones. Afterwards, in August or September, we will add the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS). Complete RWS air-to-air radar mode with such features as Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR), AACQ mode, Latent Track While Scan (LTWS) mode, Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) settings, ability to change radar settings with TDC along outside of radar tactical area, radar speed gate setting, COLOR option, and more. Complete radar warning receiver functionality with contact symbols and modifiers, EW HUD, and the OFFSET function. Integrate Paveway II series laser-guided bombs (GBU-10, 12, and 16) with JTAC designation. Further tuning of flight model with touch and go performance, gear drag, half flaps drag, takeoff pitch characteristics, and extreme angle of attack performance. Brightness control for the HSI display. Multiplayer carrier deck spawning issues. Wingtip vortices errors at low airspeed.
  9. Having played it so many times from the Bluefor side, I think the best thing that Red can do on this map is to lightly hold Golf, but spread out in the rear with lines of sight on the objective. Golf is actually very hard to approach, and because of the low wall in front of the building complex, the Americans have to make a final approach on one of the main roads. While you might be tempted to get some units in there up close for ambushes, they'll eventually get busted out of their position. But there is very little cover for the Americans when they hit those main roads - so set up fire lanes with your MGs, snipers, and RPGs. If you can force the Americans to assault several buildings toward the rear to dislodge you, you can make things very sketchy for them. CQC always has the ability to be deadly, and in order to effectively lay covering fire on a building, a Bluefor player will need at least another squad, and probably two in support: so if you can manage to surprise them, then to get you out of there they will have to re-orient and waste time sending squads here and there to do that work. Hopefully in that time you can also hit those support squads as they bound across the roads.
  10. A note to new players: I played this scenario probably about 10 times in the demo over the period of about a year, and got slaughtered every time. After watching a video playthrough, I noticed that hooking left is far more agreeable than hooking right. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps the map intended this. That is, what I was doing before was attempting to skirt the first city blocks, positioning an MG there as a base of fire and maneuvering against Golf from the right. This was pretty much suicide. So - approach from head on, hose those buildings down with lead and 203's, and don't forget to mortar the hell out of that PKM wherever it ends up showing itself.
  11. Snake726

    The state of CMSF2

    In regards to the thought about providing some sort of updates, I understand the concern of a small team when it comes to communication (I have been working in games for just over 10 years, and my current team is about 8 people). However, I think it's not quite true that some kind of community update does not fit the wargaming community - especially since the hardcore folks here who are the core audience, buying most of the games (maybe all of them?), are literally asking for it. But a good example is the John Tiller team - certainly an equally niche, nerdy wargame outfit, and they have been producing some great new community updates. They have even gone so far as to ask for map feedback, which has already lead to some positive changes and an alternate terrain set. Here are some examples - note that they are not weekly or monthly affairs at all, so it is not a regular thing for them either - but they do make a note to publish on a schedule, and the posts are meaty: http://www.wargamedesignstudio.com/2018/08/05/north-africa-graphics-round-2/ http://www.wargamedesignstudio.com/2018/07/21/wargame-design-studio-2018-half-yearly-report-part-two/
×