Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/09/2015 in all areas

  1. What is not being understood here is that "murdering" the enemy force IS NOT the objective in war. Neutralizing the enemy force is. And no, that is not just semantics. Like Bill pointed out earlier, unless you have a massive advantage in firepower or manpower, you cannot ignore terrain in a fight, and even then doing so would be wasteful in most circumstances. In reality, all battles are won by achieving and advantage of some kind. Whether that is through troop concentration to achieve mass for assault, or bombardment reduce the enemy's ability to resist, or through maneuver to force the
    6 points
  2. Agreed - CM is so good sometimes at depicting the battlefield that we forget that it is a wargame and as such, the "player as god" issue cannot be eliminated without removing almost all the player's control which makes it not-fun ( or at least, not a wargame ). When you're playing another human PBEM, you are both capable of the same somewhat unrealistic behaviour and that at least, keeps the field level. Against the AI the human has an advantage, but then you always will against AI ( at least until Skynet )
    4 points
  3. Combatintman asked me to provide some input on the "other side" of this scenario as part of his final analysis. I'd like to give some of my overall design philosophy for all of my scenarios and some specifics for this scenario, hopefully it's useful for future scenario designers: I almost always start my scenarios with a vignette I've read from a tactical or personal account. From there comes an idea. The details generally don't matter too much to me; whether it was Regiment A attacking Town X isn't important, what matters is the tactical task a unit had to perform. I like to focus on compan
    4 points
  4. This gets more at the heart of the issue, but your blaming wrong mechanic. The omniscient presence of the human player, and his ability to micro the battlefield is inherently not realistic. This is something that ALL RTS games have in common to some extent. You are managing a battle on a level that nobody does in actuality. A company commander rarely, if ever, tells a specific tank to face a certain direction. He also does not micro the movements of squad fire teams, or does a litany of other things that the player does in combat mission. The only true way to rectify this in a game would
    3 points
  5. Any doctrine that views "murdering the enemy" as a objective that occurs within a vacuum is also rubbish. Terrain is more than just cover to defend your troops or block your opponents movement. To treat terrain like a side note is pure fantasy. You are placing a cookie cutter concept (destroying the enemy force) on a pedestal and ignoring any other possible considerations. Talking about a game of basket ball stating "you only goal is to score points" and ignoring the effect that controlling sections of the court has on that, is crazy. Terrain effects nearly every facet of combat, tac
    3 points
  6. Lol. You are living in a fantasy land. The geopolitical situation is absolutely relevant to the definition of victory. People don't fight wars for the hell of it. If you invade my nation and I push you out, I WIN. You wanted to take my land, and I pushed you out. You failed your objective, which by any sane definition is losing. Winning a war is determined solely by whether or not my political objectives are achieved. Your army can twiddle its thumbs for all I care If control the territory or resources I am fighting for. Very often, neutralizing your force is the means to that e
    2 points
  7. Very Clausewitz of you ... "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy? Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means—either completely or enough to make him stop fighting. . . . The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements. . . . Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration." I do think you're enjoying trolling everyone though by refusing to acknowledge any of the other people's points. Or you're just incredibly stubborn lol.
    2 points
  8. Since some time I am reading this forum with much interest and play CM since the CMBO days. This is the most informative thread so far and I have deep respect for the knowledge displayed here. Thank you all. Concerning terrain VL I think, that a scenario can be set up and played like a chess game (CMFI has some), but for me, there is much more fun, when a good briefing gives it an operational context and a PURPOSE and that perfectly fits to a terrain objective. Imagine, your battalion has the order to block a road to close a huge pocket filled with enemy forces. The objective is not to neu
    2 points
  9. Just cause I gotta ask, what exactly is your military experience? If the sum of it is some books and a few war games, well I gotta wonder. Captains, Majors and even Lt Cols do not get to raspberry their commanding officers and decide that objective X is not worth their effort. They do not have the full picture to make that call.
    2 points
  10. Moreover, you are expected to be sitting on that terrain within an explicit time table. It is implied to me in the scenarios and campaigns that these objectives must be seized violently due to a strategic window of opportunity. Circumstances dictate its immediate seizure. Storming an objective with infantry is yes costly and hard but for one reason or another The Brass have told you it must be done here. If they could've neutralized a given objective with corp artillery or mines or trained ninja chimps they would have. Fact is those assets are not available for various reasons beyond your cont
    2 points
  11. You are aware this is a Combat Mission gaming forum, right? I show up at a chess club and start telling them how to play chess, I expect to have to demonstrate.
    2 points
  12. Luke, it'll never happen. From reading Jason's stuff I bet he has never played a human opponent. Oh and what theories? There are no theories here, only an over simplification of an end state, "kill the enemy". No $hit, that is always the goal, but as Shift8 stated, ignore the other aspects of the battlefield including time and terrain, etc. at your peril. Rarely is it so simple to just go out and kill the other force, unless you always play with a far superior numerical or firepower advantage.
    2 points
  13. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There isn't any reason that a weapon directed at a piece of terrain should be less accurate simply because you cannot see the "target" that is presumably occupying said terrain (but cannot been see by the shooter.) To build upon the church tower example posted by Rinaldi, if I told a MG to fire a object like a church tower than is concealing a target that is either suspected or spotted by a unit other than the shooter, there is no reason what so ever that the shooter should be "less accurate" in his attempts to hit the spot he is directed to shoot
    2 points
  14. Sgt. Joch had an interesting post (link below) on Soviet SMGs having a hard coded range limit of 200 meters. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120480-soviet-smgs-ii/?p=1628695 This may be common knowledge to most people but it surprised me. The Red Thunder game manual pages 68 & 69 have the effective range for the PPSh at 250 meters and the PPS-42 at 200 meters. I thought the SMGs could be used for area targets past their effective range. They would just become less and less effective to the point where you were mostly wasting ammo. Not the case. They will not engage
    1 point
  15. When i take a look at community created content, it seems that CMFI got lowest amount of love from community. Even CMRT, more recent title, has higher amount of community created content. I've seen many comments that people love CMFI for its difference in terrain compared to that in CMBN, but CMBN is a "king" in respect to the amount of community content. Why so?
    1 point
  16. I know we're veering from CM to grand theory and back again, so I'll keep it up. My first post on the CM boards was in March of '05 (Dear God, ten years gone by...) in a thread about the attritionist's approach started by none other than JasonC. At that time, it was clear that he didn't think that Victory Locations should be removed entirely (except for maybe meeting engagements). His words: If the battle ends in the place it can be expected to end the majority of the time, given the odds, flag points should -divide- and do so roughly evenly. With a slight edge to the defender in the h
    1 point
  17. Superb first post!
    1 point
  18. Baneman

    Because Bradley

    Well, I've done a few test games with friends and the conclusion was really that in a QB, with the points differential between Attacker and Defender in Attack or Assault battles, the Defender will almost always be overwhelmed. Regarding a Probe battle as an "attack" gives some chance to the Defender to pull off a heroic defence. The exception may be if you give the Attacker serious time pressure. That's opinion of course, but I and many of the people I game against have sort of adopted Probes as Attacks.
    1 point
  19. Sublime

    Because Bradley

    well its not as bad in the WW2 titles but its still REALLY heavily stacked point wise for attacker. like close to 3:1 in my approximation. i find no matter what i do i lose a lot of attacks i defend against, more noticeable in BS again but every assault i defend against a human i lose. I mean military tactics 101 basically says to ensure an attacks success get 3:1 odds ans thats what the defender faces in assaults and its heavily localized as well. edit: ninjaed by Ian. now take what he said about ATTACK games and figure assaults stack the points further towards the attacker
    1 point
  20. IanL

    Because Bradley

    Hey, I'm not judging anyone if you are having fun attack, assault, probe or meeting engagement then that is great. I just have not had many enjoyable attack games - even as the attacker.
    1 point
  21. Absolutely nobody is arguing that you should seize a hill just because the enemy has placed defenders on it. We are arguing that you might take said hill even at a tactical disadvantage because it will create tactical advantage in the future, or because it creates a operational or strategic advantage either now or later. To that end, a scenario designers choice of a victory point on the map does not need to be of tactical significance to justify capturing it as a definition of victory. What you are still not getting is the killing the enemy IS NOT the goal. Taking terrain IS NOT the
    1 point
  22. You, Sir, are a poet.
    1 point
  23. c3k

    why is the game so expensive

    I'm offended that I need to have a computer to play this game. That's not "fair". I should be able to buy the disk and not need anything else.
    1 point
  24. Oh, no, lets not start trying to encourage a font grog on the site - My heart might not take it.
    1 point
  25. To continue my rant, it was the Allies who favoured the use of tanks and other mechanical assistance for the infantry, including tanks converted to carry them, in WW1. Not the Germans who had the same problem as any infantry which was basically a limit to human endurance where transport and other mechanical go forward assistance was not provided. Having a fancy name like 'stormtrooper' made no difference actually, all armies had their attack specialists and shock troops by whatever name and they all could only go forward on foot for a limited time. The relevance of all this is very much se
    1 point
  26. Here's better pic of "Derivative" BMP-3. Initially, it was said (by manufacturer's CEO) that this module will be installed on Kurganets chassis (or was it Armata IFV? Can't remember now). Either way, apparently, MoD isn't interested, and they went for pushing it for export. I kinda get why MoD isn't interested. They're following the original plan. It started with "Berezhok" turret (used on BMP-2M/BMD-2M). Lotsa same tech is used on today's version of what I call "early Epoch module", that's currently installed on Kurg-25 IFV and Armata T-15 IFV. The plan for 2020 is to upgrade it
    1 point
  27. Thanks sttp and Hister, the comments mean a lot. Glad you enjoy them. Keeps me wanting to put more scenarios out!
    1 point
  28. Note that understanding Jason does not mean that I agree with him. Nor that I completely disagree with him. If terrain objectives are to be taken, it's much easier to do that if you've swept the enemy away with your lead broom. But you still have to take them, and to do that you have to know where they are, which implies paying some attention to the assigned objectives. Because if you forget to occupy an occupy VL and your human opponent refuses to Surrender, you're not going to collect the VPs for that VL. Because this is a game we're playing, the scenario has to provide the operational c
    1 point
  29. Exactly. It isn't about eliminating area fire. Area fire is the most common type of fire in real combat. It's about the near instant responsiveness of it in the game. It takes time for information to percolate through the C2 chain. The player can render this irrelevant. If an enemy unit reveals itself by opening fire I can in most cases hit that unit in less than 30 seconds of the start of the next turn using vehicles firing from waypoints. When I think of the number of times I use one unit to spot area fire for another as opposed to using genuine recon by fire the former probably outnu
    1 point
  30. Combat Missions's scenarios aren't designed for textbook applications of tactics. They're designed to be challenging. In that light terrain objectives and short mission timers make perfect sense. I could see QB essentially being the place to go for a by-the-numbers approach. The scenarios, campaigns, etc should not be so easy.
    1 point
  31. What, are you afraid of putting your theories to the test?
    1 point
  32. If they were "guided" by other troops, doesn't that imply that they had a partial contact in CM terms? Personally, I believe Area Fire is often abused by players. The classic case, as discussed here, is when the player uses knowledge gained by one unit to instantly guide the actions of other units (with no contact markers, partial or otherwise from their perspective) and direct their fire on a location. It's a clear circumvention of the C2 net. But here's the thing, I see no viable solution. (I always play Iron.) Because, as many are saying, recon by fire is a real thing. Sometime
    1 point
  33. Different often scares people. Which is a shame, because the terrain and units in FI are so wonderfully unique in the CM world. I love it, but then, I love the desert for its unparalleled splendor too and hope we'll get that down the road
    1 point
  34. Rinaldi

    AAR: Rinaldi v. Emory

    Turns 42-45 This set of turns begins with my 81mm barrage coming down on the last known position of the ATG that hit my tank on the high ground: That about sums up the action that occurs on the high ground, as the rest of the turn set is dominated by getting everyone in position and mounted up to attack. On the right however, its busy, and here's the situation: I've decided that the engineer platoon doesn't need the Tank Platoon to cover my exposed left, and have sent them back to their parent company, their job is to set up overwatch and make sure the main thrust off th
    1 point
  35. 0755 TO 0800 HOURS – TURNS 55-60 SPOILERS FOLLOW***************** Significant event 0756 hrs. The Maxim HMG spotted at Grid 157224 at 0751 hrs has engaged the lead element of 1 Zug inflicting 2 x WIA. The Maxim HMG on Objective DIETER is bugging out. Significant event 0757 hrs. Mortar missions are ending and in the light of the Maxim MMG movement on Objective DIETER, I have decided to launch 2 Zug across the open ground to clear that objective. Significant event 0800 hrs. The Maxim HMG at Grid 157224 is now also bugging out. So here is the situation map: Here is t
    1 point
  36. IanL

    Crew members as recon

    A friend of mine and I play with a house rule that unhorsed tank crews have to make their way to the rear or other safe location. The only exception is HQ crews - they are allowed to board a radio equipped vehicle to regain command of their platoon.
    1 point
  37. Stagler

    Because Bradley

    Well at the moment, it does have over modelled armour protection (bordering a force field) on its roof from incoming 120mm projectiles. Especially on the engine deck...
    -1 points
  38. i try but im typing on a cellphone, have big fingers, and when i do have access to a computer during my 60 hr work weeks id rather get my qbs outta the way and see my son or sleep. my posts arent that bad. i posted that here because ( i think i was mistaken) i made a reference about killing several bradleys and abrams. I mafe those posts because someone advised me it was coming off as bragging and i wanted that clarified along with the fact I wanted to make an apology of sorts to him. feel free to have admins delete because i think this was the wrong thread. also if my threads are so painful
    -1 points
  39. Sublime

    Because Bradley

    ah apologies. Did you look at my saves i sent you antaress with my at13 abrans kills? yes i dont like APS and feel though its fielded by Russians that if i tell my opponent not to i wont either. and i feel since its already late 2015 APS for US forxes is unlikely. Yes Ive heard the arguments about procuring APS in an emergency and am not debating them. but cm is a game and has limitations that all games simulating real life will always have. some of these limitations may be fixed others never will for games. its unfortunate for the redfor side in BS that the limitations affect them more than t
    -1 points
  40. "A certain amount of dogmatism and pigheadedness is necessary in science."
    -1 points
  41. Hello, can someone tell me why is the game so expensive for a game so old and still 60 euro
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...