Moon
-
Posts
10,042 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Moon
-
-
In CLOSING WITH THE ENEMY Doubler writes (based on US Army data), that mortar fire in Normandy accounted for roughly 75 percent of casualties among US Troops. Certainly, the bocage maze helped the Germans and all, but I would imagine that artillery (especially the big stuff) is very deadly in reality and toned down in most games.
However, artillery fire on prepared defensive positions seems to be much less effective.
-
"Tourist Mission - Virtual 3D sightseeing of France fifty-five years ago"
-
I believe it was SOP for mechanized troops to dismount as closely as possible to the enemy. I found it to be a good tactic to keep one part of my mounted infantry relatively close behind the advancing elements and dismount immediately when contact is established, while the other part follows a bit further away and serves as a mobile reserve.
In cases when long-range weapons engage my guys before reaching the MLR, I would usually keept he infantry back and out of sight while tanks or AT Guns or arty deal with the problem. However, often enough when there is not much time, you have to risk it and race the Halftracks forward. Well... good luck...
-
Please also don't forget that in CM whole squads are rated for experience, not individual men. So while I would not be surprised that maybe a couple of soldiers per squad indeed learns something after coming under fire for the first time, I seriously doubt if you could "upgrade" a whole squad within such a short time.
Instead I would expect that it takes quite a bit of time until a whole squad starts acting and performing "better", because it not only takes courage, but also experience to work as a team under fire. The fact that somebody starts shooting back on the second day of combat still doesn't turn a regular squad into veterans, IMO.
I was squad leader during my Army times and - although we never had somebody fire at us with the intent to kill - my guess from the experiences there would be that it takes weeks if not months of daily action to really see a difference. Let's take night maneuvers as an example. After learning the basic stuff, you go out and don't see a thing. People are confused. It takes a lot of practice and time to have people act as a squad. I could imagine that if somebody is firing at you, it takes even longer, TBH.
Another thing I would like to add is the learning curve. While going from Conscript to Green and Green to Regular might be done relatively fast, the higher up you go the longer it should take. Some things, like Crack units, might be just completely out of reach for a normal Regular unit, since it not only takes years of experience but also special training - no matter how long somebody shoots at you....
-
I've never used any of these MPlayer, blahblah.com sites for multiplayer and wonder why people keep asking for them? All you need is ICQ, a place to register to as player (e.g. wargamer.com or maybe battlefront.com?) so that others can find you... and there you go. One guy hosts, the other joins... and usually it's also a much more stable and fast connection than going through some other site.
But with CM where you can command 1000+ men per side I am wondering if H2H would be the best way to play it? I would share Fionns opinion that probably PBEM is better - but I guess before the game is out there is no point to fight about it? Good that there will be both options, ne pas?
-
When you enter the message board, look at the upper right corner. There is a pull-down menu which lets you choose how old topics you want to see. It goes from "last day" to "show topics from last year".
You can also go into the "prefs" and change this. In this case, whenever you come back, you will be shown the topics from the x last days.
-
Welcome to "Deutsch for wargamers". Today we're going to discuss the meaning of "Schürzen".
"Die Schürzen" (or "Schuerzen") means "aprons" or "skirts" (yes, multiple, not just one)
And the correct spelling is "Schürzen" not "Schürtzen" for reasons that would take a whole new thread to explain.
-
Greg, you're right, I made a mistake on the last line. Gosh... can't even do that right. Hey, it was late...
-
From what I remember the scenario designer can assign "boresightes markers" to each side. It is up to the player to place such markers on the map during setup. Any artillery (from one or more batteries) ordered on these markers will have much less delay and will be much more accurate than normally.
-
(slowly sliding under the table and crawling out the back door)
[This message has been edited by Moon (edited 06-23-99).]
-
Argh... nobody can fool the incredible Fionn...
-
There are usually two mountain regiments per Division for the WH. Each of the three battalions is self-sufficient. The normal infantry houwitzer company is lacking, but mountain infantry howitzers are organic in each battalion.
The SS Mountain Division has two regiments organized similarily as in the WH, but they have either a fourth battalion or additional regimental companies.
Mountain Infantry Regiment:
1 Regtl HQ - 25 men
1 Regtl HQ Co - 182 men, 4 LMGs, 2x150mm Howitzers
3 Mtn Inf Battalions with ea. 877 men, 40 LMGs, 12 HMGs, 6 81mm mortars, 4 120mm Mortars, 2 75mm Mountain Inf Howitzers
16th Co (AT) - 190 men, 6 LMGs, 36 Panzerschrecks, 3 75mm AT Guns
Light Mt Clm - 36 men
Mountain Infantry Battalion:
Bn HQ - 27 men
3 Mt Inf Co with ea. 147 men, 12 LMGs, 2 81mm mortars
MG Co - 208 men, 12 HMGs, 4 120mm mortars
Hv Weap Co - 201 men, 40 LMGs, 12 HMGs, 6 81mm mortars, 4 120mm Mortars, 2 75mm Mt Inf Howitzers
Hope this helps
-
UPFRONT... oh yeah... I know it and believe it or not it's still one of those games that I play occasionally. In fact, IMO, it's one of the most realistic games out there because it indeed simulates fog of war, something which traditional board games have always a hard time to do. And yes, UPFRONT has a high luck element, but that makes it even more realistic.
Pixman: well said. But do not underestimate the usefulness that CM's 3D landscape will have on your gameplay. Did I mention already that I've seen the game?
Well, anyway, just imagine this: no calculations, no abstractions, no "ruler-checks" to see if you can just spot that enemy unit right on the edge of the house behind the little hill... instead - true 3D Line of Sight!
And that's just one example. Once you see the game in MOTION (and that's directed to all the "empty space" spectics out there) you will also realize that you will not miss any details and that you simply do not need to SEE every stone, bush and tree. In fact, probably you'll be happy to concentrate on the main thing (how the hell are we going to take that hill?) because that will be difficult enough WITHOUT having to track if Unteroffizier Schmidt is in cover behind a telegraph post.
That's my 2 Zloty...
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, I think the maps were from the time period of the war; not just some modern day road map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most of the aerial recon maps from the period of 1939-1945 are actually still restricted, believe it or not. Only a few have been released and been made available for public. I am talking to the french geographic institute, the belgium geographic institute and the German one right now, and most stuff that IS available is from a period shortly after the war, like 1947 and on. And even a lot of these maps is restricted. I do own some aerial photographs from 1947 an on, though
Oh, and BTW, especially in France MUCH less has changed over the past 55 years than you might think. Sure, there might be a couple more houses in every village and maybe even a new highway cutting through the hedgerows here and there, but in general everything stayed the same. At least in the rural areas.
And one more thing: dunno what BTS is going to do with the game and what is going to be included on the game CD. But since there is a map and scenario and campagin editor in the game, you can expect highly accurate historical maps at least from my website once the game has been released. I will be using current 25K maps AND aerial photographs from shortly after the war, as I am doing right now with West Front scenarios. And when I can do it, I am sure that the folks at BTS have at least the same or better sources to do it. No reason why CM maps cannot be at least as accurate as PE (or any other) maps...
-
Just a quick note from Germany: there are FAR less vineyards over here than you might think. As Steve said, down the Rhine there is a lot and maybe also at the Mosel, but up here in the north you will have to look hard to find any...
-
Pac40:
One thing everybody seems to forget in this discussion: CM doesn't show all the farming equipment, individual trees, park benches etc. - but it SIMULATES them. That means that "open ground" in CM isn't simply "empty space" - it is filled with exactly all the things you are calling for and infantry squads are NOT standing naked in the open!
Don't forget that the 3 men squads in CM are mere representations of a squad of 9-12 soldiers. These soldiers ARE using any available cover and concealment, and even in "open space" you cannot trace LOS endlessly.
Comparing PE and CE just doesn't work. CM is a tactical wargame, where PE is a tank (ONE TANK!) simulation. Riding your Sherman in PE you NEED all the brush and signposts and telegraph poles for a decent "feeling", whereas in CM all these things are approximated.
One thing Steve had said frequently here on the board is that the graphical representation of the "game world" is merely that - graphical eye-candy. The game could play completely in the background with a black screen and the outcome would be all the same, because it's the underlying engine that leads to combat results, and this one SIMULATES all the things Pac40 was calling for - and probably more.
-
IIRC, KwK is the abbreviation for "Kampfwagenkanone", i.e. tank gun. For example, "88mm KwK" would indicate that it is a version of the 88mm gun modified for mounting within a tank turret.
-
One thing I expect the simultaneous turns of CM to finally show is some secondary tank features which are so poorly portrayed in traditional IGOUGO games, e.g. turret rotating speed, the speed of the tank itself and possibly even rate of fire.
In "real" time I imagine that, especially on the attack, a Sherman could quickly engage multiple targets and withdraw if incoming fire is too strong. A much heavier tank, like the King Tiger for example, would be much less maneuverable etc.
In a traditional game these differences have little to no effect - I fire when it's my turn to do so, I move when it's the movement phase. In CM everything happens at the same time, and before that KT actually manages to move that big turret towards my tank, I might get off a couple of shots and quickly disappear behind the treeline... little differences which are neglected by most other wargames (that I know at least) but can even things out a little (or significantly when I read Steve's AARs).
-
From what I recall reading, the US used a "dirtier" kind of powder to fire their small arms (not sure if this is specific for a certain weapon or just in general). It was not necessarily the flash that betrayed their position, it was the fact that after they fired a few rounds smoke hanging over their position would draw heavy return fire.
Aah... found it - here is a short quote from Beyond the Beachead, a book about the 29th Infantry Division (can recommend it highly, BTW) from Joseph Balkoski:
"Some GIs were reluctant to fire because American gunpowder was neither smokeless nor flashless. When an M1, BAR, machine gun or howitzer opened fire, the gun emitted a puff of light blue smoke and a tiny flash that promptly betrayed the firer's position (...)
Meanwhile, because the enemy used smokeless and flashless powder, American infantrymen found it difficult to pinpoint German firing positions. The Yanks tended to locate the Germans by the telltale "rrrrp" of the MG42, but this method was inexact."
-
Looking intensly at the screenshots
I noticed that while infantry units have little HQ icons besides the units name (they look like radios), tanks and AFVs seem to miss them. Is this something just missing in the current alpha stage or are you treating HQ units differently for infantry and AFVs? If so, I would be interested to know how and why? -
I really don't think this great idea will lack people to support and invest time in it. There are many leagues out there already and people are spending a lot of time on them. This is probably the coolest idea for a league I've heard so far. Will need probably some finetuning once CM is out to see what's practicable, but I'm in for sure...
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Say that I really take a beating in mission 1 and my forces are literally wiped out. How can I continue with the campaign in such an instance? From the campaign designer's view, how can he provide for balance with such a potentially large force variance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In real life, there is no such thing as "trying to be equitable" when fighting a war. If you want CM to be challenging to play, as versus "yeah I'll just call in my fighter-bombers and blast you to bits before I walk in because that's what the history books said happened," then play balance necessarily outweighs a strict reliance on historical force allocation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What do you expect, J Davis? Do you really expect the scenario designer to calculate in that the player is dumb enough to lose his entire force in battle one and therefore provide him with huge reinforcements for the second turn? I would say if you lose your entire force in game one of the campaign, you should accept your loss like a gentleman and go play Pacman. Hey, if you loose all your hit points in a FPS, game is over, ain't it?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Moreover, in real life, things don't happen in a vaccuum as it is in a wargame. Reinforcement schedules aren't static, but can vary in accordance with how well or poorly the present battle is going.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, they vary in accordance with many other things, too - like availability of forces, how the superior commander is feeling that day etc. But what do you expect? Do you really ask for CM to simulate the entire world at arms just so you can have the reinforcements arrive one turn later?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How many large battles in WW2 do you know that were given up for lost after a battalion commander screws up in a firefight?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, but CM doesnt simulate any LARGE battles. It simulates battles at battalion level. So if the battalion screws up, battle is over for the battalion, right?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is circular reasoning. There is no worry about play balance if the (fictional) campaign has good play balance decisions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But which other answer do you expect? The problem is with the question and not the answer. Answer this - how does the car manufacturer ensure that there will be no accidents? Answer: there will be no accidents if people drive safely...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I didn't have much of a concern about the issue of having or not having a core unit, but your above rationale of how play balance is dependent on historical accuracy is frankly worrisome, and casts a pall over CM as far as this gamer is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for sharing your opinion with us. I absolutely disagree. That is my opinion.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For many gamers, the notion of having an "alter ego presence" in a game and being able to transfer it from battle to battle is "fun." If you doubt this, I'll just point to PG's popularity and to the many requests that led to a similar feature in CC3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In a wargame, you assume the position of a battalion commander. That guy, your alter ego, is way back behind the front line. If you want more alter ego, I suggest switching to games like Delta Force and the ones mentioned above. Or how about Quake?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Granted that PG's and CC3's implementations are faulty and (in PG's case) can severely impact gameplay, that doesn't mean that the concept is without merit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dunno about PG, but CC3 definitely is faulty exactly BECAUSE of that feature. I have played the large campaign in CC3 and have done pretty good in the first few scenarios. Well, my core force has become so goddamn strong, that I have just walked through the rest of the game. No fun at all. BECAUSE of the feature you're asking for, the fact that I played from Stalingrad through to Berlin was nothing more than names. I could have played from Moscow through to the suburbs, if you ask me. No difference...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And since it is an optional part of play, it shouldn't have any impact on the realism emphasis that you seem to be striving so hard for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How about that: before playing a scenario, you fire up the scenario editor and add yourself a platoon. You can tweak the values of the units to represent your core force. Then you call that bunch of houses in front of you Berlin, and here you go. Optional enough for my taste...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I think the "core unit" thing will prove an interesting test of BTS' vaunted customer-responsiveness, when CM is released and gamers start asking for such a feature. Will you relent to customers' wishes and implement a feature that takes minimal effort, even when it runs counter to your personal philosophy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why should they do it? It's their game. If a Star Wars fan would come up here and insist that the Allies simply HAVE TO HAVE those X-wings in the game, what do you think would the answer be?
Besides, the above should read "a customers wish", not "customers' wishes"... so far you're pretty much the only one who wants something like that. My wish is to leave it out. What now?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway, am still looking forward to the game, even if not quite as eager as before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I am more excited than ever! Funny, eh?
-
42.
That's the answer for the questions you haven't asked.
-
If Steve answers that one, everybody will go: "ah, yeah, he's trying to sell the game". So I thought I would give it a try - as somebody who had the rare opportunity to actually see the game in action (when writing for the Wargamer) and not associated with Big Time Software, I can assure you:
it IS as good as it sounds! And better!
Watching CM in action for the very first time gave me the feeling of actually being down there on the battlefield (Captain Moon, if you want
) - and I have played many wargames. It's not a perfect example, but imagine West Front - AND THEN the whole battlefield comes alive!
Units-Creation of and cohesion and experience-lots of questions
in Combat Mission Archive #1 (1999)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Many of the jumbos were field converted to the 76mm gun due to the fact that the jumbo's turret was the exact same as the 76mm turret with added armor thickness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That reminds me (somewhat off-topic, sorry) that I have read some time ago that the so-called 76mm main gun in fact had exactly the same caliber as the 75mm gun (which is... ahm... 75mm), but was simply modified to fire with higher velocity. Unfortunately, I really can't remember the source anymore... does anybody know more about this?