Michael Dorosh
-
Posts
13,938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Michael Dorosh
-
-
I mean a much better one, searchable by keywords, and with a table of contents laid out, into broad categories - ie Technical Questions, Rule Rationale, etc., then into sub sections - Movement Commands, Doing Screen Captures, etc.
The only two FAQs I've seen are the one on this site (which is for the messageboard only), then the one you find when you go to battlefront.com, and click on Combat Mission - it is the one on the left frame. It addresses some interesting topics but obviously not enough to satisfy those who (understandably) keep posting the same questions here.
Is there another one I don't know about?
I don't see the point in turning off interested newcomers by posting rude stuff like "go search and leave us alone." Surely they are the ones we are all counting on to go beyond downloading the free demo.
-
Perhaps the solution is an all-inclusive set of designer's notes and FAQ posted at Battlefront.com - BTS doesn't have time but perhaps a grognard here would like to put his money where his mouth is.
Maximus, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, buddy!
I'd be willing help out in any way I can - I've posted my share of dumb questions here (ie on screen captures) when I would have been more comfortable looking it up.
Do it like Windows help - have a index and table of contents. Searching the forum by keywords is time consuming (I have cable hookup and a Pentium 500 and it still takes forever) and hit or miss depending on the keywords.
EDIT - didn't mean to sound obnoxious, Maximus, to you in particular - not really, anyway. I don't mind the questions, I just worry that BTS will have their patience tested once too many times and put the lights out here for good.
But I am serious about a site that will answer all the questions - technical (how do I do screen captures? What is a mod?) to game play.
It's something we could all collaborate on. If anyone is serious about it, I could collate answers to FAQs and put them up on a freeserver site somewhere. Let me know.
[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Spook:
Some truth in this, Michael. But as to how many platoon leaders became casualties in Normandy & afterwards, it may not have been only due to "leading from the front" in the strictest sense as discussed here. In many cases, it could well have been that the PL was inexperienced enough in his behavior & actions as that he could make himself an obvious target, like for snipers. By example, he might not have bothered to remove his rank insigna from his helmet & uniform.
Further, in the Normandy Campaign, many "junior officers" (platoon/company level) were "cashiered" or relieved from their combat command duties. One reference from ages back suggested that 700(!) such officers fell out in such a way during the first month of the Normandy campaign.
I think that these noted officers were more inclined NOT to "lead from the front." Otherwise, they'd either be a combat casualty or would learn & adapt enough to keep their field command positions.
I agree with your first para completely - didn't mean to imply that platoon commanders were in front of their squads - actually I did say that this was rare. The example of not removing insignia is a good one. Blackburn suggests in his trilogy that it didn't take long for Canadian officers to pull off all their rank (not to mention throw away their revolvers and carry rifles, plus losing the binoculars around their necks).
I would like to see your source - both for the suggestion that platoon commanders were cashiered, and in the large numbers you mention. At first glance that doesn't seem correct. Many battalion commanders and brigadiers were indeed sacked, but I am not familiar with any problems in relieving platoon commanders and would like to learn more abou this.
EDIT - I'll also add that - and I think Steve alludes to this - the things that a platoon commander necessarily had to do, singled him out as a target. That includes standing up so he can see where his sections are, yelling to them, pointing, etc. Unless you were the Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon, a platoon commander was a fairly obvious target even when dressed as a rifleman.
[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
And while Jeff is right about not leading from the front (this did sometimes happen, but it was rare), platoon officers were very much exposed, especially to snipers, and their mortality seems to be accurately modelled, even if their actual position within the platoon is not. See the book Code Word Canloan for a detailed description of life as an Allied platoon commander in Normandy.
-
German platoons were led by sergeants for the most part - only one platoon out of three had an officer in charge.
The Brits, Canadians and Americans were much more insistent that all platoons have an officer. The Brits/Canadians experimented with a new rank - Warrant Officer Class III - and appointment - Platoon Sergeant Major - but this was abandoned in 1940 and most PSMs were commissioned as officers.
Officers were much more of a rarity in German infantry companies than in Allied ones.
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
Originally posted by Terence:
only on this forum.
Now THAT is pithy! heehee!
I would far rather have a game flexible enough to generate scenarios randomly than something with photo quality artwork like Close Combat. I have a feeling the days of Close Combat are coming to an end - I don't wish them ill will, and many people enjoy their games, but the release of the Normandy game (again, without British or Canadian 'leg' infantry) just doesn't do it for me. There are plenty of horror stories out there on forums about ahistorical armour characteristics etc. (sort of like THIS forum actually, but without the love!) that makes one stop to think.
On the other hand, most of the forum posts I've seen (ie at tanknet.org and similar places) actually sing the praises of CM while trashing everything else. Surely a good sign. I pray this is a wake up call for the pinheads at Hasbro et al who don't feel the need to interact with, or respond to, the guys that BUY the games.
-
I am waiting for the realism camp to come on and explain why this can't be done.
Actually, from a super-realism point of view it might be neat for only the attacker to know what the victory conditions are. Or for both sides to have different conditions of victory. Quite often a defender in real life had no idea if the enemy was attacking in force, trying to capture terrain, trying to breakthrough, simply probing, or demonstrating as a diversion to a "real" attack somewhere else.
Take the latter case - what would "victory" be for a company sized demonstration that was merely a diversion? In real terms, drawing attention away from the real attack. IN game terms, for the attacker, it would be for the attacker to survive with say 75% of his forces while at the same time spotting say 75% of the enemy's forces. (That is another set of VC one can add to my list - simply spotting x number of enemy units - which would simulate the goals of recce/recon missions).
For the defender, though, victory would hinge on destroying x number of enemy squads - or simply hanging on to the terrain he has.
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
Originally posted by Joe Shaw:
Have you all forgotten my masterpiece from months ago?
Combat Mission 2: Stalin For Time
BTS, just send cash, checks have all that messy accounting.
Joe
Joe don't you run that famous German bakery - "Admiral Doenitz?" (Say it out loud to yourselves...ba dom bom)
Threads like this deserve boos and Hesses.
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
Platoon commanders were expected to live at best a few weeks, especially in Normandy (actually there, lifespan was more like a few days). Platoon commanders suffered, historically speaking, great losses. When I'm at home I'll dig through my references and try and back this up. Platoon commanders DID lead from the front - company commanders probably did not.
-
I will also define "good order" in much the same way ASL did - not pinned, stunned, shocked, broken, or routed.
Should a 1 man squad qualify? That's more to discuss.
-
In designing a self-made operation, and in another thread in the tips and techniques section, I've noticed that the victory conditions are rather inflexible, especially with regards to operations. Thought I would throw out some suggestions and see where the discussion goes.
In addition to the assault/advance/destroy conditions, I would like to see some additions -
a) victory based solely on exiting x number of men (or even x number of "tanks" with functioning main armament, ala ASL)
having x number of "good order" men on the map (or a portion of the map) at game endc) base victory on the destruction of certain types of units - ie destroying artillery pieces (such was the object of the Commando Raids at Dieppe, for example), destorying infantry squads, or gun-armed tanks
d) a function of AND and a function of OR - in other words, victory can be assured in more than one way
ie - the Allied player must exit 200 men OR secure two victory flags to win such-and-such scenario - this would create interesting dilemmas for both defender and attacker - defend the map edge, and then have to fight for the victory flags because you defended too far back - or spread out over the flags and risk the enemy punching a hole in your thin line and scooting through
a second example - the German player must secure three victory flags AND have more "good order" men located in a certain area of the map than the enemy
I'd like to see "victory zones" allocated in much the same way as set up zones.
I'd like to see multiple cases which can be preselected - ie have more "good order" infantry squads in victory zone 1 AND either a) possess more victory flags on the entire map OR
destroy more gun-armed tanks than you loseI can see many reasons not to do all of this, but thought I would throw it out - a good point has been made in another thread about real estate being quite important, and I found the VC in the Operation editor not able to effectively model the intent of a historical unit I was trying to portray.
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
Originally posted by mensch:
I don't know about you guys/gals but I would like to know I if I am going to win before I play.. that way I know if its worth playing the game or not! BTS can you put in a feature that tells you if one is going to win or not?
Mensch, if BTS wastes its time with your crappy ideas, they will never get around to modelling my list of demands from last week. I know you are all waiting with bated breath for nuclear grenades and the X-Ray Specs option for forward observers so they can see through terrain.
Watch my website for my upcoming Starship Troopers mods...
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
Originally posted by Big Time Software:
Tom, I think it is safe to assume that he is indeed new here.
Pak40
Which is exactly why we are planning on fixing this for CM2
We aren't exactly sure what form the fix will take, but it will be fixed so that Player 2 can't be duped by Player 1.Steve
The short term solution is obvious - don't play with someone who lies to you.
-
Originally posted by The_Capt:
The breaching of buildings or "mouse-hole breaching" is the act of engineers placing a satchel charge on a safe wall and blowing a hole for the infantry to enter and clear.
It wasn't just engineers who mouseholed - at Ortona (for one), the two regular Canadian infantry battalions engaged found themselves mouseholing pretty much everywhere they went. It was quite literally suicide to step out into the street.
Also, demolitions of houses were done - but these seem not to have been spur of the moment tactical decisions, but generally well planned events, with the demolitions done not during a firefight (as we have in CM) but in quiet periods - so as to catch the enemy unawares.
I agree -flail tanks etc. are something I would like to see as well, if for historical scenarios if nothing else. They probably weren't an "on call" item for your regular infantry outfit.
I also think that the engineers in this game represent battalion level Pioneers (the Germans and the Commonwealth both called them that) whose tasks were to provide minor engineering tasks and assist in the breaching of obstacles. Brit/Canadian battalions only had a platoon of them, so they were rather thin on the ground.
[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Quenaelin:
If you look very carefully you still find it in digi4fun website:
Thanks! I like that the only review they quote is from Ziff Davis (whoever the hell that is!) LOL!
-
I've had the same problem in designing operations. I've wanted real estate fought over for 8 battles but can't seem to get Advance or Assault victory conditions to work out.
What I've done is demand a "manual" set of victory conditions - ie after the last battle, you use the map feature to determine the number of men listed OK, and the number of said men. Not an elegant solution, but I don't think there is another way around the victory conditions set in the Operation.
Or perhaps we're just using them incorrectly?
-
Originally posted by Bastables:
A one level house represents a house of 2 storys, a two level house represents one with 4 or 5 storys
Not according to the CM manual. They say three to four, not four to five.
-
Originally posted by Tontoman:
Wouldn't tank NOT want to get this close to troops unless they were moving at speed or had infantry support.
An unsupported tank moving slowly is begging to be crawled on and having a machine gun emptied into one of its vision slits. Sure there is a bunch of other nasty things that could be done (grenade in the exhaust pipe?) even with troops that didn't have AT weapons.
T.
Check out German Infantry Handbook by Buchner. German troops were taught anti-tank procedures even before the Panzerfaust was invented - grenade bundles, logs in the tracks, mud over the vision slits, creating smoke by setting terrain on fire, setting gasoline-soaked rags alight and using them as weapons, firing flare guns at optics - you name it, these are all things Buchner says that German troops were trained to do as makeshift tank defence.
Watch "Stalingrad" and pay attention - 5 cm anti tank gun stiffening dug in infantry that stays in their holes and uses magnetic mines.
The point is not that they actually did any of this, but that it was part of their training. Also part of their training was sitting in a foxhole while a tank ran over their hole. German troops were thus not necessarily panic stricken when enemy armour appeared.
Buchner himself says that three times he personally put hand grenades down the cannon barrel of a T-34 tank. Sounds like something out of Sergeant Rock, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Seems to me that most German infantry were well prepared to deal with enemy armour - especially by 1944 when so many special purpose AT weapons were in abundance.
[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-24-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Tontoman:
Buy it. I got it and it took 7 working days to arrive (Toronto) and no duty was charged (it was marked $5 value and a gift
).I'v brought many games, some cheap, some expensive but this is by far the best for the money
T.
P.S. Any customs official who might be on this forum... disreguard the post.
Maybe we can convince BTS to mark "gift" on all packages coming to Canada in future?
------------------
<A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
http://members.home.net/canuckmain/
http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm
-
Yes, I've posted about it several times - but you're only the second person to mention it. It was a lot of fun - but you couldn't target tanks more than 300 metres away or so!
I checked out the digi4fun website the other day and they don't even mention MV anymore.
-
Avalon Hill should rot in hell. As a kid I sent them 50 undervalued Canadian dollars for a huge order - by money order, no less, since what kid in the 80s had credit cards or a chequing account - and I never heard a word from them. Not a word.
They published an article of mine in the ASL Annual, but the payment they promised was also never sent.
Like a fool I kept buying their stuff. On a Saving Private Ryan messageboard, I got into an argument about tank traverse mechanisms, dimly remembering an article in The General by a SL designer who stated that Tiger tanks did not have power traverse. I made the mistake of relying on the ASL rulebook to support my arguments. DOH! That one served me right.
Then Hasbro/TAHGC release "Squad Leader" and have the nerve to call it a computer version of their award-winning boardgame? Grrrrrrr
-
Originally posted by Canuck:
HAHA you bought Squad Leader??? YOu crazy Albertan, read the reviews before you buy!!
=).
I take it back. Dog Pile on the Canadian!
Yes, you can order Combat Mission - like I said, I got it across the border no problem, but Customs is different everywhere you go. I've never had any problems with them out here, though - I get a lot of stuff via ebay from the 48, and it's never been a problem. Exchange rates are still a killer, but there's nothing we can do about that.
-
Those are really terrific screen shots. Feel sorry for the tank commander in the wool uniform though!
(Teasing...I'm TEASING)!
It definitely looks like you've done your homework - down to the DAK palms on the Kubel!
-
Hey you guys! Be nice to the Canadian!
Canuck, I ordered online, and it only took about 3 weeks to get across the border and into my hot little hands. I live in Alberta, so your time might vary.
I spent 50 bucks Canadian on Squad Leader (Hasbro's computer version) and I am kicking myself. Right before Christmas, too. I sent 10 bucks on Microsoft's WW II flight simulator, and that was too much to spend as well.
You won't be disappointed. I was wary about ordering online, but once I tried the demo for the second time (the first time I actually thought it sucked and deleted it - then a few months later I read all the rave reviews at tanknet.org) I was hooked.
having x number of "good order" men on the map (or a portion of the map) at game end
What exactly are Volksgrenadiers?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Trivia quiz time -
What was Volksturm coming from Prussia called? They had a seperate title (for historical reasons, no others).....what was it?