SgtMuhammed

Aussie Information Minister accuses Sgtgoody of fabrication AP: In a statement by the Australian government today, government representative Aussie Jeff flatly denied being beaten in an operation of his own creation. "Sgtgoody did not achieve a minor victory. He does not control 80 percent of the map, and he most certainly has not blasted my tanks to smoldering hulks. Even now we are luring his forces into a trap where hoards of rabid roos will spell their doom," the wild eyed Oddstralian declared in a statement today. Oddly enough the statement was given in the middle of what appeared to by a Russian convoy. When asked for comment, Sgtgoody replied, "Yes I kicked his a$$. Despite his tortuous scenario design (you recieve everything you need right after you need it). Its ok though, he has agreed to play one of mine (muahahahahahaha!)." Analysts are unsure what will occur now post AJ but several retired ASL players predict the total failure of Sgtgoody's plan. [ April 22, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

Aussie Information Minister accuses Sgtgoody of fabrication AP: In a statement by the Australian government today, government representative Aussie Jeff flatly denied being beaten in an operation of his own creation. "Sgtgoody did not achieve a minor victory. He does not control 80 percent of the map, and he most certainly has not blasted my tanks to smoldering hulks. Even now we are luring his forces into a trap where hoards of rabid roos will spell their doom," the wild eyed Oddstralian declared in a statement today. Oddly enough the statement was given in the middle of what appeared to by a Russian convoy. When asked for comment, Sgtgoody replied, "Yes I kicked his a$$. Despite his tortuous scenario design (you recieve everything you need right after you need it). Its ok though, he has agreed to play one of mine (muahahahahahaha!)." Analysts are unsure what will occur now post AJ but several retired ASL players predict the total failure of Sgtgoody's plan. [ April 22, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

Nice post JonS. One thing to take into account though is that there is no mention of what I will call "single shot brew ups." Often hits that will knock out the tank would also rupture hydrolic and fuel lines or expose powder from the ammo. With it being SOP to continue hitting the target till it is "really dead" it is not surprising that so many brew up. I am of the opinion that subsequent hits were probably responsible for more brew ups than were first hits.

Hmm...In that case this is something that has to be looked at.

When thinks take top hits from heavy arty they brew up real nice. In a scenario I am working on the AI bunched up almost a company on a mine field that also happened to be a TRP. Two 152 FOs and 4 120mm FOs top hit several halftracks and tanks. Looked like one of those big bonfires at a pep rally.

You just pointed out why I hated driving during good missions. I don't know how many times I blew a gasket waiting for my TC to see and engage a target. On the other hand, driving flat out through trees was great fun, till I jumped back into the TC hatch that is. The need to use terrain properly is one of the best arguments for developing and preserving good crew teams. I got to the point where I could tell my driver a word or two and he would put us into exactly the position I wanted. If you have to take your attention off of the battlefield and onto your track you usually die. I haven't really seen too much mention of this but a tank that is hull down is also much harder to spot. In the heat of battle when doing a quick scan for targets even looking a little different can mean a lot.

C.A. hits it on the head. The fact that there are no real even Axis v Allied vehicles dictates the need for different tactical and technical approaches for each force.

Wow, someone is actually playing that one. Last time I tried my computer started smoking.

Yes it always seems that you can miss farther than you could ever throw. So far my guys seem to just like following armor, as in all over the map. Oh, and occationally lighing its way with a helpful molotov or two.

On a related issue, does the computer factor in incoming fire when calculating aircraft attacks. Research has shown that a pilot's accuracy can be greatly affected by just putting a lot of stuff into the air. AA weapons tend to keep their tracer loads not only for aiming but so that the pilots see things whizzing by them. You feel awful lonely when the air around you seems to be filled with tracer and flack, even if it isn't really effective. Of course, veteran pilots react better but it is a very real factor.

Congrats and welcome!!

Then again, why be forced to expend points for recon. Recon missions come before the battle proper and were usually from higher level assets. A more realistic implementation would be to provide a sort of cartoon 2D map of the battlefield marked with suspected positions. This would represent the pre-battle intel assesment of the enemy positions and its accuracy could be affected by a number of factors. The current blind v blind system makes every engagement closer to a meeting engagement than was truely the case.

Jason, once again you do a good job of adding perspective to some of the more contriversial aspects of the game and of wargaming in general. There really just aren't any games on the market that truely show the increadible amount of ammo that is expended by all weapon systems when compared to the casualties inflicted.

They work well in an overwatch role. Just be careful if you have to move them.

Using captured equipment also puts an incredible strain on your logistics. If you outfit a battery with captured guns, what are these guys going to do when the scrounged supply of rounds runs out. One of the biggest handicaps facing the Wehrmacht was that its logistical system was a shambles. It had no nice universal truck like the allies and the use of captured and specialized equipment and weaponry required a piecemeal effort to keep everything supplied. Another thing to consider is that battlefield scavenging wasn't really a squad or platoon or even company activity. Except for small arms, most scavenging happened after the battles and was controlled by the logistics organs, usually at regimental or higher levels. On some occations there were examples of individual scavenging of tanks and guns but not enough to make it a regular feature of the game (unless, of course, you want to simulate a specific event).

Fixing that and the super-AT gun bug to me makes the other fixes pure gravy. Thanks BFC!

Here's a graphics request. Many accounts of the fighting in NA describe AT rounds as looking like a flaming tennisball trailing a curtain of dust. Any chance they will look this way in the game? As long as you guys are tweaking anyway. How about allowing scenario designers to take away units during operations? I would also like a little more control over where reinforcements appear during an operation.

Yes, just make a copy of your 1.02 exe file and rename it something else. Then patch. As long as you make your copy an exe as well you can run both.

Jason makes a very good point about casualties. No unit would find the casualties you see in a typical CM battle acceptable. Anything over about 15 percent is considered excessive and anything over 30 renders a unit officially combat ineffective. Yes units are expected to be able to finish an objective and then proceed on to the next one. This normally follows a pause to reload and reform but this does not entail the replacement of casualties. One of the major criticisms of the NTC and the U.S. Army's other training facilities is that units are willing to sustain much higher casualties than they would in actual combat. Often entire units are wiped out to take a single objective. In real life this would get a commander cashiered. The effects of casualties on combat effectiveness is one of the most poorly modelled aspects of any military simulation. Consider that the wounding of one man is enough to put half a squad out of action to help him (yes even during a fight). If the casualty system actually matched historical reality the casualties in a normal CM battle would be measured in a few tens for the majority of battles rather than the hundreds that we tend to see now.

That is the most exciting thing about CMAK to me, the scope. Because of the large time span and the wide variety of terrains you should be able to duplicate a lot of CMBO as well as create a workable set of France '40 scenarios.

Relying on them as an AT asset is a dissaster waiting to happen. They are useful as trench crackers provided the enemy lacks any real AT assets or you have a good firing position. Like any weapon system, there are times when you will say, "Wow! How did I ever live without these things," and there are times when you will say, "man this thing bites."

When Lord Lovat led his commandos onto Sword beach it was with the accompanyment of his piper.

I have had this happen a couple of times in 1.02 as well. Not often, only about once in a hundred saves.

You will also tend to find that various models are mixed and matched right down to the platoon level. As vehicles are destroyed or worn out they get replaced by what is available. War diaries constantly have passages like "Han's panzer was lagging behind the rest because his was an uparmored model and not as fast as the rest..." Unless you are willing, or even able, to find and read the maintainance reports of each individual Panzer company there really is no accounting as exact as what you are hoping to find.

One of the biggest things to remember in the game is that wire and mines can only be used to delay not deflect the enemy. The AI tends to run right through them, especially wire. While this will increase the ability of your minefields to cause damage you cannot count on it to do the job of stopping the enemy for you. Unless you get lucky and the map offers a route that the enemy absolutely has to take you will find that the points spent on mines and wire are often wasted. FOs and TRPs are great defensive weapons and can often be decisive. Pick an area that forces the attacker to come after you rather than being able to plink at you from long range. Pick covered routes so you can shift troops where they are needed. I guarantee that if you focus your defense on the enemy doing a particular manuever that that is the one thing he will not do. On really big maps with lots of troops, you can try to set ambushes at outlying objectives with cheap troops while defending with your major assets around a few core locations. Unless you get lucky though you can count on losing these forces. Basically plan for the worst thing the enemy can do to you.