Jump to content

JonS

Members
  • Posts

    14,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by JonS

  1. Not really. In my experience and understanding it takes 10-15 minutes using 'steam-powered' methods (bino, compass, map, manual calculations) to adjust and record a target. Given that 'most' CMBB battles are in the 20-40 minute range it wouldn't really be that useful. For the longer battles it might though. Regards JonS
  2. Yes it did. Not to the same (reported) extent but it did happen. Regards JonS
  3. Producing HE rounds is a rather complex process, not just something you can get the EME boys to whip up over a brew and a smoke. If you are referring to this… … as your evidence, then it is pretty thin evidence. The modified round as described is an oversized shotgun cartridge or flechette round. This is something that could be ‘whipped up', but it is most assuredly not an HE round. Regards JonS [ March 03, 2003, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]
  4. With one (not unimportant) caveat. AIUI, the 2-pr. with the Littlejohn adapter couldn't fire HE, because the adapter turned it into a tapered bore weapon and there was no tapered-bore-compatible HE round developed. IIRC, the Littlejohn became more-or-less standard for the Recce Regts in NWE, but some units (or some vehicles within those units) didn't fit the adapter. Basically, they accepted reduced AP performance so that they could retain the ability to fire HE (note: British units, equipped with 2-pr., firing HE, during WWII) I'm away from my sources at the moment, so I can't provide a ref., though maybe this will jog someones memory? Also, a search through the CMBO archives should throw up some useful threads (I suggest "Littlejohn" as a seach term) Regards JonS
  5. The emphasis was on the 'less' rather than on the 'complex'. Your order had two steps in it. The one I suggested had one step in it. Ask yourself, which is less complex. Then ask yourself which would have resulted in a dead Marder rather than a dead T-34. I meant a curve out to the left. Still, if that weren't possible, it was but one of six options. Why? Because there was risk associated with the order you gave. That's why. You knew there was, which is why you gave the orders you did (which turned out to be the wrong thing to do anyway, but that's another matter). I'm pretty sure he said they practised both with and without the stabiliser. Well, I see multiple "!"s and "?"s, coupled with rolling eyes, repeated statements, "tone", ignorance of both realworld and ingame explanations, and repeated demands of BFC. You call it what you want, I'll call it stamping your feet. Yes, well. You say they were valid, but ... they didn't work. In my mind that makes them invalid. I'd say "maybe". That's mainly because I've noticed that tanks don't fire when rotating from previous play. Also, I tend not to rely on my tanks to shoot when moving at all. But you know what? If you were to set up that _exact_ situation again, and run it through 20 or so repititions it probably would work (if only because the Marder was even slower to react). That is the beauty of this game. Dumb things sometimes work. be cool JonS [ February 27, 2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]
  6. That you were unaware of it, doesn't make it a bug. Now you do know about it. Therefore, the chance that you (or anyone else who stumbles across this thread) will be caught out by it again is greatly reduced. What could you do to prevent it? Well, you could have; a) hunted instead of fast moved, or used a less complex movement order (i.e., just the fast move bit, no reverse at the end), or c) used a more complex movement order (i.e., instead of coming across in a straight line, come across in an curve so that your frontal armour is more-or-less facing the enemy when you come into LOS), or d) used another vehicle or gun to take out the Marder, or e) ignore the Marder because it wasn't interferring with your tactical plan, or f) ... (insert other ideas here). BadgerDog and others have pointed out several times why this behaviour is realistic. Stamping your feet and repeatedly declaring it a bug doesn't make it so. If I were you, I wouldn't hold your breath until BFC changes this behaviour. Have fun JonS P.S. BadgerDog, thank you for freely sharing your experiences. Fascinating stuff :cool: [ February 27, 2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]
  7. JP, apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Probably the biggest one was the need to make decisions on behalf of the player. I want the players to use the 'pre-game bombardment' feature of CMBB as a core part of their planning, but the downside of that is that once a target has been selected in that way it cannot be adjusted, corrected, stopped, etc. The mission will continue untill the ammo runs out. Now, I actually think that is a good thing, but what it means for the FOs is that each can only engage one target. The way I have gotten around that is to have multiple FOs for each firing battery represented in the game. That way, each battery can engage multiple targets, yet each individual target is locked in as usual. So far so good. The limitation is that I have had to make a somewhat arbitrary decision regarding how many targets each battery will engage, and how many rounds it will fire at each target. These decisions may or may not fit with the players concept of operations. Hopefully I've built in enough flexibility there so that it isn't too restrictive. With regard to the 'peripheral stuff,' I found that the need to think at a higher level (for want of a better expression) meant that I added restrictions and information that I felt appropriate given that higher view. In other words, there is stuff going on on either flank, and they will have an effect on your battle but you can't really affect them. Instead the player has to plan around them. Incidentally, I just checked, and its up at The Depot now Be cool Jon
  8. I happen to have a save of two tanks shooting at each other, one on either side of a small rise. Both of them are spudding their rounds into the rise. Later on, the German tank (the Sov one is eventually KO'd by someone else) shoots at some infantry further back beyond the same rise, and again spuds them in short. Will send files to Matt. Regards JonS
  9. In response to some of the points discussed in this thread I have created a scen to explore fire planning within CM:BB. It is entitled "Pt 238", and it has been sent it to Adm Keth at The Scenario Depot. It should be up there within a couple of days. If you feel you can't wait that long, drop me an email and I'll reply with a copy Designing the scen clarified to me some of the things that have been talked about here. Among other things, designing a scen to enable extensive firesupport means that the designer must make a number of fairly important decisions on behalf of the player (when you look at the Soviet set up, you'll see what I mean), which IMHO isn't that great an idea. Also, I found that while making it, I felt the need to add peripheral stuff to make the situation 'make sense'. Not a bad thing, I suppose, but perhaps something not normally required. Anyways, I hope you have fun with it, and can use it to learn something about fireplanning Be cool JonS
  10. Not to be picky, but the RA first did that in action in France in May 1940 on a refuelling panzer bn. The effect was devastating. Regards Jon
  11. US Army 105mm DPICM: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m915.htm US Army 155mm DPICM: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m864.htm ICMs come in a variety of types. DPICM is good for infantry or armour APICM (anti-pers) is particularly good against infantry, but not much chop against armour. FASCAM ICM (FAmily of SCatterable Mines) is for rapid deployment of minefields. There are some others too. The ICM family seems to have the common characteristic of being a cargo carrying shell, and 'better' (or improved) than straight HE. Regards Jon
  12. Gah! No, that isn't right at all When I first read your comment, I honestly interpreted it as 'grind to dust/nothing,' so that was the way I responded to it. Out of interest I just opened a dictionary and, while it naturally has roughly the same definitions as yours, it puts them in a different order, with 'grind to nothing' higher than 'subdue'. So, which dictionary is right and which is the primary definition? Well, 'both' or 'neither' I suppose. The point is that we have different primary definitions of the word, and it caused confusion. I labour this point because it seems to have coloured the rest of our discussion. Oh, I do apologise for implying ignorance. Actually, I didn't even do that - I said 'fairly basic misunderstanding.' I said that because it is an easy mistake to make , and one I have seen often before. It usually goes along the lines of: * IF arty fires HE, AND * HE blows stuff up, THEN * the role of arty must be to blow stuff up and destroy things. It's an easy, and seemingly a logical progression, to make. Indeed, it's the one I subscribed to years ago. It's also wrong. This is what I thought you may have done. Happily it turns out I was wrong. The misunderstanding over 'crush' was an honest mistake by both of us, not an insult or an attempt to score points by me. I understand and agree. Yet it seemed to me that this is what you had in mind. From your example, it sounded like the player would order the FO to fire at a particular location. Then the AI would take over, handle the adjustment, decide for itself how many barrels and rounds to allocate to FFE, and decide on the timing for going to FFE once adjustment was complete*. The 'automatic' bit is what caused my confusion (damn those words again ). Also, as a sidebar, the FOs currently are a little different to other units. IIRC, if left to their own devices player-controlled FOs will never select a target and open fire, whereas all (most?) other units will. A player can prevent infantry and armour firing (hide, covered arcs, etc.), but holding fire isn't a 'native' behaviour. FOs you have to order to fire, infantry and armour you have to order not to fire. Regards Jon * It sounds like the time taken in adjustment will be variable, which is realistic. But if it is, the player should perhaps have some control over the moment of firing FFE in order to assist all-arms co-ordination. The level of control here is something that could be adjusted to reflect national doctrines, level of training, etc.
  13. Yeah, of course I've seen it used the way you meant it. However, I read it in accordance with this part of the definition you supplied: Which is part of "the word's definition and common usage," and consistent with "obliterate to the extent of non existance." I don't think I read way too much into it, and I also think the seeming pissyness was unwarranted. But I forgive you The confusion is yours I think, since you missed the rider - "...(apart from the general problems with the artillery model)". The mortar model sits well within the current artillery model. In other words, there is nothing specifically wrong with it that doesn't apply to the artillery generally. And the way on board mortars are handled in fine, IMO. Does that clarify things? Hehe, me too but I think our perspectives are slightly different. I wouldn't like people to go away with the impression that what is modelled in CM is all that artillery was capable of at the tactical level. Regards Jon P.S. Oh, the outline model you explained for the rewrite sounds very exciting. Are you entertaining comments on it? If so, please consider the following; a) will two, or more, on board FOs have access to the same assets? Allowing, of course, that only one FO can use them at a time. you indicate that the FO will decide for himself what scale of fire to use: "...he then automatically calls for a short barrage of 4 rounds from all three batteries of medium artillery or 12 rounds from one battery (depending on whatever would be historically accurate)..." This doesn't seem right to me. The FO would often consult with the supported arms commander (ie, the player) as to what scale of fire to allocate. And besides that, it seems like a fairly important decision to leave up to the AI. [ February 11, 2003, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]
  14. Steve, A few comments and clarifications. *shrug* Call me a pedant. In my training I was taught to use words according to specific, defined, meanings. It helps with clarity Well, since my idea of your understanding is based on what you write, and what is presented in the model in CM, one could honestly say that. One could even say it without being rude about it Aw, c'mon now Steve – apples with apples. Those stats refer to all artillery casualties, anywhere, at anytime. Meaning that a significant proportion of them will have occurred out of the front line (out of CMs scope), on otherwise quiet sections of the front (again, outside CMs scope), or during truly large fireplans (once again, outside CMs scope). I’m happy for artillery to get credit, but credit where it’s due. The RA accepted as doctrine that while they might like to destroy - or crush - the enemy, what they could actually guarantee to do, more-or-less, in CM-type battles was suppress the enemy. Er, rider to that: The assumption there is that the Germans would be defending and the RA would be supporting an attack. If the Germans were up and moving, then wholesale carnage was certainly on the cards. Hmm. Thinking about it some more, this applies to the point above about US Cas Stats, since in WWII the US was generally on the attack, or up and moving. I take it you mean the ‘isn’t overly well modelled’ comment? Well, as I said, it’s my opinion. I didn’t say that the model sucked, or that GI Combat did it better, or anyfink. TBH, I thought I put my disagreement rather mildly I know I tried to. Oh – the ‘mortars are useless’ comment wasn’t mine. In fact, I think both on- and off-board mortars are fine (besides the general problems with the artillery model ) Fair enough. Well, I can’t really comment on the Eastern Front, but given that CMBB is pretty well done-and-dusted, and that AIUI the next CM will likely be back on the Western Front (be it early war, Med, whatever), that is mostly where my comments are aimed. That said, I’d guess that there would be more than a few infantrymen who would disagree, and point out that battles at CMs scale often did hinge on good use of artillery / a good artillery model (yes Andreas, I know. Jary is one exception). Whether it was ‘many’ or ‘most’ battles, who knows? Survivor bias probably comes in here a bit. Actually, I left infantry out on purpose. I agree that they should get the treatment they have received, at least. That is why I commented on armour. Well, except for the Axis minors that is, but that’s just me I like the fact that they’re in there, but don’t use them, wouldn’t miss ‘em if they were gone. (Note for uberFinns/Hungarians/Rumanians/Italians/etc, the preceding is strictly my opinion, which in this case I expect will carry very little weight ) I know, I know. The engineers comment was meant as a bit of levity. Still, I think they might come before air ... Oh, I know that - I wrote an article suggesting how it could be done in CMBO (IIRC it’s at Dorosh’s ‘Canuck’ site}. Still, it’s not exactly elegant is it? Also, it is far too expensive for use in a QB. Even in a scen, where you don’t have to purchase the FOs, all those extras still represent a fairly sizeable chunk of VPs roaming around the battlefield. Ah, ok. If this has been pointed out before I must have missed it. In that case the 250m figure has very little to do with the average mean error of FFE, which I think is what you indicated it is being used for? Oh, I definitely don’t think it will be an easy fix. Thinking off the cuff: perhaps you could give artillery impacts a temporarily assigned ‘diameter and height’ value (representing the dust and dirt thrown up) which the FO could spot to. Then, if the FO can see any part of that pillar the adjustment proceeds as for a full-LOS mission (or perhaps a bit slower), while if he can’t see any part of it the mission goes to the current out-of-LOS code. Naturally it depends on the lay of the land. The point is that in Real Life™ this is just one way for FOs to overcome the lay of the land. But in CM the technique is unavailable, unless one takes the very abstract approach that it was done before the battle begins and is represented in-game by TRPs. The left/right vs. add/drop concern you raise isn’t valid. Yes, during the din of battle - some battles are noisier than others, as are some parts of battles. And again, the point is that this is another Real Life™ way of overcoming some situations where ‘normal’ full-LOS adjustment can’t be done, not that it is applicable in any and all battles. And it isn’t modelled. Obviously. But I think you’ve already agreed that the infantry and armour models are more sophisticated than the artillery model, so perhaps it’s an opinion that you share – at least in part. Generally realistic, yeah. “Poor”? Nope. Most of what I wrote was to ... um ... offer suggestions/the benefits(?!?) of my training and experience/insights you might otherwise be unaware of. Nothing personal anyway. Steve! I’d never say you were wrong There are much better ways of putting it All the best Jon [ February 11, 2003, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]
  15. Steve, Let me begin with this: Jon says: Huzzah! Organised counter-attacks, maybe? That was certainly one of the key uses that the British put the RA to. Describing artillery as ‘crushing’ anything indicates a fairly basic misunderstanding of what artillery can – and more importantly can’t - do. Artillery is great for suppression, but not so great at destruction of the enemy (see: The Somme). Of course, given enough time, large calibre guns, and sufficient ammunition, artillery can destroy pretty much anything, but I’m happy with that being ‘outside the scope.’ What I’m uncomfortable with, though, is having the suppression/neutralisation capability of artillery misunderstood. Suppression is – or should be – the prime goal of field artillery (i.e. 25-pr., 105mm, 76.2mm in the various armies). As it stands, this isn’t overly well modelled, IMHO. (I'm not referring to the blast values here) A good fireplan isn’t a stand-alone entity, which you seem to regard it as with this comment: Artillery is part of the combined arms battle, and treating it as something separate does it a major disservice. In an attack the artillery should be used to assist the infantry forward, and the infantry should be moving forward while the fireplan is in progress. If a player ignores this precept, well then they probably will have a boring and/or unsuccessful game/attack. But that is the fault of the player, not the artillery. Also, I believe the 8th Airforce, rather than 1st Army artillery was mostly responsible for the Cobra carnage The strat bombing example seems a little out of left field :confused: I understand the reference, but you seem to have taken it to a rather illogical extreme. The focus comment is certainly appropriate, I guess where people differ is where that focus should be centred or aimed (horses anyone? ) </font>
  16. Nigel Evans has put together a truly impressive site, which has just gotten better over the last couple of years. There is an old saw "bags of smoke and up the guts" Sadly I heard it recommended by a Colonel during a recent tewt :eek: Well, since later in the war (ie, roughly post mid-42, certainly from 43 onwards) all British artillery was controlled at the divisional level by the CRA anyway, this is a somewhat obvious and inane observation. Regards JonS
  17. Paint will do it ("Save As ...", and change the file type). Alternately you could download the free demo of Graphic Workshop.
  18. Leather Personnel Carrier Regarding drop off distances: In the desert trucks often (as in, 'more often than not') carried infantry to within 500yds of the enemy. Risky? Absolutely, but significantly less risky than having the PBI simply walk a couple of thousand metres in the open. The trucks would rock up as quickly as practical, drop off the infantry, and retire to the rear. Take that as special case though, since fighting in the desert turned lots of 'norms' upside down. As but one example, in the British and German forces virtually everyone had their 'own' set of wheels, right down to section level trucks. Regards JonS [ January 09, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]
  19. There was a discussion of this back in the CMBO days. The 'search' button is high-right, should you wish to use it
  20. Ah slope. God it can be frustrating! How does the old maxim go? "Half up, double down"? Or somefink.
  21. So instead of bitching and stating the obvious with lame posts cribbed from the Dictionary, why not type up a useful index and release it to the community as a Word document? I'm sure it would be appreciated. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.</font>
×
×
  • Create New...