Jump to content

MikeyD

Members
  • Posts

    24,049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Everything posted by MikeyD

  1. Judging by past poster comments, players seem to prefer playing veteran or higher, and extreme motivation levels. There are pluses to that but one downside is it becomes difficult to spook your troops. They're less likely to go to ground or second-guess their orders. A fanatic will die where he stands without hesitation. Lets remember the definition of 'hunt'. Proceed forward until you get eyeballs on the enemy. It isn't proceed forward until an unseen enemy sends bullets whizzing overhead. A crack squad will take their orders seriously.
  2. M60A1/A2 commander's field of vision is provided by thick armor glass blocks embedded into the subturret armor. I'll leave it to those with actual experience to say if they were better or worse than periscopes for observing,
  3. Some longstanding advice on the best way to use buildings for cover is to get behind the building. Shooting at targets from the upper floor of a (non-cathedral) building is just asking for a hmg to turn that facade into a sieve or an RPG round to come in through a window. In building fighting, catch' em by surprise once then relocate ASAP. Its not the fault of the game engine if you keep your men in place too long then lose the gun duel. People complain that the casualty rates in CM are too high, then they do risky stuff that kills off their forces.
  4. I recall a poster a few year ago relating a story about his urban warfare training. Something along the lines of the instructor saying 'You're now going to learn how to enter a building through a window. NEVER do this in combat.' If I recall the conversation correctly there was some concern about accidentally shooting yourself or a comrade while scrambling through the window, not to mention the risk of being shot by someone in the building while you're halfway through the window. If you look close in CMSF2 you'll see a number of natural impediments to entering through a window.
  5. That reminds me, the reason the Bundeswehr switched from their traditional tanker beret to a Soviet-style helmet was the Leopard 2 proved to be a horrifically noisy vehicle to fight in. On par with the old Churchill tank which was notoriously loud.
  6. Whenever I need to precisely place a unit for the AI to use I never paint an initial setup zone for them in AI orders #1. You can give subsequent timed/triggered orders to them (hide, area target, etc) without using painted movement destinations. If you park an ammo truck close enough the AI-controlled gun will 'borrow' ammo without needing to acquire. The problem there, though, is you've got a big easily spotted target parked practically on top of your gun.
  7. I recall reading an old article about Bovington Tank museum taking possesion of a running IS-2M in exchange for a Conqueror (I believe) and the Brits were shocked by how quietly the IS-2 ran. It was something of a revelation to them. The Brits were used to tanks that made a 'BBLAAP! BBLAAP!" sound on starting up.
  8. Before now not even the Beta testers had seen those vehicles
  9. On later T34/85s you see that bulge/patch on the lower left turret side? That's the placement of the electric turret drive motor. You don't see that bulge on T34/85 (M1943) or T34/85 (1944 early) in the game and turret rotation speeds reflect that. (1944 late) and (1944 latest) have the turret drive and it is VERY fast. The electric drive was just for slewing the turret around. The finer movements for aiming are still done by hand crank.
  10. When planning night battles pull up the lunar cycles for the year in question. For example July 20, 1982 is a new moon, July 6 or August 4 is a full moon. that will make ALL the difference in a night fight.
  11. While researching for the game it was discovered that M113A3 is forbidden to swim rivers except in wartime. The A3 version was heavier than the (in-game) A2 so there was less margin for error. Prep for swimming, I recall, included balancing-out the fuel tanks and properly distributing the stowage. You wouldn't want a vehicle significantly heavier on the right side than on the left.
  12. There was probably some discussion about including deep fording during development but I can't recall the conversation. If I were to hazard a guess it was probably something like "No new feature that would have required extensive real world crew prep to accomplish." In the CMCW initial release Bradley couldn't swim. It wasn't until the first patch that they included (abstracted) swimming Bradley out of the goodness of their heart.
  13. It makes me nervous just thinking about it.
  14. I assumed 'dead in the water' was just a euphemism His issue sounds like *something* I've seen in the past but my poor old brain can't process it. That 'spotting' designation sounds familiar.
  15. A gun doesn't always aim for the center of mass. Take a Churchill tank out for a spin and you'll find the enemy AI likes aiming for the internal gun mantlet opening. Take a Soviet tank out for a spin in CMCW ad you'll see the enemy AI trying very hard to hit the narrow lower hull front.
  16. Is there intervening impassible terrain that they can't get around? They'll refuse commands if they can't cross (let me think) tall wall, cliff, marsh, heavy forest tile, deep marsh, water, heavy rocks. If they're wheeled vehicles there's additional terrain objects they wouldn't like. But that doesn't really sound like the problem you're having.
  17. I conducted a little test awhile ago tracking fatigue rates with ground cover and weather. Its too far in the past to recall the details but basically you could 'hunt' your infantry almost forever (600m+?) on a cool dry day over grass. Through snow on a very cold day they would become fatigued almost immediately, even worst than sending them out in extreme heat.
  18. I recall early in CMSF1 days I made a 3rd party scenario that used hoards of 'spies' playing the role of rioting civilians over-running a NATO compound somewhere in Africa, with scattered 'fighters' mixed in with the crowd. Your job as NATO compound defender was to make some difficult choices. Within a month of me posting the scenario BFC reworked how 'spies' operated in the game, effectively killing my scenario. I couldn't shake the feeling that they did that deliberately. I don't think they like seeing 'civilian' scenarios in their titles. They certainly weren't keen on visiting the Warsaw ghetto in Fire and Rubble. Clausewitz said 'War is the continuation of politics by other means'. The same can be said of terrorism. People don't wage war and they don't commit atrocities as an end to itself. They have a 'political' reason. It may be a perverse reason but its a reason nonetheless. NATO wouldn't carpet bomb Syria because their 'political' objective is to be perceived as good guys, the nation's savior come to liberate it from oppression. Committing atrocities would be counter-productive to their political goal. Syria dropping barrel bombs on its own cities has its own perverse political logic. They want the nation's subjects to quake in fear and awe of their ruler. That's a 'political' objective. Admittedly, the concept does fall apart a little if your leaders are psychopaths.
  19. Hah, I had to go back to the first post to remind myself what we're talking about. We're not too far off the original topic of "How in the hell does a mechanized infantry company..." because we're talking about the purpose of wargaming-out tactical/strategic scenarios. How in hell does a mech inf co of M113s defend itself? That a topic worthy of experimentation, and will probably tell us why Bradley got invented.
  20. "Transformational warfare' (a favorite Rumsfeld term) was a novel concept at the time and there were expectations that the exercise would validate the theory. It appeared (from my admittedly very limited perspective) that the think-tankers were angry with the exercise for not giving them the answer that they wanted. Our theories weren't wrong, your wargame was wrong! A Combat Mission equivalent is "The Game Is Broken!!!!" after a player loses a tank platoon in the first five minutes.
  21. I recall reading that some year ago the Pentagon conducted a major (digital) wargame to test out its 'transformational warfare' concepts against an aggressive modern OPFOR force. Immediately on starting, the OPFOR force sunk the bulk of the blue force's landing craft. The blow was so stunning that they had to stop the game, refloat the navy, then resume making believe the initial blow hadn't happened. After that the Blue force continued to fare badly. The OPFOR force took advantage of swarms of drones, ECM warfare, everything at it disposal and basically overwhelm the attacking Blue force. The point of my tale is I'm not convinced the Russians would not have been able to nip the American defense in the bud by sinking its follow-on forces mid-Atlantic. The allied assumption is reinforcements arrive, disembark and enter the fight once the Russians had exhausted themselves in their initial push. If the reinforcements don't show up, or show up significantly degraded, 'phase 2' of the plan becomes problematic. A lesson often learned playing CM is don't assume your opponent will be blind, slow or stupid because those assumptions tend to come back and bite you.
  22. When building a scenario you can design-in blind fire into the AI opponent's order sets. Its pretty fun to do. I used it in CMCW and CMRT Fire and Rubble. The AI can't do it on its own, though. The AI in a QB is not going to fire a few rounds into a suspicious copse of trees 'just in case'.
  23. Its generally bad tactics to rely on the enemy not spotting you, being slower than you and missing his shots... unless you're fighting CMFI Italians. A tank with a 25% chance of a first round hit can still hit you with that first round. And Murphy's law applies - Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
  24. The NTC region selection changes EVERYTHING. Frankly, some QB maps play better as NTC region than they do in Germany region. Though you might want avoid city maps with cathedrals in the middle.
  25. I'm just the 2D artist, I'm not the clever one. But during texturing I'm often telling the 3D artist 'This bit is mapping badly', 'That bit isn't mapping to anything', 'That other bit is displaying inside-out.' Often I don't bother him and simply counter-warp the art the opposite from the polygon so it'll appear correct in-game.
×
×
  • Create New...