Jump to content

Apocal

Members
  • Posts

    1,833
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Apocal got a reaction from JulianJ in ... a constructive simulation called Combat Mission, showed that civilian gamers with no military training outperformed military officers with years of experience   
    I have no problem believing that guys who play computer wargames regularly do better at CM than military professionals.
    But I think the implication in that article is reaching a bit. There is no end to the dumb **** I do while playing CM -- suicide scouting, shooting machine guns over and around my own troops, driving armor over my dismounts in a heavy undergrowth forest, etc. -- that I'd never even consider doing IRL for good reasons. Playing the game as a game, and not as an actual exercise or operation, certainly opens up the possibilities for clever tactics but I'm skeptical that it correlates to doing better in the real deal.
  2. Like
    Apocal reacted to Free Whisky in How to use artillery in CM - an empirical study   
    An empirical study... Love the thread title 😉. This was the first time ever that I said 'time to work on my video' and opened excel instead of editing software 😅. Nice to hear you guys think it has some useful info, thanks.
  3. Like
    Apocal reacted to Free Whisky in How to use artillery in CM - an empirical study   
    Yes, I see what you mean. I had to put the ATGM's in foxholes to prevent them from dying during the test 😁. The things is - you can't be sure everyone is dead and it's safe to move when the fire mission is over. But you can be (reasonably) sure that anyone there is suppressed if you move during the fire mission.
  4. Like
    Apocal reacted to Artkin in Playing with conscripts only   
    The game feels so much better like this. Firefights are longer with more ammunition expended per kill. Close quarters battle inside houses is now possible, with troops taking time to search rooms before they find the enemy. My men rarely kill everyone in a house before they have to storm it.
    Not everything is perfect. Snipers miss often, AT guns shoot much much slower, javelins and other atgms take longer to fire (I find this pleasant considering how fast AT weapons can be whipped out), and the troops can stay ducked for a pretty long time. If the fanaticism is bumped up they will be more responsive. I find Extreme to be the sweet spot, since Fanatic limits the natural behavior of the AI. If you forget about troops on a balcony they can be mowed down turn after turn and will never move under fire.  
    Here is an example of an improved experience. If my assault troops saw the enemy in the house earlier (look at 0:19), they would have killed them with rifles from afar. But since we were able to get in close enough they opted to toss a grenade through the window:
     
     
  5. Upvote
    Apocal got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in ... a constructive simulation called Combat Mission, showed that civilian gamers with no military training outperformed military officers with years of experience   
    I have no problem believing that guys who play computer wargames regularly do better at CM than military professionals.
    But I think the implication in that article is reaching a bit. There is no end to the dumb **** I do while playing CM -- suicide scouting, shooting machine guns over and around my own troops, driving armor over my dismounts in a heavy undergrowth forest, etc. -- that I'd never even consider doing IRL for good reasons. Playing the game as a game, and not as an actual exercise or operation, certainly opens up the possibilities for clever tactics but I'm skeptical that it correlates to doing better in the real deal.
  6. Like
    Apocal got a reaction from purpheart23 in CMBS or GTMF   
    Graviteam Tactics: Mius Front, in case you weren't joking.
  7. Like
    Apocal got a reaction from JulianJ in Was lend-lease essential in securing a Soviet victory?   
    Братская могила на шестерых more like... six brothers' grave.
  8. Like
    Apocal got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Hammer's Flank Crossing the River   
    JasonC doesn't like scenarios where the player is railroaded (especially when he is railroaded in dumb ways), where the scale goes beyond a reinforced company, where the actual relevant tactics and techniques are distorted to make a scenario more action-esqe.
    Given the delay involved (~20 minutes) and lack of TRPs for the attacker, it was pretty clear the intent was to use the rocket battery as the player's personal prep fire, particularly since the ammo provided is somewhere south of half it's normal load. IIRC, the briefing said as much. But given that, it is lackluster at the task; even putting the rocket barrage directly on target doesn't appreciably degrade the totality of the defenses. Even if you inflict casualties, it isn't as if the scenario designer actually degraded the German personnel numbers in each team so what is fielded still has manpower depth enough to endure and stay intact. The suppression doesn't last longer than a minute or two, so it is basically irrelevant. Odds of a player arriving just after the fifteen minute mark (longest delay possible for a fire mission) in this scenario are very low.
    It's been years since I played it, but I think the mortars have limited ammo as well, even though you can't use them for prep fire since they are MIA at scenario start, only coming in at (I think) the five minute mark for whatever reason. At any rate, they are incredibly difficult to employ effectively, due to the lack of map-fire ability in CMx2 and basically no good overwatch positions, which means you're exposing a unit leader (or the singular green or conscript FO) to whatever nastiness you require mortars to deal with. 
    The first mission a monster in size terms. Some people enjoy them, some don't. I thought that was a bit annoying in the stock campaign just because I prefer real time and it is well beyond anyone's ability to manage played that way. If you're into splitting squads to maximize infantry performance, it goes straight into near-unplayable territory even for WeGo; each turn for me took something like a half-hour of tweaking, especially once I realized it was a shooting gallery for one side if I didn't carefully echo-locate each of the backfield ATGs and try to hit them with mortars before they took out my supporting armor. The careful approach doesn't work very well; you cross right in sight of the deep German backfield defenses and a few close-in machine guns in some serious chokepoints, all of which have TRPs set on them. The end result is that the Germans get a free harvest of kills wherever you cross and if you choose a single crossing point, they get a series of them with their artillery, which out-matches the player's by a fair margin.
    So yeah, I didn't really like the scenario that much either. Whenever I replay the campaign I just hit cease fire during the setup phase and save myself the aggravation.
  9. Like
    Apocal got a reaction from Denis1973 in Lend-Lease stuff coming soon?   
    As far as I know, the LL vehicles were slotted into the existing TOE in exactly in place of their Soviet equivalents. Certainly, the Soviet Shermans weren't running around in platoons of five and companies of eighteen like in the US Army.
    In a game with Jagdtigers?
  10. Like
    Apocal got a reaction from agusto in Tactical Lifehack   
    I'm trying to imagine reasons someone (anyone) would look at that and NOT expect there to be mines in the middle. Like, seriously. Dude literally left a big polygon of wire in the middle of the road, I wonder what's inside...?
    Mines are useful to me in limited doses, for very specific purposes. One of the best uses is planting them on the AS next to doorways, especially the only doorway into/out of a building with good line of sight. Another good use is placing them along map edges when facing another player. Occasionally, I'll leave an entire objective undefended but covered in mines, with a TRP emplaced; the mines act as a sort of sensor and artillery/mortars follows up on whatever is there.
    But the use is situational, so it is rare for me to invest too much into them. Personally, I think they could use a bit of a price reduction, especially obstacles like wire. Even better if defenders could get a preset minimum, depending on stance (hasty or deliberate defense) to which players could add more if they chose.
  11. Downvote
    Apocal got a reaction from beersmurff in Rethinking the assault command   
    I'm able to effectively micro five or six teams at once, I would be able to do a lot more if pause command + order-stacking worked in real-time multiplayer. It doesn't so you have to deal with stuff as it comes.
  12. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to JasonC in References to "Armored Spearheads"   
    A march formation in a manual isn't a combat doctrine.
     
    US armored task forces in fact led with a medium tank company, as a rule.  With a Jumbo on point if they had one.  Not with attached cavalry in jeeps or recon anything.
     
    Recon forces mostly got screening and security missions, defense of long flanks to enable other forces to concentrate, and the like.  Sometimes they even attacked, but when they did they dismounted and fought like infantry, supported by organic mortars and their assault guns and light tanks - hopefully against a relatively weak, infantry only enemy.  And that wasn't a matter of doctrine or fulfilling a planned role, it was just a field expedient when the only unit around was a cavalry battalion or company, and the operations situation required another probe.
     
    The typical tactical formation in a US AD force was a task force, a battalion sized unit created by cross attaching armored infantry companies with tank companies to create an armor heavy or an infantry heavy mix in 2 to 1 ratios.  The typical tactical formation in a US ID force was an infantry battalion with attachments, working as part of a regimental combat team that attached tank and TD support, and a portion of the divisional artillery, down to regiment.
     
    Then when a US ID force actually had to attack, it is a battalion assigned the mission, but they don't attack with the whole battalion.  They designated one company as assault, another as support, and the remainder as reserve (3rd line plus HQ, weapons, etc).  The support has a front line position with observation and in range to support by fire, and gets to hold the frontage if the assault battalion gets shot to pieces, so there isn't a hole in the line as the result of a defeat.  It quickly has the same frontage assigned to it as the assault company, just staying at the start line.  It also is supposed to move up and relieve the assault company when and if the attack succeeds, to allow that company to reorganize and the like.  Either it, or the reserve, then takes the assault role, with the other getting the new support role, while the original assault company rotates into reserve as soon as the local combat conditions permit it.
     
    Thus, a US infantry battalion is expected to attack with just a single company, and at most some mortar and MG fire support at medium range from the rest of the formation. 
     
    How the heck is that supposed to work?  Answer, they aren't relying on infantry numbers to begin with.  It doesn't take a regiment to follow up a barrage.  Sending more men wouldn't increase the shells sent, or the number of supporting tanks, or make the ground any better, or surprise the enemy more.  All the determinants of the success of these little probes, not pushed too hard individually, were outside of the question of how many men were sent and frankly most of them were beyond the control of the attacking infantry battalion.
     
    Didn't matter, because these nibbles were going on all over the line, and some would succeed, and the accompanying artillery fire would bleed the enemy, and between him bleeding and little wedges being driven into his position and the whole thing being continued day after day, the line would gradually crawl over the enemy and hurt him the while.  That's how US infantry divisions fought.  The whole system was designed to have another probe ready to go the next day, no matter what.  They didn't try to win the war *today*.  Meanwhile, every nibbling company could get tank support and an artillery barrage and have the whole "kit bag" in a combined arms sense, and the local commander was expected to use the right tool for each enemy encountered, and carefully pick through them.
     
    The US AD way of fighting, on the other hand, was above all the find a local flank and turn it with a vehicle move.  Find fix flank was the standing method of any task force.  Terrain and enemy dictated who had which role in that.  An armor heavy task force (2 medium tank companies, 1 armored infantry company, smaller attachments of TDs, engineers, cavalry, whatever) would generally do the finding with a tank company, and the fixing with one of the others.  The armored infantry could be the flankers if it involved going through woods or a town or over a river, or the fixers if it was just a matter of containing an enemy infantry force and pinning them down.  The flanking move could be designed to assault the enemy from a new direction, or to just get behind and "bag" them, expecting to take them prisoner after subjecting them to a prolonged shelling, or it could be a true bypass movement, finding a route that the rest of the task force would follow, leaving only a small screen around the enemy and hauling tail for the next objective.
     
    Both forces tended to think of their problem as one of movement and reaching tactical objectives.  The AD way in particular wanted to find a way around and keep going, and fought to get that only if it had to.  The ID way assigned near and reachable objectives, expected to clear them and hold them, and then ratchet the whole thing forward, more systematically.  They also fought to enable movement more than the other way around, but expected to have to fight more because more things could readily block them.
     
    The emphasis on ground control and rating any mission as successful if a terrain objective was reached, was arguably a pretty dumb way of thinking about combat, but it was the American way in such things.  Big bags of prisoners and avoiding complete destruction of one's own formation were about the only other items that ranked.  And even the former of those was not much more than gravy, the big thing was to reach the spot on the map the muckety mucks had assigned one to reach, by the hour they called for it to be reached.  Stringing those together into a victory was the responsibility of someone with stars on their shoulder, not bars, oak leaves, or birds.
     
    Failure was always an option.  Meaning, if the mission looked too hard or losses promised to be too high, they could and did just say "screw this, somebody blew it" and chuck the mission, go to ground, defend what they could.  Somebody else can do the job today.  Pressing hard and getting a lot of guys killed was considered a disaster and stupidity, not bravery or devotion to duty.  With the net result that advantage situations were pushed and disadvantage situations were backed off, though also with a side effect of some lethargy or half heartedness - at least by some other armies' standards in such things.
     
    Just an example of the variety of actual combat practice, in different armies and branches, in the second half of WW II...
  13. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to Stagler in Real Time Only?   
    Aye you spend 80% of the time at full zoom monitoring your forces, only going in when contact is made or  you need to test and adjust your approach.
  14. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to Stagler in What is your best lesson learned from CMBS experience?   
    MP is not always available, and I cant just boot up the game, go to a lobby, and get a game going one night after work for an hour
  15. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to --WOKI-- in WOT & War Thunder Panther Skins   
    Hi guys,
    This's my first attempt to convert some WOT and War Thunder historical skins but still not perfect as im just learn about photoshop in 20 minutes from a friend..lol ( i never know how to use photoshop before )
    for now just panther (sorry for the wheels still using original CMBN, im too lazy to do it )
    the colors looks match with CMBN engine especially when using Reshade Sweetfx
    so what do you guys think?









     
     
     
    My wish for the next patch is they (Developer) can make separate skins for each model not combine them especially with vehicles
    in example i would like to see panther_early_hull.bmp with panther_early_turret, panther_early_hull 2 with panther_early_turret 2, panther_early_hull 3 with panther_early_turret 3 and so on but not mixed them because they will not match the body texture with turret and some other parts between their numbers bmp file (it's like probability if they're match than that's good but most they're not match between each file in one model
    i think it's only work with infantry skin but not with vehicles skin

    it would be nice to have a lot additional skins to the game in every vehicles model

    Sorry for my english
     
  16. Upvote
    Apocal got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Light Infantry on the modern battlefield   
    The 101st Airborne had trouble doing this even against light opposition in Iraq. They were supposed to be securing the highway and towns that made up the 3ID's supply lines but needed (and received) tanks for the actual fighting. Even then, they didn't have enough firepower on hand (three or four companies of Abrams) and found themselves snarled up in some nasty fights in built-up areas that the 3rd Infantry Division had smashed their way through without even slowing down. The other major light infantry centric operation was a sideshow; the 173rd Airborne Brigade dropped onto an airfield already held (and marked by) friendly-forces then stayed mostly static while calling down gobs of airpower to beat up Iraqis that were going out of their way to not inconvenience them. The major Iraqi formations in the north had already largely disintegrated and the brigade's presence didn't draw any defenders away from Baghdad. It was a sop to the original war plan that envisioned the 4ID coming from Turkey.
     
    Overall it wasn't exactly a grand showing and one big reason the original plan of having light infantry take Baghdad was scrapped in favor of just sending heavy forces in.
     
    edit: I guess taking Umm Qasr kinda counts, but there were tanks involved there as well, so I'm not sure how much credit is due.
     
     
    Even facing only lightly armed militias in Fallujah, tanks (and other forms of protected firepower) were the big winners:
    "By far the best two supporting arms used were tanks and CAAT.  Tanks and CAAT were the infantryman’s best friend.  The battle would have been incredibly bloodier if it hadn’t been for tanks and CAAT.  The tanks were able to provide a 120 mm direct fire weapon on the spot of any contact within a matter of minutes.  The thermal sites were able to pinpoint exact position of snipers and then effectively neutralize them within seconds.  CAAT was able to use its M2 .50 caliber machine guns and Mk19 grenade launchers to breach as well as destroy buildings were fire was received from.  CAAT also helped the squads by clearing the buildings that lined the street in their lane.  The infantry should never attack in MOUT without tanks or CAAT."
     
    CAAT = Combined Anti-armor Team, basically the infantry battalion's heavy weapons -- TOWs, MK19s, 50cals -- mounted on Humvees and operated as mixed sections. In the remainder of the AAR, they are very clear about the necessity to employ combined arms in built-up terrain, relying on firepower arms as primary killing tool, rather than sending infantry to clear buildings the hard way. This is consistent with every other AAR to come out of urban fighting in the last four or five decades.
     
     
     
    Massive amounts of airpower and moving at a snail's pace while praying you don't get caught out anywhere.
  17. Upvote
    Apocal got a reaction from agusto in Light Infantry on the modern battlefield   
    The 101st Airborne had trouble doing this even against light opposition in Iraq. They were supposed to be securing the highway and towns that made up the 3ID's supply lines but needed (and received) tanks for the actual fighting. Even then, they didn't have enough firepower on hand (three or four companies of Abrams) and found themselves snarled up in some nasty fights in built-up areas that the 3rd Infantry Division had smashed their way through without even slowing down. The other major light infantry centric operation was a sideshow; the 173rd Airborne Brigade dropped onto an airfield already held (and marked by) friendly-forces then stayed mostly static while calling down gobs of airpower to beat up Iraqis that were going out of their way to not inconvenience them. The major Iraqi formations in the north had already largely disintegrated and the brigade's presence didn't draw any defenders away from Baghdad. It was a sop to the original war plan that envisioned the 4ID coming from Turkey.
     
    Overall it wasn't exactly a grand showing and one big reason the original plan of having light infantry take Baghdad was scrapped in favor of just sending heavy forces in.
     
    edit: I guess taking Umm Qasr kinda counts, but there were tanks involved there as well, so I'm not sure how much credit is due.
     
     
    Even facing only lightly armed militias in Fallujah, tanks (and other forms of protected firepower) were the big winners:
    "By far the best two supporting arms used were tanks and CAAT.  Tanks and CAAT were the infantryman’s best friend.  The battle would have been incredibly bloodier if it hadn’t been for tanks and CAAT.  The tanks were able to provide a 120 mm direct fire weapon on the spot of any contact within a matter of minutes.  The thermal sites were able to pinpoint exact position of snipers and then effectively neutralize them within seconds.  CAAT was able to use its M2 .50 caliber machine guns and Mk19 grenade launchers to breach as well as destroy buildings were fire was received from.  CAAT also helped the squads by clearing the buildings that lined the street in their lane.  The infantry should never attack in MOUT without tanks or CAAT."
     
    CAAT = Combined Anti-armor Team, basically the infantry battalion's heavy weapons -- TOWs, MK19s, 50cals -- mounted on Humvees and operated as mixed sections. In the remainder of the AAR, they are very clear about the necessity to employ combined arms in built-up terrain, relying on firepower arms as primary killing tool, rather than sending infantry to clear buildings the hard way. This is consistent with every other AAR to come out of urban fighting in the last four or five decades.
     
     
     
    Massive amounts of airpower and moving at a snail's pace while praying you don't get caught out anywhere.
  18. Upvote
    Apocal got a reaction from MOS:96B2P in Light Infantry on the modern battlefield   
    The 101st Airborne had trouble doing this even against light opposition in Iraq. They were supposed to be securing the highway and towns that made up the 3ID's supply lines but needed (and received) tanks for the actual fighting. Even then, they didn't have enough firepower on hand (three or four companies of Abrams) and found themselves snarled up in some nasty fights in built-up areas that the 3rd Infantry Division had smashed their way through without even slowing down. The other major light infantry centric operation was a sideshow; the 173rd Airborne Brigade dropped onto an airfield already held (and marked by) friendly-forces then stayed mostly static while calling down gobs of airpower to beat up Iraqis that were going out of their way to not inconvenience them. The major Iraqi formations in the north had already largely disintegrated and the brigade's presence didn't draw any defenders away from Baghdad. It was a sop to the original war plan that envisioned the 4ID coming from Turkey.
     
    Overall it wasn't exactly a grand showing and one big reason the original plan of having light infantry take Baghdad was scrapped in favor of just sending heavy forces in.
     
    edit: I guess taking Umm Qasr kinda counts, but there were tanks involved there as well, so I'm not sure how much credit is due.
     
     
    Even facing only lightly armed militias in Fallujah, tanks (and other forms of protected firepower) were the big winners:
    "By far the best two supporting arms used were tanks and CAAT.  Tanks and CAAT were the infantryman’s best friend.  The battle would have been incredibly bloodier if it hadn’t been for tanks and CAAT.  The tanks were able to provide a 120 mm direct fire weapon on the spot of any contact within a matter of minutes.  The thermal sites were able to pinpoint exact position of snipers and then effectively neutralize them within seconds.  CAAT was able to use its M2 .50 caliber machine guns and Mk19 grenade launchers to breach as well as destroy buildings were fire was received from.  CAAT also helped the squads by clearing the buildings that lined the street in their lane.  The infantry should never attack in MOUT without tanks or CAAT."
     
    CAAT = Combined Anti-armor Team, basically the infantry battalion's heavy weapons -- TOWs, MK19s, 50cals -- mounted on Humvees and operated as mixed sections. In the remainder of the AAR, they are very clear about the necessity to employ combined arms in built-up terrain, relying on firepower arms as primary killing tool, rather than sending infantry to clear buildings the hard way. This is consistent with every other AAR to come out of urban fighting in the last four or five decades.
     
     
     
    Massive amounts of airpower and moving at a snail's pace while praying you don't get caught out anywhere.
  19. Upvote
    Apocal got a reaction from Nerdwing in US Campaign, first mission observations (spoilers)   
    10 AFVs lost
    33 men killed/wounded
    "US Army Tactical Victory"
     
    mfw:

  20. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to womble in Hey BFC!! Time for a general CM2 forum?   
    Personally, I'd be happy to have the Cmx2 forums merged, and have no specialist forums. Add an easy way of tagging your post for if it's specifically about one game (and not blatantly freakin' obvious that's the case). So much of what we whitter about is transferable between the game families.
  21. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to Vanir Ausf B in Suppression AFVs...again   
    I don't think non-penetrating hits cause suppression to AFV crew anymore and I'm pretty sure it's deliberate. And if that's a bad thing you can probably blame me for it to some extent.
     
    A while back (like a year ago or so) I noticed that in the WW2 games British AP that bounced off tanks did not cause any suppression while US, German and Soviet AP did. It became apparent that it was the HE burster charge that was the source of the suppression (the UK used AP shot instead of AP shell). This was rather silly since the burster charge was far too small to be of any concern to the crew when detonating outside the crew compartment. In fact, another tester brought up the fact that the production of suppression was tied more precisely to the distance from the tank at which the burster charge detonated (a shell that bounced far away before blowing up would produce no suppression at all). I brought up this discrepancy to BFC and the suppression effect was removed. Good? Bad? Ugly? Debatable I'm sure, but it's not a bug.
  22. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to Los in Inferior to CMBB   
    I always wanted to play this game in first person commander mode (anyone play Scourge of War Gettysburg using Headquarters in the Saddle mode?). The game could make a great Company commander simulator. Of course the single greatest thing you could do for multiplayer realism is make the game coop (Like SOW does) and then play it in realtime, so you have say a  two or three guys each running a platoon or what not in realtime, locked to their player character. Not everyone's cup of tea, but if CM did this I'd marry it!
     
    Los
  23. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to Pat O in New player and Forum member.   
    Just wanted to say hello. I just purchased the game and am very excited to have a game that is so complex. Reading through the forums I can see that this is a very serious community with great information. 
     
    i am myself a combat Infantry veteran and purple heart recipient. I was a member of the Army's very first stryker battalion 1-23 INF during the experimental phase and deployed with them twice to Iraq. I had ICV 0004 so I am pleased to see a game that allows me to use that old tactical noodle again. Looking forward to learning from you guys and being a part of this community.
  24. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to panzersaurkrautwerfer in Photo of destroyed Iraqui M1A1M   
    I swear to god simply burning every dollar, ounce of construction material, all military equipment given to the Iraqis in a giant pit would be a less wasteful use than what the Iraqis have done with it. 
  25. Upvote
    Apocal reacted to Reiter in Movie White Tiger   
×
×
  • Create New...