Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

civdiv

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    664

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by civdiv

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I started this all by starting the topic. I simply didn't think that the Stryker vehicle should be over represented given the nature of the conflict modeled in the game. There have been many to include Battlefront itself that disagree. But the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. BF will model the units and then it is up to us to prove their utility or lack there-of. Yes, modelling of supporting arms will have a lot to do with the success of the Stryker concept, but to a certain extent, modelling the capabilities of the Stryker units and their dismounts properly will go a long way to determining whether the concept is valid. I look forward to playing w/ the concept.

    civdiv

    0

    So what's wrong with TOAW from a CM'ers standpoint?

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    Originally posted by markshot:

    JasonC,

    On the other hand, I tend to regard these products as games and ultimately whether I am having fun is my most important criteria. Although I do like games that strive to accurately model real world systems, primarily because if it is well done then I believe the end result should be more logical, less likely to contain loopholes and exploits, provide a better intellectual exercise, and deliver a superior educational vehicle.

    I do find that people are constantly screaming for realism, but few will chose dry realism over fun and good game play. I think when designing a historic game, it is more important to convey the spirit of the major concepts than to strive for total accuracy in all things modeled.

    Well, it's been interesting. Thanks.

    Company of Heroes is a good example. Very unrealistic but a cracking good game.

    Did I just say 'cracking'? Too many limeys on this board.

    civdiv

    0

    So what's wrong with TOAW from a CM'ers standpoint?

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    My TOAW (I and II) experience;

    I haven't played it since maybe 2 years ago. I was driven away by the dreaded 'Tigers vs Jeeps' debacle. For those of you who aren't familiar with the issue, someone didn't like some of the combat results and the affects that certain weapons systems had. So, they designed a playtest that involved a unit made up exclusively of Tiger tanks, and fought against a unit made up entirely of Jeeps. Well, though the Tiger unit usually won the fight, they ALWAYS took heavy losses, to a unit that possessed literally nothing but jeeps, and hence, possessed nothing that would even scratch a Tiger. This jived with my own experience, say, when one of my tank battalions with infantry support attacked a non dug-in North Korean infantry battalion in open terrain. The NK infantry unit possessed a hand-full of 85mm or 76.2 mm ATGs. and despite using arty or air support on them, I almost always got my ass handed to me. Essentially 3-1 odds with air or arty support, combined arms attack in open terrain, and nothing.

    This issue stemmed from semi-arbitrary strengths (Armor Attack, Defense, Infantry Attack, Defense 'points') being given to each piece of equipment. So, w/o getting my manual out, a jeep gets an anti-armor strength of '1', a Tiger, say, '27'. Here is the flaw at the very core of the game. 27 times more firepower or strength sounds good, but the reality is a jeep couldn't hurt a Tiger if it rammed it. But you have to give each piece of equipment some attack or defense factor. Then you take all of these pieces of equipment and build a battalion or a regiment or a division. X number of BARs, Y number of Infantry Squads, Z number of Jeeps, etc. Then when you bump into some other unit the game engine works some black magic that is completely opaque to the player and spits out some combat results. And you have Jeeps killing large numbers of Tigers.

    Stuff happens and you have no clue as to how it happened. Supply is another huge problem, as Jason mentioned. 'Hey, that unit hasn't done anything, isn't near the enemy, hasn't moved in days, is sitting right next to an HQ, but it has no supplies and it is fatigued. Why?' Don't look in the manual, it isn't in there. There all these neat charts that show that a Yugoslavian 82mm mortar has 11 firepower (I am making that up), but not a clue as to how the game engine figures out combat results or supply, or reinforcements, etc.

    So I stopped playing. I tried playing it about 2 years ago again when I went on a business trip, and despite the latest patches it was still completely broken and completely imcomprehensible. I still have my disks around somewhere. I experienced much of what Jason talked about and keep in mind my experience was after several patches. I surmised, much as Jason does, that something was seriously broken under the hood, and w/o any transparancy there were no evident work arounds.

    civdiv

    [ March 25, 2007, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

    0

    Insurgents target Strykers in Iraq

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    But Splinty,

    Why should I pay attention to you when I have that font of knowledge Richard Belzer to keep me informed? You are just some 18 or 19 year old who couldn't find a job, so you joined the military. It was either sell crack, work at McDonalds, or join the military. And you never go anywhere over there and are so worried about getting killed that you don't know ANYTHING about what is happening in Iraq. I mean, Belzer reads 20 newspapers a day; he knows much more about the situation in Iraq than you do.

    civdiv

    [ March 23, 2007, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]

    0

    Insurgents target Strykers in Iraq

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Afghanistan is still savable, Iraq may not be. Give the latter 6 more months and if things haven't improved significantly, get the heck out. The biggest problem for Afghanistan is Iraq; division of effort, division of resources. the US could have done Afghanistan on our own if it weren't for Iraq. We certainly can't rely on the EU/NATO for much.

    civdiv

    0

    quiz

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by patboy:

    Another photo from Ethiopia this time, show this one :

    tankpq6.th.jpg

    Caption said : Tank under bridge

    Again, appears to be a T54/55, but this one is completely stripped. Could be stripped for parts, or could have been stripped of any metal objects that could be removed just for scrap.
    0

    quiz

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    T54/55. Used to be an arty FO and we got this stuff beast into our skulls. Giveaways are the bore evacuator on the end of the barrel (100mm IIRC) plus the gap that can be seen between the first and second road wheel on the tank on the left (You have to play with the brightness to make this out). So chassis and turret (weapon) match T54/55. Both dead giveaways.

    What is this photo from?

    civdiv

    0

    Fireflies Inaccurate?

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    I'm currently reading 'No Holding Back, Operation Totalize, Normandy, August 1944' by Brian A. Reid. Great read BTW; very detailed and written from both the operational level and down to the nitty-gritty of tactical combat. It also goes into the build-up of the Canadian Army in WWII, it's organization, training, and personalities. Definately a highly recommended book.

    Anyways, on page 155 of the hardcover 2005 Robin Brass Studio edition is a photo of two Sherman tanks, one of which is a Firefly. The caption reads; 'Allied armour at dawn The tank on the right can be identified as a Sherman Firefly armed with a 17-pounder gun. While this gun could kill any German tank, it was inaccurate and a hit at over 1,000 yards was a matter of luck. (NAC/PA 162391).'

    Anybody know anything about this innacuracy, I have never heard the Firefly was inaccurate. Is this an optics issue (That is pure guess on my part). IIRC, British optics were considered below US standards, which were similarly below German standards, while Soviet optics were the worst of any of the major powers.

    Anybody know anything about Fireflies being inaccurate?

    Is my laydown of WWII optics accurate?

    civdiv

    0

    even more Photos of the Day

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    There are no track marks in the soft muddy path leading into the vehicle driveway. The Bradley must have backed into the driveway and around the obstacles shown in the video. But there are no track marks.
    I see track marks going from about 12 o'clock to about 3 o'clock, between the barriers. It's some sort of track. And we don't know what the road is made out of. Just because it is wet doesn't mean there are going to be deep ruts.

    Two, if you look at the blast pattern starting at 3:28, there is very little in the way of a horizontal blast wave that roils the placid water, which BTW remains mirror placid throughout the explosion. Also note the pebbles falling on the water from a high trajectory, not the low angle fragments you would expect. How did they rise to an apex and fall so fast as to beat the horizontal fragments?
    You are looking head on at the splashes so there is no way to tell what angle they are hitting the water. But I do not see a 'wave of water'.

    Third, look at the transition at 4:21 where the smokelike mist disappears to be replaced by a sudden black plume rising high into the sky. Freeze frame it and you'll see it.
    That's exactly what vehicles that have been hit in combat do. The first smoke is mostly dust from the explosion as explosions don't really make smoke. If they did that would indicate that the explosives are pretty poor quality. As this is an arty round the explosive quality is military grade. So first you see basically dust from the explosion and then it changes color as it is now real smoke from something burning.

    And at the very end of the video you can hear some irregular explosions. That could very well be ammo cooking off though usually the smoke will billow when there are secondaries. But if it's 25mm going off there won't be much of a billowing affect.

    Looks real to me, but I am certainly not a video nor an exploding Bradley expert.

    civdiv

    0

    even more Photos of the Day

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Here, let me take a stab at what happened;

    A completely undisciplined Army infantry unit violated every SOP in the book and left a Bradley completely unattended (Based on no exhaust and no turret movement I really doubt anyone was inside). Someone needs to be court martialed for that screw-up, regardless of the condition of the Bradley. A Bradley is armored against 155mm arty, but that doesn't really take into account the round going off UNDERNEITH the vehicle.

    civdiv

    0

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Tarquelne:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv:

    [QB] I disagree that a bunch of overpriced 'battle cars' armed with .50 cals is a medium force.

    What about the Styrkers that have something more than .50 cals? Not enough? What would constitute a Medium force in your opinion? Does it require that the extra "teeth" be mounted on the vehicles, and not in the form of a more heavily armed infantry component?

    (Would you say that in theory a "medium force" could perform the sort of deep operation you think Steve has in mind for the Strykers, but that the Strykers just aren't that medium force?)

    And I don't agree with ANY of your choices.

    That's good. I hope no one does. </font>
    0

    Army's Gun Truck Alley at Ft. Sill/CM:SF interest?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by John Kettler:

    civdiv,

    I don't dispute your argument. I'm simply reporting what I saw on the program I watched.

    Regards,

    John Kettler

    Sorry John,

    Not flaming you and if that was your perception of my replies than I heartily apologize. Just saying that you don't train someone to do something they shouldn't be doing in the real event. My problem isn't with you, it is with them teaching this stuff.

    civdiv

    0

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I disagree that a bunch of overpriced 'battle cars' armed with .50 cals is a medium force. Weight isn't the sole determiner to the 'strength' of a force. Medium has a very valid purpose on the battlefield, but I would prefer a medium force with some teeth. This is my primary disagreement with Steve.

    And I don't agree with ANY of your choices.

    civdiv

    0

    Strykers Taking Hits

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Yup, I had seen the pictures before. Sure, anyone with an axe to grind can take some picture out of context to try and make a point. I'm not saying Chops did this, I am more referring to the URL from the original picture. But he did post an article from this week and a photo that is like 2 years old.

    civdiv

    0
×
×
  • Create New...