Username

Bungis I think there is a somewhat steady truce between me and Steve on this. He is busy making a manual and I am busy moving and selling my crap. I have already shipped my extensive war library and my local public library is for the birds. I am biding my time..skirmishing on other threads.. but still ready to spring my stug surprise shortly.. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Which leads to the question: what is "mobility" on a tactical scale such as Combat Missions's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As a motion control engineer let me answer by saying: Position Velocity Acceleration I have already seen that running infantry works best under some circumstances. Especially with a slow loading gun targeting you. With vehicles its a sure thing they cant hit what they cant see. So the shoot and scoot works wonders. Its also (in real life anyway) a great ruse to make it seem you have more weapons than you do. I dont know how well the acceleration of vehicles is potrayed in the game (or turrets either). They seem to decel to a "dead" stop. Lewis PS SSPNZRLKR are the mercs hiring?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SS_PanzerLeader: It' seems some people just want perfection and it aint happening nor would it be realistic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just want realism, that would be perfect. I think others would too. Lewis

I guess I am just pissed that I was up 3 stugs to 2 shermans in a email CE and now its 1 on 1. Stug had last sherman in view and decided to change ammo and go after a retreating MG crew! I told stug to target sherman, he had the drop on the sherman and decides he knows whats best. Fuzzy Illogic to me. Yes I told him to hunt and creep up a hill and he spotted the sherman. Crap. Lewis Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lurker: Pardon my ignorance, but did the IS/2 really have a smooth bore gun? I always thought it was rifled. Thanks, Lurker<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would bet alot of money it was rifled. It was an L42 also so it had decent velocity Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: But to use TDs effectively (at least the Allied ones) we players are going to HAVE to learn to use them better or... see ya! Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As Dano said, the AI never uses them effectively (well at least in the demo) either. Mobility is as great a weapon as the gun, more so when you are overmatched by an oponent. So until we players and the AI starts to use such real world tactics its "see ya" for realism. Lewis

"Blinding" doesnt cover the phenomena of the first wave units being easy to target. Its hard to model (comes out in PE though)in CM. "Blinding", according to you is only for blocking observation by the enemy. What I am describing is an attack on an enemys command and control by using battlefield smoke. US units using WP for smoke missions also used it as a weapon. So add that to the list. Lewis

Arty smoke was also used by the germans by firing between the first and second wave of a soviet attack. This would negate the second waves overwatch fire, "backlight" the first wave against the white smoke making tanks/infantry easy to pick off, and disrupt the second waves decision as to when to advance. The commander of an attack would usually go in with the second wave. Typically SU assault guns would be in the second wave and tanks in the first. Lewis

thanks it gives me more ammo for my "stugs vs steve" post. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mch: (laughing) Also:more of the same.the Germans went through their armoured "arms race" at a fast pace in 42-44 to compete with the soviets.the U.S.army had a slower development.(TD's probably WERE adeq.armoured for 41 and 42.not for 44,though) B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the M18 was the only US TD that fit into the US Army TD Doctrine. It was realized that it should only be armored up to a "threat level". That is, repulse lets say MGs, ATR, Light Flak and Pak to 37mm. To stop anything else required armor that would slow it down. It was a balance of speed, armor, visability, and hitting power (given APCR). But it also was late on the scene and only had a short time in the sun. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mch: P.S.:I'd really like a MOVE TO HULL DOWN order!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hear ya. But I think you would have to specify hull down to where? Its probably trickier than you think. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: The reasoning behind this is very simple - if you as the player were able to command your units down to the very second, your complete force of 200 plus soldiers and a dozen tanks would work like one helluva machine: way too much coordination to be realistic. BTW, your idea of customized order menus for certain troop types is very good IMO. I really like it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I see myself as the guiding light in a turn, not a real time control freak. I believe the allies and germans were about even with battlefield communications and control (with the americans having an edge in radios/walky-talkys) so I think the game plays very well. Obviously the player is omni-aware of the total situation as far as his forces can percieve it. In real life, a tank would have no clue what a morter crew can see. Thats why I like the idea of having multiplayers per side. One guy handles the US armor, another handles the US infantry and arty, and the same for the opposing side. On the russian front, I think CM will have to account for the primitive soviet CCC techniques. I was thinking perhaps the soviet player could issue orders to units but every time he picks a unit he risks having the "done" button pushed for him. Units close to his "command unit" would have a much reduced chance of triggering this, units far away have a greater. The german player has the same effect in place but at a much reduced percentage. Its a little abstracted but the soviets had poor radios and sometimes recieve only radios. Lewis PS Thanks for the compliment. I suggested it on the Talonsoft East front board maybe 2 years ago and I think it ended up with me getting chucked for some reason or another.

Moon thats good thinking. But I think its more realistic to be able to do this move when I want/need to. A target on a road can go pretty far if I have to wait that long. I also think the AI should be smart enough to have the unit make its own decisions. Example would be: Stug hunts over a crest of a hill. Spots 3 shermans 150 meters away. No matter what the issued orders it should back up immediately (preferably after popping smoke). It might also just reverse till only one sherman is in view and then engage it. One of the things I was hoping the game would have would be expanded menu options depending on unit type. This would add flavor to the different types of units. Example: Conscripts menu reads 1. Move 2. Shoot 3. Hide 4. Run Elite SS panzergrenadier 1.Move 2.Crawl 3.Sneak 4.Target 5.Ambush 6.Assault 7.Hide 8.Withdraw 9.Run 10.Antitank 11.Recon 12Etc Anyway better troops should have more options to reflect their experience and training. Lewis Lewis

It would be nice if there were a shoot'n'scoot command or be allowed to do the following string of commands: Hunt (advance over cover to a good firing position) Pause (as long as you dare..each pause gives x amount of seconds) Reverse (back to behind cover/concealment) This approximates how TDs and even tanks operate. Very few vehicles have the armor/gun/balls to climb a commanding terrain feature and sit and shoot all comers. Its just unrealistic. Vehicles like Marders operated like snipers, long range engagements from behind good cover and then move to a new position. Something like a Hetzer could operate from a hull down position as long as it "knew" enemies were all to the front. Even then changing position would be wise. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: The distinction was really one of design intent, I think. Tank destroyers, as the name suggests, were intended to kill enemy tanks. Assault guns were designed for infantry support and the ability to quickly rotate the gun wasn't very important, so turrets weren't necessary. Since pretty much all of these guns could fire both AP and HE rounds, however, almost any AFV could serve in either type of role with varying degrees of success. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. It really depends on the following: Doctrine/mission goal your Vehicles Opposing vehicles Training of crewmen terraign offense or defense loadout example: BULGE:M10 TDs were often used as direct fire support for infantry actions. Having a turret is always nice but being without a roof is pretty scary in this mission. Long range MG fire actually comes down in an arc and getting a bullet shooting around the inside would suck. Arty, morters, tree bursts all add up to disaster. But its high velocity gun could fire HE and AP at bunkers and reinforced houses, etc and it would be helpful if german armor DID show up. The M10 couldnt use its TD doctrine in the terraign in the Bulge and had to make itself useful somehow. example: Russian IS2. Most people look at this creation and say "Tank". I have read its mission was really an "assault gun". Main weapon was chosen over others for its HE effects. It would blast the crap out of points of resistance and if it had to, take on armored vehicles. It was slow loading and had a limited amount of ammo. Crews were trained to use the weapon as such (I would assume), and after reality sets in they would modify things to whatever would keep them alive/accomplish missions. I could go on but my point is that things are never so cut and dry. The guys on the cutting edge will use the weapons however they can to stay alive and accomplish missions (in that order!). I think if CM allowed the player to give the vehicles an overall "global" mission prior to the start of a scenario (such as TD, AG, Overwatch, whatever) then my stugs wouldnt decide to target a 60mm crew in the middle of a raging tank duel!!!! Lewis

mch who are you talking to? Lewis

(raising a suspicious eyebrow) Whats this now? Lewis

better than a politician I guess Lewis

WOW! Guts is almost as big a loser as I am!! Makes you think dont it? Lewis

this is a test of the battlefront topic and reply counting system. Do not be alarmed. Thank you Lewis

test

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Black Sabot: Imagine if Col. Frost had a dozen of these at Arhnem bridge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He could have taken the whole town unopposed as the 9th and 10th SS died laughing. It looks smaller than it is in that picture because the tanker seems to be standing on the bogies on the oposite side. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Foobar: Come on guys, we want to hear the EXCITING CONCLUSION!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We should all be expert "waiters" by now. Wait till you see how long my response is going to be. Lewis

Your Username: Username I couldnt think of anything. Lewis

didnt the soviets use them? Lewis