L.Tankersley
-
Posts
752 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by L.Tankersley
-
-
I'll be there, unless I can't make it. How's that for committment?
And as long as I spot you before any of the other attendees, I should truthfully be able to say you are, in fact, the best CM player I have ever met. Up to that point, anyway. Everybody else, kinda hang back, ok?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murph:
So my question to the military buffs out there: Can you tell me the anecdote/reason/meaning behind the following?
Overlord
Barbarossa
Market Garden<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
By coincidence, just last night I was reading one of Keegan's books and it gave the background of "Barbarossa." Apparently that was the name of some mythical (?) king that was imprisoned in a cave of ice, or something, and arose to help the German people out of some scrape or other. That was the general idea, anyway, as best I can remember.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lawyer:
Where? -- Grevey's sports bar in the Yorktowne Center shopping center. Located right off the Beltway at the corner of Rt. 50 and Gallows Road in Virginia. Yorktowne Center is about one half mile from the Dunn Loring Metro station on the Orange Line.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unless something comes up I should be able to stop by at least for a little while -- I work just a few miles west of there. Nice to let the traffic die down before I make that long, hard drive back across the Potomac.
If I'm heading east on 50 towards DC, I want to go left on Gallows (taking the overpass), right?
If you can bump this thread on Friday, that'd probably dramatically increase the odds I'll see it and remember to come.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:
But I'll bet the winner of the Kursk like tank battle can clean house afterward, no matter where the other guy is. Because the other guy won't have a united force left anywhere that can stop so many tanks. Whether at that point the enemy is in front, to the side, behind, all of the above - the spearhead just moves about vigorously and defeats in detail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that depends on what Scout does with logistics and lines of communication. If a counterattack successfully puts the tank force in a pocket, maybe he restricts their ability to move until lines are restored. Maybe vehicular units in a "cut-off" sector can't leave their sector (or are dramatically limited in movement ability) until supply lines are restored. How often did tanks have to gas up? Or perhaps orders to the unit can't get through until lines are restored, so they'll sit there until someone outside the pocket breaks through to them. While they're stuck there, I'd imagine they'd be on the receiving end of the lion's share of the enemy heavy artillery.
Other ways to discourage this sort of behavior: implement an "operational scoring" system. Depending on the notional campaign objectives, assign a point value for control of each sector every turn. Award additional points for achieving certain goals, like displacing the enemy HQ. Take away points for not having contiguous lines. With a system like this you can impose some risk-reward calculation into the decision to just throw everything into one big thrust.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juha Ahoniemi:
But let me ask about some security issue (I apologise if it has mentioned already): There will be absolutely no chance for starting player to see the whole scenario, right? I mean, passwords will already be in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A note to the organizers: in the CPX dry-run for CMMC, we discovered that a "tournament-saved" scenario has a potential security flaw. The first player reads the briefing, does his setup, and then creates a file to mail to the second player. But this email file can be opened and the specific scenario briefing can be read by either player before a password is required. That is, one player has the opportunity to read his opponent's briefing.
For this reason, if briefing text contains details about available forces or other sensitive information, I recommend that the organizers send out "pre-started" scenario files with passwords already in place.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What do you consider "gamey"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Venison.
-
You CAN (sorta-kinda), actually. You can't _issue_ a fire order while embarked, but once you've issued one you can have the FO move and mount up. Don't expect your mission countdown clock to move very fast while you're doing this, though. This is similar to the "feature" that lets you give an FO a move order with "Hide" at the end, and _then_ give him a target order. As long as you don't adjust his target, he'll be able to direct fire from that spot while hiding.
And there were some specially modified tanks/AFVs that were used as observer vehicles in WWII; I don't know any real details, though.
-
No, but you can control-click (IIRC) to jump to a point on the map you can see. Not quite the same thing.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:
I would love a campaign for CM, however the CMMC or whatever it is is so small that very few people get to play in it. I don't know how many, but for the past year they've never recruited as far as I can tell.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you're interested in playing in CMMC, email James Bailey at JBailey@ResoluteCapital.com. There are openings. There are probably 150+ people involved in one capacity or another.
As ScoutPL says, though, it is _not_ a fast-moving campaign, and is not for everyone. It's a bit like real war: weeks of boredom punctuated by hours of frenzied activity, with a lot of time and attention paid to things outside the scope of the Combat Mission simulation. If you're not in it for the long haul, or are just interested in playing a bunch of loosely connected CM battles, don't bother. Many players won't have much to do for weeks or months because their units are not in contact with the enemy. Other players, however, may get more than enough combat to suit them.
-
Found one of those complaint-letter generators, huh?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:
It's almost like any tournament would have to be "No Holds Barred" as far as tactics are concerned, like Iron Duke's tournament. In chess this gamey problem doesn't come up because there is no such concept in that game. I'm beginning to think that CM tournaments must necessarily be played in the same manner, as Fuerte suggested above. If the game allows it, it can be done, just like in chess. It's a competition so it's unnatural for people to avoid certain "moves" they KNOW would aid their cause just because SOME might think it gamey and complain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One other tidbit I can throw out: although trying to legislate against certain behaviors in the game is fraught with problems, you _can_ attempt to regulate "unrealistic" or "gamey" tactics through modified scoring. (Basically, using the carrot instead of the stick approach to behavior modification.)
BTS has already attempted to do this to some degree, e.g. by making crews worth more VP-wise than they should be based on combat power, but it seems that this bias is insufficient to discourage unrealistic tactics. However, in a tournament setting there's nothing that says you _have_ to score games using CM's built-in scoring system.
You could do things as simple as imposing VP penalties for dead vehicle/gun crews based on the end-game map, or change the victory algorithm dramatically (maybe base it solely on flags, or reduce the influence of flags, or make prisoners worth more, etc). You could impose a penalty for dead AT teams to discourage revealing them except when they actually have a chance to kill an AFV. Some of these things might require tedious post-processing or calculation but if you're willing to do that, you can do a lot to encourage people to avoid certain behaviors.
I'm not saying if you do this everything is all sweetness and light; people will say "this isn't CM; I want a CM tournament," they'll complain about the details of the scoring changes, and on and on. But you can at least eliminate the judgement calls that will come back to burn you, and you can always point to the rules and say "hey, these were published before the tournament began; it's not my fault you didn't read/understand them."
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:
Read Ben's first paragraph!! This is the key. Communicate with your opponent BEFORE the game begins regarding ALL the POTENTIALLY gamey tactics I've listed. You could agree to throw them all out!! I don't care as long as I don't get complaints from your opponent. It's that simple. COMMUNICATION !!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Speaking as someone that has assisted in the design and operation of a large internet tournament in the past, I'd like to point out that you should really make explicit in the tournament proceedures whether such an advance agreement is binding. Otherwise, two players could agree beforehand that "anything goes" but then one player pulls something the other thinks is completely beyond the pale and not covered by the agreement, and complains anyway. Or alternatively despite the agreement a player on the losing end could still complain in an attempt to salvage a victory.
I know people like to think that you're just playing a friendly game and no one would "stoop so low," but the very fact that this debate is going on so forcefully is evidence that this sort of thing WILL happen. "Sure, we said anything goes, but I didn't mean you could buy 35 Wasp flamethrowers and nothing else! That's clearly ridiculous!"
And Treeburst, one other recommendation I would make is to stay away from judgement calls as much as possible. You open yourself up to charges of inconsistency and favoritism, and put yourself in a no-win situation. I've been there and done that, and it's no fun. Just a bit of advice for the future.
-
I'm not in the tournament, but I will take this opportunity to chime in with my thoughts on these examples of "gamey tactics."
[b1) Setting fire to "squares" or buildings unoccupied by enemy troops, ESPECIALLY to deny a VL or covered access to one.
I can see this. First, I think in general it's rather too easy to light large areas on fire in CM. I wouldn't mind so much if someone wanted to use an infantry flamethrower team to do this because of their limited ammo and vulnerability, but I have visions of a couple Crocodiles lighting up the entire map.
2) Advancing large formations along the map edge.
Frankly I don't see anything (much) wrong with this. If the scenario is of the attack/defend variety, presumably the defender's mandate is to defend the _entire_ width of the map. Yes, it does give the attacker a covered flank, but it also concentrates the attacker in a small area. I think problems with this tactic are due more to the balance and scoring issues inherent in CM quick battles than anything else.
3) Scouting with AT teams, crews of knocked out vehicles or guns, MG teams, and anybody who is "low" on ammo.
I'd agree that this sort of thing should be a no-no. I wouldn't restrict use of line squads that happen to have LOW ammo, though. They're still regular infantry. And once you are low on ammo, there's a decent chance that your opponent is, too.
4) Recon with light (cheap) vehicles well into enemy territory.
I sort of disagree with this. The express purpose of many light vehicles was recon. Surely if you're fighting a battle with "armored" force type you wouldn't have this restriction? Or would you expect a player to scout with main battle tanks instead?
On the other hand, I don't think buying a whole bunch of Kubelwagens (or whatever) and sending them hither and yon through the enemy setup area should be allowed. I think this is more of a force purchase issue than a tactics issue, though.
5) Exposing AT teams SOLEY for the purpose of drawing enemy fire.
Ehhhh. This is a push, mostly because judging someone's intentions after the fact is so fraught with peril.
6) Ordering vehicle and gun crews to participate in an attack or hunt down enemy teams or spotters.
I'd agree that this should be a no-no. On the other hand, I think you should be able to use them to guard victory flags and guard/escort prisoners. Given the mentality of most CM games, particularly in a tournament, every battle is a "must-win, last ditch" attack or defense. In those circumstances I don't have a big problem with using leftover crews and whatnot as last-line-of-defense troops in an Alamo-like situation.
7) Rushing infantry straight at a known enemy position (especially through cover) with no supporting/suppressive fire.
While I understand the game engine limitation you're trying to keep from being exploited here, I can't get behind this restriction. There are too many circumstances where you might be compelled to do something like this. And again this kind of judgement call makes me very nervous.
8) Last minute flag rushes to acquire or contest a VL that you know you can't hold for another minute if the game were to continue.
While I agree this tactic is artificial, so is the presence of victory flags in the first place. I don't have a problem with people doing this - if someone wants to be sure they will hold a flag at the end of the game, then by god they need to secure the area around it with enough men to prevent a last-minute rush from contesting it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:
What Caliber is the MG42HMG & MG42LMG?
To answer the question, the MG42 HMG and LMG are .0312 caliber. (7.92mm)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To correctly answer the question, the MG43 HMG and LMG are .312 caliber (7.92mm).
[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: L.Tankersley ]
-
A perimiter is a very useful tool, indeed! First put your piece of wood in the perimiter box and secure it firmly. Then extend the perimiter until it is at its full height. Finally, slide the blade of your perisaw into the desired kerf and you should easily be able to properly prepare your joint. (If you don't have a perisaw, you can improvise one by lashing a handsaw to a broomstick.)
-
Ok; I just wanted to be sure that when you said "There is no range limitation" you didn't mean the player couldn't specify one if desired.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:
The limit was put in place to prevent, in theory, some potential gamey behavior. However, on balance it was probably not a good decision.
As Lewis stated, Ambush markers are already out of the game. Covered Arcs are in. There is no range limitation, not even one that is tied to max weapon range. Just easier to program the thing that way
Since putting a Covered Arc out to 5000m doesn't mean a SMG unit can shoot that far, there really is no harm in not having the range capped by weapon max range.Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure I understand this, Steve -- are you saying that the player cannot specify a maximum engagement range when using the covered arc command? That would make it quite difficult to accomplish an ambush at short range, wouldn't it?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:
It will also have a limited life. Ambush markers are out for CM2 and covered arcs are in.
But the covered arcs also might have a range function also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
IIRC the covered arc has a user-defined maximum engagement range. Don't remember seeing anything one way or another about whether there might also be game-imposed max range limits.
-
::shrug::
Whatever.
-
[Heh, looks like I was a little late off the mark here.]
[While I'm editing this, I want to bring up a possible "abstraction" rationale for the ability of CM vehicles to fire while moving "Fast." Remember that actual vehicles are not restricted to three discrete speeds (Move, Hunt and Fast) but can also move at intermediate speeds and speed up and slow down relatively quickly. Consider the following scenario: a tank is moving fast when it spots and decides to engage a target. The gunner/TC yells "slow down a sec so I can fire!" The driver reduces speed for a few seconds. Once the round is on the way the tank quickly speeds back up to maximum speed and continues on while the gun is reloaded. While I don't really know anything about acceleration/deceleration speeds of WWII vehicles, this doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It is not explicitly modeled in CM but if it makes you feel better you could imagine it is going on "behind the scenes."]
Your math is wrong. You multiply minutes by minutes to get kph; this is a no-no.
Here it is another way:
1000 m / 103 s = 9.7 m/s
9.7 m/s * 3600 s/hour = 34950 m/hr ~= 35 kph
35 kph / 1.6 km/mile ~= 22 mph
[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: L.Tankersley ]
-
Hmmm, here's a question -- can you push a vehicle into terrain it couldn't enter on its own (e.g. woods or rough)? And can you push a vehicle that is _not_ bogged/immobilized? If the answer to both questions is yes, then you might be able to push a vehicle into an obstruction. I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to do this other than for the novelty value; I don't _think_ exposure ratings matter for shots against armor (but I could be wrong).
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
Are there any meta campaigns getting ready to start that are in need of players? This is something I'd like to try.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
CMMC needs bodies. But you've got to be willing to make the time committment. It's not for dabblers. (Skill is much less important than willingness to learn.)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest:
HEHE!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:
"That would be telling" -- Number 6<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, it's Number 2 (all of them) that says that.
Washington Area CM Meeting on Friday
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
I had planned to attend but I've been home sick all week, and it's a long drive around the Beltway during rush hour. I'll have to catch you guys next time.