Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Andreas

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,888

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Andreas

    CMBB on CMx2 = no more???

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Bagration was an operational bitchslap and a strategic "please bend over, I must warn you, this will hurt a bit" for the Wehrmacht. But tactically it was much more even, unless one would want to believe that Zhukov personally shot the 600,000 or so casualties the Red Army suffered. For balanced (or even unbalanced towards the Wehrmacht) engagements, try the 5th Panzer Division against 5th Guards Tank Army (the battles that finally got Rotmistrov sacked). Or the 12th Panzer Division counter-attacking to allow elements of 4th Army to make it out of encirclement.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Netbook Scenarios

    in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk

    Posted

    A recent thread showed that there maybe demand for smaller scenarios that are easily playable again.

    http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83604

    As a member of the group that invented Byte Battles, this brought back memories, and during my week-long business trip to Kiev I started designing one, which is attached.

    The scenario is released as is, i.e. I do not intent to make changes to it. I am still interested in feedback though, and will apply that in new scenarios. I played this one against the AI and had fun. It reminded me what Battlefront designed CM for originally (reinforced company), and how well it does that. To give you an idea, designing this one took me about the same amount of time as it takes to play it, so I think instead of trying to perfectionate this one, my time is better spent to come up with another one.

    Here's the general briefing:

    Name: First Into the Village

    Location: Northern Belgium

    Date: 17 September 1944

    Type: Allied Probe - Semihistorical

    Terrain: Rural Village

    Weather: Fog & Rain

    Time of Day: Dusk

    Best Played As: Two-Player (size optimised for TCP), or Allied versus AI

    Forces: Canadian Armoured vs. Waffen-SS

    After the break-out from Normandy a rapid chase across northern France and into Belgium set in. During this chase, with no fixed frontlines, allied reconnaissance formations often bumped into German detachments either left behind because of the confusion in the general retreat or covering the rear of retreating formations.

    This scenario was designed for playing on a netbook. It follows the "Byte-Battle" format established by the now defunct scenario design group "Der Kessel". The intent is to give players who are e.g. on a business trip with a small sub-notebook (such as the Samsung NC10 on which this scenario was designed) a possibility to get a quick but satisfying game in, either against the AI, or during a TCP session from the hotel.

    Sources:

    http://remember.sympatico.ca/ww2/theBattles8.html

    http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=573

    'The South Albertas' by Donald Graves

    Playtesting by:

    Feedback welcome to Andreas at t34m43@gmail.com

    Enjoy the game!

    The ZIP file has been virus-scanned by me with an up-to-date version of AVG. No guarantees, of course, download and open at your own risk.

    Enjoy!

    All the best

    Andreas

    First Into The Village.zip

    0

    No Panzerbüchse no cry

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    I was aware that with "150" they strengthened the tube so that it could be reused, but I wasn't certain of when M72 came to use. Thanks!

    It appears that Soviets took RPG-18 to use in 1972. Here's an idea: Americans should have called M72 as M61, and Soviets should have called RPG-18 as RPG-72. Or an even better idea: include weapon's caliber to the name, so eg. LAW would be called 66 LAW 61 (later revisions would be named according to year, eg. 66 LAW 88) and 64 RPG 72. Major armed forces, feel free to use this system!

    You've discovered a little-known WW2 tank-grog thing here that BTS, in its search for the ultimate in realism, has modeled in CM. I've been waiting to see if anybody else noticed this.

    Most people assume that the M in US vehicle designations means "Model". Thus, the Medium Tank M4 Sherman would be the "Model #4" Medium tank. This is incorrect. The M actually stands for "Mortality" and the number represents the life expectancy of the vehicle in minutes. Thus, Shermans were rated officially at 4 minutes of survival in a combat situation, which is reflected accurately in CM by having them die on turn 4.

    After the Sherman had been in production for some time and combat experience had been gained, it was noticed in many cases, particularly for the earlier production runs of Shermans, that the official Mortality rating was a bit optimistic. Thus, the designation was changed to reflect the new data. This involved appending the letter A and another number to the M4 designation, the A standing for "Actually" and the new number being the revised Mortality rating. For example, the M4A2 had a combat-proven life expectancy of "Actually 2" minutes.

    Later on, the designation system got even more accurate by appending a number in parentheses and the letter W. Despite the widely held conviction that the parenthetical number was the caliber of the gun, what these symbols really meant was that the tank had a 75% or 76% chance of going WHOOSH in a big fireball when penetrated. However, some models of Sherman were so inflammable that calcualtions showed they had a 105% chance of brewing up, so they just left it at that and didn't bother with the W, because they were going to WHOOSH regardless.

    Towards the end of the war, some Shermans gained an E and another number in their designations. The E meant "Extra Cost" and the number was a designator for the manufacturer, to ensure that company got extra money for making the tank. CM accurately reflects this by making these types of Shermans cost more to buy in DYO.

    Thus, the M4A3E8(76)W designation meant a tank with an official Mortality of 4 minutes, Actually 3 minutes, cost Extra, and had a 76% chance of going WHOOSH.

    As for the + symbol, this was an unofficial nomenclature developed by tank retrieval and repair personnel. As you know, vehicles that WHOOSH are totally destroyed so were just left to rust away. However, most Shermans had only a 75-76% chance of WHOOSHing (the difference being due to small variations in production techniques by the several manufacturers), so sometimes a few Shermans would simply be knocked out instead. When these were repaired and returned to service, the ordnance personnel annotated their log books with the + sign.

    The origin of this of symbol is still a matter of debate. Some claim it represents a white cross in a military cemetary. Others maintain that it's a pictograph for crossed bandaids over a wound. But one thing is clear--most US armored division personnel didn't believe in the independence of random events occurring at different times. They felt that if the tank had not WHOOSHED the first time, it certainly would next time. Hence, they made sure to mark such vehicles for assignment to replacement crews.

    So much for weapons designations.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    What happens when the big 3 are gone?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    I've been surprised at how the US automobile industry has gone against the global trend of developing smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. In my opinion it's a case of a whole industry failing to catch a global tendency. When increasing groups of customers are starting to buy imports someone should've been asking questions.

    USA has always been a proud car manufacturer/developer and so it will in the future. The laws of market dictate this, plus there's a century of knowhow involved. I think this will be healthy for the industry. It's about that time to lift the rug and do some in-house cleaning.

    The WSJ narrative is that CAFE standards brought down the big three by forcing them to produce small cars that nobody wanted at a loss.

    It is astonishing how blind some people can be to reality. This view ignores e.g. that a lot of these smalls cars were imports developed for markets in Asia and Europe, where they were doing quite well (e.g. Ford Focus, or the smaller Chevys, which are Korean cars). CAFE is a crap system, but it certainly is not responsible for sinking these three companies.

    It is of no surprise to me that the big three are in the state they are in, but rather that they managed to keep going for so long.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Vote early, and....

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    BTW - has anyone told these guys from GOP that if you have trouble convincing the centre that you are able to govern, the best idea may not be to move to the right?

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/conservatives-cite-defeats-as-reason-to-move-right/#more-7311

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.election/

    Seems like a recipe for years in the wilderness to me, unless the Democrats really screw things up. I did not think handing the initiative to your opponent was smart planning?

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Vote early, and....

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    As for detail, this is apparently the transcript of a PC given yesterday:

    Obama: "I will confront this economic crisis head-on"

    Below are the remarks of President-elect Barack Obama at his first press conference:

    This morning, we woke to more sobering news about the state of our economy. The 240,000 jobs lost in October marks the 10th consecutive month that our economy has shed jobs. In total, we’ve lost nearly 1.2 million jobs this year, and more than 10 million Americans are now unemployed. Tens of millions of families are struggling to figure out how to pay the bills and stay in their homes. Their stories are an urgent reminder that we are facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime, and we must act swiftly to resolve them.

    The United States has only one government and one President, and until January 20th of next year, that government is the current Administration. I have spoken to President Bush, and I appreciate his commitment to ensuring that his economic policy team keeps us fully informed as developments unfold.

    Immediately after I become President, I will confront this economic crisis head-on by taking all necessary steps to ease the credit crisis, help hardworking families, and restore growth and prosperity.

    This morning, I met with members of my Transition Economic Advisory Board, who will help guide the work of my transition team in developing a strong set of policies to respond to this crisis. We discussed several of the most immediate challenges facing our economy and key priorities on which to focus on in the days and weeks ahead:

    First, we need a rescue plan for the middle class that invests in immediate efforts to create jobs and provides relief to families that are watching their paychecks shrink and their life savings disappear. A particularly urgent priority is a further extension of unemployment insurance benefits for workers who cannot find work in the increasingly weak economy. A fiscal stimulus plan that will jump-start economic growth is long overdue – and we should get it done.

    Second, we must address the spreading impact of the financial crisis on other sectors of our economy: small businesses that are struggling to meet their payrolls and finance their holiday inventories; and state and municipal governments facing devastating budget cuts and tax increases. We must also remember that the financial crisis is increasingly global and requires a global response.

    The news coming out of the auto industry this week reminds us of the hardship it faces – hardship that goes far beyond individual auto companies to the countless suppliers, small businesses and communities throughout our nation who depend on a vibrant American auto industry. The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I would like to see the Administration do everything they can to accelerate the retooling assistance that Congress has already enacted. In addition, I have made it a high priority for my transition team to work on additional policy options to help the auto industry adjust, weather the financial crisis, and succeed in producing fuel-efficient cars here in the United States. I have asked my team to explore what we can do under current law and whether additional legislation will be needed for this purpose.

    Third, we will review the implementation of this Administration’s financial program to ensure that our government’s efforts are achieving their central goal of stabilizing financial markets while protecting taxpayers, helping homeowners and not unduly rewarding the management of financial firms that are receiving government assistance. It is critical that the Treasury work closely with the FDIC, HUD and other government agencies to use the substantial authority they already have to help families avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes.

    Finally, as we monitor and address these immediate economic challenges, we will be moving forward in laying out a set of policies that will grow our middle-class and strengthen our economy in the long-term. We cannot afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign, including clean energy, health care, education and tax relief for middle class families.

    My transition team will be working on each of these priorities in the weeks ahead, and I intend to reconvene this Advisory Board to discuss the best ideas for responding to these immediate problems.

    Let me close by saying that I do not underestimate the enormity of the task that lies ahead. We have taken some major actions to date, and we will need further actions during this transition and subsequent months. Some of those choices will be difficult, but America is a strong and resilient country. I know that we will succeed if we put aside partisanship and work together as one nation. And that is what I intend to do.

    http://www.politicshome.com/mobile/blog.aspx?id=4381

    I think there are quite a few concrete directions with a decent bit of detail in there. Took him three days from election.

    I think some of these are quite mistaken in intent, but I do not think you can fault him for not being quite clear on what he wants, including what appear to be directions to the current administration, which appears extraordinary to me.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Vote early, and....

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Yeah his acceptance speech sounded to me like utter waffle. Even in the era of the soundbite, those are some loong sentences, and he said them so slowly.

    Paraphrasing:

    "If you are wondering if any US citizen could become president, he can. Because people voted, many of them for me. Because the USA is a democracy. Yay for us."

    Now I'm no fan of Bush but at least you knew he wasn't smart enough to obfuscate with bull****. If he bothered to give you an answer it would be what popped into his head at that moment, and he didn't seem to care about anyone elses opinion enough to lie.

    Seriously, can you and Affentitten please get real? It's an acceptance speech, not a policy proposal. It is over the top, but it does what it is meant to do.

    Look at this one for obfuscation with bull****:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041103-3.html

    There's a time and a place for everything - apparently acceptance speeches are not it for detailed policy outlines. Bush's 2004 speech contained them (bring the boys home victorious, tax reform, better public schools, social security reform) but with absolutely no detail, and I would dare to argue he miserably failed to achieve them, even though in Iraq he laid the groundwork for that to happen now.

    Or this one by the Gipper in 1980, nothing in it AT ALL:

    http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/speech.archive/victory.html

    Bush I in 1988 does not seem to be a detailed lecture on his policy proposals either, strangely enough:

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DD113CF93AA35752C1A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

    The expectation that an acceptance should be anything but waffle appears quite strange to me.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Vote early, and....

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Bloody forum does not let me edit...

    I overlooked this one: If BTC and Middle East were cut off tomorrow, it'ld be game over for everyone, including the Chinese, and all of the countries exporting oil, but without refining capacity to match their demand. It would be to the Credit Crunch what Hurricane Katrina winds are to an afternoon breeze.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Vote early, and....

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Ok, we *think* we know who he is - let me be specific, how about his policies? Do YOU know any of his policies and how he plans to make them work. Tax-cuts for 95% of the people with over a trillion dollars in proposed new spending; really?

    "Drill baby drill" to make the US energy independent? The Marx Brothers could not make that one up, except it isn't actually funny.

    Addressing the budget deficit by eliminating earmarks? Sure it's a good idea, but in current circumstances it is like suggesting that your wrecked car could be mended by replacing the front tyres.

    Spending USD 300bn on buying homes at inflated prices? That does not seem very smart to me.

    If you want to, you can easily see the holes in both sides's campaign policy proposals.

    I understand your guy has lost and you seem to find that mildly upsetting. But you really need to take a deep breath, I think. Think of 2016.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Vote early, and....

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Europe's problem is not oil, but gas. We are perfectly capable of buggering that up ourselves, thank you very much, no need for the US to be involved (and as a US DOS official once asked me "why on earth do we bother sorting out your problems?" I had no answer, and THAT does not happen very often I can assure you.) The guy wasn't exactly cast in the Rumsfeldian mould either, he is an enthusiastic Obama supporter.

    As for China (or India, or Kazakhstan where I am as I write this) - they have a point. We spent 200 years pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and now that the problem with that is realised we expect others to sort it out. It's not exactly fair. The G7 have realised the problem and are throwing money at it to encourage tech transfer (about USD 7bn has been made available so far). How well that will be done will be interesting to see. Check on The Google for "clean technology fund".

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Vote early, and....

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    What if an energy panel presented solid evidence to Bush that a massive energy crisis was looming in the next 20 years or so? What if the option was to invade Iraq or risk Russia becoming redominant or a third world war inevitable with them? The US may have a fair bit of reserves, but Europe sure doesn't. I guess I'm just trying to say that we don't really know what they might be dealing with. Maybe Iraq is cake compared to the alternatives. Maybe Andreas would be able to paint a picture of the energy situation for us.

    I am not a good painter, so I restrict myself to saying that I can see no picture of the energy future in which the Iraq war, even had it gone well, would look like a good idea compared to the readily available alternatives (just use less of the stuff and produce more from renewables/domestic sources) - from an energy perspective.

    Consider the money spent on Iraq by the USA and what this could have done for domestic energy production, energy efficiency, and renewables, had it been invested there.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Vote early, and....

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Cutting Andreas, very cutting : )

    Deservedly so.

    Every one looking for conspiracy excuses should first read this:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586043326400685.html

    If the evil liberal media elected Obama by hiding his defects throughout, then how come at the end of September he and McCain were running even?

    It appears to me that the Democrats ran the better show, benefitted from the circumstances, and because of the latter voters were not interested in another round of Rovian scaremongering or swiftboarding (I know that Obama's campaign was not above attack ads either, but I doubt they were what got him elected). I think the sooner the GOP realises that this is what cost them the election, and not the 'liberal media', the better for the party. Free outside advice, which tells you all you need to know about its value - several options available though.

    Then again, I don't think there's a rush, the GOP is likely to have eight years to engage in navel gazing when it comes to competing for president (you probably didn't read it here first).

    All the best

    Andreas

    0
×
×
  • Create New...