Smaragdadler
-
Posts
334 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Smaragdadler
-
-
Don't forget C2. If the 'line' is broken discipline goes down.
-
-
CMSF is an advanced virtual simulation of tabletop figurine wargaming with a modern setting.
Simulation would be ARMA or Steel Beasts Pro.
My two €-cents.
-
I'm with Steiner14 in this point. He just says loud, what what most people think in Germany. Left, Right, Middle.
Back to wargaming.
-
[...]You can test it out yourself - put T-55s verses BMP-1.[...]
Best mobile T-55 in game now is T-55-1974 which has an upgraded 100mm tank gun with laser range finder. That's why I lobby for implementation of at least a mobile version of the T-55-1970 with only a gyro-stabilized tank gun as a 'low tech' alternative.
-
Ah, it has all gone down since the bronze age anyway...
-
My american comrades here seem to enjoy it too!
I think they where ordered to stage for the pic. (no ammo)
-
...and the Kacktarn for fighting in sewers of course.
-
I better now leave this round of evolving Flecktarncamouflagegrognology, but not without the remark that 'Wüsten-', 'Tropen-' and maybe 'Steppentarn' (?) are all not official designation.
Don't nail me on it, but its something like
'Wüstentarn' = Feldanzug Tropen in 3-Farben-Tarndruck für den Klimabereich A (heiß und trocken)
'Tropentarn' = Feldanzug Tropen in 5-Farben Tarndruck für Klimabereich B (heiß und feucht)
-
Modern Flecktarn was developed in the mid 1970's with help of computers, but it has it's roots in the Waffen-SS research. BW has it since the 1990's.
-
Don't really want to dabble in camouflage grogism, but this particular derivate of Flecktarn is called "Wüstentarn" [= 'desert camouflage').
It's a 3-colour flecktarn for hot and dry areas.
There is a version called "Tropentarn" [= 'tropical camouflage'], but afaik it's the standard 5-colour (middle European woodland) Flecktarn with thinner fabric and little holes at the appropriate places, meant to be used in hot and humid climate.
There is also a 3- colour 'woodland' Flecktarn for north European woodland, used by the Danish army. They also have their own 'Wüstentarn'-version.
Then there is also a the Chinese Type 03 Plateau Camouflage, which is the (stolen) 5-colour BW Flecktarn in brownish colours used in Tibet.
And there are of course commercial variants.
-
edit: wrong thread
-
@ Wiggum: Very good. It tales a tale.
-
...We are far more flexible with the organization of Syria's Unconventional forces because we invented them
We do intend on making new formations for NATO...Steve
UnCon update with NATO-modul. Now it's official.
-
...
The only army which had a well designed system was the U.S. Army. A lot of people have complained about the flaws of the U.S. replacement depot concept, but it had the big advantage of being able to bring U.S. combat units back up to full strength in the shortest time and was the only system designed to cope with large scale attrition warfare.
...as far as I understand the u.s. system was maybe good on paper but proved to be 'fatal' later on in the Hürtgen.
...The Americans were not used to fighting in the forest and their training at homedid not prepare them for what they would face. They had not been taught about fighting
in the woods: things like hugging a tree instead of diving for the ground when artillery
was coming your way. By the end of October a five-page report was issued to the troops,
which explained how to fight in the woods, but there should have been more training.
The new troops that were coming into the forest were often replacing casualties. Instead
of whole units being replaced, individuals were added to units, as they were needed. This
was a very unproductive practice.
My partner and I were assigned to the extreme left flank as an outpost there. By
now it was dark and we took turns on watch. When dawn arrived, we discovered that we
and the GIs in the adjacent hole had been left alone—evidently the company had moved
out and forgotten us. Replacements meant so little that we were never really integrated
into the unit with the rapid turnover in squads and platoons from the terrific casualties
being sustained in the Huertgen.
Soldier Jerry Alexis
The problems with training and replacements were not specific to the Huertgen
Forest, but the whole war. However, they were a factor in the high casualty rates.
...
How and why so many wonderful young people were sacrificed and for what purpose poses an interesting question. It has been said that the battle for the Hurtgen Forest was based on a plan that was grossly, even criminally stupid. There does not appear to be any arguments to the contrary. The statement that, "The months-long battle of the Hurtgen Forest was a loser that our top brass never seemed to want to talk about" seems to say it all. Who can be blamed? Probably no one, or everyone who had anything to do with its planning. Headquarters personnel from battalion on up to Corps and Army found themselves good billets and seldom strayed near the front. Of course there were notable exceptions, but in general the American officers handing down the orders to attack and assigning the objectives had no idea what it was like at the front. Combat veterans said that only on the rarest of occasions was any officer above the rank of captain or officer from the staff were ever seen.
The first step down the road to this disaster can be traced to the following order:
COMBAT UNITS ARE AUTHORIZED TO BASE DAILY REPLACEMENT REQUISITIONS ON ANTICIPATED LOSSES FORTY EIGHT HOURS IN ADVANCE TO EXPEDITE DELIVERY OF REPLACEMENTS. TO AVOID BUILDING UP OVERSTRENGTH, ESTIMATES SHOULD BE MADE WITH CARE. SIGNED EISENHOWER.
This order was based on the necessity of providing replacements for battle losses in time to insure that the initiative would not be lost in battle situations where the enemy was on the run but might recover if replacements were not quickly available. Unfortunately, the order enabled inept staff officers to bring in replacements at such a fast pace that companies and even divisions could take tremendous losses that only could be acceptable because of this replacement policy. The officers making these decisions were never close enough to the front lines to be in danger themselves so they were always around to continue to make more costly mistakes.
At the Hurtgen Forest battle, it was Generals Bradley and General Hodges who were responsible for these costly mistakes. They used this procedure but failed to put into place any checks to determine if this policy could be causing excessive loss of troops. This was the weakness of the plan and unfortunately, no one ever bothered to check it out. The blame for this catastrophe was a failure of the generals at the highest levels. The officers from the level of captain down to freshly commissioned lieutenants and enlisted men from sergeants down to the newest recruits, performed and died with such courage that all Americans should be forever proud of them. Taking the time to read this account and consider its implications might diminish the possibility of this type of disaster happening again. Then again, maybe not.
-
Will we get the right runes and swastikas [TM] from the 'box' this time, or will we have to mod simulacra as usual...?
-
There must be a decision what EoS should be. 'Just' a recreation of Empire or a super-session of Empire.
-
Ideas:
-difference between brown and blue water would be nice
- till late WW2 only 'submersibles,' not real subs (means: dive only for one ore two rounds, then have to re-surface)
-diesel subs that have to snorkel but are undetectable when bottomed in brown water (near coastline) + AIP as technology
- nuclear hunters and boomers
- ASW ships with helis (can be in one place fore some rounds) and ASW-Aircraft (scans the route it is flying)
some gamey bug:
If you play vs AI opponents you can 'collect' their peace offerings over time. In later game you can use this to sneak attack resources and then just accept some old peace offer next.
-
Ideas:
-difference between brown and blue water would be nice
- till late WW2 only 'submersibles,' not real subs (means: dive only for one ore two rounds, then have to re-surface)
-diesel subs that have to snorkel but are undetectable when bottomed in brown water (near coastline) + AIP as technology
- nuclear hunters and boomers
- ASW ships with helis (can be in one place fore some rounds) and ASW-Aircraft (scans the route it is flying)
some gamey bug:
If you play vs AI opponents you can 'collect' their peace offerings over time. In later game you can use this to sneak attack resources and then just accept some old peace offer next.
-
I would like to see some enhancement options for resources like barracks in cities. Mines for gold and iron, farms for food on land, off-shore oil platforms etc. They should give a production + defense bonus according to build level and should be vulnerable of course. Maybe no enhancement for fish. For fish a extra trawler class that you have to develop so that you actually have to go and 'farm' it. Should be very profitable.
Maybe little sight radius bonus for infantry on mountains.
Tree-burst bonus for arty against not entrenched infantry in woods.
-
I would like to see some enhancement options for resources like barracks in cities. Mines for gold and iron, farms for food on land, off-shore oil platforms etc. They should give a production + defense bonus according to build level and should be vulnerable of course. Maybe no enhancement for fish. For fish a extra trawler class that you have to develop so that you actually have to go and 'farm' it.
Maybe little sight radius bonus for infantry on mountains.
-
I think the biggest mistake with CMSF was that QB on small maps are 'broken'. That is the main modus to play if one just wants to start simple and try out the toys. And it's also a pain in the editor to pick just this and this exact type of weapon and put it on the map to try it out. That has made the first step of the learning curve unnecessary high. And I think that is also one reason for the WW2 enthusiasm. They all want to play CMx2 but they have to start at "0" with the modern setting. And that is exactly is not very easy with CMSF, because you can't really train against the AI in a FAST way. I really think small QB against AI is the most played modus of CMSF. And it is exactly the modus where the disadvantage of red comes most trough (maybe not on stuffed urban).
With only UnCon Mercs/Militias for both sides you can even simulate low tech (lateWW2like) battles. Recoilless Technicals are the modern poor man tanks. There is very much depth in CMSF. It's just not so easy to discover.
For new WW2 QB system you battlefront guys should make sure that small QB with many random settings generate very good balanced results. You could also make a 'sandbox'-mode for the editor:
All units in the game can be picket freely from the list, placed on a map and then played against a simple CMx1 flag AI without After Action Report and Winer/Looser.
That should win the hearts of newcomers.
-
In a pbem I have British HQ with dead mortar guy. But the other two guys are well and have still over 10 51mm HE. They are laying exactly with the mortar tube and I have given them a target order for a distant position some 3 turns ago. Till now the have not re-manned the mortar tube. Could it be a bug, or should i have more patience...?
-
You could, but it would be better style, to park next to them...
We do intend on making new formations for NATO...
Patch v1.21 Release Date: November 11th!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Patch v1.21 will throw out all the different skill levels. There will be just a new 'Über Grog Modus', which is basically the old 'Iron' - but before battle start you have to order your ammo on-line at battlefront.com...