Londoner
-
Posts
369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Londoner
-
-
True Cool Breeze, wonder if anyone has tried it.
Was thinking versus a human opponent Vas - the tac AI would be fine, after all it would just sit doing nothing/cowering/observing etc after the last waypoint/order was completed, just like now but for longer, arguably what men do for the most part in battle anyway.
-
Noooo, quite the opposite. CM tends to compress tactical battles, would much rather the option for a two or three minute round, in all the titles, old and new, would in a way....add a whole new dimension to the orders phase.
-
Finally got my dense head around this and works for the first time - what an elegant, simple but fantastic little bit of software - with zero admin maybe I can add another game or two to the opponent list! Many, many thanks GAJ!!!!!
-
Pelican Pal and the others wanting to nerf Russian infantry - I think you need to read some of the Russian lessons learned reports on tactical methods that the Russians circulated to their officers during the war. And to follow the practices of the Russian infantry recon (predecessors of the modern Spetnaz), battle pathfinders, storm companies, and their tank riders and combat pioneers, come to that. They were not rigid. Not remotely.
Infantry recon, storm company tommy gunners, tank riders, and pioneers were a third of the Russian infantry arm, between them. Sure the line rifle companies *did* rely on numbers and persistence on an assigned frontage, but they were not remotely the whole story of Russian infantry tactics. And the later you get in the war, the more those line rifle companies are relying on infiltration tactics, or firepower support arms to shoot them in.
Don't try to write stupidity into the game system and push that on the Russian infantry.
Can't disagree with any of that but don't think wanting to nerf Soviet infantry is the driver. Am just a humble CMer trying to establish what a (as ambiguous as that may be) typical Soviet rifle unit/company should look like - in game terms - for both designers and quick battle picks.
That's not to say I don't appreciate yours and others narrative, on the contrary - it makes this forum a fascinating virtual place.
-
Londoner - most of the "conscripts" actually did have some training, it was just limited to a few weeks. Enough to organize them into units, issue them their kit and their weapons, do basic weapons familiarization, and above all to learn proper subordination to their officers and NCOs. That is the main thing a fresh recruit does not know - it is not that they don't know one end of the rifle from another, it is that they start with too nonchalant an attitude toward what needs to happen when a sergeant screams at them. They need to learn they are dead in seconds if they do not jump.
Green on the other hand cannot be passed by any degree of training. A formation is green if it hasn't seen the elephant, even if you trained them for six months in proper schools with good cadres etc. This is primarily a psychological toughness thing, not a matter of learned skills. Regular troops have seen men die horribly and learned that they will too if they don't keep their wits about them as that is happening. Green troops haven't and they will be shocked to their core when they see it for the first time. Nothing can train for that; it is a pure matter of horror and conditioning. The fear that generates has to turn into anger and aggressiveness; until that has happened they aren't "blooded" regulars.
I wish it on no man, it should go without saying...
Oh agreed, re training - as you said earlier, the ability to operate/maintain a bolt action rifle is negligible - it's the (forgive a Humanities grad') people stuff that's important.
Certainly can't argue with the latter - always believed the old Normandy myth about green units and getting off boats. However for the sake of CM/game considerations don't we have to agree on definitions?
-
Or even "up to", surely 5-10% would be a more accurate figure?
Going by CM definitions one could argue even the last group - men "in their early 20s who would have been with the unit a few months up to 2 years" could generally be considered green, although as you say, that's open to interpretation.
Additionally would it be harsh to say training method/tactical doctrine and even combat experience (i.e. at least what's disseminated down to rank and file) differs between German and Soviet enough so to not make the below CM definitions entirely comparable?
Conscript: draftees with little training and no combat experience whatsoever.
Green: draftees with little training and some combat experience or reservists with
some training and no combat experience. Green can also represent professional
soldiers whose training is substandard in comparison to another force.
Regular: professional soldiers who went through extensive, quality training
programs, but lack combat experience. Or, Regular can represent troops that
received mediocre training that have a fair amount of combat experience.
-
A "typical" Russian infantry unit in june 44 was probably composed of about one-third freshly arrived 18 year olds, a second group less than one-third composed of veterans, some of which could be in their 40s who would have been with the unit since 41 or 42 and the rest in their late teens, early 20s who would have been with the unit a few months up to 2 years.
If we're talking about the actual combat infantry companies, not the parent units they're attached to, I'd be very surprised if typically a third of them were men who'd been there from 41/42.
-
I think that they are distinct issues, although related to the extent that different players will have different preferences. But I think the point is that if designers are trying to recreate actual historical conditions/situations during Bagration, they should consider generally using more low-quality troops. The question of whether some people wouldn't like playing with low quality troops has nothing to do with whether that would be more historically accurate.
The other issues you raise, re victory conditions, map size, etc. are game design decisions which are purely a matter of player preference, not historical accuracy.
Exactly.
We all surely appreciate that having half your force made out of conscripts will not be to some tastes however we're discussing what constitutes a typical Soviet force makeup no? Going by the quoted CM definitions, a mix of conscript and green seems historically appropriate. A mix of low leadership and possibly high motivation could indeed be very interesting and more apt.
Sburke - wasn't meant as a criticism - was only recently praising your amazing Touch of Frost scenario, and totally get it's a tough job - creating both an entertaining and historical scenario, in fact one could argue that the two are almost mutually exclusive, at least in lots of minds.
-
Two more points that would partly explain the higher level of Soviet casualties:
1. The Soviets were a lot more aggressive in their use of infantry and less concerned about minimising casualties. This was partly because of the political system which did not have to worry about public opinion and partly because they had a large pool of, as I recall, 1.5-2 million 18 year old conscripts coming into the army in each of 1942, 43 and 44, more than enough to cover casualties in those years. In fact, IIRC, the Russians started disbanding units and sending men back to civilian production in late 44.
2. The Soviet infantry junior leadership at the team/squad/platoon level was not as competent as in the U.S./CW and German armies. There are many reasons for this (education, casualties, promotion)*, but there was always a shortage of qualified, experienced NCOs and junior officers. This was the main reason why the Soviets switched from a 4 platoon to a 3 platoon company in 44.
* My bold.
This is really the problem (for the most part), in relation to John's original post and question. Apologies for moaning at poor old Ian L in our RT games - designers simply aren't choosing enough green and conscript troops (with leadership minuses) in their force choices.
Every RT game I've played thus far has consisted of a Soviet force with (for the most part) well led regulars and vets. We all know by '44 operational Soviet management was an entirely different creature but its staggering casualties amongst, to be frank, an organisation with significant illiteracy all the way through the war should typically be reflected/represented accordingly on the CM tactical battlefield.
As for ranges/maps mentioned earlier - try Hunting for the Bug. Just got my first 2000m RT kill (Ian again, sorry) and felt oh so very smug.
-
American comic books think that whitewashing death and misery out of war is the way to praise it. Read Junger - the genre normally glorifies the psychological toughness that stands up to horror - while wallowing in that horror as much as any slasher movie; that is not ceasing to be propaganda it is itself propaganda, and is still peddling the line that the Landsers are virtuous and tough because of everything they went through, etc. They had to walk uphill to work both ways in a driving crapstorm of shrapnel at 4000 to 1 odds and got a turnip on Sundays; you need a heart of stone not to see that as praise and glorification.
There's obviously rational, pragmatic, societal reasons for that, read Burke - An Intimate History of Killing: Face-to-face Killing in Twentieth-century Warfare.
-
That's the one - most frustrating. Will ping you over the file on game end.
-
Wish that were my only problem with foxholes. In our current game hind - would you believe I have a couple of mg42s that have not discharged a single round due to the the gunner constantly "moving". Have tried facing and moving/redeploying them in the foxhole to no avail, I can't even area fire with these teams!
-
Looks like it's down to processor and graphics. My new hazwell lappy and 780 geforce loads any scenario (in full hd, all settings maxed out) in under a minute. Have got rt installed on an ssd and bn on a standard drive and there's no significant difference.
-
Utterly nuts....for the price of a couple of pints...
-
As the Brit' contingent to Ian's Frosty H2H, must say I do concur - what a fantastic map/scenario gents. Agreed Heinrich - ambience simply drips off this battle... :-)
RE Beaming in - ahh I did wonder!
-
It's happened to me loads - if there are enemy units in different directions the team ups sticks and redeploys left/right etc to face the new contact, it's extremely irksome. A cover arc does indeed help somewhat.
-
Good evening chaps,
Latecomer to CMX2 but oh how I'm finally feeling the love. Odd actually, really wasn't a fan at first, even with CMBN when it initially came out - still felt like a RTS designed game with WEGO/PBEM shoed in. However finally, with rueful smile, realising that the ole' BTS boys still know what they're doing. The more you delve/commit, the more you appreciate the....fidelity.
Very quick question - any idea when the combo' pack will be available?
Oh an unrelated note, a return to the Eastern Front makes me salivate. Am in danger of getting fat, quenching said spittle with cake in the meantime.
Kind regards
Anton.
-
The ROW lives?!
I feel....alive! Let me out of this asylum damnit, I'll soon have turns to send!
Signed
A ghost of ROW past.
-
Kevlar is an amazing thing, but it doesn't do squat against certain threats. For example, it is possible to take a sharp dagger and stab right through a Kevlar vest. You might not get all the way into the wearer's body, but with reasonable force you can do damage. A sharp dagger against SAPI doesn't do squat. Yet a piece of shrapnel can be arrested quite successfully by Kevlar, even though it is probably traveling with more force. The difference is that the force isn't directed towards a single point of impact with optimized cutting properties like a knife has.
Steve
Out of curiosity - how is a "stab" vest designed differently? Are there multi purpose vests intended to protect from both threats?
-
Within the range of a CM map? I think that would be *possible* without being at all likely.
Willing to be proved wrong.
Old, old argument - would be great to see but I imagine Steve's answer will be the same as it was 4-5 years ago.
-
Thanks for the honest and pragmatic explanation Steve.
-
Or install Windows 7!
-
No, foxholes are placed where the defenders are placed in setup just like in CMx1, and I don't understand why Redwolf wants to imply otherwise. Currently trenches are not placeable but they will be in CM:WW2, although they will be visible to the attacker.
That's great news Serg! I too thought RW meant no customisable slit/trenchs would be included!
However are you inferring user placed trenches will now be visible from the get go, instead of when approached ala CM1? That would be a shame.....
-
Ahhh please ignore - just seen the thread below!!
Price differences for CM games for UK and EU customers
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I was lockdown bored just before Christmas and almost bought Cyberpunk 2077. In the end I saw reason and just found a couple more CM PBEM opponents. However it's still the same price as December - £49.99 on steam and according to the steam info page the publisher is CD Projekt, a Polish developer and publisher combo?! Given the size of the title, one would assume they're not simply ducking any new HMRC regs?!