ASL Veteran

All you have to do is go to your nearest book store and browse the military history section. Thumb through whatever catches your fancy. Buy whatever you can afford. Eventually you will build up a library on a subject you enjoy. I buy a new book just about every weekend. Just got a good one on the Crimean War the other day. If you can't find something at the book store, you can always browse Amazon.com or Borders books online.

Winner of most knowledgable grog category: [x] Rexford - grog among grogs. Hell, he even wrote a book about armor penetration. :eek: runner up - [x] LOS - been quiet recently, but he deserves a vote too. [x] Michael Dorosh - well, I suppose he wrote a book too. That makes him a runner up at a minimum. Winner of visual aides category: [x] Jeff Duquette - always good with a diagram. Winner of most long winded category: [x] Jason C - his posts are so long I seldom make it entirely through one.

Well, you know that the Iron Chef always likes to jump in and add an insightful comment or two to most threads on the forum. His mastery of WW2 minutae is rather impressive - even Groglike on occasion.

Anyone who has lived in California during a drought will tell you that fire and trees don't mix and only a complete moron would deliberately set a forest on fire to deny a few meters of ground to an enemy advance. Before long several hundred square MILES of forest would be burning out of control and I doubt there would be too many volunteer fire fighters running around trying to put it out. Sparks and little burning specks would also be blowing around setting buildings and other things on fire several meters from the genesis of the fire - even jumping fire breaks. Putting out forest fires takes a LOT of manpower and a LOT of hard work. Rather than lighting fires, my guess is that most troops probably feared fire because of it's unpredictable nature. In CMBO fire is very predictable and contained, thus its exploitation in the game is gamey. If someone wants to use that "tactic" then go ahead and "fire away" if your opponent doesn't mind, but to try to justify it as a historically accurate tactic just seems a little shallow to me. If someone feels strongly enough that it was a valid and common tactic, then I would just suggest that you go out to a forest and light some trees on fire. Dig a foxhole ten meters from where you started the fire and then tell us how normal and common this behavior would be as you gawk at a thirty foot tall flaming torch that's close enough to roast marshmallows over. That's my 2 cents anyway

I seem to recall, in the distant reaches of my brain, that the Israelis complained about the M-60 tank burning easily during the 73 war and that it had something to do with the hydraulic fluid that was used. I think it was some kind of cherry colored fluid or somefink - although I'm kinda thinking right now that hydraulic fluid is normally red. Well, I did say it was from the distant reaches of my brain now didn't I?

It's not. Modelled that is. It was one of the favorite topics for ... his name escapes me now - the dude who said he was going to make his own version of CM. One of Steve's best buds .... peacetime army. Claimed to be an engineer of some sort. Anyway, none of that really matters to the question does it? A search could reveal much on this topic though I think.

I would like to see a guard rail or a wall of some kind along the top of the bridge. Not only would it keep trucks from falling off, but infantry could hide from fire while advancing across.

Sometimes you just gotta go with what's available!! . Obviously I didn't dig very far . That's also why I encouraged someone to post some data in order to take at least a slightly rational look at the two vehicles. Chest thumping patriotic discussions don't get ya very far if we want to actually learn something.

Okay, I did a little digging and it would appear that the penetration ratings for the various 76mm guns on the T-34 (and other Soviet vehicles) are comparable to the US 75mm - the 76mm has a marginally higher MV, but the penetration is almost identical to the penetration ratings listed in CM for the Sherman 75. The T-34/85 main gun has penetration stats that are similar to the US 76 used by the "Easy Eight" - nearly identical at 0 degrees at 500 meters and 1,000 meters as far as I can tell. Armor protection between the Sherman and T-34 is also similar in terms of thickness. I am not sure about the slope comparison of the front plates - but the Sherman in CM is something like 60 mm 47 degrees IIRC. So taking a look at things a little less "patriotically" it would seem that the Sherman 75 is the rough equivalent of the T-34/76 and the Sherman 76 is the rough equivalent of the T-34/85 in terms of firepower and protection. This only leads to a comparison of reliability and crew placement / space. On that I will leave you all to judge for yourselves . Naturally if someone would like to post some comprehensive statistics for penetration and armor protection I think it would possibly bring a little less - 'opinionated' discussion on the topic and a little more 'direct comparison'. Everybody knows the T-34 is an uber tank therefore it must be superb. Everybody knows how much the Sherman sucks, so it must be a lame tank that explodes on sight. Well, the Germans didn't think the Sherman was a suck tank at El Alamein. I think people will find the Sherman to be quite effective in Tunisia and Italy when CM 3 comes out. Try tangling with a Sherman in a Pz III armed with the same gun as those 50mm AT guns in CMBO. Yeah, I think some German players might have a tough time of it. A Pz IIIJ would have just as much trouble with a Sherman as it would have with a T-34 - and that's really where the T-34 got its reputation. Fighting against Pz IIIs.

30 + scenarios on the way.

I think you have to be within 10 meters to attack an enemy vehicle in CMBO with the Gammon bomb. I don't know how many are assigned per platoon in CMBO - I think there is some random factor involved.

Well, my reaction would be to stand around if I heard gunshots in my hometown - mostly because I wouldn't be expecting to be shot at. I actually might not even identify the sound as gunshot sounds for a few seconds - and even then I might wonder about it. As a civilian I just wouldn't expect gunfire to be going off in my direction so my reaction would be more of "what the hell?" I think most soldiers realize that they may be the target of hostile fire and would doubtless react more quickly than a civilian would. [ February 06, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

Actually Michael, I was not trying to say that you were biased about the British, and I am not trying to bait you into a flame war. I am simply pointing out that the examples you are using to prove your point - whatever that may be right now - can easily be turned around to show that what they are doing was not considered normal by the participants themselves. If the participants are stating that the behavior is not normal, how can you use that to prove that something is normal behavior? No, it must be extraordinary behavior. If the behavior is extraordinary, then why is it extraordinary? The reason it was extraordinary is that the British didn't seek cover, but just walked along. If your point is that all WW1 infantry were trained to walk into MG fire and did so willingly because they had never seen a MG before - then that statement would clearly be false because the Germans thought the British actions to be extraordinary. Clearly if the Germans thought it extraordinary they certainly wouldn't be doing things like that themselves. If you wanted to say that British Infantry in specific walked into MG fire willingly - then that might be true. However, since that was extraordinary behavior - as amazed Germans said - then I'm not sure it proves anything other than the British soldiers were brave and trained poorly at that specific point in time. Or possibly that they weren't smart enough to seek cover. (although I hate to put it that way). Obviously even the British themselves must not have attacked in that manner prior to the Somme if the Germans were saying that they had never seen something like that before. If the whole purpose of your series of posts is to show that a human being can willingly walk around under heavy fire - okay, I can accept that. But that proves what exactly? It doesn't prove that Infantry of all nations in WW1 walked around like they were on a Sunday stroll through no man's land. No, you might be able to make that case for the British infantry in certain specific instances, but to draw from your examples that whole armies of human beings will ignore the chance of being visited by death and just loll about in front of MGs - well that's a bit of a stretch I should think. Most normal human beings will think of self preservation - don't you agree? So what you are actually proving is that, under extraordinary circumstances , men can walk around while under heavy fire like a Sunday stroll. There was even an Italian Company during WW1 where the company commander kept his troops standing at attention while being blasted by artillery. Very impressive. But what does it prove? Does it prove that troops will ignore heavy artillery bombardments on a regular basis? No, it just shows that some men do some brave and foolish things sometimes. So, getting back to your MGs. If your point is that infantry can regularly ignore MG fire and walk around no mans land like a Sunday stroll - False. If you want to say: Under extraordinary circumstances infantry can do some brave and stupid things - sure, I can buy that. That's how heroes are made. I believe that I am right on point in your discussion - if not, then I really haven't got the foggiest idea of what you are trying to prove - if anything.

Wow, it is Michael hour tonight! I just want to draw your attention to this portion of your own quote - especially the part where they say "we had never seen that before". Now I know how ... how shall I say ... proud you are of the army of the commonwealth. However, there was another army attacking on the Somme. The French army. Their attack looked nothing like the British attack - and faired much better. You see, the French and Germans were using fire and movement long before the British figured it out. Another interesting quote for what it says about the English types. You will note that the Germans thought the British were daft. Wow, this really is a ... rather revealing remark wouldn't you say? Apparently the British saw how the French and Germans were fighting and decided that it was too complicated for their troops (I would be feeling rather insulted by that if I was British). I guess one could draw the inference that the British, far from being an army of tactical innovators, were really behind the curve - and by 1917 they were probably on the level of the Germans and French in 1915. Far from proving your point, that infantry in WW1 advanced by walking and ignoring cover, it only serves to highlight the incompetence of the British Army during WW1. :eek:

I read your post and fully understood its content. If CM can't model MG grazing fire, then that is the cause. The effect is that you can't use MGs effectively in enfilade - and there is no way to 'play around it' and get any results that are similar to properly modelled grazing fire in CMBO as it currently is. Now, the reason I say that you can't play around it is because you can't. If you set up an MG in an enfilade position it is no different than setting it up to fire directly at the target - and in most cases less effective than firing directly at the target. Now you can use your MGs that way in CM, but make no mistake in thinking that it is an adequate work around. It isn't. It is like fighting a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back and it limits the way you employ MGs tactically. So, the context within which I am referring to 'play around' is that you aren't playing around a weakness in MGs - you are simply not playing with that feature at all by using MGs exclusively as Point Fire weapons. 'Playing around' to me means that you can tweak your deployments and alter your unit composition etc. to obtain a result that is similar to the desired effect. As it stands there is no way to acheive an effect similar to fully modelled grazing fire in CMBO. Yes, ASL did a tremendous job with grazing fire. I was known as 'Firelane Master' for my preference of the use of grazing fire and became expert at sighting MGs for maximum effect in the game. That is admittedly why I miss grazing fire so much - because I relied on it so heavily in ASL. Obviously game conditions don't always mirror reality (which is why I never refer to ASL in these debates, but rely on FMs and historical sources), but you can bet that if grazing fire were modelled in CM I would be an expert in its employment in CM too. Not to be totally negative though - as a Point Fire weapon MGs seem to be modelled just fine in CM. The firepower ratings 'feel' about right, although I think the suppression model could be tweaked up a little, and the troops running around pell mell in the open needs to be addressed. I'm sure that is what will be looked at in CMBB - although it still isn't the same thing as fully modelled grazing fire.

It is a significant defect. No, it can't be played around. You haven't thought out of the box and grasped the true nature of the problem - which is that the danger space (extending from the MGs barrel all the way out to the beaten zone) is not, and can not, be modeled with the current game engine. I would explain the 'box' as "I shoot at a target, and the target is hit - so what's the problem?" which completely ignores the fact that the bullets are 'travelling' to the target and influencing everything in between. However, if grazing fire is not in your bag of tactical 'tricks' you won't notice that it's missing - therefore you won't be able to identify what the problem is. The problem is pretty straightforward, and it has nothing to do with WW1 mythology. The significance of the problem is that you can't use an MG effectively in some ways that they were commonly employed. I think anyone who has been in the service and gone through that exercise in Basic where you are crawling under some barbed wire while an M60 MG is firing tracers overhead will understand the situation. Even though the bullets from the MG were passing, like 50 feet overhead, they felt like they were right on top of you and you hugged the dirt trying to get as low as possible. You can't really tell how low the tracers are as they pass overhead. I know I was pinned down though . Wow, does that bring back some memories out of the attic!

Steve said that motorcycles were out. They tried to include them, but it was impossible to have the 'riders' 'abandon' the motorcycles and then remount them later within the limitations of the current engine.

I tried to resist the bait - I truly tried . When it comes to ASL though I am a "Defender of the Faith". I understand your main point is not directed specifically at ASL, but one unfamiliar with the game might get a few misconceptions about what ASL is all about by reading that post. Maybe you have just been away from SL too long - or never truly played ASL. The Germans have a whole laundry list of squads from which to choose: 4-6-8, 4-6-7, 5-4-8, 4-4-7 (yes, a German 447), 8-3-8, 6-5-8, 4-3-6 - each one representing a different type and experience level - and usable by a designer in any way he sees fit. The Soviets have a large variety of squads to choose from too: 4-4-7, 4-5-8, 6-2-8, 5-2-7, 4-3-6. Note that veteran Soviet squads have a range of 5 - equivalent to British, French, and minor nations range for their base units. There are also ELR levels, ratio of leaders to squads, Human Wave assaults, Commissars, and a whole host of other items included. ASL tried to highlight different national characteristics to add flavor to the game. It was a design choice and it worked. When you are dealing with cardboard pieces and mapboards you aren't going to have precision. Some fudging has to be done to maintain playability - and if you have ever truly played ASL you will know that they were certainly testing the limits of playability in the latest rules versions. Soviet MGs are also just as powerful as Britain's, France's, or the US. In fact, I think the only nation with a LMG rated at a 3, an MMG rated at a 5, or an HMG rated at a 7 is Germany and the MG34 / 42. Every other nation in ASL has LMG 2, MMG 4, HMG 6. Doesn't seem out of line to me. I think this pretty much tells us your point of view and what it is based upon. Oh, and I can honestly say that I never lost a scenario as the Soviets in ASL because of the lack of two hexes of range in my base Soviet squads . My dice and leaders usually played a much larger role. :eek: I could actually go on and on, but I know that you are a swell guy Kip and I don't want to belabor the point. ASL is the best tactical wargame ever made with cardboard, and I think it has a lot to offer the CM series in terms of ideas (not in terms of direct translation). I think any game designer could pick up a thing or two from a game as long lived and successful as SL / ASL. A game that has been evolving for some 30 years and is still going must be doing something right. Okay, now I'm finally finished!!

I think the main reason there will be no telephone pole doodads is that Moon, in his new capacity as President, decided they should not be included. Steve & Charles would love to include them, but under the circumstances it is now impossible. All complaints should naturally be directed toward Moon.

You can never have too many doodads. :cool:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Joel: ASLVet, I would like to suggest you go take a walk on the rue de Rivoli, where the scenario takes place, just like I did yesterday. If you did, or if you had lived in Paris for 10 years like I did, you would know that most buildings facing the Tuileries gardens are rarely longer than 20m, and you would also realize that the outerwalls (stoneblocks about 50cm thick) are doubled, ie each building has its own outerwall, making the separation between 2 buildings at the very least one good meter of stone. Now, you could try taking your pocketknife and dig a hole between buildings, and you would understand that stone is not prone to that kind of operation. You could also try to blow a hole in the outerwalls, and then you would realize that this operation requires explosives, skill, and time, three components not available to every German squad in the Heer by 1944, and certainly not in Paris in August 44. You could also witness that there is often no link between 2 adjacent buildings, so that if a squad had the silly idea to set up a firing position in such a building, it would be trapped as soon as it would be spotted by a superior force. After that, I would be happy to read your educated views about how to recreate this particular area in CMBO. Joël<hr></blockquote> Your knowledge and experience of Paris is quite impressive - I consider myself humbled! I actually have been to Paris one time - I spent a week there in 1984 (not that it makes any difference to the point of this discussion because that scenario was being used as a visual aide) You will note that I said that the map is a good example of what I was referring to - indicating that the building layout of that scenario was what I was using to help illustrate the point that I was making (just in case anyone was unclear and needed a visual aid). There can be room in CM for both 'pass through' buildings and 'non pass through' buildings so a designer can use whatever is appropriate - unless it is your 'educated opinion' that every single building in Europe from London to Moscow is designed exactly like the buildings in that specific spot in Paris. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>You could also try to blow a hole in the outerwalls, and then you would realize that this operation requires explosives, skill, and time, three components not available to every German squad in the Heer by 1944, and certainly not in Paris in August 44.<hr></blockquote> Yes, well that may very well be true, but if I was a German soldier preparing to fight in a city environment perhaps you might agree that it would be possible for someone who doesn't feel that it is a good time to die with the Fuhrer's name on his lips to give himself an escape route. Currently it is impossible for such an escape route to exist under any circumstances. I also think that it may be possible - no a certainty - that there are at least one or two buildings located somewhere in Europe that are larger than 20 meters square. Yes, I am actually quite certain of that because I have seen a few with my own eyes. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> After that, I would be happy to read your educated views about how to recreate this particular area in CMBO. <hr></blockquote> I personally don't care if you read my views or not - or whether you agree with them or not. My opinions are my own - I speak for no one but myself. Others are free to agree, disagree, or debate as they choose. If they make a point that is relevant to the discussion then I will address the point on its merits.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Abn_Ranger87: Hmm... My question has to do with clearing said trenches. If an assault element gains a foothold in said excavation, will they (and the defenders) have an increased chance to hit targets within a linear section? Are grenades going to have an increased effect when tossed into them? Also, will the tac-AI make use of them to move from one part of a defensive network to another without being micro-managed?.<hr></blockquote> Actually trenches are not generally dug in a straight line. They are usually dug in a 'crenallated' or a 'zig zag' fashion (I don't know what the official term would be). So, once you are in the trench, the enemy would derive just as much cover as he would if you were not in the trench. This is why the grenade was born in WW1. Trench fighting in WW1 once you gained a foothold in a trench was mostly done with grenades - you would toss a grenade into the next 'zig' before rushing out of your 'zag' with automatic weapons. As long as I am posting in this thread though, I am wondering (hoping) about AT trenches. Will those be included and will tanks not be able to drive over them? :cool: (I sure hope they are or a lot of scenario briefing writing is going to be deleted) (keeping fingers tightly crossed)

Actually factories are a whole different ball of wax compared to larger buildings. Some of the factories in Stalingrad were as big as 400 x 160 meters or more. The thing with factories is that you would have a LOS that extended beyond 20 meter increments - so if they are going to do factories you may have to be able to see like, 100 to 200 meters or more in the interior depending on if there is a roof or not (or pieces of the roof and general debris hingering LOS on the interior). Tanks can drive around inside factories too! Factories would also be very tall structures - maybe level two in height in CMBB, but you couldn't go up to the second level. Rooftops should probably accessible though. You would also need a way to allow the designer to place interior factory walls as well. Yep, a very difficult proposition compared to what they have created in CMBO building terms. I can only imagine it being done with "building shell" tiles - you know, like maybe one tile would have a eastward wall only and another tile would have an east wall and a north wall (a corner), while another would have a west wall, etc. Then you would have interior tiles with no walls and interior tiles with internal walls. You would then connect the appropriate tiles together to create the factory of your choice. I would guess the roofed or non roofed sections may be more than we could ask for .

Yes, CMBO is the best WW2 tactical combat on the computer - no doubt. Yes, it does do some things well. No, I don't think it does city fights as well as they could be done. Now, in a perfect world I would have larger buildings. Every building in a European city isn't a rowhouse. I seem to recall from my days stationed in Germany that there was a business district downtown and the buildings varied in size quite a bit internally. Why is this trivial little item important? Well, if you are defending in a city and you place troops in a building on a corner with two other buildings on each side you are basically trapped! It is even worse if you are in a block of - say six buildings all adjacent 3 buildings to a side - and you are in one of the center buildings. You only have one way out. If the enemy acheives fire superiority on your position or a tank rolls up (or your building catches fire) you can't get out or retreat to a building located behind the one you are in. Do ya think that a defender might prepare an escape route through to an adjacent building if he had the time? If the building was a little larger too you could just retreat back into the interior of the building - or to a different side (or to a different 20 by 20 square to help you visualize what I talking about). Currently, if a tank is firing at your building and you decide to retreat back into the interior, the tank can continue to area fire on the building until your entire 20 by 20 building is rubbled - then you die. There is no escape without running out into the street (usually directly in front of the enemy). This is the importance of larger buildings - or allowing troops to pass from one building to another. It gives the defender a chance to use fall back positions or to redeploy to counter an unexpected enemy thrust. Of course if someone likes their troops to fight to the death all the time and never have a chance to redeploy then I guess it doesn't matter. A map like the 'Walk in Paris' map is a perfect illustration of this problem. I think an attacker would find city fighting much more difficult if the buildings were larger or if you could pass from one building to another. While it might keep an attacker out of the streets a little more - it would allow the defender much more flexibility in the defense. It would shift the defense from that of individual buildings/deathtraps to that of individual city blocks (because you can fall back). Even if an attacker did break into a block - the defender could blast at them from a building that abuts the building the attacker goes into. Another problem is the inability of MGs to lay down effective grazing fire the length of a street. This makes it difficult to isolate city blocks or to provide defensive fire across the front of a main line of defense from the ends of streets. Without going into more detail, your approach to city fighting would be tactically totally different if you had buildings that you could pass through rather than buildings you can't (and proper MGs too for that matter - but what can you do). Totally different. You probably don't see it now, but if they do make buildings to where you can pass through them you would see the dramatic difference it would make. If some don't see how important this is that's fine. Another difficulty is the limitations of the grid squares that we have to build cities out of. Many streets in European cities do not fit a neat grid square pattern so it is difficult to try to fit the various buildings into the odd angles that sometimes are required - and have it look normal. Of course there really isn't much that can be done about this.

I guess it is all in what you are comparing CMBO to. The reason city fights don't seem to feel right is that you can't have a building that is bigger than 20 x 20 feet. I would think most business sections of most cities will have buildings that are larger than 20 x 20 - maybe a shop or store or two? A warehouse? A pub? Perhaps some administrative or government buildings? How about cathedrals? Ah, but I guess buildings larger than 20 x 20 don't need to be included to make a 'real' city fight - at least for those who know any better and visited a 'real' European town. The inability to link the 20 x 20 buildings together makes creating larger buildings impossible - you can put the buildings adjacent, but troops will just have to run out into the street to get to the next rowhouse. This is but one issue (the biggest for me) but others have brought up other issues as well. Bocage is not messed up because of how you make the fields - that's just a statement that implies that the only person who can do a 'real' bocage scenario is you because you are the only person who knows what 'real' bocage looks like . The 'real' problem with bocage is that infantry (when fired upon) who are taking cover behind bocage tend to enjoy running through it and getting annihilated. I even think that their exposure is higher when running through bocage than it is when in the open (although I'm not sure). This is a fairly well known trait since the AI doesn't know that standing behind bocage in open ground isn't the same thing as just standing in open ground - so it heads for the nearest tree when under fire. Problem with the AI on the attack is that it picks one point to attack - then does a Banzai Charge along that route of attack with everything it's got. The AI does okay for all that and I wouldn't exactly describe it as crap, but there really is no comparison with a human opponent (nor would I expect there to be). This makes playtesting scenarios difficult since playtesting the AI does nothing to tell you how a scenario will play out in PBEM.