Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
Originally posted by Renaud:
The Modello 38A has the longest barrel of any WWII SMG I know of. The MP40 barrell was 9.9" long, the 38A 12.4" long.
A side note: the Suomi SMG barrel is 314mm long which would make it 12,362 inches.
-
Originally posted by Philippe:
This is starting to sound like there could be some interesting exploration of group morale.
Right now there's global morale and unit morale, and nothing in between.
In Napoleonic games you often have to worry about a panic in one unit spreading for no apparent reason to nearby units -- one unit in your line panics at the sight of those Cuirassiers barrelling down on them, and when they turn tail and run they take three or four adjecent units with them.
I don't pretend to know enough about crowd panic behavior to suggest what should and shouldn't apply to CM, but I would think that the state of mind of a cluster of units smaller than everyone on your side would influence fight and fright behavior. Panic by platoon may be too artificial (unless the platoon leader -- probably an NCO -- just got wasted), but it should be considered. And I seem to recall stories of soldiers worrying about their officers getting killed, not because they were good leaders or that the men cared one way or the other, but because the men knew that the captain was the only person who could influence events going on outside of his foxhole, who had a map and battalion hq's phone number, and who generally knew what was going on.
One option would also be bogus orders. It was not uncommon for misinterpreted orders or downright rumours to trigger quite orderly retreats/redeployments (to the rear or alternate positions) or indeed even advances.
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Kip is correct, though, that the most common assest that a player would lose during the course of a battle would be artillery. Not only could it be reassigned but it could also be because the batteries needed to vacate ahead of a sudden enemy breakthrough, or worse... overrun! Communications can also be knocked out so while in theory the batteries would LOVE to help out, they can't hear you so you're SOL. Lots of reasons here.
On the other hand there are (admittedly Finnish
) sources which indicate arty units being overrun, being forced to move and/or out of contact with the FO would dump ordnance on the preplotted targets (or even on apparently overrun friedly positions) as presented by the fire plan according to a "fire at the sound of the guns" type of judgement call by the battery/battalion commander.The key element here is the presence of the fire plan as SOP for virtually all operations.
-
Originally posted by JonS:
Tero - same for you. The uber-Finns unter-thought this one
Really ?
http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm#uof
How the reality met with the theory:The "unit of fire" is a unit of measurement, which is used both to simplify munitions logistics, restrict munitions consumption and to keep the rate of fire in such limits that it won't wear down the barrel too much. So the Finnish "Tuliannos" could also be translated as "required supply rate"......
The amount of shells used with different forms of fire by an artillery battalion, according to the 1936 regulations.
During 1941-44 things were infinitely much better than they had been during Winter War. Yet the improved ammo supply did not change use of the unit of fire as the basis of each and every fire mission.To put it short, the shell situation was catastrophic. If the artillery would've fired the different forms of fire, as required by the artillery regulations, the Finnish artillery would've expended all it's shells in 7 - 8 days! This was, by far, the most severe Finnish handicap in the Winter War. -
Originally posted by Cull:
So, "Fire for Effect" had nothing to do with "unlimited rounds", it was simply the request to put the full load on the target, whatever that might be.
In the Finnish parlance that would be "unit of fire".
http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm#uof
I'll have to dig up the actual unt of fire definition in terms how it related to the general supply situation and how long it was supposed to last (IIRC it a unit of fire was allocated on a daily/weekly bases but don't quote me on that).
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
And since a breakthrough in a neighboring unit usually has direct consequences for the units in the general area, it's not like what happens to the rest of the front has no effect.
Very true. But in such a case I think the local commander would only be able to request a fire mission and since chances are there are several fire missions on order simultaneously a higher echelon commander would be ultimately the one to determine where the fire mission would be best used.
Same thing with tanks. Do you really think a higher commander would be happy to hear that you, the local commander, took an attached tank unit and squandered it for something that really wasn't all that important? No, you might find yourself demoted.
Yet in CMx1 if you have the tanks you can do with them as you please. Sure, you do get penalized for losing them, but you don't necessarily get penalized for misusing them. Such as wasting their AP ammo to get some beat up squad to evacuate a building instead of using infantry or just letting the unit evacuate on its own.
You could also be demoted even if you excercised proper caution and conserved your ammo and assets while fulfilling all the objectives to the letter. The only thing you would have wasted was time. And time is often the most valuable asset of them all.
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
But that isn't up to the man on the ground commanding the battalion. He doesn't decide what is best for the brigade, and doesn't care. He cares about his battalion - and that is the role the player has. I would think a simple cutoff of ammunition - perhaps randomly determined within certain parameters set at game start - would provide more of a realistic decision making matrix than tying cost to ammo usage - something a battalion commander wouldn't do if my understanding is accurate.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:The whole notion of opportunity costs is indeed a good basis for determining part of a game's victory level. In CMx1 there is no disincentive to using all your ammo, in particular big stuff (tank, artillery, mortar), but in real life there most certainly is. Just because it is available doesn't mean that its use comes at no cost in the bigger context the battle is a part of.
Unless someone can provide examples of battalion commanders actually using the principle of opportunity costs in a real life setting?
IMO opportunity costs would work best when determining time rather than ammo usage. The mission a commander would have is more likely be centered in for example delaying the enemy or pushing the enemy back during a certain amount of time. To fullfil that mission the force is allocated assets. If some of them is not used and the mission is fulfilled I think the remaining ammo is not relevant since in CM the battles are separate, unique entities. The ammo usage criteria would work at some level for campaing games though.
Of course the ammo usage is important but so is the general level of supply in general. If the battle parameters deduct ammo and other assets I see no harm in giving extra points for fulfilling the mission with less assets than you would normally have. But there should be no penalty if you fail with a depleated force either.
And speaking of the big, off map stuff, I think a commander could have them yanked off to other duties. The FO is sporting now 150 rpg I could imagine a more realistic representation would be X number of fire missions. The number of fire missions would depend on the type of firemission ordered. The FO could have, say, 10 short fire strikes at his disposal but there would only be, say, one to three barrages. There could be 20 harrasing fire fire missions but as the game wears on they would eat up the number of other types of missions.
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Scale is unimportant to the theory of a well placed strike yielding greater results than the effort expended would have if used in a more general way. A sniper hitting a platoon leader might have a profound impact on the firefight which is going on (might not), but it won't affect the front like taking out an Army Group HQ and all its staff would.
Granted. I just think that the impact of losing the AG HQ may not be take effect instantly relative to the loss of the platoon leader.
But in theory it is harder to take out that Army Group HQ and thereofre the effort expended will probably be a lot more than that of taking out the platoon leader. It is a rather balanced system in theory.
True. Then again with a bit of clever sig-int you can pinpoint the critical assets (at any level and scale) and have appropriately ranged assets deliver a blow which may or may not do the job. Radio equipped FO's would be one such target.
Since we are doing a more detailed simulation of C&C, yes... taking out leaders/HQs will have more of an impact on combat ops than it does in CMx1. If you want to know how, simply look at historical CM scale battles and you'll find the answers there since that is what we are modeling.
I guess you will not spill too many beans on the actual differences between CMx1 and x2 C&C ?
As far as IDing key units... that should be related to the type of unit and how obvious it would be that it is what it is. The Germans did a lot with dummy guns on tank turrets, for example, to hide the fact that the turret was jammed with radio equipment and not a gun. To the average enemy soldier, it is a tank and only a tank. To a trained eye, however, there might be tell tale signs such as radio antennas or its position in a formation. So in real life the IDing depends on the unit being spotted and the unit doing the spotting.
I expect stuff like experience level will have an effect on that too.
Do you plan on including stuff like dummy positions, mashirovka style spoofing and high level sig-int and other type of (both accurate and inaccurate) intel data being passed on to the units ?
I think it would be kinda cool to have a certain degree of uncertainty about the type of mission the player is actually conducting. You could have the probe against the enemy of pre-recced strenght you are supposed to be making with a slight advantage in numbers turn into a meeting engagement. Or worse.
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
A couple of bombs spent taking out a command and control center will cause far more damange to the enemy's ability to fight than the same amount of bombs dropped over a random military unit.
That is dependant on the timeframe though. Taking out Yamamoto (or Churchill for that matter) will have a profound effect but not necessarily in the CM scale. In CM scale losing Audie Murphy or Otto Carius can hurt the force more than losing Captain Stransky. Not to mention that losing Sargeant Steiner may even have a positive initial effect in the morale of the unit as the remaining men may go berserk.
Will there be a "golden" tank crew/command unit/other unit whose performance and fate will effect the global morale of the entire force ?
Military strategists are always on the lookout for things like this and we need to make sure that CMx2 allows realistic options and results for successful application of such tactics.
Will that be reflected in the players ability to ID key unit types more readily than now is possible ?
-
Originally posted by wbs:
Just out of curiosity, do any of the Finns here object to being referred to that way instead of 'Finnish'? Based on what I've observed over 4 years on this Boad I would be surprised if any of you are. If any of you do object, why?
Why would we be insulted by it ? We are, after all, Finns.
I can not think of a term which would be really insultive to us Finns. The Russians for example have used tsuhna.
What we will find insultive though is to call us Swedes or Russians or some such.
-
Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:
Aren't finns called after an SMG? Suomi or sumfink?
To get the insult right you really should have spelled it Soumi.
-
Originally posted by Sergei:
Because you insist on using the word that offends them, instead of the neutral word, while fully knowing that it is so. In other words, you insist on offending them.Originally posted by wbs:If no offense is intended by the use of the word, why should the recipient be offended?
As to words like Yank, Brit, Aussie etc. - you're blurring the issue with apples and oranges. British people generally don't mind being called as Brits, but Japanese in general do take offense of being called as Japs, just like Jews don't like being called as Judes, Polish as Polaks or blacks as Niggers.
If it doesn't matter what your audience thinks you are trying to say, then why say it in the first place? After all, the point of saying something is to convey thoughts - and to do so, you try to form the message in a way that is understood by your audience in the way closest to what you originally meant.
Having said that you really should take into account the fact the word neekeri (a person of negrid descent) in the Finnish language is a prime example of use of a neutral word which has been tarnished by use of a remotely related word negro in a totally different culture.
-
Originally posted by MikeyD:
To paraphrase a certain famous psychoanalyst, sometimes a 25 pdr gun tube is just a 25 pdr gun tube. Nothing at all Freudian about that dream. Not one little bit!
Yeah, right....
Beautiful wo-man, gets irritated after standing by for a while, 25prd gun TUBE, l.o.w.e.r h.u.l.l. PENETRATION, knocked out.
Are you sure the wife/girlfriend/significant other was not sending subliminal messages ?
-
Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
That idea was put VERY clearly and so succinctly it could form the basis of a whole new thread.
Feel free to start it up if the BFC show interest in it.
If this idea/proposal akin to the Ironman Rules or Frankco True Combat rules?
It was sparked by Michaels post and at the time I did not even remember the rule sets.
It sounds interesting but would it make the game MORE tedious to play?
IMO no. Lets say most (all ?) unit orders like movement, cover arc and off map fire missions would have to be plotted in the over head map view mode. This would be realistic. What would be affected more would be the resolution phase and how it would be represented. In the most extreme case the player would see precious little about what happened until it is his turn to issue orders.
There could also be different zoom levels for issuing battalion, company and possibly platoon level orders.
I think this is a big issue for sure
I would like to see "roaming over unoccupied terrain" severly limited but I am REALLY not sure how best to do it in the scope of the game?? (Exactly what would the in game "mechanism" be??? I Don't think Ironman rules are the solution. IMHO)
That would depend on the stucture of the game dynamics they are going to implement.
The Idea had merit, but to see the map ONLY from level 1 of each of your units would HAVE to be a FOW option because FOR SURE it would be VERY unpopular amongst the VAST majority of players and new players (NEW and GREEN to CMx2) would be VERY frustrated indeed because these Ironman rules would make the game VERY hard to navigate and play for the novice.
Indeed. One solution would be a variable sets of game play rules and options ranging from Green to Grog plus of course Custom. The Green level would be like the CM is today and the Grog level would have the view locked to level 1 and over head map view.
Interesting idea none the less..
Yep. Hope Steve is open to suggestions and ideas at this stage.
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
That's a great idea Tero, so I agree with tom on this one. However, I would limit that to in-game play - for set up, I think roaming the country and setting up lines of fire, etc. would still be necessary and "realistic".
This is actually what I intened to be woven into the sentence
"snap to unit" view mode after deployment
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Vote me among the "less is more" crowd. The absence of borg spotting will be nice;
That is IMO the single most excellent improvement in its own right.
I was thinking about this in the car on the way to work today. Say you put a squad of GREEN soldiers on outpost duty on the far side of some woods, on the very flank of his position. They are out of command.
IRL that would not count as one but two mistakes which would ruin the force commanders day (and possibly career).
Your enemy runs a platoon of tanks around that flank. Should they even be reported to the player until the GREEN squad reports back to his platoon commander? (This has been discussed already and I don't claim to be the first one to think of it).
Realistically we must assume the commander would be able to hear some of the commotion. If he is any good he would be able to discern between friendly and hostile ordnance, like tank guns and MG not in his OOB, being fired (or not if the squad decides to haul ass).
This is why we had so few surprise attacks in CMX1.
Using pickets is all too easy to determine the axis of attack.
Less information for the player means harder decisions for the player to make. Again, seeing everything 1:1 may be nice for the Level Zero movie crowd, but it has naught to do with imposing a realistic challenge on the player.
IMO there could be level zero and overhead map view. Coupled with some sort of "snap to unit" view mode after deployment phase would be a nice toutch. That way roaming over unoccupied terrain would be minimized. This would of course mandate the use of an OOB screen so the player would be able to find his own units which have not fallen out of CC. For units out of CC this OOB screen would indicate "last known position" marker with last orders issued and last known direction of travel and status being noted.
-
Originally posted by Treeburst155:
In Kingfish's test, heavily outnumbered defenders defeated a horde of split squads. Why then can a defending SMG squad in woods not defeat a single split rifle squad?
Because the defenders didn't have a trench to cause the cover imbalance necessary to defeat the split squad tactic.
Is there any difference if you assign cover arc and do (or do not) assign a target manually ?
-
Originally posted by Nidan1:
Well then, before you go off on your jolly quest, bottle of plonk in hand, matilda neatly laid out in the alley....explain this sudden interest in things Ozzy .
I shudder at image in my head of the two step he has planned for walzing the matilda.
-
Originally posted by Seanachai:
You'll find one of damn near everything here in the Mother Beautiful Thread, and at least three of anything horrible.
When it comes to the truly horrible, we believe in redundancy.
So where are all the Finns in this thread ?
Oh, no, lad. We just know where everything is buried. We're more like 'Cosmic Undertakers/Goodfellas'
I find that hard to believe. I think you are more like Cosmic Squirrels. You bury stuff around and never really know where you buried it when it is time to find it.
Like you wouldn't drink it anyways, you bugger, even if you could read the bible by the light the bottle cast.
Granted.
Sadly though good ale or bitter is VERY hard to come by in these parts so were are left with the local moose piss to drink if the latest batch of moon shine goes bad. And if it goes bad it is hard to tell one bottle from another if you have gone blind. From the DRINKING, not the other activity mind you.
You know it, boyo! And believe me, you don't try to get your hands on it. You let the little bugger romp about as he likes, and be glad he's smiling. Try for a grab, and you're likely to come up with a handful of...yourself. Detached.
Best to just stand there, smiling maniacally, and pretend you're juggling.
With or without ones hands behind ones back ?
-
Originally posted by Seanachai:
The only acceptable are Little Kings Cream Ales!
Now you're talking !!!
Bah! Here, we call them folk 'Sturmy'! Unless they're Scottish, and then we simply call them 'The Fair One'.
Not too many around then, are there, if you have both of them pegged and nick named this good.
If it was filmed by the Kiwis, it would involve a sheep bungie jumping off a bridge over a chasm while reading the poetry of William Blake...
I thought they dressed the sheep in leather, gave it wings and called it Balrog.
None o' that foreign muck! We've got the Olde Ones,
I thought the Olde Ones ARE the Masters of the Universe. Or at least they want to be.
and what's good enough for Us had better be good enough for a bunch of face-painted aboriginal Finns who're still running geiger counters over their reindeer every few months to see if the Russians have left them anything safe to milk...
Oi ! None of the milk stuff. We are more concerned about the berries and barley and how them Russians nearly ruined the production of alcohol over here.
Here on the Thread o' threads, we hae a different chant: "Four more beers! Four more beers!"
Sounds the same from afar.
See? It's starting already. With the return of the Mad Ones, the weasels appear to run up every trouser leg in sight!
I'm all for that!
Isn't the weasel a bit tricky to hold on to when it is "running up" your trousers ? Then again you must have much more experience than I do in that sort of things.
-
I thought it was not possibly to ruin Mac OSX. Live and learn.
-
I thought it was not possibly to ruin Mac OSX. Live and learn.
-
Originally posted by Seanachai:
Nae Kings
Only acceptable are the LA Kings ?
nae Queens
Henceforth they will be called queers.
nae Lords
Filmed by the damned Kiwis !!! :mad:
nae Masters
Except Masters of the Universe ?
we won't be fooled agin!
How many of your powerelite has been granted "Four more years, four more years !!!" ?
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
I'm not aware of any guns requiring a two man lift for the ammo - an 88mm shell weighed 35 lbs if I am not mistaken; not easy but still a one man job?
The heavier guns (150mm and up are among the contenders). Then you have the guns which use cartousse loads.
Would be interesting to model fatigue, though, for the poor loader...
The 88 team has at least 3 men in the loading team. Others used loaders who loaded the gun and ammo carriers who handed the rounds to the loader.
CMx2... a little more to chew on...
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Steve, time for a new bone to honour of the start third tread ?