Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
>Oh boy. No, I'm not even going to start on
>this one.
I see the other tread has shifted to that direction.
>If you take the command delay out you
>remove any incentive for the player to use
>the withdraw command. Use Run instead and
>avoid the moral hit.
You are missing my point. Whatever attack command you use it leaves the unit vulnerable to enemy action because you can not simply order the unit to Run and expect it to make it if it turns its back to the unit it is currently engageing.
>I don't know, but it has nothing to do with
>nationality modifiers.
I know. How the hell did we digress this far off topic.
>They are discussing the frequency of use
>and the effectiveness of various infantry
>weapons especially SMGs. Lots of stuff
>about bullet penetration, ammo loads, rate
>of fire, accuracy. And you call that
>behavioral?
Yes. When you start assessing what is Ad-hoc and how it should be implemented. I think no army had a ready solution to Ad-hoc unit formation. It was up to the local commander to gather them. And that is most definitely behavioral. National charasteristic dependant even.
Do you still say they are NOT discussing national biases over there ?
-
>Revisionism Tero,
It is revisionism when you try to read new explanations into established facts. What it is when you try to set some inaccurate established "facts" straight ?
>many of us are fully aware of Finnish
>history.
Your own list of facts about the Finnish history was an incomplete list filled with inaccurate half truths.
If that list is the high mark of the knowledge I would hesitate they are FULLY aware of Finnish history.
>I have visited that beautiful country,
I am glad to hear that.
>driven on the lousy roads,
At least they are not as narrow and lined with hedges like the country roads in the UK.
>been completely lost outside of Kouvola
>(too many damn lakes),
On the map I assume.
>...can read three European languages,
I have studied Latin. With the help of English I can read most languages if the alphabets are Latin.
>and have 11 years of post secondary history
>at University. I am not someone who thinks
>only the US exists.
You do not come across as a guy who thinks like that. But when it comes to your pool of facts about Finnish history you need a refresher course. They are fully in compliance with the facts as presented people like Ziemke and Glantz. That means that the facts you have have been sanitized to suit the established Anglo-American view of the events of WWII. Take the Norvegian expedition as an example. In the established Anglo-American history writing it is completely detached from the Winter War. That separation has been artificially made to suit the Anglo-American view of the events.
>I do, however, hate urban legends nased on
>racial stereotypes, especially when applied
>improperly to a small scale game. No one
>thinks the Dutch were any good in World War
>Two, but all one has to do is look at the
>defense of Remagen Bridge in 1940 and you
>will get an idea of what the Ducth could
>have done.
The Poles are another perfect example of that bum rap. Had they mobilized early enough they would have given the Germans a good run for their money.
>The Finns lost 10 percent of their land,
>were forced to pay a huge sum to the
>Soviets, and they had to attack the
>Germans, all as part of the treaty that
>ended Finlands active participation in the
>Second World War.
Yes.
>While I am sure it is comforting to say
>that the war was not lost, you sound just
>like an American who says Vietnam was not
>lost.
Except we had done nothing to be ashamed of. We were defending ourselves, not the world from the Beast that was knocking over the dominoes.
>After all we captured more of their stuff
>(used as it were to supply Nicuraguans and
>to send to Africa, killed 12-15 enemy
>soldiers for each US dead, and did not
>loose one meter of US soil to the enemy.
It can be argued that the TET offensive was an American success. Only the American media hyped it up to be a total disaster.
The Red Army summer offensive was a Soviet success and their media hyped up to a total victory. What they left out was the fact that our army did not surrender, they did not reach the goals set to them and the peace was signed months after the assault had been blunted.
>Don't let a revisionist fool you, the US
>lost Vietnam, and Finland lost World War
>Two.
Nitpicking time: we did NOT lose WWII, we lost our war against the Soviets.
Ever since the end of our involvement our veterans and historians have said it was a defensive victory and that our politicians were able to get the best deal they could get under the circumstances. I am echoing that POV. Where is the revisionism in that ?
>Knowing how many people the US killed in
>Vietnam, if we tried to model that war as a
>game, one would conclude that US infantry
>were 10 times as effective as the Viets,
>but that would be just as wrong as trying
>to uberize Finland.
Your argumentation is glouded by the fact that you let political aspects affect the projected outcome. The US troops were more effective in combat than the Vietnamese. But the Vietnamese outfought you in the political game. Should that be factored in to CM-Vietnam ?
These political happenings are not within the CM scope. The political aspects should not carry over to the purely programming aspect of a combat simulation like CM. The fact that Finland lost is (or should be) irrelevant when the Finnish units are being modelled. What should be counted in is their historical effectiveness. And then it should be determined how to implement this historical effectivness to the game.
>Many factors contributed to Finland's
>success, most of them to be modeled. But
>we cannot just add a Finland wins button.
Agreed. The game is tactical level simulation, not a political simulation.
-
>I am doing from memory, so my dates may be
>off, but here it is.
Not just your dates.
>and Finland was a province of Russia.
An autonomous grand dutchy. With a border control between Russia and Finland, own currency, own parliament.
>During WW1, Fins fought on the side of the
>Czarist troops,
Not outside Finland.
>but with the October revolution, Finland
>drifted away.
Actively sought indipendence. There is a difference, you know.
>Finland though, with the aid of German
>troops, defeated the Bolshies in 1918,
The help was insignificant and Mannerheim opposed calling for it. As you well know at the time we were looking into getting a king of German origin but that went bust in 1918 so we got a president with essentially the ruling rights of a king.
>Russia always saw Finland as a country which
>would natrually fall into their camp, since
>Finns in that era heted the Swedes, were
>distrusted by the Germans, and were
>basically alone and powerless in their
>little sliver of land.
What is your source ? Yes, they though we SHOULD fall into their camp as we had been a fighting ground for them and the Swedes for centuries. And we had been the westernmost provice of the Imperial Russia in that region so the Soviets felt they had a claim on our asses and the chairs we sit on. Yes, there was a bit of animosity between the Finnish speaking Finns and the Swedish speaking Finns, but that was an internal issue. At no point did we hate the Swedish speaking Swedes (execpt perhaps in 1809 when they abandoned us).
If the Germans mistrusted us when did that turn into an alliance ?
Yes, we were alone but Winter War did prove that we were not totally powerless.
>Their leader during the late 1930s,
>Mannerheim, was a right wing nationalist
Several mistakes here: Mannerheim was the top military figure and an authority on his own right but he did not agree to run for office before 1944 when he was elected president. He was our military leader but others took care of the politics. He was a nationalist but I would hesitate to call him right wing just because he had lead the White Guards during our civil war. After the civil war he stepped away from the public life.
>only slightly less paranoid than Hitler on
>some subjects, who certainly had no stomach
>for Russia.
Mannerheim had been a career military man in the Imperial Russian army. He was not paranoid on Russia, he knew their innermost thoughts on instinct. He even advocated giving up land before Winter War started as he knew the Russian train of thought.
>On the Russian side was a contempt for the
>Finns, partially racial in nature, partially
>ideological that they should have a right
>wing and slightly belicose regime on their
>border
That ideological rift was upheld by a bunch of Finnish bolsheviks in Moscow led by O.V. Kuusinen (who is BTW buried in the Kremlin wall).
Were we really bellicose ?
>Aside from the uber arguments,
>Russia's failures can be seen as poor
>loigistical and training standards causing
>an inability to project a fighting force
>covering a wide front past their borders.
So our army über-argued the Red Army into a standstill ? Get real.
>The Russian were extremely surprised that
>they did not get a walk over,
That was due to amateurs stealing the initial show.
>the Finns extremely surprised that German
>let them whither on the vine after lots of
>talk of aryan brotherhood
When and where was this aryan brotherhood forged ? When and where had this "lots of talking" taken place ? What were the treaties signed between Finland and Germany and when were they signed ?
>(neo-Nazi type aryan movements spring up
>from time to time in all of the Nordic
>countries, and have since before they were
>called neo-Nazi),
The Finnish faschist movement was led by a bunch of men more interested in the wine than in the brotherood. Their attempted coup failed because they were too drunk. And because they did not command the respect of the army.
>and the allies seriously thought of the
>Russians as possibly a worse threat than the
>Germans, although leaders such as Churchhill
>felt they were the best of the worst and
>wanted to ally with them and tell the Finns
>to go to hell.
Dalladier and Chamberlain tied their political fates to the fate of Finland.
>In the US the Finns had moral and financial
>support from the Democrats, but the
>Republicans still felt the Germans were not
>all that bad (few people remember than in US
>history prior to 1941 the Republican Party,
>including Linbergh, was a supporter of
>Hitlers, and several pro Hitler speaches
>were made my Republican Senators.).
Yet the US did not deglare war on us. Why is that.
-
>And what's to stop the defending unit from
>using "maximum ROF" to "shock" the charging
>unit at the "decisive moment"?
Good point.
1) level of suppression
2) morale status
3) casualties among the defenders officers and NCO's (depending on the nationality)
4) defensive manouverability (tactics and doctrine)
5) direction of the attack in relation to the defensive emplacements
You are assuming frontal attack situations but the Finnish army did not use them unless absolutely necessary. The attacs were made as infiltration and flanking attacks and even a Finnish frontal attack was to be turned into a flanking attack to roll up the enemy defences once a breach in the defences was accomplished.
>I still think the whole idea of allowing a
>unit to move quickly and fire at maximum
>efficiency at the same time is positively
>nutty.
Maximum efficiency is NOT the same as maximum ROF. And what I propose should not occur over distances greater than 20-40 meters, which is the distance of the last bounce in an overwatch charge.
That is at least how we were tought it when I was in the service.
>If SMG squad rushes are gamey now (they are)
>just imagine if BTS actually did this. The
>game would turn into some sort of WWF
>wrestling team rumble. SMG squad
>effectiveness is going to be a bit toned
>down in CM2 and 99% of the people on this
>board think this is a VERY GOOD THING.
And that toning down is a hit on the nose of the historical/real life accuracy of the game. The shift in favour of the Red Army over the Germans occured after they started receiving large quantities of SMG's. And you tell me there is NO correlation between Red Army going full-auto and the Germans falling fortunes !
>How does it feel to be a minority, eh amigo?
Nothing new, compadre.
>This is another thing that if implemented
>would totally ruin the game.
Not in my opinion.
>What you are asking for is a way to
>circumvent the command delay.
I am not advocating that. I am advocating more choices for the defender.
>If people were allowed to "withdraw" in any
>direction you would see players using this
>command all the time, "withdrawing" all over
>the battlefield, in place of the other
>commands.
And that is in your opinion unrealistic ?
>Why not? It magically allows you to get
>around that annoying and highly unrealistic
>command delay
Then perhaps the command should be altered to include an appropriate command delay. I think it is highly unrealistic to have all your troops know instantly when to widraw and to what location when they do not know instantly where to attack and in what mode.
>If German SOP was to counter attack
>whenever possible, players can do that right
>now, using commands intended for that
>purpose. A withdraw/disengage command is
>meant for withdrawing and disengaging,
>nothing else. Withdrawing towards the enemy
>is not a withdrawal, and is therefore not
>allowed with the withdraw command.
So why is there no break contact/disengage command now that allows more realistic defensive manouvering ? That is a serious omission in my opinion. There are times when you would like to or when you would need to widraw to other directions besides your base line.
>Simple enough?
Sure.
>There is a very big difference between
>modeling the physical differences between
>armies (what they are talking about) and the
>behavioral differences between armies (what
>you are mostly talking about here). Physical
>differences are far easier to quantify and
>prove.
The last time I checked they were discussing ad-hoc type squads and stuff like that. That is a behaviour type quatifying, not physical one. So, where is the REAL difference between their points and mine, except availability of sources ?
-
>I guess this really isn't about snipers any
>more..
It is about snipers who get national bias bonuses only because the Western sources recoqnice only them as having been there.
>Still, with 900 shots/minute, I believe
>we'll get a weapon good enough.
I hope that the muzzle velocity and the penetration power is also modelled in detail.
From
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~ejuhola/7.62/suomi.html
Muzzle velocity 1300 fps (396 mps)
ROF: 700-800 rpm
Penetration at 100 meters: 2 mm of iron
Penetration at 300 meters: 1.5 mm of iron, 3 inches of pinewood
>One thing that will not be recreated, I
>believe, is finnish Stugs getting a 10 to 1
>kill ratio against T-34's. Especially since
>the Stug tankers were mostly green.
Make them Elite ! There were no green men fighting fresh out of boot camp with minimal training in this mans army.
>The veterans got to keep their obsolete
>T-26's.
Now there will be a sight for sore eyes: Finnish Elite über-T-26's taking out conscript T-34/85's with the first shot aimed at the front armour with their sturdy and potent 45mm guns. The same goes for the Finnish über-45mm AT guns We shall truly rewrite history.
-
>No one is trying to explain away anything,
>but I was impressed by the Finnish victory
>parades at wars end through Leningrad.
How did you find the Red Army parade through Helsinki ?
>and everyone's mind is clouded into
>thinking the Finns lost the war.
No. Their minds are clouded into thinking we surrendered unconditionally.
Do you think Saddam Hussein lost the war ? Fair enough. Do you think Iraq surrendered uncondionally ? By the same token nor did Finland. What are the similarities and differecenses in the Finnish situation in 1940/44 and Iraq during the Gulf war ?
>Seriously, counting captured weapons does
>not prove small unit engagement practices.
Seriously, yes it does when it comes to the Finnish army. Look the respective OOB's up. The arms were the same, so was the ammo. We could replenish our stocks from the enemy sometimes more easily than from our own logistics system.
>So we can assume from the Finnish example
>that:
Wrong example. Capturing something is one thing. Using it another.
>Finland is last, since while they got a lot
>of weapons during the winter war, they just
>barely captured back the land they lost
>then in their "continuation war",
Those captured weapons served to save our sorry asses from being occupied and assimilated to the Soviet collective.
>and never once threatened a major Russian
>city.
Is that good or bad ?
>At the same time, the germans will
>capturing millions of small arms.
So ? They could not use them effectively as their logistics system was overburdened as it was. Our captured weapons were an asset, not a liability.
-
>Tero made the comment that snipers would be
>cheap if incorporated in CM2. Boy, I hope
>not.
I made no such statement. At least I think I did not.
>True they don't do the damage that a squad
>could inflict but if they were super
>accurate like the word sniper suggests then
>it would be rough on tanks.
That is the main reason I do not normally pick them for my line ups. Why try and going for a TC with a sharpshooter who normally (or rather statisically) isn't that hot on inflicing damage over extended ranges when you can take out the entire vehicle with an AT team inside the sharpshooters effective range ?
>Which after thinking about it wouldn't be a
>bad idea.
Agreed. That is why I think they should be given the killer hits even if the ammo goes from 10 to 2-3 rounds. Snipers were mainly hunters of enemy special units and men, TC's, FO's and HQ units. That should reflect on the game more prominently.
>I have problems dealing with those damn
>powerful German tanks and a couple of
>snipers might help at least keeping them
>buttoned up.
As IRL also in CM it is the adjoining infantry that is the spotting force you need to take care of. If they spot your sniper the tank can take it out even when buttoned up.
>I don't think we'll get them in the
>upcoming game but it would be cool if we
>did. And as far as Finland arming medic's -
>dumb move in my opinion. Somebody's always
>got to F#@k up a good thing.
Was it us or the Red Army which did not honour the Red Cross sign at all ?
Besides, wouln't you single out the guy not carrying any arms but a bag marked with the red cross in combat ?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:
Sharpshooters can do this already. They usually shoot at HQ's, arty spotters and such. Even when the target still reads only "infantry?".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll have to look into that more thoroughly. The ones I have gotten do not seem to be particularly picky about the targets they choose to fire at IF they fire under TacAI guidance. I assign them tagets manually so I do not normally leave them unattended to choose their own targets.
And I usually opt for a AT team instead of a sharpshooter anyway if purchasing manually. For obvious reasons.
-
>I will ask Charles to look into the sound
>contact issue with fortifications.
OK.
In case materiel is needed I think I still have the turns from a particularly graphic and blatant case (in my favour
) during a PBEM with night and thick fog rendering the LOS down to below 30 meters but the bunker gave away its location through a sound contact well outside LOS. -
>If we have a "typical" sniper who only
>shoots a couple of times at HQ's during an
>engagement, it'll be dirt cheap.
>Or would it be something that can wipe out >a whole HQ team just like that?
Or dirty expensive. If it was eneabled to distinquish HQ units from the rest of the spotted but unrecoqniced infantry units better than the rest of the units in the game. And take them out with one shot.
And then it would turn into a gamey cheat because of the absolute spotting makes sure every unit is isntantly made aware of the location of enemy HQ units.
-
>Because the flexible .50cal is being aimed
>by someone able to sit (stand?) behind it,
>maneuver it with their hands, and correct
>its aim via simple LOS - the closed loop of
>hand/eye coordination is a wonderful thing.
I think that in some models of Sherman the 50cal was between the TC's and the loaders hatches so they would have had to climb out to fire aimed fire directly in front of the tank. Quite risky in a combat zone for a crew member to start hopping out to aim the MG. How is that modelled now ?
>The remote flexible MGs on German TDs are
>aimed and fired by a devilish system of
>telescopes and pushrods and pulleys - there
>was a photo referred to here a while back
>that showed the guts of such a system on a
>Hetzer, and it must have been a total
>nightmare to use.
The remote control MG mount was not installed to all TD's. Quite a number of the Stug's for example still used the shield/gun arrangement where the loader fired the gun manually.
I agree the remotely controlled arrangement must have been a "spray and pray" arrangement but I would hesitate to call the platform unstable.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:
Maybe it would be a good idea that you can buy a camouflage set for an AFV in unit selection? Make it 30 points or so and it gives the vehicle the spottability of a gun before firing, a bit more when firing and none after moving.
It opens the usual TacAI can of worms, though, since you will be upset when the tank moves just a few meter to back off behind its own smoke or when a turretless tank hunter turns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the vehicles could go some distance inside the dense forest there would be none of that. Or at least it would not be so pronounced. Add-on camo has it advantages but the LOS disruption given by the terrain is better.
And the camo set should not be a use-and-lose feature. It should kick in everytime TacAI loses its track (LOS is broken) of the camoed vehicle and it remains still in suitable terrain for, say, two turns.
-
>would it be possible to implement an "abadon
>weapon" command for heavy weapons like guns,
>mortars and MGs?
Good idea. But please include a confirmation routine so that there are no accidental abandonments due to sloppy mouse technique.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PondScum:
The TacAI only seems to use the remote flexible MGs at ranges of 100m or so (presumably to reflect their inherent inaccuracy), which means that they're pretty useless for offensive use - if your remote MG is firing, you're in zook range
Not as good as a regular MG, which can make life unpleasant for infantry out to 500m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Two points:
If the flexible MG's don't fire beyond 100 meters why do the Allied tanks regularly engage (and take out) targets with their flexible 50cals well beyond that range ?
Is the flexible vehicle mount really inherently unstable ?
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
Churchills fought inside the Reichswald (opposite Nijmegen, Goch Kalkar area) in the battles in February 1945, when the west-bank of the Rhine was cleared (BLOCKBUSTER??). I have seen accounts of them knocking over 60cm diameter trees. I have also seen lots of accounts of them getting bogged. But the use of the tanks was critical in clearing the forest. The Reichswald certainly is not scattered trees (I have been there), but again, I think it comes down more to scenario design. Intersperse woods with clearings, rough, brush etc terrain, and logging roads, and you get somewhere realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thinking more along the lines of gaining cover and concealment bonuses without any trickery. Perhaps a 10meter zone at the edge of the thick forest.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Very interesting. Do you know where I can find production figures for these SMGs? I am sure they are undermodelled in CM.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A shameless plug.
But in spirit of seemless co-belligerence please try
http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html
All about the Suomi SMG
You owe me one.
-
Seems we are finally starting to come out of the woodwork.
-
Remotely related with this subject:
Should the vehicles be allowed to advance some distance into the thicker forests and not just into the scattered tree forests ?
I think they should.
A WWII era army, which shall remain nameless to spare the innocent, deployed its armour in places their co-belligerent army hesitated to deploy. And this armys adversary started to deploy its armour in similar fashion in similar terrain later in the war and this change gave this unnamed army some nasty surprises.
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>This will give the players two types of
>fortifications to use (hard to spot and VERY
>hard to spot)
Hopefully you plan on doing something to those gamey sound contacts that reveal the pillboxes/bunkers presence now. Those sound contacts they give are highly accurate in revealing their location too.
-
>No Finnish tactic was much different than
>anyone elses tactic, just how they are
>implemented by the commander (read player).
>So lets say that BTS includes an
>'UBER-Assault' button that doubles the
>firepower, halves the damage, triples the
>ammo, quadruples the sex appeal, and
>quintiples the cussedness of the troops
>using it, but only if they get within 20
>meters. Then everyone will be able to use
>it, and the status quo is maintained.
That is not a bad idea as a concept. Actually. Take away the sarcasm and you are left with a viable solution to that particular problem we can all live with.
And that solution is two staged Assault command: Approach phase as it is being designed by BTS followed by the Rush phase with everybody running, yelling and shooting like hell. If an enemy unit is in the effective zone (do be determined) of the last phase they will be subject to a massive morale hit and appropriate damages while the attacker gets a massive morale boost. If the last phase however is misdirected the attacking unit will suffer a massive fatigue hit coupled with a slight to moderate morale hit that renders it very vulnerable to counter attack or assault.
Well done, Slappy !
Did not see that one coming, did you ?
>Or, we could install a "Finland wins" button
>on the game, making this all moot. What
>people fail to realize in arguing for Uber
>Units is that they will cost Uber points,
>until a squad is the same cost as a Soviet
>KV tank.
The rarity point is moot as only effectiveness is modelled in the cost.
>The winter war, where Finland got its rep
>(later fighting was nowhere near as dramatic
>and was basically static for political
>reason), was an example of well equipped,
>good quality troops with skis and pullkas
Singular pulkka, plural pulkkas actually
>chopping into a hoard of misreable
>constripts.
What about the elite 44th Blue Division ? Not all the Red Army units were made out of conscripts who had not seen combat.
>The Soumi is an excellent weapon but nothing
>makes it any more effective than the MP38/40
>or the PPSH in game terms. Despite myth, it
>fired 9mm bullets and was a short range
>machinegun. It did not shoot down planes,
>destroy tanks, or date women.
Exactly. It was only a regular weapon. So how do you model adequately the man fielding that weapon ? Given the results it yielded. The Soviets did pay it homage by copying it as the PPSh after they had been in the receiving end.
>Likewise, the Finns had an excellent 20mm
>ATR, but it did not shoot through both sides
>of a KV2, was not capable of destroying a
>tank 200km away, and it was not lighter than
>a Lahti.
There were so many weapons designed by Lahti. LS-26 LMG, Lahti ATR, Suomi SMG.
>There have been numerous attempts to argue
>for national bonuses, and they will always
>fail without HUGE proof.
What is huge proof ? Kill ratios ? All the armies used weapons that delivered a comparable amount of damage. It is not what you use but how you use it that matters. In how many armies did the frontline soldier consider a log of wood a potential AT asset ?
>The US was good with vehicles, and the
>average US soldier usually had auto
>mechanics in school, but US troops did not
>get the special ability to hot wire enemy
>truck and tanks for the good reason that it
>would not be realistic.
Yes. Because they had enough of their own to go by. The Finns lacked any and all kinds of weapons, munitions and vehicles. The only thing going for them was the fact that the Red Army was using exactly the same rifles and exatly the same caliber ammo. They could and they did take from the enemy what they needed to survive. After Winter War our artillery and armoured force was made out of captured weapons and munitions. And we lost that damned engagement. How do you explain away our army using the newest enemy weaponry AFTER we had lost the war and DESPITE we were not occupied ? Donations they were not.
[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
Please note: the limit of smileys is 8 so I indicate their place with the phrase "insert smiley".
>I think you were assimilated a long time
>ago. You're just in a different collective
>than the rest of us
Some 36 years ago. "insert smiley"
>You see, this is the uberFinn mentality that
>bothers people so much. First of all the
>only way a soldier could fire at "maximum
>ROF" while "rushing" the enemy would be if
>he had a fully automatic weapon. Now
>assuming they all have automatic weapons, it
>is entirely reasonable that their firepower
>is cut in half while "rushing".
This is a constant vs flexible OB issue.
Finnish platoons captured abandoned semi- and full auto weapons or took them from the dead enemy soldiers during combat to boost their fire power. This was SOP because the Finnish army and the Red Army used the same caliber small arms so the ammo for the small arms was the same (except for the Suomi SMG). They could also use the bolts from the Red Army Mosin-Nagants to improve reliability of their bolt action rifles. This was because the Finnish made, often brand new or unused, bolt was of too high quality to work reliably in combat conditions (sand, debris etc).
I do not know about the other armies but the Finnish army unit commanders would habitually gather full- and semiauto weapons to ad-hoc strike teams during CM scope battles so that the counter attacks would be more effective in terms of both suppressive shock effect and killing power. The ammo was also redistributed as needed so that these teams would have a full combat load of ammo when the counter attack started.
That would mean in CM terms that the the Finnish troops would have basically unlimited ammo supply once they are within XX meters of KIA/suppressed enemy units. Or rather the enemy units ammo status would be added to the Finnish units ammo pool. And the Finnish troops would also have their also their arms status changed accoring to what the enemy unit is carrying. The Finnish squad would trade some of its bolt action rifles to enemy units semi- and full auto weapons. That applies of course also to enemy HMG's, AT- and field guns and mortars.
Also the "split squad" command for the Finnish units would not be done square from the middle of the squad, but accoring to the purpose to which the split is made. And that in-game reorganization would also be possible at platoon and company level.
And by the time this is implemented in CMX Finnish troops the pigs will have been flying to the moon for decades.
But all of this can be verified and substantiated as having been the real life tactical, doctrinal and SOP practises of the Finnish army during WWII. And all within the CM scope of combat to boot.
>A soldier doing this will not be able to
>fire accurately.
That is true. And that is why maximum ROF is used at the "strike moment" to counter the inherent inaccuracy with sufficient weight of fire.
In CM the small arms are rated according to their suppressive power and their killing power, right ? But the ROF modelled is pretty much constant for various types of weapons. That means that full auto capable weapons fire bursts only, there is no sustained, long burst fire available. This is why the cutting the fire power in half while rushing is not realistic. Not just for Finns. For any army that used such tactics.
>You seem to be suggesting that Finn units be
>allowed to move and fire at full
>effectiveness at the same time!
The effect is not in the accuracy, it is in the shock effect which is in the weight of fire thrown at the enemy at the decisive moment.
>This is not humanly possible, yet you want
>BTS to let the Finns do it.
To be exact I want BTS to let any and all units in the game do it, if that was their tactical/doctrinal SOP.
And please do not let the Finnish army know about this startling BTS revelation that maximum ROF at the decisive moment of the rush is not realistically possible to overcome the enemy. Otherwise they will have to revise their current training program to reflect this. "insert smiley"
>I really don't know what you're saying here.
>There is a withdraw command. Did the Germans
>withdraw/disengage in a way unique to them
>that Allied units were unable to do?
I find it odd that you people do not find it perculiar that you can only widraw/disengage to the direction of your baseline (ie. your edge of the map) and not in any other direction. I think it is imperative, ESPECIALLY in CM scope battles, that you can manouver defensively as well as you can manouver offensively. This is why I posed the question if the current set of attack oriented commands is nationally biased against the Germans. I know their SOP was to counter attack whenever possible. As things stand they can not defend effectively because they can only widraw backwards, not sideways or towards the enemy lines.
>You see, you've decided that BTS will
>underrate the Suomi months before you know
>how it will be rated. No matter how good BTS
>ends up rating it, it won't be good enough
>in your eyes.
You picked the wrong punch line.
The one you should have picked was:
"There was no SMG's in a Red Army squad during Winter War and still our squads get a weaker firepower rating. Only because according to the OOB's the Soviet units had more firepower than ours."
You got blinded by my rant about the Suomi SMG to forget it is really does not matter what the SMG is named because it is the class of the weapons that determines how it is handeled by the game engine, not its place of origin. "insert smiley"
The Winter War era text book Red Army platoon was more powerfull than the text book Finnish army platoon in terms of nominal firepower. And that is a fact. No disparity in experience levels will make that go away. Ultimately. Unless some other type of arrangements are made.
>You accuse BTS and anyone who agrees with
>their stand on nationality modifiers of
>being bias, yet you display a remarkable
>degree of bias yourself. Every single thing
>I have ever seen you post on this forum in
>relation to the game was in some way an
>arguement to make the Germans stronger and
>the Allies weaker. You really come across as
>a guy with an agenda. I can only imagine it
>will get worse in CM2 with Finns in the mix
>(heck, you've started already and the game
>won't be out for months).
If you noticed that "accuation" was in parentheses. I tried to convey that as a typical ranting complaint made by a dissatisfied player.
BTW as we speak about my extreme bias against the Allies the Americans (and/or other Allied nationalities) are doing the same kind of complaining about the absence and lack of effects of their respective SMG's in CM. And I do not see you or anybody accusing them of being biased to a remarkable degree. I wonder why that is so ...... NOT. Could it be that their kind of bias is different from my kind of bias ?
It is only a matter of perception and point of view. And perhaps availability and accessability of sources. "insert smiley"
>Nothing personal against you, tero, you seem
>like a nice guy, but a little objectivity
>would go a long way.
No worries, mate. I think this tread would have been locked down long ago if we took this issue too personally.
As for objectivity going a long way: I try to be objective as I can. The fact that I use the Finnish army experiences as examples is only frosting on the cake to illustrate points I am trying to make. They are for frame of refrence only. We are after all discussing differences in real life phenomenon and how they should be implemented to a world of abstractions. Debates like this are inevitable. And I am no stranger to them.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
This is a GREAT discusion
I don't have a real strong opinion on this one but I do agree with those here who suggest it would be nice it AT guns were a little harder to spot or a little more difficult to knock out, they seem a little overly "brittle" or "fragile" in the game, but the current system does work better than any other game I have ever played.
!-tom w
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that them being seemingly too brittle or fragile is the due to fact that if the crew gets suppressed or takes even one lousy casualty (be it when a man cuts his finger on his knife while he is picking his nails while under fire) leave the gun and it stays abandoned eventhough the crew is fully capable and even willing to fight on.
Perhaps it would be better to alter the programme so that they can reman the gun. It would be realistic to allow regualr infantry units to man abandoned guns, even enemy guns.
Boosting the gun crew morale so that the gun is not abandoned as easily could be an option too. And if possible they could be even made to perform some repairs on the gun in an effort to make it work if the gun is hit but it is repairable. Depending how the damage is modelled.
[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>I heard most Finns could destroy a T34 with
>naught but a stare from their fierce, steely
>warrior eyes, is this true?
Basically, yes. Our troops did browbeat the crew into letting us have the vehicles as we only had T-26's, Vickers 6tons and a few T-28's at the time. That was not fair and the crew of the T-34 understood that.
A true story: during Winter War an officer once drove away tank (either a T-26 or a BT) in a duel between him and it. He was armed only with his side arm, a pistol. He jumped up in front of the tank, emptied the pistol at the tank and dove to cover to reload and after reloading jumped up again to fire at the tank. That went of for a few times and the spectators were sure the officer would be killed. In the end the crew of the tank decided it was time to quit and they retreated.
-
>But he also likes to push buttons.
I admit this is true up to a point.
But is it really only pushing buttons if you refuse to be assimilated and you do not memorize the party line by heart ?
>But I am doubting by the number of smilies
>he includes in his posts that he is under
>the impression anyone is slaming the
>Finns.
By no means. I make my statments and I present the facts to back them up. They are being put through the 3rd degree.
The difficulty in debates like this is the fact that we Finns are weened on these "truths", just as Americans and the Brits or anybody else are weened on their set of "truths".
For example every Finn knows the best SMG of the war was the Suomi SMG and most adult males over 30 have even fired one during their national service. I bet the rest of the world have a different opinion on the matter, starting with "what the hell is a Suomi SMG".
When the Suomi SMG is then (in our opinion) underrated in CM2 because the SMG in a squad, contary to Finnish national tactics and doctrine, is not very prominently rated there will be much wailing and knashing of teeth: "The foreigners have done it again. We are getting shafted yet again ! There was no SMG's in a Red Army squad during Winter War and still our squads get a weaker firepower rating. Only because according to the OOB's the Soviet units had more firepower than ours."
Not as good as a regular MG, which can make life unpleasant for infantry out to 500m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Better Sharpshooters for the Soviets?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
>I thought your point was that German units
>should have a special type of withdraw
>command only usable by them. That is what
>nationality modifiers are all about and I
>thought that was what your whole arguement
>was in favor of.
I think much of my argumentation has been glouded by my supposed über-Finn claims. The facts I quote do seem like preposterous über-Finn plugs. But unfortunately we can not debate national characteristics if no facts are presented on the matter.
It seems that the Allied POV is selfevident and all data that contradicts or questions the established set of facts is viewed as über-propaganda.
>I have nothing against a "fighting retreat"
>type command as long as everyone can use it.
I think there are very few, if any, commands that should not be available to one side only just because of their nationality.
>I hate word games. But what the hell.
Semantics is fun.
>The weapon mix of a squad is a PHYSICAL
>characteristic of that squad, just as the
>number of HE and AP shells carried by a tank
>is a PHYSICAL characteristic of that tank.
>They are objects you can touch and count.
Agreed. Except the ammo load out HE/AP ratio of the tank is something that is subject to tactical and dotrinal aspects based on national behaviour.
>They are easy to quantify if you have the
>data. They are either there, or they are not
>there. The performance of these weapons is
>also a physical characteristic.
Agreed. Except there are differences in how the data is assesed and what factors are deemed as relevant. In the case of SMG's there are two schools: those who say it was ineffective and those who say it was effective. Both schools use the same data but come up with different conclusions. And by and large these conclusions are determined by their frames of reference. Which is inherently based on national experiences.
>The reasons why a unit has a certain weapon
>mix could be thought of as behavioral, but
>it is entirely irrelevant to CM as the game
>does not allow the player to decide such
>things for his units (outside the scope).
Agreed up to a point. This is (yet again) a topic concerning OoB's. What muddies the water is the rather infuriating fact that men seldom adhere to the text book application of rules and regulations in special circumstances, such as war.
>Just because you see evey issue in terms of
>nationality bias doesn't mean everyone else
>does.
This is largely because the national bias is not a national bias if it is a fact of life that belongs to everyones set of givens. What you say is a national bias may not be in my POV a national bias at all. And vice versa.
A recent "great" hubbub has arisen because Team A is denied something team B has. Yet all previous arguments about the things that are given to team A but denied from team B are shrugged off. Both these instances constitute national bias in my book.