Sirocco

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Mortars generally fired from a dismounted position, not actually in the vehicle. Sure it was possible, but there was a lot more room to work when dismounted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only picture that I've seen of a mortar HT firing is a US vehicle in the Ardennes, and there seems to be plenty of room for them to operate the mortar. Wouldn't the crew prefer to fire from the vehicle, rather than having to manhandle it from the halftrack? And weren't the baseplates bolted down to aid stability?

I'll use the Gulf War to explain the importance of "national modifiers". How would CM handle it? You'd have the Americans with M1's and Bradley's and infantry with M16's. The Iraqi's would have T80's, BMP's and infantry with AK47's. Would it be sufficient to model the different weapons systems to obtain realistic results? Of course not. You'd find the Iraqi's would kill more American infantrymen, and knock out more Bradley's and M1's than they did historically. So modelling weapons systems, and even doctrine, isn't enough. You have to also model the strengths and weaknesses of the men themselves. You might do that, for example, by giving the Americans high morale and by making them more durable. The Iraqi's, on the other hand, might start with high morale but they might be less durable so that they would be unlikely to stand and fight in a protracted encounter. Without modifiers of that kind you're left with a contest between weapons, and numbers of men, which is easier to model, and perhaps more satisfying for those who focus purely on stats. But I'd personally prefer the added dimension that national - even unit - modifiers would produce. To that extent I'm not sure if this issue isn't touched on in CM already. Aren't Volksturm units particularly fragile? That would be an example of a "unit modifier". But it goes further than that. An example would be the Germans use of fieldcraft in Normandy. All the reading I've done suggests the Allies were impressed by their use of cover and concealment, and I don't think that's reflected at all in CM. Spotting German units in the bocage is almost a trivial matter, even at long range. This is a difficult and complex area, but it would add another dimension to the game, and produce results that are based more on the men behind the weapons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Ya thats an old myth based on the Soviet troops haveing winter clothing compared to the majority of German formations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You cannot tell me that a man who has lived all his life with those conditions isn't more used to them than someone who is coming into it for the first time. This whole idea of a "universal soldier" makes about as much sense as the idea that there's a "universal man", at home in all conditions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Finally, to change BTS mind about anything, you need something more than a single quote from a comic book, even if it was written by Harry Hopkins himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The most glaring example would be how Russian soldiers could stand up to the extreme Russian winter better than the Germans, as they were more used to the conditions. Didn't that have an effect at some point..?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: the SL designers admitted up front that national modifiers were patently unfair,and were included solely for fun. BTS comes down firmly on the other side of the realism/gameyness fence, so their stance is hardly surprising.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When you discount national modifiers, you're essentially stating that the only difference between men is the weapons they use, and in terms of operational doctrine. Between the two is the man, and he is shaped by many other factors, in peacetime, and in training for battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: A Green US artillery battery is not going to have the same edge against a German Veteran battery vs. a Regular one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The reading that I've done suggests the performance of green and experienced artillery units was comparable as the men were performing the same tasks as they had in training. That is reflected in CM..?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: In the same way that antitank rifles were not for 'defense against tanks' but for 'attacking tanks'... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And "Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank" became "Projector, Infantry, Tank-Attack". As a point of interest, I've always wondered, how do you pronounce the "jagd" in "jagdpanzer", "jagdpanther" and "jagdtiger"?

I presume that was one of the reasons the Germans advocated Rottenkameradschaft - tanks can help each other against infantry, as well as against other tanks.

I recall a US squad knocking out a StuG with a rifle grenade during a QB, which was as much of a relief as a surprise to me. I think it must have been a lucky shot to the rear (ooh, no, missus! ).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YECoyote: Please refer to Saving Private Ryan to see how that was done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're on dangerous ground there, YECoyote! As David mentioned, you have to take into account the level of abstraction. What you see on-screen is sometimes a little different to the actualities.

I posted this suggestion about a year ago, and the response then was that it was probably already a part of the code, although that wasn't official.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: > That would depend on your definition of > their job. Counter-espionage, and security of army operational areas. Judging by how often during 1943-45 soviet generals managed to redeploy and concentrate large formations unnoticed, they managed quite well. Nothing funny, it was a very demanding job.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maskerovka and covering up the full picture of anti-Soviet partisan activity are two different things. This thread is heading for the General Discussion category unless someone can steer it back on topic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: Sirocco: > Estimated by whom..? By SMERSH organs responsible for the area. I dont see what's funny about it? These guys were quite competent in their job.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would depend on your definition of their job.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Enter Telly Savalas...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...In more ways than one, if I remember correctly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: And iirc, the total numbers of "banderovtsy" was estimated at 30,000 fighters or so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Estimated by whom..? I'm no expert on partisan activity, but I would certainly be cautious about accepting Soviet figures, and I wouldn't accept their descriptions of anti-Soviet partisans as simple bandits, either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: Anti-soviet partisans were virtually non-existant (ie, there were, but incomparably smaller numbers).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In his memoirs Marshal Rokossovsky stated that he visited some formations of his front in an armoured train, and returned in a light aircraft to avoid the partisans of the Ukrainian Liberation Movement. And General Vatutin was killed in an ambush in March 1944. The Kaminski Brigade alone numbered around 9,000 men. Partisan activity also continued into the Cold War period.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Until PL gets his posted those of you having trouble may want to visit my website and take a gander at my own tutorials. www.geocities.com/fpd131<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd recommend ScoutPL's tutorials to anyone interested in improving their defence. His defence tutorial gave me a lot of ideas.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YECoyote: I read that CM2 will include Partisans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The really interesting question is will we see partisans from both sides, communist and anti-communist..?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: after you read this you will be like the Muhammed Ali of Defense!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which fight? Foreman or Spinks?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: This kind of rarity pricing would have the problem of not encouraging historical shopping.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I take your point, but I think it could be balanced out with careful setting of the rarity values. With that kind of sliding scale you could still purchase a platoon of Tigers, but if the price was, say, multiplied by a percentage every time a Tiger was purchased it would discourage unrealistic numbers. The rarity value system isn't aimed at making players choose just one unit of a particularly rare kind, just discouraging unrealistic numbers. I think in that sense it would encourage realistic purchasing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yosoce: also for common items youd want a certain rarity number. for example, for a 250/1 the rarity number would be something like 5, meaning you could have 5 of them until the rarity factor starts making thigs cost more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yosoce, with something as common as a 250/1, I wouldn't even give it a rarity value, I would only give a value to something that was actually thought of as being available in small numbers.

This is how I'd design rarity. I apologise in advance if I've misunderstood the plans BTS has for it, and intends to implement a similar system, but from the previous rarity post, lost today, I think theirs is a different idea. I would give each unit a base value. That would be defined on the basis of the area of combat - for example Army Group North, Centre and South - and the month. The value would be lower if the unit was common, and higher if it was rare, combined with the perceived value of the unit, of course. And some units wouldn't be available at all due to their extreme rarity. A rarity value would be defined, and it would work thus: Tiger I : base value 177, rarity value 50% The first time a player chose a Tiger I, it would cost 177 points. Then it's price would increase to 265 points. Players could still choose rare units, but couldn't choose them in larger numbers that would be unhistorical. Feel free to shoot my idea down in flames.

You didn't have it all backed up on floppies? Tsk! Tsk!

I think that often, especially on the Eastern Front, it was common for units to locate possible crossing points, get an idea of the depth of the water and the strength of the river bed, and then, when they'd established there was a good chance of getting across, they'd send a vehicle across, and the rest would follow at intervals. I wouldn't expect them always to have engineers at hand. And I would certainly expect that to have happened during major German retreats, for example in the summer of 1944. What does that mean for CM2? I would suggest a custom "ford" tile, with an increased chance of bogging. I wonder if we'll also get more field fortifications..?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: What is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> SdKfz 138/1 15cm Infanteriegeschutz 33 (Sf) auf PzKpfw 38 (t) Grille (Cricket). The data I have is that 90 were produced in 1943.