Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

lassner.1

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    193

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by lassner.1

    The Last Stalingrad Pack Preview

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    You neglected to include "style of play". It IS possible, difficult as it may be for you to imagine, for perfectly competent players not to fare well at one of your craftings while at the same time not being the fault of crappy scenario design and/or poor grasp of how to play the game. Some players simply have different styles that will pay dividends in some situations, and cause them to lose badly in others....yet another dilemma for the scenario designer and his testers.

    Then again too, there is the problem of chance, or luck, rearing its head in some of the equation also. It doesn't always have to come down to "the player who rated my scenario must have been a git...."....does it?

    Indeed Michael, I heartily concur.

    My statement reflects my opinion, and and really should be read in conjunction with 'and I don't care any longer about it'. I just can't be bothered anymore.

    Case in point (again): I consider 'Into the East' a perfectly balanced scenario for multiplayer. If someone gets their ass handed badly, it is their mistakes, and/or general ineptitude that made it happen, not my design. That is the measure of my confidence. Now read the reviews and/ or play it PBEM, and come back and comment please

    Andreas, I certainly understand if you are simply not interested in designing two player scenarios anymore – to each his own. Previously I have enjoyed your scenarios, and I am sure that I will try out your newer “one-player” ones as well.
    0

    The Last Stalingrad Pack Preview

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    All of mine are recommended single player, multiplay at your own risk and I am not interested in how you will fare.

    I am no longer interested in designing for multi-player balance. . .

    [From a later post] . . . Conclusion - achieving balance for everybody is a forlorn hope, so I can as well not bother

    I must respectfully disagree with you Andreas; not only do I believe that balance for multi-player is achievable, but it is something that I value extremely highly in a scenario. I would agree, however, that it is much more difficult to make balanced multi-player scenarios (if that was perhaps what you intended to say). I should also add that I do quite like single-player oriented scenarios. But multi-player scenarios are where CM:BB really shines, at least in my book.
    0

    Juju does it again: City Roads and Pavement, anyone?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I could dirty them up, but I thought they we're fine the way they were. The problem with skewed stones and stuff is that it results in very ugly repetetiveness in the game. Take the road for instance, I've had to replace hundreds of individual stones with dozens of individual other ones, in an attempt to obscure the obvious pattern.
    What about just a bit of dust - they just look so damned clean!

    Fantastic work, however, I'm downloading them as I type!

    0

    I have played the Demo--someone sell me on the game!!!!

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    CM:BB is most certainly worth every dollar that you would spend upon it. It really is the best WWII tactical wargame to date, and endless fun. I just fought one of the canned scenarios from CM:BB yesterday - fending off a massive attack by Russian ISU 152 and 122s - and had one heck of an intense game. Additionally, with all of the new commands in CM:BB, I cannot go back to CM:BO.

    Get CM:BB - you will not regret it.

    0

    Action by infantry when coming under fire quote

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Nidan1

    Member

    Member # 9125

    posted November 07, 2002 04:45 PM

    When I was in the Marine Corps in the 60's we were taught in infantry

    training to advance in "fire team rushes". When we got to Vietnam and the real bullets were flying, all of that seemed to go out the window. From my personal experience it boiuled down to the courage and leadership skills of individual Marine Officers and enlisted men. We all had basic infantry training, but the "book" was quickly forgotten, when the first shouts of "Corpsman, Corpsman" were heard. The following is a quote, from FMFM1 on Maneuver Warfare, which is fairly recent. It makes some good points:

    "Because war is a clash of opposing human wills, the human dimension is central in war. It is the human dimension which infuses war with its intangible moral factors. War is shaped by human nature, and is subject to the complexities, inconsistencies and peculiarites which characterize human behavior. Since war is an act of violence based on irreconcilable disagreement, it will envariably be inflamed and shaped by human emotions.

    War is an extreme trial of moral and physical strength and stamina. Any view of the nature of war would hardly be accurate or complete without the consideration of the effects of danger, fear, exhaustion and privation on the men who must do the fighting. However these effects vary greatly from case to case. Individuals and peoples react differently to the stress of war; an act that may break the will of one enemy, may only serve to stiffen the resolve of another.

    No degree technological development or scientific calculation will overcome the human dimension in war. Any doctrine which attempts to reduce warfare to ratios of forces, weapons and equipment neglects the impact of the human will on the conduct of war and is therefore inherently false."

    Indeed, a very accurate assessment, and one that is very much reflective of the nature and phenomena of war as discussed by Clausewitz in book one. It is not an accident that this view has surfaced in FM1 on Maneuver Warfare, as a number of soldiers and scholars worked resolutely to get it into the doctrine in the first place.

    Without getting into detail, one can see the similarities readily. FM1 on Maneuver Warfare as quoted by Nidan1 states: “Because war is a clash of opposing human wills, the human dimension is central in war.” Clausewitz writes in book one chapter one: “War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” Several paragraphs later he continues that “War, however, is not the action of a living force upon a lifeless mass ... but always the collision of two living forces.” Clausewitz goes on in book one, especially chapters one and three through seven, to discuss the human dimension in war, which he clearly holds as paramount. In doing so we once again see the contention that men in combat are unpredictable, and that numerous factors, which are not subject to exact knowledge, will have an influence on soldier’s behavior (Clausewitz, it should be remembered, saw quite a bit of fighting). The logical extension of this argument, of course, is that no model will be completely accurate – though I assume that that is not what is being argued here in any case.

    I agree with Nidan1 that CM:BB has done a good job in trying to estimate the behavior of men under fire, and I have noticed in my games that squads will break into a forward run in some cases when coming under fire; they do not always go to ground and begin the crawl.

    0

    A Morning at the Zoo -- Any suggestions?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I won this one as the Germans (Minor Tactical Victory) against an excellent human opponent.

    I advanced on a fairly broad front, but had my Pzkpfw Ivs on the left. Basic plan was to fix the Russians with the central and right forces, while the infantry and armored forces on my left got into a position to enfilade any Russians in the center or on my right. I did take heavy casualties in the center for a while, due to 2 dug-in Russian platoons in the woods, but my eng. came up and removed them with flamethrowers. Meanwhile my forces on the left took the aviery and, with the aid of 81 and 120 mm art, collapsed the Russians in the center and on the right. Pzkpfw IIIs deployed behind the stone wall on my right flank and duked it out with the T-34s until the Pzkpfw IVs freed-up and took care of buisness.

    It was, however, a bloody fight!

    0

    Assaulting tanks?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I think that the point to remember is that the graphics are an abstraction of what is really going on during the close assault. One may assume that there are troops on the tank looking for weak spots. But one should not overlook how dangerous this whole activity was. Moreover W.W.II tanks were not as slow and lumbering as commonly portrayed - well, except for things like KTs and the like ...

    0

    Assaulting tanks?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    The key - failing the proper assault equipment - is to get close to the tank (within 5-15m) and to keep at it for a few rounds. An extra squad or two won't hurt. But this is a slow and *dangerous* process. It is not easy - nor was it in real life. The best terrain for this kind of thing is when tanks try to move through light woods: get your infantry close and keep at it.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...