BloodyBucket

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just a question: is it really possible to fire 20 rounds per minute with WWII rifle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I do it all the time with an M-1 Garand, and even a turnbolt being pushed hard could do it. The real difference between rifle fire and MG fire is the platform, not the volume. A tripod mounted MG is a stable platform, and a small target. Twenty men with rifles are much less stable, harder to control, and a larger target taking up a lot of ground. What I think some people here are trying to express is just a matter of focus. To a student of infantry tactics, the MG is "the essence of the infantry." Really, the men with rifles are there to support the MG, not the other way around. There are instances where a MG or two savaged battalions, as at Dieppe. There are also instances where one man with a rifle has wiped out MG positions. Notice that they made a film about Alvin York, but there are very few celebrations of the more numerous occasions where a MG did all the work. I think there is an emotional reluctance to admit that a machinegun is so damn effective. It seems, well, unfair. It is unfair. The idea that valor will win out over machineguns was hard to shake during WWI. In WWII, Mg's and men had not changed much, but command and control and the tank had. It is well to remember that tanks were invented not to kill other tanks or infantry, but to silence MG positions. Trying to balance the complexity of battle in a simulation is the devil's own task. CM does a fantastic job. I would guess that if MG power was tweeked, it might have effects on the game that I can't forsee. None of these elements exist in a vacuum. I do not pretend to have an answer, but I do know that I would not ask my people to make an unsupported rush againts a MG if there was a way around it, including waiting for a tank to show up, or for someone else to get on it's flank.

Don't let the thought police find out that there are PICTURES OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS IN COMBAT MISSION!!!! They might force you to replace the Thompson BMP with a fuzzy bunny graphic.

Good show!

"Whatever happens, we have got/ The Maxim Gun, and they have not."

In response to the request for tests using "Hardened Marines". Ahem. As a Marine enlisted man, I object to being experimented on by CM obsessed officers . Seriously, X-OO and I went to the same school so we have the same opinions as to the effectiveness of talking guns, grazing fire and beaten zones. I think that there is room for disagreement, and for honorable disagreement on these issues. However, when it comes to my kiester being counted as a victory point for my side or thier side I will stick with Marine Corps doctrine. As to X-OO's exersize, I think he left out "And while doing your 3 second rushes, be so terrified you can barely find the strength to move at all." More men have been frozen in place by fire than have become instant olympic class sprinters. As to what the US Army said in 1943, I would be shocked for them to put out a pub that said "The Jerry machine gun is much better than what we have." Not good form or good for morale. CM is a great game. I love it. Reasonable people can have differences of opinion on various aspects of what it simulates. When I put my professional thinking cap on, I don't say, "This is not my idea of perfect so it sucks", I say "This gets me really thinking tactics so it is great". If I could wave a wand, MG fire would be "more effective", units would be less willing to take casualties, flares and ilumination rounds would be available at night, and Santa would come every week. I have not the gall to pretend that my opinion is gospel, or that my two cents is worth more than two cents. If BTS makes CM2 without changing these things I will buy it, tell others to buy it and play it. If they made a "BloodyBucket Edition" just for me with every little thing I want (Marines and Japanese!) I would buy it, tell others to buy it and play it. If they forced everyone else to get the BB edition I would be the subject of mass protest and critical posts . Sorry I rambled, I am giving up nicotine and it makes me jumpy :mad:

Your effort at micromanagement of this board will lead to gamey and ahistorical situations in CM. I would illustrate my point but my computer wouldn't be able to handle the processing power needed. Besides, I think it is really outside the scope of this game, so why bother with a reply? [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

So, Wolfcub, did you sleep at all this weekend?

Headline- Was Rommel knocked out of war by garish seat cover? Find out on WWII-The Obscure Story tonight on the History Chanel!

[ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

It is my understanding that you can change the way some parts of CM look but the underlying data is hard coded. Thus, a mod making the scenery look like the pacific would still have the germans in japanese clothes. Still, there is a mod that changes the look to the African desert, and BTS has every right to hard code whatever they like. It is the game play that makes this game great IMHO, and the changing the window dressing to a jungle look would be ultimately unsatisfactory. I wish that a Pacific version was in the works, it would do my Jarhead heart good. But alas, I do not think that is to be (sob).

There are a couple of issues that there is room for reasonable people to disagree on, and this is one of them. Professionals still debate S.L.A Marshall, and believe it or not there are debates about the effectiveness of MG fire in different roles going on today within the US military. Since MG's have been around in one form or another since the 1860's you would think that there would be no debate on this, but there is. I think it is the nature of war that even the simple is difficult to understand, and I am suspicious of anyone who has it all figured out. If you do, the various service acadamies would love to hear it. Pros spend careers trying to make sense of war, and no one has an ironclad answer to it all yet. I love this game. I think that any object of passion will arouse passionate discussion. I respect the right of the folks who made it to act like it is their baby. I respect the right of the fans to be fanatical. I hope that BTS continues to put out a product that is so fantastic people are passionate about it. So, I raise a glass to all concerned. Cheers! This game has made us all comrades in arms, and for this I am grateful.

Yes.

The effect of lightning lighting up the sky was usually a strong desire on my part to get the hell away from the antenna of my radio. It can kill your night vision if you are looking straight at it. But as a useful source of light, not in my experiance. I am sure it has been hashed over before, but one of the items it would be nice to play with is illumination rounds.

I can't say CM is constantly in my drive. But it has killed the urge to go looking at other games for quite some time.

Good question on the reverse slope effects. I think that is a worthy point, perhaps for inclusion in CM2. I know the importance of using the military crest versus the actual crest of a hill was pounded in to us from boot camp on.

Nothing calls in air support. It just runs itself if purchased or provided by the scenario. It can be driven off or shot down by your opponent's actions. As to forward observers.... When forward observers fight it's called a forward observer battle. And when they battle with a Hummel it's a forward observer Hummel battle. AND when forward observers battle with a Hummel in a puddle it's called forward observer Hummel puddle battle. AND... When forward observers battle Hummels in a puddle and the Hummel is hull down they call this a forward observer Hummel hull down puddle battle. AND... Hope that helps.

The new look is....new. I rarely use smileys so being able to use them instantly is no big plus. Nice feature though. The instant UBB code is nice, the lack of spell check is no big deal, as if I have a rare long post I usually check it in Word first. The feature marking users as good or evil through the assignment of odd or even user numbers is nice. Saves a lot of guess work. The flood control feature is wierd. Must save some headaches I bet. Can you link to the new board from the old one?

Juardis- My father was a BAR man in the 28th, 110th Rgt., 2nd Bn., "Easy" company. He fought in the Hurtgenwald and was a guest of the German government after December 19, 1944. ------------------ "Roll on"

"I'm equally sure that no mud in the world is so deep or sticky or wet as European mud. It doesn't even have an honest color like ordinary mud." Bill Mauldin ------------------ "Roll on"

The demo battle idea is a good one. If it gets someone to try it they are hooked. It is almost immoral. (Pssst, hey kid, you ever played Combat Mission? Just try it once, you won't get addicted or nothin....) ------------------ "Roll on"

FriendlyFire said: St. Anne's Chapel - a great example of a small scenario. In my experiance, the best way to get an infantryman to do something is tell him not to do it. Thus, I believe that 'fausts were used against everything. ------------------ "Roll on"

Interesting! I freely admit my assumption that the soviets used magnetic mines was based solely on playing UpFront. I am shocked, shocked to find historical innacuracies in a game. ------------------ "Roll on"

How dare you! Do a search! Don't you know that this topic was discussed at great length back in the pre-beta test secret society code word days? I think they used Anti-tank rifles early on, then went to magnetic mines. No homegrown rocket launcher of WWII vintage that I know of, and I don't know if Bazookas or PIATs were lend-leased in quantity. Probably used captured German stuff, but I think they relied more on AT guns and other AFVs to do the job.

Another great thread. My father, an infantry veteran,(28th Div, 110th Regt,2nd Bn,"Easy" Co. BAR gunner) speaks of the German "noisiness" with disdain, saying that it gave the German positions away, and in the next breath says that they were better infantry fighters than the Americans. Go figure. I think that Marshall was more right than wrong. My guess is that it is a matter of lack of training and aversion to killing. As a marksmanship instructor, it is my view that the US military is still hung up on the idea of individual aimed fire, but not as much as they used to be. I do think that the advent of "pop-up" first person shooting games will make one more likely to pull the trigger at the moment of truth, just because it is almost perfect training. Endless repetition, instant gratification and voluntary. As to modeling the psychology of killing in CM, perhaps there could be an option like "detailed armor hits" that would run something like "Pvt. Shmoe refuses to fire due to moral training" or "Cpl. Shmuckatelli lays down scathing burst due to target's resemblance to oppresive father". Short of that, I think we will have to live with absractions. A deadly serious topic, and some good thoughts on the subject in this thread. I hope to God we never find out if the latest training theories are correct, but I am not an optimist on that count. ------------------ "Roll on"

Great thread. My vote also goes to the T-34. The Panzer III gets early war honorable mention. Raspberry to any of the resource consuming German ubertanks. Who had the best anti-tank program? My vote goes to the US with the P-47. Honorable mention to the German panzerfaust, and raspberry to the Japanese human bomb. ------------------ "Roll on"