Triumvir
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Triumvir
-
-
There wasn't much point in sending PzIIIs into close country when it was quite possible that they'd be forced out into open country. And 50L60 would have been good enough for Shermans, but PzIII armour was relatively light AFAIK.
Incidentally, if you want a good troll -- and I don't believe this one, by the way -- one of the classic trolls is to compare and contrast the USMC against another highly disciplined para-military force -- the Waffen SS. After all, both were created by decree of government and both have a reputation for fighting long after it's obvious to anyone with two cells to rub together that the battle is lost.
<Note -- I _don't_ believe the above. But it's a helluva troll, and most people can't help but leap to the defence of the Corps.>
-
I don't think you will ever get anyone else to break Jason's post length.
But it's terribly unsporting to fish in these waters; it's like finding an undiscovered lake with coelecanths all over the place and then happily grabbing them with a seine net.
(Course, you can't eat coelecanths, but that's part of the argument...)
I agree that the Pz III chassis based vehicles were probably the most effective tank killers of the war, but war's not about killing tanks...
-
Why are you responding to Lewis? Isn't it obvious that he's a troll, and that the only way to handle him is steal the best of the ideas he comes up with, leaving them unattributed, while ignoring everything else? 8)
-
Been reading Seaton's _Battle for Moscow_ and I came across an interesting picture; a 76.2mm battery being towed by T-60 tanks! As far as I know, there is currently no facility to embark towed guns on tanks in CM. Will this change in CM2?
This has probably got to be a good way to integrate mobility; tow the guns into overwatch position, then send the T-60s out to draw fire... 8)
-
Viceroy,
I don't speak or read German. But I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject, especially when I was at university. Most of the translated diaries I have read have sounded quite a bit more formal than the extracts there; and are more concerned with their barracksmates than their kill scores.
James Lucas may be a crypto-fascist Hitler apologizer, but his translations of diaries are pretty good. His book _Das Reich_, which is full of mundane unit history -- he actually writes off Oradour-sur-Glane and Tulles as a "delay in moving to the front" without even mentioning the names -- may be personally loathsome, but has good flavour for how the soldiers thought and acted.
Jason;
No wonder you rub people the wrong way; all you freshwater scholars do that!
-
Don't forget the turret rings!
As for returning to battery position, any modern recoil system returns to battery almost immediately upon the round having left the barrel. As for realignment... depends on the loader.
I'm sure that the ISU-152 could handle up an RPM of 3-4 rounds if it was used as SP artillery, firing indirect. I've been on a 155 gun crew that could do 6-7 rounds a minute (admittedly, with 1 round in the chamber, 1 in the rammer and one in the loader's hands.)
But as for direct fire, I'd think that mere loading is not as important as the aiming and firing. I remember that the direct aiming sights we used were remarkably user unfriendly; but then again, we never expected to use them.
-
The whole Joachim Scholl set smacks of a 90's hand; they don't sound like a German from the 1940s. Having read memoirs from that period, I'm pretty sure that they're a fabrication, or at the most charitable, a _terrible_ translation.
-
Incidentally, I've just read a book by Dupuy called _Understanding Defeat_ which attempts to model how defeat happens. I know Dupuy is of the "numbers mean _everything_" school (that he ranks Great Captains by their win/loss ratio seems somehow... simplistic) but I wonder how much of the book made it into CM. Certainly they give a fairly detailed model at the end of the book on modelling operational level defeat
-
Jason,
I thought you were a gunner! By the way, I've seen people weighing 55 kgs -- almost the same damn weight as the round they were carrying -- help resupply a battery from trucks parked down the road. There was about 50 metres between the gun and the trucks, and about 10 shells per person.
Carrying rounds is surprisingly easy, especially once you balance them on the shoulder. I don't see that loading is that hard on the loader; we used to throw rounds onto the loading tray because of the loading tray's design.
-
I don't see anywhere in the article that they are doing relative spotting. They say in CGW (fair use, etc) that "in 1941, most of the Russian tanks didn't have radios; the tankers had to use hand signals to communicate. The command model is changing in CM 2 to reflect such difficulties."
This doesn't necessarily imply relative spotting.
-
ASL,
the IS-122 is a tank. The ISU-122 and SU-122 were SPGs, but the IS-122 was a tank the same way the IS-85 was a tank. We know them better as the IS-2 and the IS-1 respectively.
The site referenced at vif.ru makes that pretty clear, and added another nugget to my storehouse of useless information... 8)
-
Don't forget that the 100mm D-10T is the same gun that's in use on the T-54 family. A _really_ venerable piece of work.
As far as I know, the only M1 disabled by enemy action (as opposed to mines) in the Persian Gulf was hit by a D-10 in the rear. Anyone have more information on that?
-
Louie,
uh? Why should I :
a) have criticised the Penguins
apologise to you for not having criticised them?Far as I can see, the Penguins are that most common of posted message thing -- the Sekrit Kabal. Every board/group has them and complaining about them is always futile.
-
Personally, I think Trotter's a bit of a hack, though he's probably the most identifiable wargame reviewer out there. But being king of a 50 foot hill isn't much...
I lost a bit of respect for him when he started ragging on how SP II was unrealistic because his beautiful uber-M1s and A-10s weren't making huge dents in the oncoming Red Hordes (anyone remember Germany 1980?) when I beat that scenario using M60s, Sheridans and a few carefully placed infantrymen.
I'd recommend the General, or Command, but I haven't read either for nigh on ten years so YMMV.
Shouldn't this be in the General Forum, anyway?
-
Heck Steve, I don't blame you for flaring up once in a while (though since I'm a dual-class programmer/suit, my suit side takes exception to the imprecation that all suits are kl00l3ss...), especially given provocation from people like Lewis.
You guys are doing a damned great job, and I don't expect you to go Atomic (koff) on us. I've never seen a game as neurotic about detail as CM -- and I _love_ it.
Now if you could just take some of our suggestions about artillery in hand for CM II.... 8) The Red God of War demands his fill.
-
Hmm... JMcGuire, I'm a programmer. I do this stuff for a living too. I know the temptation to get pissed off at the client/end user (BTW, if your corporate drone software writing doesn't involve some end-user interaction, you're lucky -- mine does.)
I don't think Steve's doing a bad job. I don't think anyone else at BTS is doing a bad job. I'm simply saying that as far as I am concerned -- and this is not expected to change anyone's behaviour patterns -- Steve overreacts to modification requests.
Does everything I say have to be either laudatory or condemnatory? I think they do a good job; I think Steve gets pissed off a bit too quickly; I don't expect him to change, but I do expect him to acknowledge my right to that viewpoint.
-
Of course, none of the breaking and running helps when the opponent adjusts fire every round; that minute pause is typically enough to let the broken units scramble right into the follow-on salvo.
Incidentally, I wish that there wasn't the arbitrary shifting fire range limitation; dropping 400m at a time is not an uncommon FO task. The Red God of War demands his sacrifices, and it's harder and harder to give them to him if you have to wait three minutes at a time... 8)
A suggestion for CM II -- when adjusting fire, any adjustment of less than 500m (I'd say 1km, but I don't know enough about WWII pieces to say) should probably be treated like the current adjustment for less than 100m (i.e. 30 sec delay). It takes no more effort for the FO to call such shifts in than for shifts of 50m.
-
Hmm... does that disagree with anything I've said? I agree that BTS does a better job than almost any other game company in incorporating player feedback (eSim and MatrixGames come to mind but let's leave them aside).
But in the majority of cases when suggestions are made -- MGs, ammo, optics, none of which I intend to comment on the validity of -- Steve tends to flare up more than I think necessary. What I think necessary need not have an impact on what Steve does; it's an observation without prescription.
-
Steve,
without wanting to cause offence, I'd like to point out that you're not the most thick-skinned guy on the board. I understand your pride in your work, and your being ticked off at people who jump on you but... dude, you could be way more mellow and way less personal about taking suggestions.
We're _not_ all out to get you, and at least some of us do think that you and the rest of the guys are doing a great job. But criticism -- even "yuor a l00s3r" style criticism -- doesn't mean we think that "yuo suxx0rs".
This isn't about Dima, who is obviously a dimak (if my vulgar Russian vocabulary holds me out) but just an observation in general.
-
Well... no, actually I can. The player has a better view than a single commander, but he doesn't have a perfect view unless you turn FOW off. I've never led any infantry unit larger than a section, but granted that the information given to a section commander via his map, his commander briefings, etc, is scalable to his company commander, then there's not that much of a difference between an OC and a CM player. Yes, the maps look much prettier, but with a good 1:25000 and a smart mind you can do the same interpretations. Otherwise, how would you play TacOps?
As for reifying being less realistic... huh? I'm asking for a realism _increase_, not a _decrease_. If I can handle artillery the way an FO would, give it shapes the way an FO could, how does that make the game less realistic?
-
Hmm... Skipper, I think you may be unconsciously letting some things slide. For one, while NSDAP was in name a Socialist party, it certainly did not act like one. National Socialism is a nice name that grabs both ends of the political spectrum, but in fact was more like feudalism than any kind of constitutional politics.
NSDAP and CPSU were most certainly opposed in practice and creed, if not in name.
As for fighting for the communist cause, as the old proverb goes; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. For now.
And I agree with you on the partisans; value point system ensures that they won't be useless. Even if they end up like the WWI Imperial Army, with a rifle for every two men (it was WWI where there weren't enough arms; CPSU learnt from that hard experience to make enough for WWII) they will be useful as ammo-depletors, if nothing else.
-
Disagree entirely. Artillery is _the_ reaper in war, having accounted for about 70% of all casualties in "war"[1] from WWII onwards.
The amount of command and control we have is not that much greater than that of a battalion commander; you could abstract all this out to grease-pencils and a terrain map and still maintain the fidelity of the model. What we have that a battalion commander doesn't is _time_. _Time_ to plot and make sure that artillery comes down where it's needed, not where you think it's needed.
I particularly disagree with the "it works well as it is, why screw it up" ethos. The aim of the game is to have fun, and why limit yourself to having less fun than you can?
If I want to say "right, my men will advance under cover of an arty prep, till they reach their FUPs, whereupon we will place a box barrage around the enemy's lines of retreat," I should jolly well be able to. Right now, I can do the first part, but not the second.
Combat Mission is the best WWII simulation I have seen so far bar none. But best doesn't mean perfect. The artillery system is great, but it's abstracted. If we reify it and give more control to the player, where's the problem in that?
-
Recon-pull is great on an operational scale. But for company level games, i.e. anything less than 1000 pts, you can pretty much tell where everything is going to happen during setup by careful observance of terrain.
So long as setup time is unlimited, you can prepare your course of action exactly like a commander would; then you have to react only half as quickly, with n-times more recon as he can.
(Incidentally, bookmarkable points is something I'd like to see in CMII -- being able to jump from one location to another instantaneously so that you can, for example, coordinate a company assault on one hill, while the armoured element sneaks through the cracks in the woods)
This also gives you the opportunity to overtake your opponent's decision cycle and force a decision on him; if you can think faster and prepare faster, you can hammer your opponent.
I don't agree that 2 minute turns are like Starcraft - throughout Starcraft you constantly have to manage the resource battle, something that you don't need to worry about in CM.
Conversely, though, for anything more than a company strength battle (i.e. 1250 or more points) I'd rather see unlimited turn limits. One man can juggle a company in his head in its entirety; it's a bit harder once it goes beyond that.
-
COL Deadmarsh, I actually have the opposite reason for playing TCP/IP at company or sub-company levels. It forces you to think on the fly, like a commander would. It allows you to seize initiative from the other player by cutting into their decision cycle.
Of course, I play exclusively speed chess, and prefer 2 minute games...
With an unlimited setup time, I find that I can plan the conduct of the entire game and then continue with my plans on 2 minute turns.
Of course, this continuation usually leaves my tanks burning on the ridgelines and my infantry slaughtered in the open, but hey, friction happens, right? 8)
apologise to you for not having criticised them?
Pushing Immobilized (bogged) vehicles out of a jam
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
That's strange... I've done exactly that to unbog tanks when playing Drive to Mortain.
<spoiler>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
<break/>
.
.
.
.
Okay, far enough.
Since the road in Drive to Mortain is potential deathtrap (playing the Germans, I wiped out the entire -- I mean, _entire_ Allied force at the first bocage boundary), I go offroad as soon as feasible.
When my Shermans bogged, I had my commander's M5 push them out of the way, and they magically unbogged themselves. Didn't work for immobilized units, though.