Triumvir
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Triumvir
-
-
I've been having some problems with my CM graphics recently. I have a Celeron 400 with 384MB RAM and Leadtek GeForce with Detonator 6.31, running Win2K professional w Service Pack 1.
Symptoms: When I start CM and get into the loadup screen, everything is fine. Once I've loaded the map, though, what should be a white colour turns transparent (i.e. the American flag becomes a pattern of red and black) It also means that I can't see anything on the results screen, or on the kills/info screen.
I tried switching hardware acceleration for cursors off, but ended up with all text being whited over.
I'd give you screenshots, but for the next symptom: when I deleted the prefs file and restarted CM, my monitor died. I heard something in the back go pop and since then I haven't been able to switch it on without it promptly switching itself back off.
This isn't too bad because I'm going to get a new 20" to replace it, but I'd like to know if there's anything I can do to avoid the same symptoms once my 20" comes.
-
Ooops, mea culpa.
I'm not running FSAA, I don't think, and I'm using driver ver 6.3.1. I tried going to 5.3.2 but had the same issues.
-
I'm using a GeForce 1 running Detonator 3 drivers on Win2K professional. Has anyone else with this combo seen in the game what should be white flicker into transparency? This means that all the drop down boxes and stuff like that simply don't appear since they're white, and the text ends up being superimposed over the background.
I'd be happy to mail screenshots if needed.
-
Barbarossa is a classic book, probably the best single-volume source for lay readings on the Eastern Front. It's a damn shame that he doesn't have as detailed a bibliography as others so that we could get the primary source.
-
That you're saying that a Sherman has low combat effectiveness signals to me that you're not using them properly. Shermans are infantry killers and should be used as such. If you put them up against tanks, they'll die in short order.
A lot of the problems you seem to be running into can (and I hate to sound like David Aitken) be resolved by using actual doctrine. Put tank destroyers against tanks and tanks against infantry.
Why don't you post your definition of a combined arms team (which, by the way, if it takes 4000/6000pts to build is rather big by CM standards) for both Germans and Americans? Saying that it's "got all the elements" doesn't quite cut it.
Oh, and BTW, I'm not American and even I know that using "boy" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with age.
-
And of course, by going to subscription, it does cream skimming by picking only that segment of the market which is _really_ interested in sims and willing to pay $3.95 to read reviews. This implies that the quality of discussion on the board may go up.
As to whether that segment is big enough to sustain CombatSim is a different story. But it doesn't change the fundamental; that site owners need to start generating profit streams from _somewhere_.
CombatSim's owners should probably do what other subscription based services (such as the Economist or the WSJ) do; offer minimal teasers which demonstrate the quality of writing. And probably they should open up the forums to read-only viewing. But they're going down the right road.
-
aHEM. You seem to have missplet fuhgeddabowdit.
Bah, it's on a new page.
[This message has been edited by Triumvir (edited 12-20-2000).]
-
Cave hominem ab unius libris...
or in non-dog latin,
Beware the man of one book.
-
Babra,
uhhh, yes it is. But the question for a piiru isn't whether it's a mil; it's whether it's a true mil, a Soviet mil or a US mil. I'm willing to bet that it's a true mil, because 300 "piiru" doesn't give a nice round number.
Again, a true mil is a milli-radian and the other two are simplifications for calculation. Having done some of this calculation myself (though very very little), the 1/6000 mil seems a lot easier to use, though of course less exact.
-
Does anyone know how to get a movie from CM by using some kind of commercial screen capture software? For PCs only, naturlich.
-
jshandorf,
when you consider the impact velocity of an artillery shell, don't forget the forward component. An artillery shell doesn't fall straight down from the height of its arc.
-
tss,
If I'm not wrong, the piiru is probably analogous to a true mil, the heavy ordnance way to divide up a circle. Depending on whom you use as a guideline, the mil is either 6000, 6283 or 6400 mils to 360 degrees.
Mils are used to shorten calculation for firing angles etc, and are short for milliradians. For more information, see http://boomershoot.org/general/mils.htm
-
Not sure if I understand your post, Rex: Are you suggesting that Steve's test was irrelevant because the M-10s were the firing vehicles? Because it's vice versa -- the M-10s were fired upon. Not having the game at hand, I'd assume that the reason he chose the M-10 was because the PzIV has a decent chance of killing the M-10 though a hull shot, but a great chance of killing it through a turret shot.
If I'm wrong about what you're implying, then my bad. If I'm right, perhaps you might want to go over the posts a little more and read a bit more for comprehension.
-
You're not answering his question, you know.
Let's make it a bit more realistic. 1 M-1 vs 5 M-60s.
Which would you pick?
-
No one reads the question anymore, eh? 8)
Pedro was asking about a platoon of the same model.
In the context of Combat Mission, given that there are no point restrictions, it's a no-brainer to say the King Tiger. All the historical problems of reliability etc just waft away.
If it's in a historical context, almost certainly a platoon of late model Panthers. They have few mechanical problems compared to the earlier versions, and very good mobility. They also have enough MGs to handle infantry. My other choice would be the T-34/85 (with radios!)
-
In the rush to condemn the Sherman in a tank v tank battle, the small fact that the Sherman is a brilliant operational tank has been overlooked.
At a tactical level, the Sherman clearly had neither the staying nor the hitting power of a front-line tank. But it was designed to be an exploitation tank; to follow up once the main lines of resistance had been breached and tear into the enemy rear.
As Patton showed in his breakout, when properly used the Sherman was better than the Panther; how many Shermans lay discarded by the side of the road thanks to mechanical failures or lack of fuel?
When put up against the T-34 though... that's a whole different kettle of fish.
-
Olle; you have a point. I usually try to play company-level actions at most, simply because my organisational abilities break down when faced with anything bigger.
-
I've brought this up once on the CMHQ Chat.
Does anyone here have any reasons not to use split squads apart from the two outlined in the manual?
1) They break [in morale] more easily
2) They break [physically] more easily
While I agree that for regulars or worse splitting squads may lead to rather shaky troops, I've found that for anything experience level above that, the ability to more finely-tune your movement outweighs the disadvantages.
For example, splitting a platoon lets me cover quite a bit more space than a regular platoon; and when I make contact, it almost invariably is with one squad at a time. After this squad goes to ground, I can then use a portion of my other units to continue scouting the ground ahead, while I bring the others across to take the contacted enemy in the flank.
I can also recycle the units, allowing one split squad to run down its ammo, while the other remains fairly fresh. When the first has used up maybe a quarter, I can swap the two around; this keeps my ammo usage down quite a bit when in holding a position either for an attack or for defence. If one squad gets annihilated, I still have another that's reasonably well equipped.
This works especially well for close-range German units like FJ, Volksgrenadiers etc because not only is their close range firepower roughly the same as a full Allied squad, but their firepower estab is roughly symmetrical.
By the way, I recognize that I could do much the same thing with full squads.
Does anyone else find that the advantages outweighs the slightly higher chances of breaking?
-
I'd like to join as a German company commander. I don't have Photoshop; but I do use GIMP so that should be enough to handle the layering issue.
-
Scout,
I didn't make myself clear enough. When I said I know an attack when I see one, I should have followed up by saying that your post was no attack. (It's the whole "you're no Kennedy" thing!)
I hope you didn't think that I was being defensive.
As for the opponent, he was human and I would rate his skill as being reasonably high. I won't reveal his name, but as I understand it, he is a military professional of quite a bit of experience.
He was unlucky because of the terrain and weather; I took full advantage of it. I had snow on the ground and was in a lightly forested area.
Basically, he reacted as he should have done; after trading fire for two turns or so, he saw my contacted split squads suddenly all get up and start running away. No doubt he thought that my troops had broken and decided to finish them off; which then led him straight into a close quarter ambush.
Again, please don't think I'm attacking you personally or that I think you're attacking me personally. If I do, you'll know! I want to be as amicable as possible.
-
Scout,
Please don't worry. I've been on USENET for 6 years now and I know an attack when I see one. I also wasn't an officer; I was an NCO.
I agree with you about security; we were concerned about it and often had to fight off simulated infiltration raids. But we never had to worry about anything larger than a platoon strength attack because it was assumed that higher HQ had sufficient reserves in hand to deal with anything bigger.
Before you reply to this, please read Fionn's AAR against Wild Bil at combathq.thegamers.net. In the Sunken Lane scenario, he managed to defeat a battalion plus of infantry with two companies of panzergrenadiers. Did he have enough forces left at the end to hold his position? Debatably yes.
Never having been to JRTC, I can't speak with certainty about it; but having read Dan Bolger's review of his experience there as a battalion commander, it seems that a single team of irregulars (their basic unit of 4 men) can regularly tie down a platoon. Admittedly the JRTC irregulars are just that; irregulars. But that doesn't mean that you can't duplicate that.
Now, back to the discussion.
I don't agree that the defender is limited to strongpoint defence. Against even 2 to 1 odds, I usually have enough favourable terrain to defend on a broad front, so long as I have something that reaonably approximates mobility.
In one game, I defended against an incoming company minus of infantry supported by one tank with one platoon and wiped them out (literally -- no survivors). My losses? Half the platoon. That's a 4:1 kill ratio.
How did I do this? I ran into ambush positions and surprised the enemy across open ground. I then gave ground and sucked the advancing units into a prepared fire sack. As they advanced into my vacated positions, I hit them from the flank and the front, then counterattacked.
I'm not saying that this can be done all the time; I relied heavily on the terrain for this and couldn't possibly have done it on a billiard table. But it can be done.
I'm also not prescribing that in every instance in CM one can manoeuvre around every obstacle. Clearly this isn't the case. But I believe you should prepare for the case and wherever possible try to perform some kind of infiltration.
I agree, using those definitions CM represents the FLOT/FEBA. I was obviously mistaken when I spoke about the FLOT. What I took to represent by the FLOT is where the bulk of friendly forces defensive positions are as oppsed to forward defensive positions. If you defend in depth, typically the most forward elements are least defended of all. So I suppose the correct term should be the MLR or main line of resistance.
-
Scout,
(Quick disclosure: although in my basic and NCO training I did some infantry work, my occupation was a 155mm detachment commander. I did this for two and a half years as part of my conscript obligations. Just so that you know that I have some experience in this field and am not talking entirely out of my backside.)
I agree with your comments on the column. It definitely is the easiest for a commander to manage and control. However in CM, unlike real life, since you have a god's eye view of the battlefield, you never have to worry (as I constantly did) of losing contact with your subordinate elements. For this reason, if I have enough time, I'll almost always move in what you call a wedge formation (the inverse V with two units up, one unit down.)
As for your comments about positions being anchored in the MLR, though... I'm not so sure that that's the case. Yes, if we were attacking the MLR (i.e. the FLOT) then no doubt there will be anchoring units. But CM replicates the FEBA, not the FLOT. It's small unit action across the very front of both lines.
If you look at Korea, the battle frontage could vary from ~10km for a division to ~15km for a battalion! (See http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/BOOKS/KOREA/20-2-1/sn17.htm) This means that yes, there can be sufficiently large gaps in the battlefield for a flanking move to occur.
But if it was the culmination of an attack that leads up to the FLOT...
If you assume the existence of supporting units to the flanks, you can also assume that this attack is not an isolated attack; that both the attacking and defending units sibling units are engaged in conflict of their own. This means that the battle you're involved in is presumably being repeated the next map square over; and that the defender's sibling units are having enough trouble of their own.
Even if they're not, how many commanders who aren't engaged would be willing to tell off a portion of their men to support their sibling units when this might _exactly_ what the enemy is waiting for; that this will be the moment that the hammer _really_ drops on the newly weakened areas? Sibling commanders should _definitely_ request higher authority's permission to engage; but higher authority should already be providing reserve troops in this case.
(By the way I use sibling to describe those organizationally equal, so that you can apply it to any level from squad to division.)
I don't think that the use of edges is gamy; I'd support the use of maps where VLs are in the centre and which have realistic frontage, which gives the units much more room to manoeuvre.
In the Ardennes, the frontage for each battalion was about 2 miles. (See http://www.trailblazersww2.org/riviera.htm) In other words if you assume that the battalion is spread evenly across the frontage, in that 800x800 yard area an attacking force meets about two platoons of defenders. If the battalion commander tells off one third of his troops as a reserve force, that drops to about the force size you were facing.
What does that mean? Basically, I miss the ability to have that reserve appear when it's most needed; that a reinforced platoon of fresh men (or more likely, a reinforced company of fresh men) comes in to support the defence. Course, the white knights don't always come to save the day, but still... the utter lack of any reinforcements, when you as the attacker/defender know exactly what you're facing; that I find to be a big loss in the FOW.
There aren't many good ways to solve this; the best I can think of would be to have some chance of computer chosen reinforcement units, from 30% to 200% (obviously weighted towards the lower end) appear at some random turn after at least 10 turns after reinforcements are requested.
It takes time, after all, to notify higher HQ that you need reinforcements; to recognize the magnitude of the attack; and for higher HQ to approve, assemble and assign the reinforcement forces. By which time the game may be over, of course.
To disencourage the constant use of reinforcements, you'd have to assign a victory point penalty (probably on the order of dropping the victory by one level). This makes things more interesting for both sides, as you might win the battle on the ground but lose it on the points.
-
Pillar,
Having read the three threads, I suppose that there's really not much more that I need to say on the topic that will not be inflammatory.
-
Scout,
I've read your infantry attack primer with great interest. It's covered the basics of infantry manoeuvre very well, and I especially liked your column guide. The play-by-play description of your assault was even more valuable.
On reading through it, two issues came to mind.
First, I don't know that in CM there's ever much scope for moving in column. Columnar movement should only, as you say, take place when no enemy contact is expected. But since CM simulates the FEBA, enemy contact is always expected, especially in a defence scenario.
The best defence is a mobile and active defence that relies on quick spoiling counter-attacks that disrupt the attacker. For a good CM example, see Fionn's AAR against Wild Bil. By normal accounts, Fionn should have been utterly, painfully crushed; and he acknowledges that if he'd just stayed still and waited for Wild Bil to come, that's what would have happened.
The only scope I'd see for columnar movement is when you're moving parallel to the enemy's MLR and don't expect him to ever be in front of you. Any counterattack then is easily enveloped.
Which brings me to my second point; I'm not sure that your choice of creating a static firebase and a breaching force was the best possible. Obviously it works well... but I wonder if a twin armed envelopment might have done better.
I understand your rationale for committing to a breaching attack. As you said, there's a lot of open ground to the south. But to the north of your firebase, there's a wood that leads directly up to the village, right into the back of the enemy's position. Assuming that their focus is set on covering the MWO, that is. If this is the case, that's excellent; you roll him up from behind. If it's not, at the very least you'll probably draw his reserves out, which makes the breaching element's job easier.
As I'd see it, I'd divide my forces into two arms (since I know that the enemy has half my strength, I can be sure that I've got at worst parity with his defending forces on one side, and complete superiority on the other, which lets me roll up easily. At best, he evenly divides his force against both attackers, reducing it to a straight two-to-one assault, which can usually be carried out well.
I wish I could use pictures to annotate...
My force mix would be: on the breaching side, the engineer platoon and one infantry platoon. On the forest entry force, I'd have the remaining two platoons. As my mobile reserve, I'd keep the tank platoon in the middle to commit to whichever side is meeting the least resistance. I'd also keep the FOs out of the way and call them in blind. You pay a penalty in speed, but that's made up for by the safety of the FOs, who are usually bullet magnets.
From the screenshots, I actually find that the forest position is after all the best defended. This would mean that I'd commit my tanks through the breach position, because there is never any point in reinforcing failure. If the forest force meets heavy resistance, then that's less enemy for my tanks to deal with.
I recognise that I'm probably doing too much Monday-morning quarterbacking. I also realise that I've become a Deutsche weenie, with all this emphasis on envelopment and indirect approaches. But these tactics _are_ effective and might lead to a substantially different outcome.
Do you see any flaws in my argument? I'd like to discuss this a bit more, if you're willing.
Monitor Death
in Combat Mission - Tech Support
Posted
Schullenraft -- beg to differ. I think it's probably due to my monitor being elderly and somewhat overstressed. One of the first tests that CM does is to check for 1024x768@85 and that along with chance was probably just too much for the poor bastard. No blame to BF or CM at all.
Edit --
whoops, forgot to thank you guys for the help! Much appreciated, and as soon as I get my new monitor I'll let you know how it went.
[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Triumvir ]