Polar
-
Posts
168 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Polar
-
-
Someone set us up the bomb!!
Man oh man... I first here about this two days ago, and already "All your base are belong to us" is seeping into everything!
Thanks for all the hard work Madmatt! But you have no chance to survive make your time! Release all Zigs!
Joe
-
The trouble is, you can't take anecdotal evidence and use it to model all, or even just "elite" troops in CM.
The trouble I see, is that people are always willing to crack open some book and say "well right here, this (fill in nationality) soldier killed 40 enemy soldiers, and took out 15 enemy AFVs using only a pen knife!"... but, be it true or not, does that mean that a squad of infantry with pen knives should be neigh unstoppable in CM? No.
Audy Murphy reportedly turned back 3 German tanks and several german rifle squads all on his own using nly the .30 cal machingun on a destroyed tanks turret... does that mean that my U.S. Rifle squads should all be fearless in the face of the enemy? No.
I don't think, therefore, you can take anecdotal evidence of heroics for any nationality and say it was due to their training. In many cases, these heroics are in SPITE of the individuals training.
Joe
-
5
1) 4
2) 6
3) 41
4) 23
5) 19
-
1)3
2)7
3)6
4)0
5)0
6)0
-
As always,if you test any piece against its weakness, it looks weak.
When you use bunkers effectively, they are effective. When you place them on a firing range with a bunch of fast shooting and MOBILE tanks, they are toast.
Bunkers were not designed for the specific role of protecting the gunners from frontal assault. They were designed so that stationary artillery (and HMGs) were not sitting ducks to artillery.
The one knock that seems valid here is that there is really no smaller covered foxhole style bunkers. These types of bunkers acted primarily as camo for the gunner though, and really didn't offer any more protection from arty and groung weapons than a foxhole did.
But come on... given the design of these bunkers, an unmolested tank, or MG, or ANYTHING, should be able to put one through the slit in a few shots.
They work really well if you use them right. Don't use them if you don't... because you will be wasting you points.
Joe
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
My personal favorite combo? Depends on the map.
In a town or hilly setting, I take the obligatory US rifle squads... those guys eat Germans for lunch.
But that is standard...
The REAL fun cheapo Town buster combo is as follows (for 1200+ battles):
2 British Wasps (Light Flamethrower ACs) they kick ass once you know how to use them!
1 Churchill AVRE... low on rounds, but nothing evicts the HUn from their homes like a healthy dose of 290mm dirrect fire!)
1 Sherman 105
You can clear a large town using just this combo. Keep the troops pinned with the 105, race the Wasp up and set the building on fire, level the block with the AVRE... rinse, repeat.
If you set your Rifle squads covering all the open streets, its lights out for the Germans.
Anti Tank? Heck, all of the Allied tanks need to be micromanaged to some extent, so I choose Greyhounds. There abilities are well documented on the board.
Haven't fiddled much with on map arty like the Priest... but I haven't gotten tired of the Wasp/AVRE/105 combo yet. (and yes, it's gamey as all hell!
)Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 02-05-2001).]
-
-
Originally posted by mensch:
right found a site with pics and neeto stuff (yes very un grog like but I am a pooler not a grog) any how this mine clearing tank? vehicle? was it ever used.. anyone have an idea?
Isn't that what Hitler was operating at the end of Wolfenstein?
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
I can't remember all that well, but I don't think that the movie meant to give the impression that the main characters were the ONLY GIs in Romell (sp?... ah what does it matter... it's made up anyway.
)...They might have been the only GIs right around the bridge?
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
Also, for those who don't want to download the movie... here is a link to a preview.
(I know... game sites are grog repelant.
)http://www.gamespy.com/previews/january01/opflash/
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
Anybody seen the demo movie for this?
It looks like a RTS/FPS hybrid... so it's not for those who despise the quick twitch... but it looks like a modern era game with a Battlezone like interface.
You can download the movie here:
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/
Joe
Ps. It graphics even at this early stage look incredible!!!
-
Originally posted by Sgt Eagle:
Actually, if there is going to be a CM 1.12, I'd like to see these things:
1. The addition of US Rangers and UK Commandos.
2. The addition of Field Medics, which could "bring back" one or two members of a squad.
3. The addition of a backround tile that would be water, for a D-Day scenario.
BTS, it would be a pleasure if these features were in the next update of CMBO.
1. When they add a rarity function, they could add rangers... not sure rangers would be all that effective given the operations that CM depicts though.
2. A wounded mans ability to fight could not be changed by an on field medic... not in the 30-40 minutes that CM spans anyway.
A field medic is only there to insure that a wounded man will survive long enough to get to a hospital where, if he's lucky, he'll recover fully.
3. That probably couldn't be done based on the engine today. Well..... maybe you could, but you would have to always have the land to on one side of the map. The sky tiles all have horizons to simulate the blurred distant terrain... if you turn that into all water, then you wind up with water behind the Axis as well. If you did a half and half sky, the land would alway wind up on one side with the water on the other... and I don't think you could make it all that convincing.
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
You'll never go poor betting on the stupidity of the human race.
The problem is, everyone puts a LOT of weight on what other people say regardless of the source.
Nobody can collect all the "knowledge" they hold personally due to many different constraints. People who buy into anything, regardless of their intelligence, is somewhat naive.
I know that sounds kinda heavy... but without first hand knowledge, there is no way of one person determining the intelligence of another based on what that person choses to believe, as the person judging makes a similar choice too.
Every piece of data is impeachable.
There is no truth.
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
I finally found a picture of it!
Quite retro!
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
Don't get me started on U-571!
Here is my 1 minute remake of the entire movie:
US First Officer - "Dang, I'll never get another chance at captain of my own ship!"
US Captain - "Yay!!! We got the Enigma!! AGH!! I've been killed! Looks like you got a chance to be captain *gasp-choke-die*"
US now Captain - "Uh-oh, we got the Enigma... now there is a U-Boat and we have no Torpedoes!!!!!"
Engineer - "Yes we do, we have 4... but i'l be a millionta one cap'n!!!"
US now Captain - "Okay, FIRE ALL FOUR TORPEDOES!!!!"
Torpedo tubes - "WHOOOSH!!"
German U-Boat captian - "You silly American pig-dogs! You missed me with all three torpedoes... now I'l kill you unless you shot a forth torpedo that is much slower yet more accurate then *gack!!!*" KAAAPPPOOOOWWW!!!!
U-Boat - "Glub... glub..."
US now Captain - "YAY!! Now we have the Enigma AND we killed a U-Boat! Let's sail home unmolested!!"
Crew - "YAY!!"
{middle story about a captured German Captain that was not very well tied up and even more poorly guarded}
German Captain - "I'm free!! Agh!! I've been shot to death!!!"
.....
Back to Enigma...
Captain - "Uh-oh... somehow we didn't manage to get home... there is a German Destroyer closing!!! We don't have any..."
Engineer - "YES WE DO!!! Good ole' Jimmy went and drownded himself good... but he got our one last torpedoe working!!!"
Captain - "YAY!!! FIRE THE ONE AND ONLY MILLION TO ONE SHOT TORPEDOE AT THE BOW OF THE SHIP!!!"
KAAAAPPPPOOOOOWWWW!!!!!
German boat sinks...
Crew, Captain - "YAY!!!!!!!!!!"
Role credits.
**********************************
For those of you who don't like the llong version, here are the Cliffe's Notes:
Captain and Crew - "YAY WE GOT THE ENIGMA!!"
Captain - "YAY WE KILLED A SUB WITH A MILLION TO ONE SHOT!!!"
German Captain - "I'm free!" (died of multiple lead poisoning)
Captain -"Yay!!! ID MANAGED ANOTHER MILLION TO ONE SHOT!! I'm GREAT!!!"
Role credits.
Did anyone else get more from this movie than me?
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-29-2001).]
-
More to the point, on the Honda analogy, Harley Davidson in the late '70s could easily be used to illustrate the current state of the Wargaming industry.
Just a few loyal fans that don't care if their brand new bike doesn't really work all that well compared to other companies bikes.
The problem is, without mass market appeal, or any concern about bringing in new customers, Harley Davidson was ready to go bankrupt.
The wargaming industry was about as dead as Harley Davidson before CM. The industry needed a good kick in the pants. When was the last time that a wargame had sales like CM? Some here will show pictures of old builds of CM and proclaim that they'd play it even if the graphics never changed...
That's fine... but given the lesser appeal of CM in that case, CM2 would be a LOT more iffy.
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-29-2001).]
-
From Bruno Weiss:
But why would one wander into a Harley Davidson shop and start telling them how they should be more like Honda?
Ummmm... Harley only survived because it descided to be more like Honda. There was a time when Harley Davidson didn't really care if a bike managed to get all it's parts attached before they shipped it.
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
Interesting strategy Slapdragon.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning behind withholding smoke though..
If I have to cross 1000m of open terrain, I just use the smoke... I'll worry about gaps later.
Running across a kilometer of open ground without smoke pretty much insures that the gaps will only be bigger later on anyway. :^)
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
Originally posted by Wayne:
This is "The Battle of the Bulge" and is the most unrealistic movie I've ever seen. The Germans were seldom able to deploy tanks en masse as shown in the movie since the Ardennes region is heavily wooded and very rough country. The Germans were confined to the limited road network which was the main reason the Americans could slow them down, by defending "bottlenecks" until reinforcements could be brought up. The battle was primarily an infantry battle with the armor supporting. What you see happen in the movie is more like what you would have seen on the Russian Front.
If you want to see a good movie on the Ardennes fighting watch "Battleground" when it comes around on TV. It was made in the early fifties and is filled with cliches and was shot in a sound studio, but it gives you more of the real flavor of the Battle of the Bulge than this movie of the same name.
I like watching the tanks move and shoot everything up but that was not how the real battle was except in rare occasions.
It's funny that you use the number of tanks as an example of how unrealistic this movie is... and you totally forget how the movie depicts the turning point of the battle as a couple of hollywood pretty boys rolling gas cans down on the German tanks.
What is this... Spartacus????
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
Hasn't happened yet... knock on wood.
I have lost all my armor on a number of occaissions, but I have always knocked his out first by that point. :^)
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
I won a mission last night where I never fully committed my infantry... and I did it with just a Sherman 105, M10, and Churchill AVRE.
The M10 took out the German Armor at standoff range, while the 105 handled the soft armor (ACs, Etc.). Once that was done, my 105 and AVRE move slowly through town leveling all the buildings.
All hail the Chirchill AVRE!!!!!!!
Gamey, I know... but the Germans had it coming!
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
Originally posted by Slapdragon:
The French have a 105 armed AC that they have used for projection forces for a while. In combat, it needs to be teamed with an AC armed with an autocannon, but its main armament is good against an MBT.
Why do the French need tanks I wonder?
The (to quote Grounds Keeper Willy) buncha Cheeze-eatin'-surrender-monkeys.
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
Originally posted by jshandorf:
Hey all,
Just thought I would get everyone's thoughts on this point.
Someone before has mentioned that it isn't fair to compare the Sherman and Panther since they are too different in design and employment, but I countered that tanks are tanks. They can be compared just like apples and apples regardless of how different they are in design or operational use.
For instance, it was claimed that the Sherman was only a break out and exploitation tank and that comparing it to the Panther was not fair. I disagreed.
The Sherman was design in 1940 and deployed in the early months of 1941 in N. Africa. At that time its design and ability matched it to any German tank on the battlefield. For all intensive purposes the Sherman was a main line tank that was meant to go head to head with other tanks. It could be referred to as the "Panther" of it's time, regardless of how brief that time was.
Now we all know what happened in 1944 when the Allied invaded Western Europe, the Sherman was by then an inferior tank and lacked any real chance going head to head with the German Panther. But because of this, does this mean that the Sherman isn't a tank anymore?
Does the inability of the Sherman to carry out it's main design goal change what it is? And does the Sherman's new intended use of an exploitation unit, as some would claim, change what it is, that being a tank?
I would argue it doesn't. Because of all the above the Sherman may be a crappy and inferior tank but it is a tank none the less.
Tanks are designed with a number of purposes and intentions for their use such as: 1) A mobile heavy weapons platform 2) Infantry support, and 3) Anti-Tank platform.
Regardless of how each and any tank performs these roles or doesn't will not change the fact that it was designed to perform all these roles. Some tanks may do one thing better then another, but at no point does it stop being a tank because it lacks ability in any one area or in many, as in the case of the Sherman.
Jeff
This may have alredy been answered (haven't read all the posts yet) but I'll chime in anyways....
Tank are not Tanks... except that they are tanks.
You will find that every tank has a different role, and the role is usually incoporated in the name... ie. Close Support tank, Tank Destroyer etc.
The Sherman is most definitely a tank, but it is a "close support tank"... which means that it is at home moving with and engaging infantry, and taking on tanks at close range... Which the Sherman can do given it's fast turret, at close range it is fair good with most German armor (save the rare stuff).
But you will find that with most if not all Tanks, they have some strengths and probably more weaknesses. To settle on only one (or German) configuration of a Tankas a "tank", then you are just redefining the term.
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
-
Lots of great ideas.
I'd be up for them, money/fiance/time/job being the deciding factors.
Joe
------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz
flreflies -- how to overcome
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Artillery is good... or so it seems.
The rule of thumb is, don't drive a tack with a sledge hammer.
Fireflies are all gun, no armor... so why endanger a heavy armored (read: expensive) piece of machinery to take it out? I mean... ANY anti-tank weapon will do.
Try and recon the field early, and if you see FFs, hit them with arty if they are stationary, or move light armored low calibre AT gun platforms in to hit it from two sides at one.
#1 Thing to remember... fireflies are pointy on one end and soft on the other. If you get on two sides, one attack will always be be on the soft vulnerable side.
Joe