Ksak

The French are still trying to figure out why the Maginot Line defense didn't work.

Ain't that rich...it's "historical" to sneak a 1/2 squad and then use workaround ambush markers, but gamey to recon with the only unit that has enhanced stealth, observation and fire discipline because it's called sharpshooter.

Glad to here the flak trucks are invincible. I just lost one to a hard stare, a teapot, and a 2 in. mortar. Whatever their combat effectiveness the flak guns have the best sounds in the game (Scipio sound mods). I'd buy them just to hear the "pom-pom."

You have left out the Allied 57mm recoiless rifle. I've had more success with this weapon than both the PIAT or the bazooka.

Check me for a pulse. I read more than one Germanboy post on a "gamey vs. historical" topic and didn't disagree with everything he said. I'm glad to see that the discussions in this and other gamey threads are heading toward the root of the acrimony - play balance. Rather than getting third parties involved in every battle, I would like to see a menu from which to pick the "most likely to be seen" TO&E for each side for each type of engagement. For example a deliberate attack is more likely to include armor (maybe even some heavy armor) for the attacking side than a meeting engagement which is more likely to see ordinary riflemen, light armor,etc. Defenders are more likely to have AT guns and lots of TRPs than armor, etc. I suppose that vanilla TO&Es would be a starting point but this seems a daunting task when the final objective is play balance. IRL commanders were not looking for fair fights.

I don't believe that a half-decent real life Allied commander would willingly put his troops into an unbalanced situation. Real life is not limted by QB game points. The German weapons did not have an advantage IRL when overwhelmed with artillery and airpower.

There is a scope for the .50 cal to use it as a sniper "rifle". The thing is very accurate out to a very long distance and easy to aim and fire. You don't pull the trigger but depress it with your thumbs. It's a great weapon and given enough time could probably knock down a small building. Leaves very large holes in the human body.

I recall reading a BTS post from long, long ago that the .50 cal does in fact have greater penetration into woodlines than the other HMGs.

This is the first honest discussion about the root cause of the "gamey vs. historical" division that I've seen in this forum. It's a lot more honest to make the argument that so called "not real life" force compositions create a play imbalance than the pontification that the composition was not doctrine or some other such nonsense. There were probably thousands of company sized engagements in the ETO and for anybody to say that such and such could not and did not happen is a ridculous assumption that gets passed off as historical "fact." A real life commander would use every asset at his disposal to create the most unfair advantage that he could - and get decorated, promoted, and his own show on the History Channel for doing so. CM is different because the design objective of the game is to provide entertainment, and it's not entertaining to get your butt kicked. If the perception that having one side automatically creates a play imbalance is widespread then that is a repairable deficiency in the game itself not a character defect in the player as some would like you to believe.

As my (ethnicity deleted) secretary used to say, "Youse people is crazy."

Agreed. I see these gamey vs. historical things and the logic wires get shorted.

Wierd.

I'm gonna' use more flak and mortars just 'cause I like the sound.

What a bunch of wimps! Did mommy make you stop going to park when the big boys wouldn't "let" you get a hit or make a basket? "Oh you poor little thing." "Let him win dear, it's not fair because you're bigger (stronger, smarter, more aggresive, you name it).

I say, I say again. There is a unit presently modeled in CM1 with "special" fire discipline, stealth, and powers of observation. Why not just change the name?

So what is the potential value of this information? My original intention was to find a way to provide more precise indirect fire support to a platoon in the assault. Offboard 81mm does not provide the pinpoint accuracy often needed. One fire mission with smoke provides concealment to move the platoon as close as 40m to the enemy position. One fire mission to suppress or destroy and one fire mission in reserve for the counterattack. Is that capability worth 100 points and 20 turns skulking around the map to get in position?

CM already has a unit that is coded with above average qualities of fire discipline, stealth, and observation. It's called "Sharpshooter." Too bad the designation is not Scout/Sharpshooter or some other such thing to avoid the flames that inevitably follow its use in that role.

Incoming I don't know what "normal" is. I also submit that the United States Army could not define the "normal" deployment for tank destroyers from 1942 to the end of the war. I refer you to a paper published in 1985 at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College entitled "Seek, Strike, and Destroy: Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II." I have it saved as a PDF file so the URL is not handy. The gist of the article is that tank destroyer doctrine formulated in 1941-1942 at the highest levels was not followed in the field and local commanders used On the Job Training to deploy them as they say fit. My point is that the whole concept of gamey, unhistorical tactics is a red herring because there was just too much diversity in thought and practice among the 1000s of people with command authority to call anything "normal." And it goes way beyond that with CM because the Gamey Patrol is pronouncing to a certainty how specific individuals would have acted in a particular circumstance.

Incoming Submit your application for the High Priests of History and the Gamey Patrol. Putting TDs (however unskillfully) where they have good observation and fields of fire is gamey?

Right on Jason. My initial impression that CM generally rewards good tactics (read that as Field Manuals) and punishes helter skelter doings has only been reinforced with more game play. I still find it annoying, however, that there is a cadre of self appointed High Priests of History with the hubris to pronounce perfect knowledge of what every single combat soldier in WWII would have done in every situation. Even if you studied every After Action Report for a particular unit throughout the entire war you still would not have information about the behaviour of every individual soldier, gun or vehicle in every action. Add to that the affirmation that CM (the game)is an abstraction designed to provide balanced and entertaining play and the entire concept of gaminess as an antihistorical argument vaporizes. And not one thread of the thousands posted about gaminess addresses the most obvious and the most pernicious antihistorical element of CM - the ability to flip views and get in the enemy's foxhole. Find me an AAR or a history book that documents that neat little tactical maneuver. So again - right on Jason - do some proper fire planning and stop bawling about it.

The dense impact pattern was obtained by using a group target order. All the mortars in the platoon targeted a single point. I'm guessing because I have not tried it, but I suspect that if 4 x 81 were targeted individually from widely different vectors that the impact pattern would not be as dense. The onboard barrage did not have any outliers making it more useful for supporting a close assault. You can get your assaulting troops much closer to the objective without risking friendly fire.

The image shows a comparison of the point effect of 4 x 81mm mortars firing in a diamond pattern separated by 20m versus an 81mm FO. A HQ unit provided the LOS to the target. Although HQ spotting is not required it will provide more flexibility in emplacing the mortars in the correct formation. Although the FO has two times the load out the onboard mortar platoon is more effective in placing mass fires on a point target. Different impact patterns can be obtained by changing the formation of the mortar platoon - e.g. in a line to target a woodline. For the Americans the cost difference is not high (+5). For the Germans the differential is more substantial (+37). Other advantages to expermenting with using mortar platoons instead of FOs are that fire is immediate and the mortar platoon is less vulnerable to catastrophic loss. The downside is that the mortar platoon will give you only two HE fire missions and one smoke mission before running out. An FO will fire for four turns. It's also easier to move 1 FO around the map than four mortars.

FM 71-1 The commander has several options in employing snipers to support a movement to contact. Sniper teams can move with the lead element. They can also be deployed 24 to 48 hours before the unit’s movement to perform these tasks: Select positions. Gather information about the enemy. Dominate key terrain, preventing enemy surprise attacks. ------------------- Granted that the Field Manual from which this excerpt was taken was published many years after WWII but neither people nor the basic elements of ground combat have really changed much since Atilla the Hun. The second task above "Gather information about the enemy" seems to draw the most criticism from the CM High Priests of History. The Field Manuals, and common sense, suggest that most players use sharpshooters in a correct historical manner.

Interesting article from Armor Magazine about micromaninging the digital battlefield in the information age. Sounds a lot like the bitching and moaning about the TacAI you hear on this forum. http://147.238.100.101/dtdd/armormag/jf96/1auftrag96.pdf As a trolling bonus there is a reference to Lind and "Maneuver Warfare."

Interesting article from Armor Magazine about micromaninging the digital battlefield in the information age. Sounds a lot like the bitching and moaning about the TacAI you hear on this forum. http://147.238.100.101/dtdd/armormag/jf96/1auftrag96.pdf As a trolling bonus there is a reference to Lind and "Maneuver Warfare."