Urban Shocker
-
Posts
162 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Urban Shocker
-
-
We all know that the present faces portray the combatants as blockheads, literally. I think that facial anatomy and expressions don't bother us enough to stop playing the game or reduce our enjoyment.
As for a slippery slope...I don't buy it. Here's why:
a) The whole war was about ugly politics so why not authentically portray as much of it as can be reasonably done and is relevant to the game itself. The key words are reasonable and relevant.
I made this point in a previous thread I started ("The Color Brown") and it is that BFC tries its best to meticuously model the equipment and their effects and to model human behavior itself yet something like skin color which reflects geographic origin to a large extent gets ignored. How many people would like it if all the tanks for the allies and the axis were the same color no matter what color they might have been in reality. c) Which brings me to my last point: there seem to be some, a few, a lot? of people who would have liked to see Indian and African divisions and even some American units be other than white.
You can't bulldoze a slippery slope with an all-white bulldozer.
-
It is a nice idea but only window dressing. You use "strategic map" but it is not truly strategic in that what you do in one area might affect the resources you use or outcomes that occur in another area. That kind of operational or strategic map does not appear to be on the horizon, unfortunately. But I won't use this thread to beat that dead horse.
Sounds like this can be done as an amateur or volunteer effort since it will involve a lot of library work or research and can be accommodated using technology most of us have (spreadsheet or database software). It can also be divided into well-defined chunks. It could work if those involved decide upon:
1) A standard format including what info needs to be collected.
2) How the labor will be divided (e.g., by time period or by unit)
3) Who will be the database developer,depository and collator of the information collected.
Did I miss anything?
-
I know Indian units for sure because I've seen pictures of them and they were given names like "4th Indian Division." I have no doubt there were probably other divisions that were called "Ethiopian Division" or some such name that reflected there nation of origin. I know that dark-skinned people fought (fought damn hard) in WWII. I am not "groggy" enough to give specifics but they should be there!
Hey, I'm just saying some people get bent out of shape if the barrel from the T34 is placed on a Hetzer yet whole races of people are not represented accurately...not even close!
[ December 09, 2003, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]
-
...as in brown skin color. Has anybody seen it yet? Are the Indian units dark-skinned? Are the African units dark-skinned? I played Neibiwa Fort and there were supposedly African conscripts but they all looked European to me. If not, it probably should be modded or patched for those who are HC (historically correct).
-
Is that a challenge? Do you want to go head-to-head...in something? Pictures? Verbal sparring? CMAK?
-
In the tradition of BFC bone-throwing let us throw them a bone or two. Please post a picture of yourself playing any of the CM line with a brief description of what's going on, etc.
If someone would host my picture for a little while I'd be happy to start!
-
I noted the same thing in a 1940 scenario. An Italian commander has to be extremely skilled and lucky (probably more of the second). Immobilization is probably the best you can hope for in the early war.
We like to make fun of the Italians because of their supposed cowardice but when your equipment is so inferior to the enemy, fighting does seem futile and pointless. Not too many military organizations have "Nihil attinet y nugatoria" as their slogan. I think CMAK will give us some sort of perspective on what equipment they had to fight against the Brits with.
-
Having played a CMAK scenario and had the enemy's conscript troops surrender to me from 100+ meters away perhaps one of them could be holding up a scraggly, torn white flag to make it easier to see the poor scared buggers.
-
MAJOR SPOILER ALERT
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
I took the same tact as ColdSober. I approached from the north of the fort. I did this because it was the shortest side and I thought it would minimize any flanking fire (i.e., a nice, compact front)and because recon indicated that there were mines protecting the southern approaches to the fort. Like a previous poster I didn't realize what those little sandbag thingies were until they started cutting my advancing infantry to pieces. I apprehensively moved tanks into overwatch positions and after seeing that they were impervious to the AT guns I had one of them overrrun 4 AT Guns in a row! One didn't surrender right away so I backed over it again and was given the appropriate respect!
After penetrating the wall it was a matter of house hopping my infantry along with tanks and get as far as I could. I had one tank hit a minefield, another bogged in brush, and a third was mysteriously abandoned. I could not find out what unit killed it but a captured group of conscripts walked right by it as it abandoned...perhaps BFC has added a new feature where unguarded prisoners sabotage! Anyway, I sent my tank reinforcement along the western edge of the fort to flank the big center flag and they ran into a leaguer (sp?) of weak tanks. They scattered these as shot after shot bounced off the Matilda II's armor and in the process took out 4 "tanks." I had another platoon of tanks do the same on the east side but all either succumbed to immobilization by mines (1), bogging (1) or AT gun immobilization(1) (the worst, it seems the AT guns can do).
As I pushed towards the big HQ Flag, the inexperienced Italians put in a vicious counterattack. While they didn't cause many casualties they slowed down progress as I had to called in arty strikes to show them the futility of trying to fight!. This counterattack prevented me from capturing the big HQ flag. In order to do this, though, the Italians had to reinforce with everything they had left and thus abandoned the two small southern flags.
In the end I got a Total Victory (85-15). I caused a 5 to 1 casualty ratio and destroyed 22 vehicles (some were trucks) and 15 guns. I lost one Matilda to "mysterious" circumstances and had a mortar destroyed.
Analysis:
1) My infantry and tanks were uncoordinated at first which cost me some unecessary casulaties. Later, this improved and infantry casualties went down (48 total).
2) Nothing could touch the Matildas (for the most part). Their effectiveness was reduced by British doctrine at the time (e.g., tank-killing tanks were separate from infantry-killing tanks) as the Matildas had only AP ammo. This did not prevent them scaring many Italians into surrendering (184 prisoners) though it did stop them from killing more of them. :mad:
3) I do not know what the Italians can do to stop the Brits. It'll be interesting to try from the defenders point of view to see different tactical arragements would be more effective and stopping the Brits. The italians have only a few assets that could trouble the Brits other than minefields.
4) Favorite Brit Line: "Sonofabitch...I've been hit!"
[ December 07, 2003, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]
-
I took the Italians as recommended against the AI. As soon as I saw what I had to work with I broke down laughing...then I started crying as thought about how I was going to defeat the British with the "toy cars" I had been given. After 6 turns, I have beat the brits to the overlooks but the ominous dust clouds approaching "The Pimple" bodes ill for my toy soldiers. More to come...
-
Regarding sniper kills...
After reading a couple of books on snipers I think they know with a high degree of confidence if they were successful. They spray of blood and body parts along with a slumping body (now that would be interesting to see a TC slumped over the turret of his tank until his crew members pulled him in) seem to be good indicators of a hit. We are not talking about very long shots, either.
Why are they not accurately recorded in the AAR?
-
I vote chronologically so that weapon systems stay consistent from one scenario to the next unless upgraded.
[ November 29, 2003, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]
-
I played this one after reading the many AAR's written here. So taking the Germans I vowed to use my perfect intel to achieve total victory while preserving my force as best as is possible.
My initial unoriginal idea was to feed a platoon with HMG into and through the central ravine. Then follow them with another platoon and do a bounding overwatch type movement. The thin-skinned vehicles (skinnies) would shoot and scoot in an attempt to reveal enemy guns and tanks without being destroyed.
When the Mark III's came on board I would send the two platoons with infantry on board on a dash into the brush covered valley behind the berms on the left (south) side of the map. The other platoon would shoot and scoot in flanking areas. All vehicles not making the rush would shoot and scoot to draw attention away from the the big dust cloud on the left.
After this it would be a matter of cresting all Mark III's simultaneously in hull down positions to overwhelm the Americans. Defeat the tanks then mop up the infantry with my tanks and infantry.
The battle:
Infantry - The lead platoon advances into the central gully. The HMG being slower and not able to "advance" gets pinned by M3 and 75 mm halftrack fire. They finally make it down the slope to join their platoon which then gets hit by an arty barrage which injures 7 men. While casualties were sustained the American ammo expenditure was not worth it which would haunt them later. All other infantry is still safely behind the eastern berm.
AFV's - My shoot and scoot idea while appearing theoretically sound was a practical failure. Only veteran units do it to my liking as anything less dallies to long trying to target and eventually gets brewed. While I did reveal the location of the American tanks all of my thin skinned AFV's were destroyed (5) or gun damaged (2). In CM (like real life) these things (skinnies) probably do best in a battle situation in mopping up infantry.
Early analysis:
I like that I know where the American tanks and 1 halftrack are located. The tanks are in the orchard area and the halftrack is right in the geographic center of the map. This mean there are no tanks at the SW flag so if I can get my MkIII's in position I should be able to cut off armor support for that corner. Losing my skinnies was irritating given my initial goals but that's the way it goes sometimes. My initial infantry losses were not bad. I have also taken to heart the observations that infantry in the desert are vulnerable and will not reveal most of mine until the end.
MkIII Arrival - I position the infantry loaded MkIII's behind the SE berm and the other MkIII platoon is in the center. The center starts shooting and scooting. In the spirit of Rommel I use the gun damaged skinnies in a move-and-reverse fashion in an attempt to confuse and draw fire. After a couple of turns I move the center MkIII's to the right flank in order to get the M3's turned away from the left where the mad dash will occur shortly.
I dash the infantry-laden MkIII's one platoon at a time into the southern valley. Both platoons with infantry intact make it even though the American tanks get a few shots off. The infantry disembarks with one platoon behind the berm facing the SW flag and the other behind the berm facing the W flag on the big building.
The "fun" begins - Over the next 10-15 turns the armor battle is fought. The Americans have all of their armor and AT guns in the orchard area. I have two platoons of MkIIIs behind the SW berms (close) and a platoon on the right (NE)flank (far). So I can get some of the tanks with flanking fire. The tank battle roars on as I move tanks into hull down positions. The Americans are playing shoot and scoot. Some of the allied tanks "boldly" approach my NE MkIIIs and then turn their flank to them as they decide to face the SW MkIIIs. They are promptly dispatched as are the halftracks. As time goes on the American tanks take more losses and retreat into the orchard. The final tank fight revolves around my NE MkIIIs and the American tanks between the orchard and the oasis. During this tank battle the AT guns located in the orchard and oasis were dealt with by arty although it did take tank fire to finally subdue the AT gun in the oasis. I used all of my arty on AT guns and only got one! It did keep their heads down, though. Ultimately, all of the American tanks were destroyed or abandoned while I lost two MkIIIs.
End Game (ca. turn 25 to the end) - Objective one was to take the SW flag so I fast-moved my four remaining MkIIIs down the berm and into a depression S of the flag. As they got near the building various infantry postions were exposed and suppressed by point blank fire. If there was a bazooka present it didn't get a shot off. After a couple minutes of point-blank tank fire I advanced an infantry platoon to mop up the mess. One MkIII captured the entire Company HQ (10 men) while the other guys shouted "Get out here or they'll kill us all" which unfortunately turned out to be true as they did run and the tanks and infantry mercilessly mowed them down. They should have followed their leadership's example.
The other central MkIII platoon slowly moved towards the large flag with all 5 tanks. The infantry hung back until the Americans were on the run and then the infantry advanced.
At some point during this part of the game I started moving my other infantry from way back in the start zone into the north central brushy area. They gingerly moved foward but since the tanks had flushed, flouted, and fleeced the enemy infantry in hindsight my infantry advance was overcautious.
The NE MkIIIs moved forward less their veteran HQ tank as it had been hit and 4 of the 5 crew memebers injured or killed. These tanks basically keep any remaining American tanks focused on them rather than what was going on south of them. These MkIIIs expended a lot of AP ammo as three of the four were in single digit loadouts at the end of the game. They bounced a lot of AP off of Sherman tanks.
The end result was a major victory. My tired infantry were in the cemetary but not in the large building at the end. My overcautious movement resulted in too much advancing at the end and tuckered the poor fellas out. I did take the SW flag and those MkIIIs moved parallel to the road along the W edge of the map engaging targets of opportunity.
The plan worked pretty well as the Americans chose not to deploy any tanks at the SW flag so were literally cornered in the NW (orchard). They did try several times to get tanks to the SW but had to run a gauntlet of 9-10 MkIIIs and were either killed or had to retreat.
I thoroughly enjoyed this scenario. I wore my headphones and had the volume up loud to really get into it! One thought I had on the map in an AI vs. human match-up is that if it was extended 0.5-1 km south and the Americans received armor reinforcement around turns 15-20 at the southeast end of the map (from Sidi Bou Zid ) it would have really created some difficulties as my panzers behind the south and central berms would have been exposed to flanking fire without protection. Add a little berm to the south end and the Americans could flank from hull down positions...YIKES!
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Michael,The only thing stopping this from existing right now is that people are talking about it, not doing it. Unfortunately, like so much in life, the ones doing the talking are not the ones in a position to do the doing...Anything is possible; CMMC2 is essentially a bunch of spreadsheets with data and a map. I don't think you would need a processor the size of UNIVAC to run a campaign that is essentially being run by the comparitively pea-sized melons of some human beings.
Look at stuff like CMMOS and cocat - the only trouble with these programs was not any lack of sophistication, but an inability on the part of the programmers to produce documentation that the average schmo (myself very much included) could assimilate quickly and painlessly. (Still, not as bad as some of the modding utilities for Operation Flashpoint, where half the buttons were labelled in Czech! )
The sky is the limit; the problem is in getting underappreciated developers and programmers to feel that their time is being well served developing these kinds of things for us.
If the money is in Secret Weapons over Normandy (with its special TIE fighter bonus ending), that's where the devs will go.
As for the grass roots programmers like Molek or the cocat team - as we have seen, they unfortunately have real lives that preclude them from spending waking hours on this stuff.
But I have to believe its possible now.
I hold no illusions regarding the weight of my opinion with BFC. I have bought the Big Three (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK) and have thoroughly enjoyed the series to date. That is what my opinion counts (around $160 worth)!
It seems computer game makers and bands seem to follow the same pattern over time. Their first release is a massive hit and they receive accolades by the score. Their second release is good (if their talented enough) but it is the same basic sound...still good, though. But you can only tweak things a few times before people start to realize it is basically the same music or game and move on to something else.
Basically, it comes down to the time-worn adage:
Success breeds complacency (complacency: self-satisfaction accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies)
If you're not taking risks then someone who is willing to risk will pass you by.
After reading my post again, it seems much more gloom-and-doom than I really intended. Don't take it that I am making dire predictions. I am merely trying to start a discussion on people's interests since we have a game with huge potential. If making things "more detailed" is what BFC wants to do that strikes me as tweaking what they already have and not taking the next step.
-
I 3rd that! Pictures...scenarios...operations...Oh my!
-
Not to belabor the point but the essential question is:
Can the rules and procedures being used for CMMC be codified and run on today's computers?
If yes then such a game could be developed. What scale would be possible?
(a) The eastern,western, and african fronts combined.
(
One front at a time (eastern or western or african)© One part of a front (e.g. the northern part of the eastern front or the central part or the southern part)
(d) The front of one corps (several assorted divisions)
(e) The front of one division (with assorted attached units)
Which of the above, if any, could be done?
[ November 28, 2003, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]
-
I have to agree with the overall interpretation at this point on "individual soldiers" but that still does not change my preference and the preferences of others for a game that I summarized above.
I am not surprised that the multi-level thing has been done before on paper I was only suggesting that it might done integrated into a computer game. I did it on a BFC forum because they have an excellent (best to date) small unit tactical system that could be integrated into the higher levels of military engagements.
In capitalistic terms, I am indicating that there might be a demand that is not being supplied.
-
Admittedly it was briefly mentioned without any details but it was mentioned. I have looked for it but can't locate the direct quote.
Why can't CMMC be codified to run on a computer?
My point was that we have both kinds of games (now) so integrating them would fill a (computer) gaming niche. I think from the number of people that want a campaign element in CM that this type of game would be appealing. In a sense, what I am talking about is not an operation in time (which CM does) but one that combines distance (frontage) with time.
-
I was disappointed to read in a posting by an administrator (Charles, maybe) that the next version of CM is going to focus more on individual soldiers. This is a rough paraphrase and what follows is my interpretation of what the poster meant. So I could be totally wrong but like my wife tells me that hasn't stopped me in the past so why let it now.
In my opinion, we have games that model individual soldiers in combat and more will probably continue to come out. I am actually happy with how CM models the battlefield as I think it is an interesting level to simulate. Seeing CM go towards management of individuals will probably lead me to stick with the series they have put out (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, and maybe CLOW (Low countries). I could frankly care less if Pvt. Williams is pissing himself because has become the focal point of a MG42. Those games are out there and I don't play them.
What we do not have (that I am aware of) is a game that integrates the different levels of war allowing a player to jump between levels as desired. Think of CM meets Operation Art of War. A game where one is able to move divisions, regiments, or battalions around on a larger map (board, for the old timers) and then jump into tactical scale battle (ably modelled by CM) would, I think, be a breakthrough type of game.
Both types of games have been developed tactical and operational (or strategic) they just need to be integrated to provide a novel yet realistic experience.
A concrete example...
You hold a front with three infantry divisions, a tank destroyer task force, and an artillery battalion (forgive my lack of proper TOE). You have arrayed your forces at the level of battalions or regiments, registered your artillery in likely avenues of approach, and placed your TD's to deal with any armored breakthrough. Your opponent strikes on your left flank, you now have to decide whether you want to fight the battle or several battles at the tactical level (e.g., CM-style) or duke it out TAOW-style (and the style of many other war games)...the choice is yours because the software would let you do it.
Some advantages to this type of game are:
(1) There is a game within the game (nice cliche, I know) that you can fight or not.
(2) Sheperding your forces is important (campaign-style) depending on the scenario.
(3) Increased realism due to the increased levels of play opportunities. Also, increased command flexibility as you can be a 2nd Lt, a Colonel, or a General.
(4) Combines the tactical with the operational or strategic. To date, games either do one or the other.
Is this a tryptophan-induced dream or something that is appealing and in the realm of the possible?
[ November 27, 2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]
-
I was actually wrong as the show as 2 hours long and covered his whole career. I thought they did a good job for the time they had allotted. Three things I really enjoyed:
1) Rommel was a real bastard that nobody wanted to be around although they'd work like the dickens for him.
2) The old Nazi film footage which I had never seen. I got to hear him talk for the first time. Montgomery, as well.
3) The radio operator in the desert with the long mutton chop sideburns. This needs to be modded immediately and put into CMAK.
-
Tonight at 9:00 pm Eastern (US). The promos have been pushing the fact that he was in on the plot against Hitler so I don't expect a lot of early war stuff.
-
It seems that we've been cut off...cold turkey from screenshots and completed AARs. They must be doing some serious work at BFC.
-
I just love it when people get cheapies at the expense of speakers of english as a second language. It shows a lot of class.
-
Don't if this is the best place to post this but here goes...
What are the chances of a having something like the Meta-Campaign, which is being run by people power, codified and made available with CM2?
I love this game and something that dealt with with divisions on a some scale and then linked events occurring at that scale with the use of smaller scale battles would be wonderful. It would add a small strategic element to the game.
I think what those Meta-Campaign guys are doing is exciting. Unfortunately, I cannot consistently commit the time for such an endeavor. If it was something that I could pick up and put down on my schedule then that would be very appealing.
I made this point in a previous thread I started ("The Color Brown") and it is that BFC tries its best to meticuously model the equipment and their effects and to model human behavior itself yet something like skin color which reflects geographic origin to a large extent gets ignored. How many people would like it if all the tanks for the allies and the axis were the same color no matter what color they might have been in reality. 
Any lower 48er's not get CMAK yet
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
It would be a shame if anybody from the lower 48 states did not get their pre-ordered copy before a canadian. I mean the thought of it makes my skin crawl.