LongLeftFlank
-
Posts
5,418 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Posts posted by LongLeftFlank
-
-
I stand corrected on the political history, thanks, but I'll stick to my point about majorities in UK and France in the 1930s accepting that their empires were in their twilight.
But you're right, this digression has run its course. I will say no more on the topic.
-
In CMx1 the Stuarts could be game winners. Keep one or two back out of the way until you are sure out have sorted out the enemy's armour and AT guns, then roll them out. Three MGs, plus the 37mm pop-gun, were more than enough against infantry and, this is the crucial bit, they were usually very cheap. Half-tracks witha .50 cal MG could be used in the same way.
Gamey, yes of course, but it is a game.
Weren't they used in exactly this way in the Pacific against the AT-backward Japanese Army right through the end? And in addition to the 37mm AP and HE which can sort out pretty much any field fortification you have that handy canister round! And then there's the GMC and flamethrower variants too.
-
Sources???
Look in the speeches and party platforms of every single Labour government (UK) or Socialist (France) government after 1920, if not earlier. Contrast with it the defensive tone of reactionaries like Churchill -- the guy was way out of step with public opinion and knew it.
Much like slavery in America 80 years earlier, colonialism was being increasingly regarded as morally wrong as well as far less profitable for the mother country than had once been believed. The "white" Dominions had already largely transitioned to home rule, and it was regarded as inevitable that the "brown" nations would follow.
And while we mock the League of Nations as ineffectual against Fascism, the ideals that gave rise to that body were firmly anticolonial and rooted in the belief that all peoples were equally worthy of freedom and self-determination. Ideals which all Europe signed onto and only America did not.
For France, you are correct, decolonization was somewhat more complex as a practical matter. French North Africa had a huge French expat population which regarded itself as nothing but French but had lived there for generations. And the overseas trading concerns had stayed a lot more closely entwined with the Third Republic than was the case in Britain, which allowed them to subvert policy.
EDIT: And as a good English - Irish - Scotsman, I'll stick with "tribal" thank you very much. There's nothing race-specific about the term. It is used in this context to describe everything from true "tribes" in Africa or the Arab world (don't delude yourself) to the Hindu-Muslim sectarian split in India, or natives vs. Chinese and Indian migrant populations in places like Malaya, Indonesia or Fiji. Without WWII, the British could have retained the power and prestige to broker a stable "Indian Union" as opposed to hastily walking out in 1947 leaving Hindus, Muslims and secular Communists to fight it out. No guarantee they would have succeeded of course. Tribalism.
-
In most CMSF (and CMAK NA) desert battlegrounds, most terrain is dry, vegetation-free and accessible to vehicles (though in no wise free of hazards -- rocks, soft sand, etc.), giving the desert wars something of the character of naval battles.
In Europe (or any temperate zone battlefield) in contrast, you have both vegetative and man-made barriers that constrict vehicle movement, as well as the addition of wet or marshy ground which is a hazard in certain spots even in "dry" seasons. Add to that more hazardous environment the more primitive and often underpowered track/drive/steering/navigation designs of WWII era AFVs and you have a fairly strong incentive to stay on the roads unless there's a bloody good reason to venture off them (or you have the time to cautiously stalk out a route to a defensive position)>
I would even venture to say (on no particular evidence, so feel free to call BS) that a disproportionate share of Normandy engagements in which AFVs played a role took place either on or immediately adjacent to a road or track (in other words, in the opening shots of the engagement the vehicles were on the road).
There are exceptions of course -- the large (dry) open fields you see in period newsreels with tanks advancing abreast. And the later war German tanks had definitely learned from road-poor Russia to design tanks with wide tracks and good climbing ability, so they might be bolder.
But in the hedgerow country, taking a vehicle off road without a specific reason to do so (e.g. to get a shot at an identified target) simply raises the risk of needless losses from immobilization or breakdown.
So all the above means to me that anything BFC can do to make road navigation easier in the game system will have a big positive effect on playability.
-
Tux's interpretation of my comment is correct.
By the time of the Depression, solid majorities in Britain and France favoured accelerating decolonization and transition to full self-rule. Heck, ever since 1776, the imperialists themselves had given the concept lip service even while they were building their empires. By the late 19th century, local elites were clamouring for it, and World War I weakened the "Mother Countries" enough to ensure it would happen sooner rather than later. Also, the growing appeal of socialist internationalist ideals broadened its support from a few progressive thinking elites in Britain and France to a majority of the working classes who had previously been indifferent on the topic.
I can't speak to contemporary attitudes in Holland, Belgium or Portugal.
So we're even farther OT now. Sorry....
-
steiner14-18, without hitler and his nazis there have been no worldwarII simply...
And one can only imagine what astonishing things Germany, Europe and the world might have accomplished in the 20th century without the needless deaths of those 45 million people, including a large proportion of the intellectual and creative elites of Europe (Gentiles and Jews alike), and the lifelong injuries, physical and emotional, to so many more. Without the gutting of so many historic cities. Without the subsequent imprisonment of half of Europe behind the Iron Curtain for 45 years. Without an exhausted Britain and France hastily decamping from their global empires, leaving tribalism and chaos behind.
So much waste. Anyway, we're well OT here, so let's go back to the hederows.
-
It's not a bad idea LLF, but the trouble is, the Road may be skylined or otherwise inderdicted by known enemy assets, so how do you "turn it off" if you don't want your tank/truck/platoon to use it ?
Easy: don't click on the road. If your intent is indeed to vector directly there (route (1) above), set your first waypoint just short of the road then a second waypoint on it. That way you won't get "defaulted" to the "Pathway".
My bet however is that 80% of the time you DO want to use the road. Once you get used to it, it's easy and intuitive -- 2 clicks instead of 1, rather than the current 2 clicks instead of 8 or more. And programming-wise it would seem a lot easier to implement instead of a whole new set of "form up on me" commands (although I am a big fan of adding formation commands too).
Essentially, in my concept, the scenario designer has the option to preset the waypoints for you along certain complex paths like major roads he expects your units will want to take. It's a courtesy, but never a requirement. Just lets you spend less time clicking waypoints (on pause or not) and more time on the fun stuff. It would also help a hell of a lot with programming AI side movement (infiltrate along that ditch).
-
No, the problem still exists, although I have noticed vehicles will try to stay on paved surfaces where possible while continuing to move toward their waypoints.
I suggested a partial workaround here, together with a pretty picture that I reproduce below, but either I completely confused everyone or it is a complete nonstarter from a programming standpoint.
P.S. This would also greatly reduce the number of clicks, which is very important in RT play.
-
Yes, Herr Steiner has regrettably shown his colours (black, white and red) here before.
No doubt part of the "thesis" includes many/most of these officers, abetted by the Generalstabs, conspiring to hide their Jewish origins. Naturally, this would itself suffice to explain both their Bolshevist sympathies and their inclination toward sabotage and "stabs in the back". After all, they take it in with their mothers' milk, right?[/sarc]
As a German, you should be wishing that these theses were actually true (which they are not), and then honouring these men as heroes for trying to put a stop to a regime which had rendered the once great German people -- witting or unwitting -- into agents of pure evil.
-
But hooking up 155mm artillery rounds to cel phone detonators didn't happen much in Normandy.
Gosh Mikey, it's a good thing I have you around to tell me such things!
Tripwire-activated booby traps (not 122mm shells, sure, but still of considerable lethality -- e.g. Teller mine or 3 grenades) were not at all unknown in buildings, roadblocks or even woodlands when the Germans had time to rig up such things. That and the constant sniping was a large part of why many Allied grunts learned to hate the Germans so quickly; these things were seen as having little tactical value, just meant to kill or maim indiscriminately. (As opposed to saturation artillery barrages or carpet bombing, which was merely good clean fun of course).
Far less common but also employed (e.g. Ortona) were remotely (wire) detonated charges intended to demolish key structures (and their occupants) if they fell into enemy hands.
And no, I'm not going to worry much if these aren't included in the game.
-
Mord did a nice little CMSF mod which at least renders the infantry icons (friendly and enemy) "generic", so at least you can't instantly pick out the HQs and SW teams.
-
P.l.u.s. O.n.e.
-
I read somewhere once that Patton actually had kind of a high-pitched annoying Ross Perot kind of voice. George C. Scott's gruff bark did quite a makeover on Patton as orator.
-
The Russians were almost entirely a rural nation until Stalin implemented industrial programs to bridge the gap between them and the west.
So why didn't they do better than the Germans?
As has been said above they weren't trained as well, they were not equipped as well and were not lead well (at the start).
So which side eventually raised its flag in the heart of the other's shattered capital again?
However, you do raise a valid point: even as Stalin was systematically starving, shooting and exiling a significant minority of the credentialled people who actually made his country function, and terrorizing the remainder into inaction, on the other hand the Soviet system was training up a gigantic cohort of young technologists and technocrats to replace them. This was the generation whose efforts saved the country and defeated the Germans, both on the battlefield and in the factories.
The one virtue of Communism that allowed it to persist even as long as it did was this fanatical focus on mass vocational and technical education, particularly for youngsters of proletarian and peasant stock. It shows just how powerful a meritocracy can be in unlocking the potential of a group, in spite of the fundamental futility of socialism as an economic and societal model. The Russians had long recognized the need to industrialize ASAP and, using German and French models, had already set up a good technical education system that the Communists inherited and expanded.
So as a result, for every Tukhachevsky or Tupolev who was shot or disgraced, there was a middle manager ready to replace him, often making up in energy what he lacked in experience. For example, if you look at the biographies of the famous Russian aircraft bureau chiefs (Mikoyan, Lavochkin, Ilyushin, Yakovlev, Petlyakov, Polikarpov, etc.), you see nearly all rising to prominence in the mid-1930s after being in entry level roles as late as 1930.
I'm not saying that was the only thing that accounts for the Russian miracle in WWII -- be curious to brainstorm some others with you lot -- but it was certainly a significant contributor.
-
Assuming CMBN contains some kind of IED equivalent single bang "booby trap", this is a workaround for scenario designers dead keen on getting a few PFs or MG42s into Allied hands without having Yanks running around in feldgrau.
1. Buy PF-equipped German antitank team for the Allied side.
2. Bring it in as an early reinforcement if setup zones are an issue.
3. Have it appear in the same location as the IED(s)?
4. BOOM! (hopefully big enough to kill everyone)
5. GIs can loot the bodies of their "kameraden".
-
Not to mention an abysmal logistics train and medevac. Not motivating either.
-
"I've got away with it for so long" sort of thing
There's a great book by industrial psychologist Dietrich Dorner called "The Logic of Failure" that goes into this phenomenon.
Apparently the Chernobyl disaster was an experienced award-winning operator crew (not drunk like some people like to imagine) who had "gotten away" with rushing through standard tests by goosing the reaction speeds up and down many times before. Until one day they didn't (another parameter had changed that they weren't aware of). The poor reactor design did the rest....
-
And if it runs over a cow in a forest and there is no other unit in LOS, does it make a sound?
-
I think you are all making it up.
Dude, why do you feel a need to start so many of your posts with a gratuitous put-down? Your ideas are perfectly capable of standing on their own merits. Grok some manners already.
-
I suppose the Co player on each side who issues his orders last could always record a FRAPS movie of the turn and post it on a hosting site. It would need to be either in "God mode" or multiple takes to meet the needs of the various viewers though.
Mulling this a little further, could Charles add a "Titanium"'FOW mode which disables the feature where if no unit is selected all friendly and spotted units are visible. If no unit is selected, all you see is an empty map. You're stuck with navigating among your units with the +/- keys and see only the friendly and enemy units they see. So then CoPlay becomes a matter of assigning each unit to an AI group with a unique PIN. As each coplayer logs in in turn, he gets to +/- to and issue orders to only the units in his AI group. C3 among the players can be resolved via various house rules. Or sumfink.
-
Moriarty,
EDIT: And while I'm spamming YouTube links, here's the Hands Down Indisputable Best War Movie Scene Ever - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csv1wXOr5tY. In case you needed to get any more stoked to play this game....
-
Hmm, I know it's just an artifact of the VC being location-dominated, but this seems like this should be a German Minor Victory. As others have noted, those 5 panzers and 13 crewmen are irreplaceable in the bigger picture; the Allied losses eminently replaceable.
-
For example, you can make a Sherman pink and sound like a mockingbird, but you can't give it the 120mm gun of a modern Abrams tank. Clear?
Whose LSD mod are you dropping?
-
A Couple of Mapmaking Questions
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Amen, brother!
One of the biggest problems with CMSF was that in the infantry game most maps only reinforced BLUE's existing weapons superiority by omitting key features like hidden entrenchments and compound walls around buildings. This allowed BLUE to dominate firefights at range without needing to take many risks.
The former has of course now been addressed, but buildings still need to be built with some thought. "Slapping down a few buildings" won't cut it except in a few cases where you might have a cluster of (flimsy) storage sheds sitting out there in the fields.
Norman farmsteads are like miniature fortresses, with their walls sturdily built over centuries out of field stone. The various outbuildings and barns may or may not be as sturdily constructed, but at minimum provide concealment and LOS, and the entire compound is generally walled off. Add vegetation -- shade trees and hedges and you have a complex that is by no means easy to reduce from a safe distance using MG fire or even tank rounds and artillery. Especially when the defenders have put in sandbags and dug foxholes.