c3k

Folks, This is a bit of a bonus AAR. It's kind of embarrassing how it started. That's a tale worth telling, so here I go... BFC had all the Betas at the company spa. I was talking with Bil Hardenberger. (Okay, that's a lie: he was pontificating on something called "tactics". I was merely nodding my head and waiting for my intern to return with my drink.) So, anyway, there's Bil, in his smoking jacket, brandy in hand, cigar filling the air, his battle staff arrayed in key locations throughout the room, telling me what I need to study so I can reduce my losses (like THAT matters!), when, providentially, Baneman walked by. Now, this had all happened the day after Baneman and Bil had finished their battle, so they were both pretty full of themselves, as you can well imagine. Anyhow, Baneman averted his gaze and strode past us. As he did so, I noticed that he dropped his glove. (One of those open-backed, brown leather driving gloves. He wears them when he games, if you didn't know. Gives him a "better feel" for the battle.) Seeing the glove fall gave me the obvious chance to escape Bil's cigar smoke. I leapt at the opportunity. I picked up the glove, called out to Baneman, "Here's your glove!" and pressed it into his hand. He looked at me and said, "I'll email the parameters", and continued out to the terrace. I turned to Bil, confused. He was grinning. I asked, "What was HE on about?" Bil said, "My good chap. He's just thrown down the gauntlet, and YOU picked it up. Good luck with your battle." With that, he turned to his entourage, and they exited through the East Wing. I was left pondering two things: how had I gotten myself into this, and where was my intern? More... Ken

Not trying to get betwixt you two (my popcorn eating would be nowhere near as fun ) , but the Russian air-ground comment in the study said nothing about decimating 2 ABCTs. It said that planned Blue counterattacks were blunted by Russian air. As for worst, medium, best case 3x3 grid options, why bother with the middle unless the outliers show a need? Meaning, if worst-best AND best-worst show the same outcome, why wast time with 5 other tests including medium vs any? (best, worst vs. best, worst is a 2x2 grid. Adding medium options to each makes it 3x3.) You're increasing time/expense by a large factor (9 to 4?), with possibly no change in data culled from the game. (I call it a "game" not a "study".) The maps: They used 1:50,000 TPCs. That's "Tactical Pilot Charts". Those are meant for pilots, not ground combat. Obviously, using the "Lanchester Exchange Rates" (is that like Panzerblitz CRT?), is something I don't understand, but it sounds good. I don't have a high degree of confidence that their simulation was accurately portraying battles, but they probably came close enough to the big picture. (Meaning, if I wanted to see engagement ranges, the effectiveness and utility of the infantry weapons (they say they tabulated LMGs per squad, etc.), vehicle losses, ops tempo, I'd need to battle it with CMBS (CM Baltic States).) The point of this paragraph is that I don't think this was a high-fidelity combat simulation. It was more of a big-picture map exercise. Back to the air-ground thing... What organic air defense assets do US/Nato units have? The stinger is really just not sufficient. The assumption has always been that USAF would provide an air umbrella. That may not be a valid assumption. A bit of air defense to keep the attacking Russian air from easy targeting would not be a bad thing to add. (No doubt it'd take 20 years and cost a few trillion dollars under the current procurement systems. Oh, wait, the US does have those nifty .50/stinger turrets on hummers. Geez.) This study implies that adding that type of tactical air defense to US/Nato ground forces could be a "game changer". (I'm not saying it is/isn't, nor am I saying Rand is/isn't doing so to help an industry partner. ) The one week warning period is nowhere near worst case for Nato, IMO. I have an extremely low regard for the current crop of western politicians and their willingness to make hard decisions. (Hey, it's my opinion and it borders on politics: I'm only stating it so that you understand my perspective vis a vis the Rand study.) Letting Nato take action BEFORE an overt invasion is pretty nice for the blue team. Imagine the US moving an ABCT into Latvia the day after a "spontaneous" street demonstration about Russian ethnic rights occurred up in Tallinn? Ain't gonna happen... Anyway, a lot of that detracts from the point I was making: the Rand game says that Russian air blunts some planned counterattacks, not that it decimated some ABCTs. Would organic air defense make a difference?

Just curious...do the offers of $75 mean just the base game (CMSF), or what a remake of CMSF + its 3 modules would cost? I mean, 4 game-equivalents for $75 is a bargain. I'm okay with just redoing it. CMSF brought up to the new engine, as opposed to trying to come up with a new storyline and location. If that's done, a remake, then what could stay: 1. The research into TO&E What would have to be redone: 1. Every vehicle model, with all that implies. 2 Every animation (? maybe...not sure. But, soldier models would get redone.) 3. Every battle and campaign. (New engine means NOTHING could get imported. It'd all have to get redone, as far as I know. Maps, AI groups, victory conditions, testing for balance, etc.) That's a lot of work, especially if it includes all the modules. Relevancy wouldn't matter to me, but it would to some. (I'm fine fighting a fictional 2007 war.) Then, how long would it be viable, especially if a new engine version gets developed? Each of the previous titles (CMBN, CMFI, CMRT, CMBS, CMFB) would need to be "modernized", as well. (And folks would gripe about $10 for that.) I'm not sure there's a rational market based approach for BFC to invest in this type of project.

FOW and Defensive Works: already covered as to how it was and how it is, upstream. How it could be? Yeah, that'd be great. I will say that there have been plenty of situations when foxholes have stayed hidden in some of my games. If there is a lot foliage, they hide better. One of my techniques is to buy extra fortifications and place them in likely locations...which can be spotted. I leave 'em empty. They do a great job of absorbing my oppos' artillery. Persistent map damage: yeah, long sought after and requested. Saved OOB and import troops: again, long sought after and requested. It'd make "on the fly" campaigns possible. Persistent map damage would be fantastic.

Very well done, gents! I loved it. Thanks, Ken

Cool. Thanks for the link.

Wow. Now you've got a LOT of gun-obsessed Americans angry with you. Not a good move. (Second smiley just to make sure. ) Forums are notorious for failing to properly convey subtle communications..

You're both, kinda right. I think Michael's skepticism is warranted. Although the Sherman's 105 COULD fire the VT fuzed shells, the way they worked is, aiui, the way Michael described. (The acceleration armed the fuse; coming down, as it sensed ground, it would go off. Very different than modern distance-fuzed airbursts.) Something to look at and possibly correct before release. Although, in this case, perhaps the shell was detonated by an outbound 20mm hit? Or the aerial? Or a swallow (unladen) fluttering in front of it at just the wrong time? Ken

Exactly! A test may be able to suss it out, one way or the other. (See what I just did there? Again?) :)

Sigh. If only that were possible. She complains that her 120 hour work week is too long to allow for social activities. I have pointed out to her, repeatedly, that I am being quite gracious by allowing her to use the washer and dryer to do my laundry. That courtesy gives her a lot extra time in her week.

Emrys wants your source. Hey, c'mon: that's funny! (All this is in good nature, since it is a forum for a GAME.) There's a lot of good reason for the non-blocking of close items. Since action spots are rather large, and the player cannot position units precisely within that block, it makes sense to give a unit a bit of credit to micro-position itself in a more advantageous manner. Again, it is my understanding (aiui = "as I understand it") this is how it works. If it doesn't, it should. Interesting how VaB and I both arrived at the same conclusion.

Well played, gents, well played.

That may be. However, I have yet to see a source that proves either of my statements being incorrect. As to trees, that may be an internal beta discusssion, it may be totally false, it may be the results of a test. Kind of like how I know that a tank in game stays upright. I don't have a source for that information either. It just is. Now, I may be wrong. Shrug. Meantime, since I'm away from my library... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262 In mid-1943, Adolf Hitler envisioned the Me 262 as a ground-attack/bomber aircraft rather than a defensive interceptor. The configuration of a high-speed, light-payload Schnellbomber ("fast bomber") was intended to penetrate enemy airspace during the expected Allied invasion of France. His edict resulted in the development of (and concentration on) the Sturmvogel variant. It is debatable to what extent Hitler's interference extended the delay in bringing the Schwalbe into operation;[20][21] it appears engine vibration issues were at least as costly, if not more so.[15] Albert Speer, then Minister of Armaments and War Production, claimed in his memoirs that Hitler originally had blocked mass production of the Me 262 before agreeing in early 1944. He rejected arguments that the aircraft would be more effective as a fighter against the Allied bombers that were destroying large parts of Germany, and wanted it as a bomber for revenge attacks. According to Speer, Hitler felt its superior speed compared to other fighters of the era meant it could not be attacked, and so preferred it for high altitude straight flying.[22] Yeah, Wikipedia. But also... From: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/wwii-myths-me262-jet-fighter-and-dumb_3969.html It has become part of the accepted wisdom about the Luftwaffe that Hitler's decision was instrumental in preventing the large-scale deployment of the Me 262 in the fighter force. In fact his edict was not the main reason, or even a major reason, for the failure to deploy the fighter in the hoped-for numbers. Not until August 1944 was the average running life of the 004 jet engine raised to 25hr; that was still a very low figure, but it meant that the design could be frozen and mass production could begin. In September Hitler rescinded his order that all new Me 262s be delivered as fighter-bombers. By then more than a hundred fighter airframes were sitting around without engines, and as soon as 004s became available these aircraft were completed and delivered to the Luftwaffe. In fact Hitler's order delayed the introduction of the Me 262 into service in the fighter role by only about three weeks. For the real reason for the failure to deploy the fighter in large numbers, we must look elsewhere Those are two opposing quotes. However, even the "non disrupted "myth"" states that it caused a 3 week delay. So there.

obviously, still bunked for me.

thanks

I haven't the foggiest notion of my source, nor am I sure it's correct, hence the "aiui".

Some trees near the shooter are ignored. This simulates the ability of the unit to optimize its location. Aiui.

Well, as I'm sure you know, the ONLY reason they could even attempt ground attack was Hitler's insistence that bomb hardpoints be added to wings. Delayed their operational debut by ~9-12 months. I can't believe you think Hitler's tactical acumen could wrong.

Bah! That kind of rigid orthodoxy is why Berlin still hasn't fallen! When your men's blood is up, when they see through a red haze of rage, when they are filled with the spirit of vengeance, THAT is the time to attack! Under orders to withdraw? A good leader knows when to ignore his orders...and take Berlin.

I'm loving it! Get up on top of that ridge do some close assaulting on the Sturmtigers. With that bowgunner. He seems like he's up for it.

I enjoy a LOT of the mods out there for CM. They change the APPEARANCE, not the engine. That's cool. To me. I like better smoke, flames, higher resolution models, etc. (For me, that works. I can pick mods which increase the computational load on my machine and stop when they begin to bog down performance. BFC had to draw the line somewhere. (Get it? "Draw the line"? I'm on a roll...) They HAVE to have low-res models, or they risk alienating a base level of player. If each model takes takes time/effort, at some point, that time/effort detracts from other endeavors. So...they (BFC) don't have the high resolution mods which others have made. I get it...) Now, if BFC opened up the core engine to modding, I'd be done with pbem games. I have no desire to see a Panther turret on a Jeep. Nor do I want to see any other imaginary vehicle/upgrade. Every tank/weapon designer thought they made a good system. Until it got fielded, then the flaws came out. Panther engine fires: how would that be modeled? Production quotas, etc. So, your Panther turret on jeep would ignore all sorts of things, otherwise it would've been fielded. (Substitute whatever it is you want to build for my "Panther turret on a jeep".) Similarly with other vehicles which are "real", but have been opened to modding. How would I know that you haven't modded your .50 rifles to have the penetration of an Abrams main gun? Etc. I don't want a free-for-all mod community which can access the engine. Right now, the editor allows ANY MAP to be made by the community. Gripe about the editor or the 16km^2 size limit, but BFC has opened up the map editor to all and sundry. Appearance of anything in the game can be modded. I cannot (as yet?) import units from one game into another. Abrams on the rampage near Remagen? Sure, that'd be fun. Once. TigerII on the side of the Hessians near the Delaware? Woot! The heart of this game is how the details create the simulacrum of reality. Men are treated as men. Organize and equip them as the Italians were in WWII, and you have an inflexible, brittle force. Amazing. The same men with better weapons and more flexible formations give a much different performance. The sum of all these types of decsions give us a game which is amazingly "realistic", yet still a game. If the engine were opened to outside modding, that would change.

WOOT! All I did was hit return like a refresh-monkey! Oh, joy! What happy day! I agree. Wholeheartedly. My purpose for the whole Baltic invasion "rant" was due to my perception that it CANNOT happen being posted upstream. I merely tried to show that it CAN. My points were: 1. As you posted, that Putin is not acting in manner that Western states would see as "rational". 2. Western states do not honor treaty obligations. (Poland '39 and Ukraine) (Point to be made whether there was an "obligation" to assist Ukraine in the event of an invasion. That it legalistic, not moralistic. If I refuse to allow my neighbor to use my hose to put out his house fire (a la FDR), legally I am not in trouble, but morally I should be deemed reprehensible. Unless I lived next to a crack house or whatnot...) 3. Action beats reaction, time and again. 4. Force correlations are not as even as it may seem. That's all I was trying to show.

Hmm, that didn't work...

Yes, a bit. Here's a funny link: http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/images/Obama_Putin_Differences.jpg

Agreed. But Russian survival is different than Putin survival. (Or, what he THINKS will be best for him. Is he looking at a 1 year horizon, 10 year, or 100 year? And a horizon for himself, or Russia?) (And HOW do you break up a single quote into multiple pieces!)