zahl

I can't give any recommendations, but I think that no atlas has the level of detail that is needed here. Erickson's operational narrative is painfully detailed. To get an idea, the maps should show Rzhev-Vyazma area locations like Osuga, Semelevo, Pogoreloe, Solnenino and Certolino. And that was just one page worth of obscure towns/villages! The Cassell Atlas of the Second World War by Peter Young, for example, has 48 Eastern Front maps, but is hopelessly inadequate. West Point maps are even worse. The maps should also show minor rivers, lakes, heights, woods and marshland.

The notion that you can detect non-daisy chain mines in CM without setting them off is one persistent misconception. Several guys ran rigorous tests in many earlier threads with a wide array of scenarios, but were unable to demonstrate a single case of successful AT/AP mine detection. Then invariably some folks come forth to claim that they see it regularly in normal game play. For my part, I've never seen it in 2+ years.

More figures from When Titans Clashed: "Red Army Personnel Losses" including killed, missing, captured, wounded, sick, etc. 1941 - 4,308,094 1942 - 7,080,801 1943 - 7,483,647 1944 - 6,503,204 1945 - 2,823,381 Wartime Totals - 28.2 million, of which 10.01 million killed or missing. Pay attention to that enormous 1945 figure - at that rate they would have taken close to 8.5 million yearly casualties had the war continued. Monthly averages almost rival their mindless losses from 1941. Total Soviet Union armed forces losses are then given as 29.6 million, including all branches, but does not include Poles or other Eastern Front Soviet allies. These figures should be as accurate as possible since they are derived from Soviet primary sources. Glantz gives the following info to explain the horrendous offensive losses: "Based on interviews conducted by the author with Soviet war veterans in July 1989, it is apparent that Soviet infantry casualties remained high throughout the war, in particular, in first echelon assault units. For example, when asked what the normal losses were in a first-echelon regiment on the main attack axis during the penetration phase of an operation, a former regimental commander of 97th Guards Rifle Division stated "pochti polovina" [almost half] of the regiment's strength. He went on to state that such was the case to the very end of the war." Red Army Weaponry Losses as given in Grif sekretnosti snyat by Krivosheev and quoted by Glantz: Tanks and SP Guns: 96,500 (13,700) Guns and mortars: 218,000 (16,000) Combat Aircraft: 88,300 (11,000) 1945 figures in parenthesis.

Swamp, Wreck and Ghost are definitely among the best players of the community, but there are other exceptional individuals who have not received the recognition they deserve. Hopefully this tourney will change that. The above three are famous because of their feats at TH. I hope that great Rugged Defense players, past or present, do not lose the second slot that was already listed. RD is afterall the largest CM ladder together with TH.

WineCape's first post in this thread currently has the following selection, at least until it is edited: 1. Rugged Defence: Awaiting official nomination 2. Tournament House: Swamp 3. Bands of Brothers: SurlyBen 4. Blitzkrieg: Major TakTik 5. WarefareHQ: DeathDealer 6: Fion Kelley 7: Wreck 8: Broken!

WineCape had two slots for RD players, Broken and RD's official nomination, but he changed it and gave the other one to TH. Now 3 members from TH and 1 from everybody else. A bit unfair, but of course it is up to the organizer.

Robert, I think you misunderstood WineCape's intention. The idea was to choose the players here via our vote. They will in essence represent themselves, not their tourney houses, thus ladder custodian's opinion is no more crucial than anybody's. Anyway, Broken is my nominee due to his exceptional record against RD veterans. Many RD top guys have attained their high rank by playing poorly rated opponents almost exclusively and do not belong in this competition. [ June 04, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: zahl ]

I feel Rugged Defense must be represented by one player. I nominate Broken. He doesn't play much, but has thrashed some of the best RD veterans repeatedly, losing only once, obtaining a winning percentage of 90%+ and reaching RD 2001 tourney finals unbeaten. He has a positive record against everybody he ever played.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: Zahl, so what you want is correct orientation of tank and turret, but no marker for the target and no hint what the tank is shooting at. <hr></blockquote> Exactly. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I don't think that will do any good, the only difference is that you don't know in what distance from the tank the target is and what kind of target. Both will be pretty easy to guess, IMHO. I guess that is what makes our opinions different: non-absolute spotting as implementable in a CMBO-like game and as describben by Steves is not that much different from the absolute spotting we have now. It will make the gun more safe for a short time after it is being spotted (because other units will not shoot on it automatically), but after the next player plot phase everyone and their dog with still rain area fire on the gun's position. You seem to overestimate what this will achieve.<hr></blockquote> I think you are overestimating your ability to guess right. First, when you see direct fire impacts around your tank(s) or ricochets, you, as the player, would not know (even though some of your units might know) - 1) are the shooters tanks or guns 2) their type 3) how many shooters are there 4) their exact location. Your tank's first few shots can easily be +/- 30m off at 500m provided the terrain is flat and totally off if there are nasty elevations. More importantly, if there are many targets opening up simultaneously and even if your tank(s) spots all of them and engages one or two, you would have absolutely no idea where the rest are. Then your tank might spot an infantry unit, engage it and then receive direct fire. You would incorrectly assume that your tank is engaging a gun/tank when this enemy gun/tank would still be unspotted and be in a totally different direction. [ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: zahl ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: 2) This marker is being engaged by the unit (and only by the unit) that spotted it, however the firing units doesn't show the player where it is shooting at.<hr></blockquote> This is more or less what I'm talking about, but there doesn't need to be a marker to start with (that the player can see). Even without the visible-to-the-player marker the unit that has spotted the target is himself aware of it and can engage it. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> 2) has the problem that CMBO generally has player-visible unit facing and turret position. You would have to make that "undefined", which is a pretty big step in the current CMBO logic. <hr></blockquote> No need to make that undefined. You would quite accurately know the target area, but you wouldn't (yet) know _what_ the unit is firing at. Just observing turret facing and impact locations would give you an idea where the target is. But since you don't yet know the target type, it would be unwise to drop and potentially waste area fire on it. Likewise it could be unwise to distract a platoon to "take it out" because you don't know what it is. Ie. a player would preserve his own observation, but this observation would be delayed, not immediate like now. Like I said, the player would gradually improve his observation when more units become aware of the target due to their own relative spotting. Because of this delay, your two gripes (unrelated indirect fire dropped there and unrelated units directed there) would not work. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> before 2) makes any sense, you will also have to break from reality in that only units in the shot path get a realistic chance of spotting, and that should obviously apply to a different degree if the shooter is a gun, a vehicle or a multi-man infantry unit.<hr></blockquote> I don't see why these two are necessary if relative spotting is implemented. [ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: zahl ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: That still returns us to the original problem, that it is unfair for a single tank, or a tight pair of tanks being shot at by a gun. <hr></blockquote> I can't see how. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Those tank(s) need a fair chance to spot and engage the AT gun. What you say is more like the sound contact now, but nobody can shoot at it. <hr></blockquote> Just because _you_ would not see what your units' can see does not hinder their ability to spot and engage in any way. Tanks engage enemy guns on their own even now. This suggestion however makes it impossible for the player to manually optimize the unit's reaction and eliminates the two abuses you described: the player dropping area fire on the gun after somebody spotted it or directing a platoon to take it out.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: Even the relative spotting in the engine rewrite as describben by Steve in some post will only be a partial solution. Once somebody spotted the gun, the player will still be able to drop area fire on it or direct a platoon there which in real life would have no idea that easy prey is waiting.<hr></blockquote> The player should not be aware of the gun just because somebody has spotted it. He would only know that the unit is firing at or can see something, or not even that. This would be confusing and make coordination incredibly hard, as it should be. The gun would be identified as Gun? only after more troops have relatively spotted it on their own.

The British 3in on-map mortar is an awesome weapon. Bang for the buck, it is equal to a 3in spotter, but is faster and more accurate. And you get some smoke for free. Each mortar has about 55 rounds of HE for a total blast value of about 1430. Solid arty tactics can negate solid infantry tactics and this is the tool for it. I'd really like to see your movies.

Titan - aren't you just dying to tell us how you routed KiwiJoe in the endgame?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: No soldier on the battlefield knows the EXACT lines of sight around him. He can judge and he can look closer, that's about it. You, as the player, can do the same. Move down to a lower view level and use your eyes - judge. If you need to know exactly, use the LOS tool for some critical spots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is not a valid analogy since a soldier on the real battlefield "looking closer" can instantaneously see what in game terms would be a sector of the los field. Not full 360 degrees, but something like 90. He doesn't have to use some gamey bar to determine what exactly he can see. Well, not unless he has "pipe vision".