Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About YankeeDog

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 10/19/1972

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Location
    New York, NY
  • Interests
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Small arms, not necessarily. I have read multiple accounts of Soviet tankers with riders on board unbuttoning after to discover that one or more of the riders had been hit while they were buttoned up, with the crew inside having no idea they ever came under fire. It stands to reason that in at least some of these incidents, a round or two must have hit the armor. Tanks on the move are f'n loud and I can believe a round or two pinging off the armor might be missed in all the racket from the engine, tracks, etc. Repeated and concentrated strikes as from an MG burst, probably not. But a few
  2. Completely agree. The Zero is actually an example of an area where I think the Japanese were way ahead of everyone else in the early war -- they evaluated the need (an extremely long range, carrier-capable fighter that nevertheless was an effective dogfighter), and came up with an innovative engineering solution given the technology then available. While I think the actual technological dominance of the Zero in the 1940-1942 period sometimes gets a little inflated due to the fact that many of the Zero's early successes were against second-rate airframes flown by pilots with less training and
  3. As I mentioned previously, part of the issue here is that the engine currently doesn't allow the player to move radios around his force to where they're most needed. As it is right now, in a typical German Infantry Coy, all Platoons have radios. That's overly generous. Probably more realistic would be for a well-equipped German Infantry Company to have something like 2-3 radios to share, but the player would have some discretion as to which units got the radios -- for example, maybe one always stays with the Company CO, but the player could chose which subordinate HQs got the "spare" rad
  4. Yes; since wire comms aren't explicitly modeled at all right now, I think you can argue that some of the "overmodeling" of other comms capabilities is there to compensate. Eventually, I would love to see wire comms modeled more explicitly, and other comms capabilities, especially wireless, scaled back somewhat. This has important implications for e.g., Defender C2 vs. Attacker C2. Given prevalence and generally superior reliability (as long as the wire lines aren't cut), a defender in established positions should have a C2 advantage over a moving attacker, and the game doesn't really model
  5. Yeah, the Japanese war mentality has always interested me because especially at the start of the war in some areas they were way ahead of the U.S. and everyone else, yet in other areas they made huge strategic, doctrinal, and tactical misjudgements and seemed be completely incapable of changing course. It's a curious mindset that I've never quite been able to fathom.
  6. Sure. All sorts of techniques were used to signal targets and other information. Smoke was indeed a common way of signalling target areas; targeting smoke was often delivered via mortar and would be used to mark target points for everything from MG fire to Naval Artillery, including fire support from tanks and other AFVs. Smoke in and of itself usually couldn't be used call in fire, though. That is, usually the fire support request would be initiated via a radio or other message, and then a smoke drop would be used to specify the exact target -- guns didn't just open up on any little puff
  7. This is a critical piece of information to understand regarding use of radios for tank-infantry coordination in WWII. Battlefield commanders did have some discretion as to where they put their limited wireless comms assets, and at least in the case of well trained formations that knew how to execute good low-level tank-infantry tactics, if the need was appreciated ahead of time and there were time to prepare, the usually scarce portable radio resources could be allocated accordingly and infantry-tank radio comms could be fairly good. But this was an exception to the rule, and except in these
  8. @purpleheart23: FYI, I am investigating the ford behavior in your screenshot. I'm not completely sure it's a bug; it may just be a pathing quirk where the unit is on the very edge of the ford action spot where the water is a little deeper. But I'll dig around to make sure nothing his happening here that shouldn't be. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
  9. This is totally my interpretation, but I would parse the above to mean that CMBS will be released as version 3.x of the engine, likely with some minor, incremental improvements over the CMRT 3.0 release (3.1?). BFC usually doesn't let a major game or module release go by without adding *something* to the game engine, even if it's just a few minor improvements. This is in contrast to if they announced CMBS as a full-out 4.0 upgrade to the game engine, which would imply more, and more significant new features. So I think there is reason to hope for at least a couple of minor engine improv
  10. And then some, most likely. I'm currently on the Beta Tester team for CMRT but not for CMBS, which means I can speculate all I want about CMBS because I don't know any NPI about it and therefore can't violate my NDA. Anyway, I think it's a pretty safe guess that at least a few new features not present in CMRT will make it into the engine by the time CMBS is released. My SWAG is that they'll probably be features particularly important to Modern Warfare, but I have no information as to specifics other than my own idle musings.
  11. The other major mistake Hitler made was declaring war on the U.S. without first seeing if he could secure a reciprocal declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union. Since Japan attacked the U.S. and not the other way around, The terms of the Axis alliance didn't technically obligate Germany to declare war on the U.S. once Japan did. He should have used this diplomatic leverage to at least try to secure more assistance from Japan in his war against the Soviets. Not sure he could have done so as Japan was not at all keen on the idea of a land war against the USSR, but Hitler never even t
  12. Not to mention the fact that the Soviets were on the strategic offensive for this entire period. Assuming equally capable opponents (which is clearly not the case here), you would normally expect the attacking side to take higher casualties in exchange for gaining territory.
  13. This is all good stuff, but I think it's possible to go too far in enforcing "Rigid Soviet Tactics" at the level of combat CM represents, especially since CMRT by definition deals with the Third Period of the Great Patriotic War (to use the Soviets nomenclature). As has already touched upon by others, I think most of the "rigidity" of Soviet WWII doctrine in this period was primarily at the Brigade/Regimental level and higher. Soviet low level tactics developed a lot over the course of the war, so you really can't look at how things were done at e.g., Kursk or Stalingrad to get an idea of
  14. Well, looks like some people here didn't have too hard a time with this campaign, others got their @ss kicked by it. So sounds to me like the level of difficulty is about right. With CM as in everything else, everyone has their own opinion as to what the "Goldilocks" level is. Nothing is going to please everybody. If you're one of those who found RtN too hard, that's too bad (and I mean this sincerely, without sarcasm), but I think PT made a good effort to balance challenge for the "Master" rating players vs. accessibility for the "Junior" rates in this campaign, including addin
  15. And such extended large bombardments are largely out of the scope of CM. The artillery directly represented in a CM scenario is "on-call", dedicated quick-response assets available to the local Company or Battalion commander. This type of asset was often in short supply, even for the relatively artillery-rich Americans and British. This way of representing indirect-fire assets is a simplified abstraction and isn't a precisely accurate depiction of how artillery really worked in WWII, but for the vast majority of battle scenarios it works well enough. The game is called "Combat Mission",
  • Create New...