Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
Inspired by another thread, i just started playing my first battle against the AI without using level 3 and the upward 'god-views'. Extremely sceptically i gave it a serious try over 10 turns and i'm totally amazed!
I really recommend to play that way to everyone!
Give it a try and stick 10 minutes with it.
The gaming-experience is much much much more intense and the AI suddenly becomes a tough oponent.
I'm really caught by the whole new dimension of realism and excitement that suddenly shows up, if only view level 1 is used.
It is very important to keep playing that way, when the first frustration in the battle comes up!
Don't avoid the frustration by using the god-view!
Simply keep playing and make the best out of the situation.
[ September 15, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Wow. Thank you all for your honest answers and preserving me of buying crap.
Especially Easytarget. Thank you very much for the offer.
But i'll check out e-bay/one-two-sold first. Maybe i'll find a deal close to Vienna.
If not, i'll feel free to send you a message.
[ September 14, 2003, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
No need to be shocked, if you read the whole paragraph:Originally posted by Sergei:"Since CMAK is going to be the last Combat Mission title, we felt that, like every good trilogy, it had to end with a bang."
Huh??? :eek:
:confused: I suppose this means that CMX2 games are going to go under a different title. Strange that is.
MB: CMAK will be the last CM title as people know it. After that, we will introduce our entirely new engine, and what we will do with that (which times, periods and theaters we will visit) is pretty much open currently. The new engine (working title CMX2) will be a lot more flexible in handling different theaters and time periods than the current one, so we're not excluding anything at this stage.
-
Although i'm very satisfied with my Radeon 8500LE, i'm really sick of not being able to see fog.
I still remeber how great CMBO looked, with my TNT2 and i have to avoid scenarios with fog, otherwise ...
I'm not playing any other games, and will not for the next year i guess, so i'm thinking of buying a cheap GF440MX only for CMBB and throw the Radeon out.
What do you think about it?
Anyone who knows, if the MX440 will perfom worse than the R8500LE?
Thanks in advance.
[ September 12, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Although i'm very satisfied with my Radeon 8500LE, i'm really sick of not being able to see fog.
I still remeber how great CMBO looked, with my TNT2 and i have to avoid scenarios with fog, otherwise ...
I'm not playing any other games, and will not for the next year i guess, so i'm thinking of buying a cheap GF440MX only for CMBB and throw the Radeon out.
What do you think about it?
Anyone who knows, if the MX440 will perfom worse than the R8500LE?
Thanks in advance.
[ September 12, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
If you think people shy away from 120 turn monsters, why would you think they would flock to an unlimited turn monster?</font>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:
The problem for scenario designers is, that they have to keep the turn# moderate, because otherwise the majority wouldn't play their scenarios, if they see a 120 turn monster.
-
Right, sorry. My mistake.Originally posted by Andreas:'Grenadiere', not 'Panzergrenadiere'.
-
"Panzergrenadiere (gp.) sind die stählernen Sturmtruppen der Panzerdivision.
Ihr eigenartiger, schnell beweglicher Kampf bildet die Voraussetzung für den operativen Einsatz.
Sie bilden mit den Panzern eine enge Kampfgemeinschaft.
Selbstständige Aufgaben lösen sie in kühnem, schnellem Zugriff.
Große Beweglichkeit, Geländegängigkeit, Panzerschutz, hohe Feuerkraft und reichliche Ausstattung mit Führungsmitteln befähigen sie, schwierigste Lagen schnell und erfolgreich zu meistern.
Panzergrenadier-Verbände(gp.) kämpfen vom SPW.
Feindeinwirkung und Gelände können vorübergehend zum raschen Wechsel zwischen aufgesessenem und Kampf zu Fuß zwingen. Auch diesem Kampf zu Fuß geben die auf den SPW beweglich einge setzten schweren Waffen seine Eigenart.
Angriffsschwung und Kühnheit, vereint mit blitzschneller Entschlusskraft und großer Wendigkeit zeichnen den Panzergrenadier aus".
H.Dv.298/3a "Ausbildungsvorschrift für die Panzertruppe
- Führung und Kampf der Panzergrenadiere"
Heft 1: Das Panzergrenadier-Bataillon (gp.) vom 05.08.1944
Here is a lot of useful information, i.e. dealing with the usage of Panzergrenadiere units and why their renaming was representing their usage, not propaganda:
-
Lafertytig, a fully automated campaign mode similar to Biltong's would be nice but that was already discussed in depth a few times ago, so don't expect a lot of useful replies.
And i share your feelings:
yep, here are many people that want to forbid the neighbour to buy a second car although they can keep their's anyway and nothing would change for themselfes.
But that doesn't mean, that they have to be left alone on the battlefield, only because they want it.
It's hard to believe, CM is already becoming boring to you (due to your member#, i guess you haven't been playing it since years):
have you already started to play PBEMs?
[ September 03, 2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
You are quite amusing in your inability to stop digging.</font>Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:
What do you expect?
That the units were renamed all the time, when their composition changed?
-
Woops! A whole Panzerjaegerabteilung with lots of towed guns. I guess you know something they did not...Originally posted by Andreas:[QB] Oh dear...
A quick skim is enough to show that this website, if anything, disproves what you are still holding up as gospel.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Panzerjäger-Abt. 463
15 Sep 40 formed in Norway from Stab/Pz.Jg.Abt. z.b.V. 233 and Pz.Jg.Kpn. 303, 304, 305 (Stellungs-Pz.Abw.Kpn vom Oberrhein)
[Niehorster: 22 Jun 41, Mountain Corps Norway, Army Norway (Finland) (3.7cm guns)
28 Jun 42 20th Mountain Army, Finland and equipped with 6x Marder II, 21x 37mm and 3x 28mm AT guns in three companies]
1 Jul 43 20th Mountain Army, Finland and organized with three companies of 50mm guns
[Niehorster: 4 Jul 43 20th Mountain Army, Finland and organized with twelve 37mm and two 75mm guns per company]
TW (draft): Army Norway: 1x 1-10 mot AT II 463
</font>
-
Rune,
i agree with you, but the problem is not, that we all don't want the same, but that some arrogant people here don't want, that other people have the possibility to play a wider range or different battles.
It's like forbiding my neighbour to have a second car, because i don't need one, too.
[ September 03, 2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Originally posted by Andreas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:
Let's look at the facts:
From 1940 on, the Panzerabwehrabteilungen within the Infanteriedivisionen were equipped with Selbstfahrlafetten (IIRC 1 company) and the official renaming on March 1940, was the logical consequence of the already changed role and in the future even more changing role.
Not propaganda or renaming per se, but the (changed) use and equipment of the weapon, led to the renaming.
Well, just realised that when looking at 'the facts', it also pays off to look at how Mr. 'Why don't you come off your high horse' Steiner14 has shifted his original statement quite considerably, without of course ever admitting he was wrong. Nice try. </font>Originally posted by Steiner14:The Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen had no tanks (but PAKs), while the Panzerjäger-Abteilungen consisted of tank-destroyers.
-
Too bad, i don't remember the sources anymore (and honestly i don't want to spend my time seeking and reading the books i could have read that in), but here you have another source:
http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/pzjgabt.htm
I.e. the renaming date of
Pz.Abw.Abt. 521 and Pz.Abw.Abt. 169 is different and fall together with the reorganization and equipment with SP-guns.
Even this source should be enough to see, that the renaming wasn't done just as an end in itself, but reflected the changing role of AT-weapons.
If you additionally take into conclusion, that before the troops can receive 'new' weapons, they need to be invented, planned, constructed, built, tested and approved, we can say, that the renaming reflected the rapidly changing role of AT-weapons in the request of the Blitzkrieg.
And to come back to the original question:
yes, Infantriedivisionen were equipped with their own tank units, following the CM-nomenclature of counting SP-guns as tanks.
Hope that solves your doubts.
-
Ahhhhhhhh.
I'm glad to see that enough folks see what the problem with turn limit is/can be.
@JonS:
thanks for that tip - i would have never choosen a 120 turn monster, because now the max. turn# usually correlates and is understood as amount of time needed to finish the job. Great to hear, that the turn# in this one doesn't indicate when tea time is going to stop the fighting.
Hopefully it is a good scenario, too.
[ September 03, 2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
@Moon
I forgot to answer. Sorry.
This is a very interesting article from this book, but i wonder, why speculation is taking place,when the facts are really simple.
Let's look at the facts:
From 1940 on, the Panzerabwehrabteilungen within the Infanteriedivisionen were equipped with Selbstfahrlafetten (IIRC 1 company) and the official renaming on March 1940, was the logical consequence of the already changed role and in the future even more changing role.
Not propaganda or renaming per se, but the (changed) use and equipment of the weapon, led to the renaming.
[ September 02, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Wow. You are basing your arguments on what constitutes "reality" by using meeting engagements as an example? How often did they happen in "real life"?Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:
Seems you're a bit slow in understanding.
Ok, one example of a battle i played:
Meeting engagement -
I am not slow in understanding; it is painfully obvious you're a tyro. Your uninformed comments re: Panzerjäger vs Panzerabwehr were the first evidence (we note with interest you haven't shown your face in the thread since Moon posted his proof, in German, for you). Your repeated comments here make it fairly clear you have no concept of what actual military practices were - a bit mystifying that you would keep insisting that you know something about the subject.
I am sure BTS has at some point offered their opinion on turn limits, etc., I would suggest you do a search. Either way, unless someone else has something of import to add to the discussion, I see no point in going any further as it is obviously above your level of conceptualization. </font>
-
Seems you're a bit slow in understanding.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Play out a scenario - any scenario but preferably a 30 turn or so one - from the Depot with a trusted PBEM opponent.
Then set the turn limit to 120 turns and play it again. Tell us what difference the turn limit extension made.
Ok, one example of a battle i played:
Meeting engagement - 50+ turns (we already decided for thatlenght, to avoid the usual sit-on-tanks-and-rush-forward-procedere due to time restrictions) - QB - medium map - small hills - three main flags in the centre, all on the front slopes - some woods - i own the reverse slopes of the hills (after the battle he told me, he would have prefered to attack my troops directly behind the hills, but he didn't decide for that, due to the time limit...).
My oponent carefully advances to the flags and takes them. This takes alone around 20 minutes.
I wait until he controls the flags. They are not good to defend, because they are exposed.
After he had concentrated his infantry in and around the important woods and the StuGs to help it and the tanks behind the highs on his side of the map, to threaten my tanks when they will come, i started a massive combined arms flank attack and took a wood that was protecting the valley and the street into it.
We had around turn 40, when his left flank, collapsed.
Now from this area my T34 will blow his infantry away, without becoming threatened by his tanks, due to the woods, blocking LOS from his tanks.
Without turn limit, he certainly would have done an immediate withdrawal from the slope and ordered the remaining tanks around the whole map on the other side.
He would have tried to reorganize after a withdrawal and prepare for an counterattack or, at least, for a decent defense.
Due to my strong tank forces and the woods, he would have needed a wide area for his tanks to maneuvre, to knock out one tank after the other.
Here only happened what happens so often: once one player has a disadvantage in armor, he can't compensate anymore, because time limitation doesn't allow for decent tank tactics.
The battle ended like so many other battles:
he tried to hold the flags although they were the worst place, but the hope to achieve a draw is definately better, than to leave the flags and lose definately when the game ends.
[ September 02, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
I already explained it, but let me try it once again:Originally posted by Sublime:so where exactly do you call a 35-40 minute attack a 'gamey slugfest'?
1. in reality no commander could look at his clock to determine, that although he's in the middle of a battle, that in 5 minutes everything will be over for tea-time.
2. in reality no commander sacrifices more of his men than necessary and definately no one risked whole platoons or tanks with risky orders, just to finish a battle within the next 10 minutes, if he could do better within 15 minutes without risking them.
3. in reality usually the enemy forces determine the speed of advance. Now the turn limit determines it.
4. in reality you don't really know, what you can expect, especially not, if the enemy isn't encircled. With the turn limit and in conjunction with the identified units, it's in almost all scenarios usually very good predictable down to the last tank, what still can happen.
5. Since CMBO, the turn limit mostly also correlates with map size.
All the mentioned effects lead to much more knowledge about the enemy, and therefore affects gameplay - not to mention the reduced thrill for the player.
Again: the game wouldn't change in no way.
It only would allow to simulate a much wider range of tactical battles.
Especially in conjunction with 'eliminate enemy forces' multiplayer games would become really demanding, especially on big maps, because it would be possible to leave flags, let the attacker come close, and then close the pocket with massive flank attacks.
Things that now are impossible, because time is always more precious than tactics.
And the best is:
no one would be forced to play such battles.
[ September 02, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Hm. What should i say to people playing mostly on small to medium maps, using tanks and claiming that 40 minutes have to be enough for each game and everyone and that after a few minutes their units are low on ammo anyway?Originally posted by Sublime:Seriously though in 35-40 turn battles there is plenty of time for maneuvering and whatnot. Possibly not on a 'huge' map but I only really play mediums or smalls.
No one is planning to take you your beloved gamey slugfests away.
But please, let others decide which battles they prefer, too.
[ September 01, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Your conclusions are wrong.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:I'd suggest you read the retardedly long thread we just had on time-limits; I think you are one of those who subscribes to the Hollywood version of war, the kind where every battle starts with a huddle, where the hero draws his plan in the dirt with a stick and refers to the rest of the 10 man squad - the elite "recon" squad from Cross of Iron, A Midnight Clear, Bridge at Remagen, Castle Keep, and countless others - by their first names; Eddie, Frank, Kirby, Little John, Duke
I presented a couple of operational orders that suggested the kinds of time constraints company and battalion orders were designed around. You can't add in the real impetus for speed into a CM size game - ie the follow up battalion needs the start line clear, neighbouring units on the flanks can't be left hanging, etc. So you impose a time limit.
Ask yourself why unit "X" is being asked to take that hill and you will see why a time limit is necessary. You're discussing company and battalion battles in a vacuum.
There may be special situations, that a battailon/company commander has to take his objective within a few minutes although he has absolutely no information about the enemy units (when the CM-battle starts).
But this is by far not the normal situation, at least it wasn't in the Wehrmacht:
the orders were given and it was the free decision of the commander how he achieved it (Auftragstaktik).
This meant in reality, that the leaders first probed where the enemy is hiding and afterwards the tactics were choosen accordingly and not vice versa.
In CM we don't have real surprises and the battles are always well balanced.
But if you lead a company into an unprobed attack in reality, and if reality suddenly shows you a few platoons of T34 your men are attacking, you would do that only once...
You have a wrong impression of the time scale, if you think that a unprobed area around a hill has to be taken within 40 minutes after arriving of the company, because the following battailon needs to pass the road beside the hill.
This would be the straight way into defeat, if time has the highest priority.
It's useless to be fast, if the losses are too high.
I don't say, that time-limited battles do not make sense, like you say about battles without time-limit in CM.
There can be situations, when time is an absolutely critical factor.
But in such cases mostly against hastily built up defenses without foxholes, mines and trenches and without deeply positioned PAK. Then time may be that critical, that (german) commanders abstained from probing.
Sometimes time matters more, because losing time means in the longer term having higher losses.
But time has no worth per se. The highest priority is, to keep the losses low, while reaching the objectives.
But it's not realistically to be forced to attack well prepared defense positions, without decent probing and by choosing the attack routes before the first contact, simply because of a time limit.
Such positions do slow down the advance in reality, or if time is that critical, they simply are left where they are, and are taken later by the following usually non-mechanized units - and then they have the time they need.
Would you order your troops over open terrain, if you've spotted a hole in the defensive lines and you have tanks available to beak through?
You would risk man after man because you don't take the few minutes to order the tanks where they are most useful and help to gain the best effect?
Then you would maybe make a good punishment-battailon commander, but definately not one, his men are trusting in.
This is simply not very realistically, if you don't have enough NKVD-officers in your back...
Or do you think that in reality the tank commanders didn't decide for the most effective way to fight and looked at their clock, and then decided that the way behind enemy lines around that hill would take five minutes, and that is too much, because the following battaillon will arrive at tea time?
And it's a misbeliev if you think, that it's a problem if a flank or side hangs back, because of 'delays' of ten minutes or so.
Even more when those minutes make sure, that the battle will be won with fewer losses.
[ August 31, 2003, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
-
Hehe. Surprises are nice, but if the Junkers 87G Panzerknacker is worse against tanks than an IL2 or even a BF110
, some data should be fixed in the next game. -
No it isn't. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:
The time limit in reality is far beyond 40 minutes.
-
Like it was often said, you can't compare the time limit in CM of around 40 minutes with reality.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:the time limitation makes players take chances (that real life commanders had to, incidentally) that they would not if given unlimited time.
The time limit in reality is far beyond 40 minutes. It's more of: take this hill until tomorrow 1800 and definately not within the next 40 minutes, when you don't know where the tanks, the PAKs and the infantry is hiding.
Taking ONE house or eliminate that HMG-position in 30 minutes, maybe.
Now we don't even have the time to try to knock on different positions to find out, where the enemy is weakest.
And usually you have to decide for an advance route before the battle begins and often enough i find myself not choosing time consuming alternative tactics or routes, simply due to the time limit.
Think about tank tactics: this limitation has a real huge influence on battles: in reality, you would love to invest 10 minutes if you can bring your tanks into the back of the defender, after spotting a hole in his defenses. With the time limit now, you always look at the hourglass first and usually decide, that the amount of time it costs, isn't worth the tactical benefit.
CM limitates itself with this time-limit.
Or another example:
have you ever noticed, that there are almost no real tactical surprises possible? I mean luring players into tactical traps, simply doesn't happen.
Due to the time limit!
Why? Because there's no time for decent tactical test-attacks. If you meet the enemy, you know he is there.
In reality, it is easily possible that one platoon is there, but while you prepare for an attack there, the enemy prepares for the attack into your flank.
And this is simply not possible by moving around the next hill or woods with the two closest tanks.
This needs time.
Battles without time limit, would allow a much wider range of tactics and battles, without touching the existing possibilities in a negative way.
It's a win/win situation.
Can you tell me, why someone should do that?Again, who wants to play a game where the attacker can simply crawl forward one fireteam at a time?
Everyone who plays this game, wants to see action.
Do you think there are really players that like to waste their time simply with doing nothing on the battlefield, just for stealing CM-players their time?
[ August 31, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]
, some data should be fixed in the next game.
Advise Please: buy MX440?
in Combat Mission - Tech Support
Posted
I decided for a Xelo Ti4200 128MB for 107EUR.
[ September 15, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]