kenfedoroff
-
Posts
452 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kenfedoroff
-
-
Green as JadeOriginally posted by tools4fools:...GreenAsJade means that the ENTIRE small dust cloud is behind a hill and smaller than that hill and therefore can not be seen by his units. As it is out of LOS it should not show up at all.
Thanks for the heads up on this. I agree... If the vehicle is out of LOS, then the small dust clouds made by a Move command should not be shown either.
Even if vehicles are moving on Fast command, the larger dust clouds should NOT be visible to the enemy if there is a high elevation blocking LOS.
My 2 cents,
Ken
-
I enjoyed this book... but then again, I've never met a WW2 book I didn't like... just some more than others.Originally posted by Lawyer:Anybody read "Tigers in the Mud"?
Otto Carius (and his gunner/crew, whose names escape me) would be considered "Elite" troops in CM terms.
Carius commanded at the Company level so the accounts are of small unit tactics.
Of special interest to me were the "non-combat" duties that were required, and also the team-work that makes for a good unit.
This book is the opinion and experience of the author (which you may or may not agree with), but it is hard to argue with his results.
Hope this helps,
Ken
-
I can PBEM if you still need someone.Originally posted by Berlichtingen:I've just uploaded a scenario that needs testing
This is a big scenario set during Kasserine. It is also a tough scenario to model, so any feedback is good
Ken
-
...Which is why I read their books!Originally posted by Panther Commander:How does a Stug crew take out 15 T-34's if the Stug is overmodeled and the T-34 undermodeled? That makes their real life exploits even more amazing. IMHO.
Panther Commander
I finished reading "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius last month. I get the impression that experience was very important to success. He gives many examples of teamwork and taking advantage of the enemy's weakness in equipment, command and control, etc., in this book.
I also get the impression that when the Soviets were dug-in in prepared positions, the Germans could suffer heavy losses in the attack if not properly organized and executed.
Conversely, there are many examples of the Soviets suffering heavy losses when they were on the attack. There are several examples of heavy Soviet tank losses that are attributed to the T-34 attacking while "buttoned up" and not having a good battlefield awareness.
It also helped to have an elite gunner!
I know his examples pertain to experience in Tigers, but some of it might pertain to other weapons as well.
Good book.
Edit: I think "Borg Spotting" defeats the ability of individuals from repeating some of these successes in the game.
For what it's worth,
Ken
[ June 18, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]
-
This may have been discussed as well, but here it goes...
I would like to see in an "Extreme FOW" option the ability of the computer to name the newly created units... and with no ability by the human to rename them. In this way, when units are finally identified, they can be added to the intelligence officer's enemy OOB.
Thoughts?
Ken
-
I can PBEM if you still need someone. I don't care which side.
Ken
-
In the book "The Guns of Normandy" by George Blackburn, he describes (Pages 26-27)how in "Crash Action" training, a battery could get off the first round in 3-5 minutes. However, the 4th CA was also voted best of the bunch, so other units might not live up to this example.Originally posted by tar:Anyone happen to know how long it took to emplace artillery in the pre-electronics age?
There are many examples of what it is like to move and set-up a 25 Pounder battery (in action around Caen) in this book.
Ken
-
I'm not sure if they convert to Free French if they are in Canada. I seem to remember getting burned on moving troops to Canada once. Maybe an expert will show up to explain, yes or no.
Ken
-
Apologies in advance if this has been addressed elsewhere.
Is there any chance of choosing various levels of FOW (like in Combat Mission)?
As it stands now (in SC1), mere contact with an enemy unit reveals its content and strength. Is there any chance that a units identity and strength could be kept secret on the first turn of contact, and a unit required to attack, just to learn information?
Has anybody discussed FOW issues?
Thanks,
Ken
-
A quick search on the internet gives the impression this book is a novel (fictional). Another book by the author is titled "Abacar the Wizard".
Hope this helps,
Ken
-
I think they may have a "death-clock" like vehicles. I would have to set it up in Hot Seat mode and play both sides to make sure.Originally posted by SKELLEN:How are Pillboxes handled within the game exactly and do they have a clock cycle similar to vehicles?
Ken
-
Good example/point JJ... many decisions forced on the Generals were made for political reasons, irregardless of whether or not that decision made good military/strategic sense.Originally posted by JerseyJohn:...The Phillipine Islands were a United States Protectorate mandated for independance when Japan invaded them...
...Military considerations aside, the United States had to make liberating the Phillipines a top priority. It was as though we were taking back one of the continental forty-eight...
I remember reading a story by a Japanese air ace where he claimed the Americans could have walked onto Iwo Jima unopposed at the time, but instead went for the Philipines. Of course, with 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to second guess decisions made under extreme pressure with limited Intel.
I went searching for my book by General Omar Bradley about his Army career, (another book apparently loaned out and never returned... *sigh*).
One of the more interesting parts of the book was dealing with incompetents during WW2. Bradley had to be ruthless in weeding out officers who just couldn't handle combat command (but who were good people that were able to function in other capacities out of combat).
I find this theme repeated by all sides (Axis and Allies)... that not all officers (of any rank) were suitable for combat command... and woe unto them that had to serve under them in combat.
It's interesting to read about it, but I'm most grateful I never had to live it.
Ken
-
Piss-poor management in the corporate world results in the loss of jobs... It results in total defeat/death/capture in the military. ...Makes me greatful I never had to suffer the decisions of incompetent generals.Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Great account. To me it's more a comndenation of the British Command structure than against Percival personally.
Who was the poor smuck who was in command of the French army during the German blitzkreig? I remember watching the History Channel and they stated he was in a castle somewhere issueing orders by motorcycle courier! He wasn't even hooked up to a radio! That may all be an exageration created for TV, though... not sure about that.
Thanks for the accounts on Percival... I forgot about that poor smuck.
Ken
-
Good question. I believe Hitler was waiting for the political situation in England to change (the removal of Churchill) so that he could accept peace offers from the new English government/monarchy. However, Churchill was never removed for this to happen.Originally posted by Jon Patrick:...With that in mind, after the stunning defeat of France and the humiliation of the British, did Hitler ever even OFFER Churchill a truce? Seriously. GB has not much in the way of a military, and Germany controlls the continent. I would think an offer that "lets just stop fighting and start trading and we won't starve your little island into oblivion" could have worked, but I've never even heard someone say the Germans had ever OFFERED a truce?
Anyone?
Jon
There has been some interesting TV shows and articles surrounding Rudolf Hess's flight to England for a peace initiative and his mysterious death in Spandau Prison after the war.
It seems there was an upper-class element in England who had a lot to lose (land and titles) if Great Britain was invaded. It's been rumored that this "Peace" element may have had members in the Royal Family.
I saw a show where a woman swears the blackout was deliberately broken surrounding a potential landing field on the estate where she worked at, on the same night that he was captured (Hess could not find the landing spot and bailed out). There was also much debate on whether the man imprisoned in Spandau really was Hess. His "suicide" is mysterious as well. An infirm and ill, 80+ year old man (who was supposedly unable to even lift his arms over his head) was able to throw a rope over a pipe, tie the required knots, climb up on a chair/table etc.
Obviously, IF there were ANY members of the Royal Family or Monarchy (extended, or otherwise) involved in ANY unauthorized peace initiative with ANY member of Hitler's government (crazed or otherwise), this would be a black-eye on the popular fiction that "We were all in it, together".
The popular fiction for both the Allies and Axis is that they were all united and focused (from top to bottom) on victory.
Ken
-
Originally posted by Some_God:
Well... There was a reason Hitler had a "Palace Guard" (the S.S.) and the Gestapo: to crush revolt and dissent....EDIT: BTW Hitler already had the Army, OKW, the German people, etc. behind him after the successfull campaigns in Poland, etc...While the average German certainly wanted a strong Germany, I doubt that the Germans who came of age before Hitler (and thus were aware he was a politician first, and not the Savior of Germany as depicted in the media) were fully ensnared in his BS. However, when one sees the consequence of speaking out in dissent, they soon learn to keep their opinions to themselves.
A while back they had a show on the History Channel about the Hitler Youth. At the end of the show a former HJ mentioned that the youth of today often ask him... "How could you be so stupid to fight on for such a worthless cause?"
He replied: "How lucky you are to be allowed to ask that question... We were not."
Ken
-
Originally posted by Some_God:
I don't have my sources handy, but I believe at a private level (amongst Hitler's inner circle) he was already voicing his intent for the Soviet Union in the Summer of 1940. However, he had to keep the possibility of further conflict from the public and most of the army. There was no way the German people would be agreeable or willing to take on the sacrifices it would take to deal with Russia. Even after the stunning German victories of 1939-40, many in the army were not so sure (as Hitler was) of a quick kill in Russia. On the German home front, I don't believe there was even a total mobilization for war in 1940. Hitler was being a good politician by keeping the conflicts to a 4-8 week long duration and not having to switch over to a "Total War" economy. Ending the conflict quickly (with the creation of Vichy France) may have been a skilled political move for both the home front and the international scene.What are you talking about? He clearly states the "Germany's future will be decided in the East" in Mein Kampf, not that I read it or anything.Does this make sense?
Ken
-
Good point. It's also possible that Hitler wanted a "quick kill" for political reasons. The average German soldier/people had no idea that Hitler was already looking East for further conquest. A quick victory would get the Army and people on his side (for a while, anyway).Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:...But if France had fought on, the Allies would still had control of ALL of the French colonies and the remainder of the French military (which was still a lot)...
My 2 cents,
Ken
-
I would have liked to see the airfleets in SC1 have their air attack values reduced at range to represent the reduced ability of the escort/fighter component of the airfleet to "go all the way" to the target. The medium bomber component would have the same value at any range for ground or air attack value. But this would mean using a separate program for air combat results, rather than using the same program to resolve all combat.Originally posted by Exel:...I agree that air power in SC1 had too much emphasis and it needs to be limited some what, but the air power should still remain a very important factor, and gaining air supremacy should be a potential war-winner.
The only reason airfleets were so effective in SC1 (vs. Historical reality) is that the range of the escort component doesn't end at 3 hexes (like it would in 1940). In fact, medium bombers from both sides suffered devastating losses when operating without fighter escort.
Either fighter/escort units will have to be made separately, or some range limitation will have to be factored into the SC2 airfleets (as far as resisting interception).
Ken
-
For what it's worth...
In his book, "In Deadly Combat..." by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann, on page 261 starts the story of the 3rd battle of Courland (Dec, '44) in which he relates his own personal experience as an infantry officer while attacking T-34's. I believe, at this point in the war, he is a Lt. in command of a Company? (not 100% sure).
Great book. Incredible tale of survival.
Ken
-
Ahh... Okay, that would explain it. Thanks.Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:...So the 'attempt' does not point to the fact that there is only a certain chance of success, but to the fact that your choice may be of no consequence.
It's been a fun Op for me, but I'm the Germans dug-in on the hill, rolling my hand grenades down the slopes into the British foxholes.
My opponent is relentless, and made me pay for my mistakes. In the second battle I had 2 complete HMG teams wiped out, plus most of a platoon, because I placed them too far forward with no chance for escape, once they were flanked. *Sighs, as a tear rolls down his cheek.*
What a meat grinder this is.
Ken
-
I had a situation in CMBB where my (Vet/Crack Panzer) un-buttoned while engaged with obvious threats. As the turn progressed and more and more threats appeared (packs of T-34's bearing down on him) and fired on the Panzer, he still persisted in remaining unbuttoned.
You can guess the rest...
My opponent stated that I had to (during the orders phase) un-button and immediately re-button my tank to keep him shut for 1 turn.
It appears the game engine can't handle decision making for remaining buttoned with visual, known and engaged, threats.
Maybe in CMX2...
Ken
-
We are playing a CMAK Op (Gemmano) where I (as the Germans) chose to "Avoid night combat", whereas my opponent claims he tried to initiate night combat. I was able to avoid night combat. My opponent seems a little upset about the results (Hehehe, snicker) and we are both wondering what determines the decision in this case.
If the German chooses to avoid night combat, is he successful 100% of the time? -or-
Is there some random odds that come into play?
In a CMBB Op I am play-testing, I (as Germans) was not even given a choice about avoiding night combat. Is that based on the parameters or random odds?
BTW, "Gemmano" (assault on Italian hill-town) has been a fun Op so far (just starting battle #4).
Thanks in advance,
Ken
-
Oops... My bad.Originally posted by manchildstein (ii):--Also notice how the point limits for the catagories change for the defender between "Attack" and "Assualt", especially for fortifications. If you choose Assault over Attack, the defender is cut back on the other catagories (Infantry, support,etc.) and forced to put more points in fortifications.---
but that doesn't apply to the 'unrestricted' setting... that would be 'combined arms' instead...
Thanks for setting me straight on that.
I am so used to playing Standard Rarity and Combined Arms that I forget how the allocation for the catagories change.
Ken
-
No (At least... I don't think so). You can work around it to some extent, but you end up picking out some of the forces and placing them on the map before it is imported into a Quick Battle.Originally posted by NON:Is there any way to specify an exact amount of purchase points for each side without also having to pick the forces? That is, can you specify purchase points more precisely when starting a QB or can you make a scenario where you only specify each sides points but let them pick their own forces?
Odie
You can have a trusted third party do this (both sides would have to e-mail their force request, have the 3rd party purchase and place them on the map, and then get the map back.)
If you don't mind some break in the FOW, you can do it yourself. For example, the attacker wants a certain medium tank platoon and the defender wants cerrtain units purchased and placed on the map before importing into a QB.
Also notice how the point limits for the catagories change for the defender between "Attack" and "Assualt", especially for fortifications. If you choose Assault over Attack, the defender is cut back on the other catagories (Infantry, support,etc.) and forced to put more points in fortifications.
If you don't want the defender to be forced into this restrictive situation, you can choose Attack and give the Attacker a 10-25% bonus, but then you put the appropriate amount of fortifications on the map (of the defender's choosing) before importing into a QB. This way, the attacker can get the appropriate force level vs the defender that would be designated for an Assault QB, and the defender can still have trenches, wire, mines, etc. without having to skimp on infantry and support.
You will have to play around with the editor and the bonus allowed for one side to get it close to what you want, but it won't be perfect.
Ken
The Shell Game
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Are you allowed to purchase TRPs in your QB? Usually the Defender can purchase them from fortifications and place them in likely avenues of attack... or am I missing something here?
Ken