[SC2 and Simultaneous Movement]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

This was a hot issue in a thread from a long while back and in the end it fizzled with the comments about how it would make for a less playable game and the SC playability idea would lose it's charm or something....

Ok. Thanks for all your input, guys. I guess SC would no longer have a board game style with simultaneous movement, but I thought it would be nice way to go for something different. Maybe some day...

Ken

[SC2 and Simultaneous Movement]

Apologies in advance if there is another thread on this.

Has there been any discussion of an SC type game that has the simultaneous movement that plays out such as in the Combat Mission series? I visualize this style of combat incorporated with the stacking of units and the simultaneous occupation of sea hexes by opposing forces.

Surface and U-boat fleets would fight upon occupying the same hex.

It might be provide more command and control surprises with units attempting to manuever.

Just a thought.

Ok... enough from the peanut gallery.

Ken

[In Search of an Honest Opinion. Really.]

We stopped after turn 25.

I had a whole battalion of reinforcements beam down half way to the objective.

This should be reduced to a Company and enter back at Regt. HQ (along with the FO) on, or about, turn 10. They should have to negotiate the same difficulties the original assault force did.

If something can't be done to make it fun for the Italians, then the scenario should be listed as "Allied (human) attack vs Axis (AI). It's not much fun for the Italian player to sit there and get pounded.

Nice map.

Ken

[In Search of an Honest Opinion. Really.]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

At present, they (82mm) are positioned for direct-fire, so I wanted them to be able to see all three VL's. Initially, I'd simply had a 3in. FO, but later thought that being able to split fire at individual targets at a moments notice was more useful.

Agreed. I like your idea of the on-board mortars over the FO.

Not to give it away, but I'm fairly sure that yr 3in. are far enough away not to make very good targets --- though I could be wrong: That's for you to find out, eh?

Well... It's my fault for not hiding them in the depression. At least they would have been hidden from 2 out 3 of the Axis held heights. My bad. My attack would be doing just fine if I felt safe in using them right now.

Ken

[In Search of an Honest Opinion. Really.]

There is actually a good spot for the 82mm on-board mortars in the original (current) set-up zone. The "problem" with this spot is that they are hidden from only two of the three Axis VLs.

If you could modify the terrain so that the direct LOS from this depression hides the mortars from all three Axis held heights, then that would be great. Changing the map might make it un-historical, but it could simulate a good base to fire from (using an HQ as spotter).

My fears about exposing my mortars were confirmed when my assault troops started taking fire from "my" side of the Gorge. Whoever is firing from "my" side could well spot my mortars. (None of this would be a problem, if not for "Borg" spotting).

I apologize for the "collapsed cliff" question. It seems "Captain Unconscious" (Commander of the Allied attack) must have his Landmarks turned off... Duh.

Some might complain about adding such trivia in the briefing, but I enjoy reading them for the info and sources. I can usually find the (used) books used for historical reference at affordable prices on the internet.

Is there a mention of a possible enemy presence on "my" side of the Gorge in the briefing? I could have made better use of my battalion/regt. security team with such info.

While I appreciate the Allied air support, the incredible spotting abilities of these aircraft borders on the ridiculous (they appear to be targeting individual squads that are hidden in foxholes). Again, this is just my personal prefs, but I would tone down the CAS or give the Axis the appropriate tools (and a chance) to reduce or nullify the Allied CAS. (Then again, we are playing blind, and my opponent may very well have his possible AAA on "Hide" or mis-placed).

Von Lucke (You sorry bastich). You made the mistake of allowing/asking for opinions, not realising I would stumble in here and scribble like mad.

Ken

[In Search of an Honest Opinion. Really.]

I am the Allied attacker.

Is the reason for the road ending stated in the briefing? If it is, then I apologize.

The Allied 82mm (on-board) mortars are the key to the attack, but I'm afraid to use them because they may be spotted. They need a position where they are completely out of LOS of the enemy and can use an HQ for a spotter. I know it's tough to be creative playing with 8 meter elevation tiles, but with "Borg Spotting" they need a hiding place. I wasn't able to find a spot in their limited set-up area.

Ok. enough whining for now,

Ken

[Forcing a Tank To Be Dug In At Scenario Beginning???]

Originally posted by Peterk:

...If I dig-in without padlocking on the map-editor, the player still gets the movement orders for those tanks when the game starts.

Good question.

If you intended the scenario for 2-player only, then you could state in the briefing that the player must dig-in his tanks. But he would be on the honor system with no way of the rule being enforced.

I like your idea of replacing them with pill-boxes. Then you know they can't move.

Ken

[In Search of an Honest Opinion. Really.]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

Thanks guys. I await yr recomendations.

The first thing I did was add 10 turns before we started. Nice map, but how come the road dead-ends instead of continuing off into the distance?

The Allied 82mm on-board mortars could use a depression to fire from (out of LOS from the enemy), what with Borg Spotting and all.

You definitely have a talent for map making. Have you considered making an altered (fictional) battle map out of this, with a few roads/tracks and a village or two? I hope you continue in your good work.

We are on approx. turn 10? (just started).

Ken

Ken

[In Search of an Honest Opinion. Really.]

Originally posted by Krazy Canuck:

I'll help out. E-mail me.

KC

E-mail with scenario attached sent to address in profile. Look it over and pick a side, if you want.

Ken

[In Search of an Honest Opinion. Really.]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

Thanks for the offer, but since I designed it, I'd know exactly what and where everything was --- might give you a biased opinion about how the scenario plays out.

Well... A biased opinion might be better than no opinion, (as long as you don't Nuke the attacker's set-up zone). Or... If you can find someone to take a side against me, I could play. I don't play against the AI too much anymore, especially larger scenarios. It's a waste of time.

Ken

[In Search of an Honest Opinion. Really.]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

I would like an honest, semi-coherent opinion:

I can PBEM either side against you, but I think it would make sense for me to take the (Allied) attacker.

I don't care to play against the AI.

I should be able to do one turn a day and double on weekends.

Sincerely,

Ken

[HMGs and Poor Visibility]

YankeeDog

Good post on what's needed in the new game engine to accomplish more HMG realism. You pretty much covered everything that would/could make it work.

Guys/Grogs

I never meant to imply that HMGs denied vast areas of ground by firing off tons of ammo all night long.

However, human nature being what it is, coupled with terrain, obstacles, etc., there were some obvious "choke points" (not sure if that't the right term) created for human travel. These "choke points" could be road, trail and path intersections. It could be an area leading from a spot where the enemy might form up for an attack. They could be a river crossing or defile on the way to Monte Cassino. They could be as simple as gate/opening in a fence line or hedgerow in Normandy. These are some of places I had in mind for a HMG TRP. What I read about in these WW2 books was the suppressive effect of HMGs when used in area fire in some of the above examples.

Thanks to All for your input,

Ken

[HMGs and Poor Visibility]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

...The MGs were prime targets, and you did not want to give away their positions too early in a fight. I would imaging the doctrine on WWII was similar. The only time the MGs let loose was during the "final protective fire" stage, when the enemy was close in, and in a position to dominate the action.

Thanks Nidan1,

I have also read books about WW2 that recount exactly what you experienced.

I don't remember the title or exact specifics, but the book was about British units in Burma(?) fighting the Japanese Army. (I think they used gliders to drop a brigade in the middle of nowhere, build an airfield for re-supply and attack the enemy supply lines. It was a great story all-around).

But anyways... I think it was in this book where they described how the soldiers went to great effort to fight off enemy probes without exposing (through premature use) the position of their HMGs.

I don't have a single book on the Italian Campaign, but I seem to recall reading (Monte Cassino?) about many night attacks by the Allies that were greatly frustrated by HMG fire that seemed to be pre-registered on avenues of approach.

I guess BTS would have to create a separate TRP for HMGs, that could be placed where LOS (with good visibility) would allow. Then, (no matter what the environmental visibility) HMGs could lay area fire on these selected areas now out of LOS.

I imagine that experience and leadership would be a factor in this as well.

Here's to the new game engine (raises cup),

Ken

[HMGs and Poor Visibility]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

...Once you have done this once, you could rig a clamp for the hose so that all you need do is turn on the tap to water this preselected area. This is the same as firing fixed lines. The MG is anchored in place and all you need do is pull the trigger (similar to boresighting for larger direct fire weapons). This is also done at night so that the poor sod on picquet at 0300 (usually not the dedicated machine gunner) can just pull the trigger if the word comes, rather than try and remember where the friendly pits end and the enemy positions start....

...This is why MGs are normally deployed off to a flank rather than in the middle of a position...

Hope that makes things a little clearer?

Thanks Gibsonm,

I got an e-mail from an ex-Marine that parallels your explanation (Thanks Bob).

So... It was very realistic to be able to lay down suppressive (area) fire with HMGs at night or under low visibility conditions into locations that could not be witnessed by the gunner. Yet, we're not able to do this with the current game engine. I've often wondered why the CM model of fighting under low-vis conditions doesn't seem to match what I read about in books dealing with combat in WW2. Your explanation of HMG use confirms what I suspected.

Thanks,

Ken

[HMGs and Poor Visibility]

Originally posted by Andreas:

ISTR that the restriction is there in order to avoid the abuse of borg spotting. Same for not allowing HMGs to fire into smoke.

Ok. Thanks Andreas. It looks like they have to tackle the Borg Bugger in the next game engine before they can move on to greater realism as far as HMGs and "Beaten Zones".

Sincerely,

Ken

[FlakFront! - feedback without spoilers]

Originally posted by WWB:

...One cannot really do pure multiplayer scenarios for the CD. If I could, I would have done a few things different.

WWB

Amen. I am hoping the scenario designers would consider offering an "after market" version of the scenarios on the disc that would be intended for 2-player only.

I can understand that scenarios on the CD have to be able to be played vs the AI (from a marketing point of view), but please don't forsake us PBEM addicts.

Keep up the Good Work.

Sincerely,

Ken

[HMGs and Poor Visibility]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

I thought that was what Target Reference Points were there for, or have i misunderstood the question?

Er.. I don't think TRPs are for Heavy Machine Guns, or am I missing something.

Ken

[HMGs and Poor Visibility]

Bear in mind I've never served in the military and haven't read any books devoted specifically to small unit tactics. My question relates to a deficiency in the CM game engine and I am wondering just how much it effects the realism of Combat Mission.

It's my understanding that if the crew a Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) had the time and visibility, then they would establish a "Beaten Zone" (not sure if that's the correct term) in key areas that were likely avenues of approach for the enemy.

In other words, they could pre-register the HMG for low visibilty/night conditions.

I have read several accounts of HMGs being used to good effect (as far as suppression) at night or in fog/smoke.

As it stands now, HMGs (in CM) are very much reduced in long-range suppressive ability in Low-Vis conditions, because they lack the ability to employ "Beaten Zones".

Can any Grogs or military/servicemen give their thoughts on this as far as realism?

To my mind, this is something that could be addressed in the new game engine as far as realism.

[Edited for: Heavy Machine Gun = HMG]

Thanks in advance,

Ken

[ January 12, 2004, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]

[Unconfirmed bug - dynamic flags (again)]

I have just about given up on Dynamic Flags working properly when a map (created in the Scenario Editor) is imported into a QB (at least in CMBB, anyway).

I don't seem to be able to select them in a QB and they don't seem to be random when chosen automatically by the computer.

This has been a big disappointment as far as replayability on the same map. The only way I can see around this problem is for a third party to purchase the forces each player wants in the Scenario Editor (thus creating a scenario as a QB) and then sending the file back and forth for the Defender to set-up first. Then the third party would have to place the attacker's units in the appropriate set-up zone in some reasonable attack formation. Extra turns would have to be allowed for the attacker to move units where he would personally want them.

There must be an easier way around this and still keep the Dynamic Flag in a QB.

Maybe someone else has an idea?

Thanks,

Ken

[Historical Frequency of Jams]

I am looking through my book "Blood Red Snow" by Gunter K. Koschorrek (combat on the East Front) for his comments on ammo for his MG. I can't find it yet, but I recall him mention more than once his problems with jams from shellacked (steel?) cartridges. Apparently, there was a shortage of brass in the German arms industry, and they were using steel that was shellacked to replace brass (hope I remembered that correctly). Anyway, the experienced veteran would always save 2-3 belts of "good" brass cartridges for the critical moments with his MG(like when Ivan was doing a human wave in his direction and only a 100m away).

So in his case, ammo and experience played a part in how he survived (or very nearly did not).

For what it's worth,

Ken

[MasterGoodale's Thread of Cheery Waffles, Maggots, and Lost penguins]

Originally posted by Axe2121:

Dear Lurker,

He who goes by the name MasterGoodale perished in an unfortunate accident in his New Hampshire home while trying to rid it once and for all of mold, ants and mice.

His solution was copious amounts of TNT.

No remains were ever found.

Actually, he posted less and less after he got Call of Duty. His last post said he may return someday. Keep your fingers crossed it never comes to that.

But you know what they say about bad pennies....

Ok... So it was nothing serious (that kept him away).

Thanks guys.

Ken

[Why does the Flak not fire at the airplanes?]

Redwolf

Thanks for the explanation on the AA: gun vs vehicle bug. This will come in handy for my scenarios.

Thanks,

Ken

[MasterGoodale's Thread of Cheery Waffles, Maggots, and Lost penguins]

Excuse the interruption.

Whatever happened to MasterGoodale, anyway? His CM Forum career was like a bright star, flying across the heavens. Now, his only legacy is this thread and the peculiar form of aggressive communication found here.

Er.. Or is the answer for this found over in that section on how to do a screen shot?

Sincerely,

Lurker in Limbo

[Flank attack in operations]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

One possible work around is to make it a series of connected battles, rather than as an Op. This can be done by creating one map, then making one copy for each battle. You can then go in and customize each scenario in ways not possible in an Op.

We need a third party to serve as a Game Manager to set-up the battles (establish set-up zones, reinforcement spawn points, etc.). After the first battle of the Op, the turn (with passwords) would be sent to the GM. The GM would resolve any operational movement that effects the battle (reinforcements), establish supply, casualties, recovery of bogged/damaged vehicles, etc. The GM would then send the 2nd Battle of the Op back to the players (with new passwords) with perhaps a short briefing or Intel report.

However, I'm not sure how much beer and pizza the two players would have to offer someone to GM their Ops, but it might be worth it as far as realism.

My 2-cents,

Ken

[what should be in briefings?]

Warning: Off Topic

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

...Ultimately though the point made to me by one of my collaborators that the game should be fun is the over riding factor...

Amen. While it's nice to fight a historical battle, I'll take fun over history, any day of the week (it is a game after all).

I am playing a PBEM battle from the "Kursk Pack" (Opening Day?) as Soviet. I failed to notice the ground conditions are set to "Wet" until I heard gumblings from my German opponent about bogging. I immediately sent an e-mail back suggesting we load the game into the Editor, change the ground conditions to "Dry" or "Very Dry" and start over.

While I'm sure the ground conditions were "Wet" on the day of the actual battle, it will be much more fun in the game to destroy the invading host in honorable combat, than to have them bog a 100m off the startline.

Off Topic and my 2-cents,

Ken