Tarquelne
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tarquelne
-
-
Just curious: What were you wondering about - Harder in RL, or harder in CM? (Or both?)Originally posted by Sir Uber General:As the subject says...
-
Futher, facetious, money ideas:Originally posted by Treeburst155:[QB]Why not go all out and play this for money?
Allow the invited participants to wager as little or much as they wish. The more confident they are the more $$ they put on the line - hopefully "shaming" others to pony up more dough.
Not an especially healthy social dynmaic, but an intersting one.
Charge a fee to view the AAR website.
-
I like using them as extremely mobile sources of supressing fire. I need more than 1 for it to work well, since I like to have them stay well back, but I'll have them fire on a key infantry unit (an AT asset, generally) for a few turns, and then quickly move them (hopefully with cover) somewhere else, to supress another unit.When I get German halfies, I feel that they are of limited (to very limited) usefulness as support. I don't like them.This has also, with fair regularity, often helped cause my opponent to use his armor less effectively. If I'm on the ball, any units dispatched to deal with the HTs should find them half way accross the map before being able to fire a shot.
-
SB:
AS:I do find it interesting that you claim that a static defense would be inadequate to the task; would you then believe a more dynamic one to be preferable?
Which sort of defense do you think would "hold out" longer, given those unfavorable conditions?You joking? What I am saying is, on a large map, no turn limit, attacker wins by default.
With a broad front, no time constraints, the 50%pts advantage of the attacker will always win, period.
[/QB] -
Given that, shouldn't we think of a such an "inferior" force advancing against the enemy as force practicing a mobile/fluid defense, and a "superior" force which more or less sits still as a force practicing an "seige like" attack? (One assumes that the "superior" force's very presence is in some way hurting or threatening the enemy.)That he has physically and/or morally inferior forces is what makes him the defender, by definition. Otherwise he would/should be the attacker, according to Clausewitz.Or, we could admit that not all RL WWII commanders applied Clwtz. perfectly, and did, indeed, sometimes attack without the requistie "moral" superiority.
But rather than misunderstanding Clwtz, I think Scott B. was merely using "attacker" in the way it's commonly used - to refer to the advancing force. Not a misunderstanding, just a departure from Clwtz's terms.
I very much look forward to more exchanges between you and Scott. Very interesting!
-
Commanding a large CM battle while sleep deprived? I'm sure BTS would find your dedication to realism laudible. I hear CM:BB will come with some "starvation" pills (enzyme blockers or something) and a double handfull of uppers to help foster realistic Eastern Front game play.First off I was writing (and playing CM)
Only be sorry if you offended unintentionally. (That's a joke, btw - not trying to add fuel to the fire.)I am sorry if I offended anyone.
I'm not really fishing for numbers, but descriptions of your decision making proccess, and some of the most important variables.And the answer that your are going to get is, it depends on the situation. Okay that was a lame but true answer.
I understand. Hopefully after you've gotten some R&R, and have some free time (and the inclination) you can FULLY COMPLY WITH MY DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION!It is 5 in the morning here and I am going to go to bed, sorry if this kind of meandered but I wanted to give some example before I went to sleep.
And it's 8:30 in the morning here.
Before I babble in response to the rest of your message, I think I'll go rest my eyes.... for a few days.[ June 01, 2002, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Oh dear, I think that may actually be a worse interpretation of JasonC's argument than the job he did on yours. A catty smilie:Regardless I can give you a laundry list of opponents I have played and beaten using my "stupid AI" tactics.I'd consider JasonC's post a long implicit-request for more information. (Alternatively, you could ignore it and respond to my short-explicit request for information.
) -
Right - sorry. I should have written "last few AFVs. Or really, "How often has a scenario (or QB)outcome been largely determined by AFV exchanges during the first 1/3 of the game?"I'm one of those who consider defending not-that-much-harder but as for a game being dominated by the last AFV, never.That "might" happen in a 1000 point game
Some comments have made me wonder if, for some of those who say that defending is harder than attacking, the issue really revolves around the attacker's AFVs and how they're handled.
That'd match my personal experience. I used to think that successfully defending was harder than attacking. AND I used to have much more trouble handling attacking AFVs. Once I got the hang of that defending didn't seem so daunting. And, going back to the fluid vrs. static thing, I think my AT tactics improved when I started concentrating more on mobile AT assets (or at least using mobile units to lure or drive AFVs into ATG fire) and being more aggressive.
Priest:
Ok, fanboyHere is how I like a battle to go,
, I've got some questions. How often do your battles go that way? How far toward the attacker do you place your picket line? (Or it might be better to ask: How far back do you like to put your main line?) Finally, what % of MBTs would you need to KO to consider the opening ATG-based phase successfull?
-
I very much like the look of the dark one.
I look forward to installing it on the LAN and not telling anyone else about it. I'll make sure I get a Panther in the next game - should have some shock/fright value.
The light one makes me thirsty for... I dunno, a kiwi drink? I don't even like kiwi.
Just curious - Is it based off a known/historical paint job?
-
Drat. I had a bet with myself that this thread would be well off topic by page 8.
-
*&^%%$! Twice!
I blame the new color scheme.
[ June 01, 2002, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Argh! I hit "Reply with Quotes", not Edit!
[ June 01, 2002, 04:27 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
DP.
[ June 01, 2002, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
OT, but a guy I knew in college had a very funny story to relate about half a dozen vehicles (APC-types of some sort, I don't remember what they were) getting Immobilized during a training exercise.As to pushing bogged/immobilized vehicles, I've never tried to to this, but IRL there would be a VERY high chance that the pushing vehicleIIRC, it was at the bottom of a steep Slope in Scattered Trees (the CM terms seem apt). I have no particular reason to believe the story fictional, but it's hard to imagine how someone could have made up a story with more comic potential. (If you like slapstick.)
The 2nd through 4th vehicles all got stuck trying to move the Immobalized vehicles, the 5th was Abandoned because it had been driven too close to the top of the Steep Slope and was in danger of rolling, and the 6th ran into a Marsh and was Immobilzed as it "tried to run for help."
The first vehicle broke down when it hit a tree too hard.
(This might be something usefull to mention in the "Attack - what's harder..." thread, as a testimonial to the dangers of overconfidence.)
[ June 01, 2002, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
A question (for everyone): How often do you see a game dominated by the last AFV? (How common was that in RL, anyway?). I'm wondering (for reasons that can be examined if it's true) if this happens most often in games involving those who think defending is significantly more difficult.destruction of the enemy with the now "indestructable" HE thrower.I'm also interested in how often those who think defending is harder play armor-heavy games. (And no, I don't have a good definition for "armor-heavy", sorry.)
-
Not quite on topic, but:This, my friends, THIS is the moment when that pair of Stugs, or that platoon of HT mounted troops, or perhaps the concealed priest and M10 pair should burst out of their hidden flank position and reallt open up on the attacker.
I've found myself keeping more and more forces in "reserve" lately. Both as the attacker and as the defender. (More as the attacker, I think.)
I had a Tiger in a game recently, and I didn't bring it out until the game was 1/2 over. (At which point it kicked *ss!
) That Tiger was the majority of my armored might.Whenever I do this I feel like I'm missing many opportunities and wasting resources, but I've generally been glad I did it by the time the scenario ended.
How many of you do this? A standard tactic, or should I get some hustle and put that Tiger on the line when the fighting starts?
-
redwolf: Doesn't CM model the tendency of Hamsterstruppen to button up with little provocation? That'd make a big difference with the anti-M3 tactics vrs. anthropoid troops, wouldn't it?
[ June 01, 2002, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Wouldn't it be difficult for the AI to judge? I'm sure you can think of plenty of cases when you wouldn't want the crew to abandon an immobilized vehicle.Perhaps if NO order can be given the Tac AI can be more interested in saving the crews lives and have them "auto-abandon" immediately up immobilization? -
The cult has spread well beyond purely military matters. For example, most people are trained to attack an opponent's argument where it seems weakest. Which is a good "offensive" tactic, and used because it does, indeed, win arguments.cult of the offensive... The attitude he is expressing is one intentionally cultivated in modern US and NATO military training, for junior and field grade officers in particular. And it is every bit as dangerous todayFor example:
Is a great example of reformulating an opponent's argument into a weaker form. One's opponent will reject it - maybe just because you've pissed 'em off. It's usefull for convincing someone else (or yourself) that your opponent is wrong, but won't sway your opponent one whit. Not concerned about swaying your opponent? Then you're not trying to participate in a discussion, you're trying to win a game. Which is fine, in it's proper place.*apparently you see nothing insulting (your term) in claiming you always win because you are morally superior to everyone else in existence,Ignoring any qualifiers or further explainations ("the belief is important since it sets the tone for your decision-making cycle.") is also classic tactic used by this rhetorical "cult of the offensive."
(As are, of course, personal insults.)
OTOH, if you want to try to get at the truth, or just communicate effectively, you should be willing to attack an opponent's argument where it is strongest. If your opponet doesn't seem able to give a decent argument to attack then you have to try reformulating it. This can be as simple as assuming your opponent simply made a poor word choice. Yes, that does put more of a burden on you. But unless your opponent is completely wrong - which is unfortunatly rare - there is some degree of truth to be delt with. If you want to find it you have to remove the truth from the dross _and keep the truth_, not respond to the dross.
...But because it's more or less my profession, and I think it's important. This discussion, for example, seemed far more fruitfull when everyone was trying to understand just what the other person was talking about, and try to change his mind, not simply demonstrate that the other one is wrong.The reason I take this sort of thing seriously has nothing to do with Fionn personally, or even with CM.
*Speaking of "proper place" - I swear not to follow up on this subject at all in this thread.
But seeing the "cult of the offensive" mentioned again was too tempting.
-
I can agree with that statement. I'd just think people should wait for the shoe to be fully inserted.I think the community was originally receptive to another possible well of knowledge, it wasn't until our esteemed historian had about 1/2 his shoe in his mouth did it start to get ugly IMO -
Ok, fine:
He wasn't "branded a liar"... but there were a number of posts containing statements implying that he was a liar and a fake - generally through the tone. (How many times does someone need to read "Suspicious minds might" or the equivilent before taking it as an accusation? Maybe all of you have had your irony bones removed - if so, it should be in the forum's FAQ.) Considering the timing, I consider that "hostile". At the very least, it's rude.EDIT - I just reread the first three or four pages of this thread. At no point did I see P51 branded a liar, and at no point did I see anyone treat him with hostility, up until the point he declared he was being mistreated.None of you find anything rude, hostile or accusatory in the early thread's tone toward P-51D? Well - so far the highest member #'s I've seen in this thread are mine and P-51Ds. (The next highest is Salt's... make what you will of that.) So maybe you'll accept this: To a newbie, too many people sounded rude, hostile and accusatory to P-51D before he had a chance to give whatever references he was willing to give.
If none of you meant to give the impression you thought he was a poser before P-51D's second day, from where I'm sitting you simply failed.
But this, for me, is the heart of the issue:
There's no need for that. Show some restraint. Not forever - how about 6 posts or 24 hours, whichever comes first?Doubtless many (good contributors) have been "scared off"
Or, alternatively, if you don't like someone's tone don't be coy - go ahead and react with hostility! Employ sarcasm, veild accusations and strident demands to drive 'em off - just don't deny that your posts were nothing but sweetness and light afterword.
-
Watching this battle from my FO position, I think that AS may have missed that Fionn's full-scale counter attack is an extreme form of the "fluid attack", not the default form. If I've misunderstood, and the full counter attack is something Fionn uses every game, then the psycho-kinetic theory for Fionn's success might be true...Austrian Strategist's "siege like attack" vs Fionn's "Attack defense" would be a mighty encounterI think it's simply the fluid attack version of the "static defense." Like an extreme form of the passive-defense is a utterly static defense, an extreme form of the active-defense is a full scale counter attack.
I suspect that we all (with the notable exceptions of those involved in the Great Bunker Debate) agree on the theoretical issues, it's just the gritty real-world issues - the practicality and frequency of how the "ideal forms" manifest themselves - that are the real sources of disagreement.
This discussion game me a number of ideas on how to counter a fluid defense.... or at least a fluid defense run by an unsuspecting enemy. Making sure my opponent was aware of this debate, I arrainged for 105mm arty to fall behind a section of Woods the turn after the 81mm mortar started hitting one of his positions in those woods. Sure enough, he wanted to demonstrate "mobility", and ended up trying to withdraw through a 105mm barrage.
Later I used a HMG as bait and drew a counter-attacking platoon into a 81mm attack. Heh heh. I love guessing games. Huh... come to think of it, that's an example of using a static-type tactic on the attack.
[ May 31, 2002, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
"Doubtless many have been "scared off" as T has intimated"
Ok, in deference to this being MD's thread, which I've done more than my share in helping to pull OT, and because that's twice he's somehow supported something I've said
, I'm editing this post into a reply to his message, rather than JS's.Propaganda:
Yes.Perhaps you mean "legends" as opposed to mere "heroes"?
I guess what I was getting at is that I'm suprised they didn't exploit them more than they did - even to the point of manufacturing extra legends.
I'd overlooked the problem of the SS vrs. the army, and the party vrs. the army. I think that goes a long way toward explaining any lack of exploitation.
[ May 30, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
(I'll assume there's a typo in there.)his antics were going to win the war for the Germans, no matter how good he was.
I was suprised that the Nazi's didn't produce more war heroes, for propaganda purposes. Or did they, and I've just never heard of them because the fakes were quickly exposed and just not talked about after the war?
I don't find it at all strage that some are concerned about just how MW met his end. Some people find his story interesting, and want to know how it ended. No novelist would end the story "... or maybe a rocket from a Typhoon. Possibly."
_Particularly_ nasty? Other piranha? I apologize if I gave the impression that any alledged "bullying" here is the worst I've ever seen.particularly nasty either. He's in fact quite a gentleman, compared to some of the other piranha which inhabit this pool. I guess I just had higher expectations.
[/QB]
Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking?
in Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
Posted