Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Randell Daigre

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    103

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Randell Daigre

    Russia too strong in the Gold Demo

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    I just found out about Russia's collection of MPP's (while they are neutral) on another thread. Sounds like a real problem, but:

    -do they collect all their MPP's or only part?

    -if they only collect part, then what percentage?

    On the point of the delay, however, the demo ends a few months short of the historical date for Barbarossa. I, for one, intend on playing as many games as possible with everybody set on "Random" (in keeping with the spirit of "What if?").

    0

    Best / Worst Use of Armor

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Hit 'em a few times with Air Fleets and Armies first, until their entrenchment level is zero. After that the tanks don't seem to have any more problems due to terrain than anyone else.

    Just a casual observation. As Winterhawk said, I haven't actually sat down and taken notes, but it seems to work well.

    0

    Another post about U boats

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Sorry about the tirade, folks. I've been hearing (and reading) all my life from Europeans (and some Americans) about how America is only capable of winning battles and wars when it has overwhelming amounts of material and firepower. Comments such as:

    the American military hasnt used finesse since the war with Mexico.
    and:

    You gotta go with your strenghts, and operational and strategic military genius has not been one of them.
    tend to stick in my craw. I understand now that neither of you was saying that the U.S. is incapable of using finesse in war, just that it tends not to.

    Honestly, I will try to keep the temperture lower in the future. My sincerest apologies.

    0

    Another post about U boats

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Yes. As we all know, there was no finesse at all involved in the Gulf War. I mean, the fact that nobody predicted the allied forces' "left hook" around the Iraqi western flank doesn't count as finesse. And of course using roughly the same amount of troops and equipment as the enemy always counts as "brute force". The only people I've ever met who think that the U.S. military bases its strategies and plans on overwhelming numbers alone are people who have no knowledge of U.S. military thinking, little practical military experience, and no desire to correct these shortfalls.

    While it is true that the U.S. has used overwhwlming force (and numbers) many times in the past, this does not mean that we have ever been incapable finesse, merely that it is often the most prudent course to overwhelm the enemy if you have the forces available. I would, however, point out that while Montgomery was still picking his nose in front of Caen (an objective he was supposed to have captured in the first 24 hours of Overlord) Patton was busy outflanking and encircling the German forces in Northwestern France (an encirclment the Canadian Army let the Germans slip out of).

    0

    Camicie Nere's units mod

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Otto-

    Good points (and well-researched). Just to clarify a few things:

    I included "sloped armor" on the list mostly as a general principal. Sloped armor makes more efficient use of the metal that's there. Think how much more survivable the Tiger would have been with the same thickness of armor sloped at, say, 30 deg. from vertical (without adding any extra weight). It's just a better design principal. From what you said, it would seem that the main difference in the ability of a Tiger and a Panther to withstand a hit was the quality of the metal that was used. This would seem to indicate that Ferdinand Porche had the right idea in trading armor thickness (and weight) for slope.

    And once again:

    Originally posted by Otto:

    Words from an American tanker, (Tanks or WW2 documentary):

    "The Panther was definetely more suited to any operation where mobility was required,...

    Which basically means any operation involving a tank. Sorry to keep hitting on that one, but one of the most important lessons I've learned over the past ten years is that tanks move or they die. Sitting around waiting to get shot at is for grunts (and they don't like it either).

    BTW, the problem I was referring to with the gun-turret drive system of the Tiger was this:

    The turret was hooked into the same hydraulic system that operated the brakes. The system was set up in such a way that you could not traverse the turret while the tank was moving. Not actually that big of a deal, though, as it is nearly impossible to hit anything with the main gun of a moving tank anyway (unless you have a competent stabilization system, which nobody did until about 1965 or so). This design flaw may or may not have been corrected on later models of the tank, I'm honestly not sure.

    0

    Camicie Nere's units mod

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    "The Panther was a superior tank technically for all the reasons you listed, but the Tiger was simply better."

    I've been an M1A1 tank crewman for over ten years. In my opinion, if a tank has:

    Better power-to-weight ratio

    Better fuel efficiency

    Higher speed ( especially cross- country speed)

    Better mechanical reliabilty

    Sloped as opposed to "flat vertical" armor

    A better gun

    Better optics(can't kill what you can't hit)

    And a less cumbersome gun-turret drive system,

    then how can the tank it's being compared to be "just better"?

    Panzer Lehr brings up the most salient point, however. The whole idea behind tanks is mobile warfare. If you make a tank that can deal death to all while standing still, but has little or no tactical or operational mobility, then some jet jockey, rotorhead (or Mustang driver) is going to turn that tank into a column of smoke and flame while the enemy tankers bypass it (laughing up their sleeves the whole time)

    [ July 22, 2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

    0

    notes from a guy who played the demo

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    I don't know how far ahead the AI in SC looks, but I categorically can not get the AI to actually excute a Sea Lion or a Barbarossa. I have gone so far as to declare war on all the minors (even Switzerland and Ireland) to remove all possible distractions. I then proceeded to disband every unit I could and had the Royal Navy commit suicide by attacking ports as far from Britain as possible (Med Fleet and Atlantic Fleet). All of this was done with FOW off, so the computer could see I wasn't hiding anything, and the highest level of difficulty set. The AI response was a massive buildup on the Russian border that never quite turned into an invasion.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...