Jump to content

Carl Puppchen

Members
  • Posts

    279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carl Puppchen

  1. I just did a write up of artillery tactics. I am sure someone will come and carve it up
  2. I took the old favorite "Our Backs to the Volga" and converted the map to CMAK and created a scenario for it that I posted out on Scenario Depot. It plays differently because there are no factory tiles in CMAK so I had to adjust the buildings a bit with rubble and multi-hex buildings because you can't move from square to square across a typical multi-hex building. Like all my scenarios, it has "random" reinforcements to spice up play a bit. The piece density is lower than the original by far... I played the original volga as Germans and was overwhelmed by how much work there was to do (and the fact that I play many of my turns at night slightly intoxicated didn't help ) so I moved up the flags closer to the action and reduced the number of guys. I also posted up one called "Water Struggle" that has an axis assault on 3 sides across a river with dynamic flags AND random reinforcements. I also posted up a test scenario and some tips on river crossings at my home site for CMAK which is http://www.carlstumpf.com/combat%20mission/CMAK_New/combat_mission_home_new.htm You can also find this by going to carlstumpf.com and clicking on the picture. Hope you enjoy them!
  3. I love CMAK (look at my handle) but I think that SL / ASL was better at differentiation by nationality - unique aspects like Finn self rally, American repair and plentiful ammo, and of course the Japanese. The ASL / SL model for leadership was maybe not better overall but I liked the fact that a dead leader caused a morale check for a unit that it was stacked with, and the fact that the Germans had a higher # of leaders relative to the Russians which abstracted a lot of items well. I also like the pre-AFV morale check - it takes a lot of guts to run and assault an AFV - although CM does do a good job of showing the reaction to this item (general routing and running away). Their method of handling panzerfausts may not have been superior in terms of realism but it made them more effective weapons - mine tend to never shoot! I also liked the deliberate immobilization option for AT guns and ATRs... can't do this in cmak, but it tends to be an outcome (or a gun hit!) if you ping a tank enough that you can't kill outright. I think that CMAK allows tank "riders" too soon - in SL / ASL it was the russians in 1942 (I think) and everyone else in 1943... I have the Italians riding tanks in 1940! Platoon movement was a requirement for AFV's without radios - I don't know if this was more realistic, but is surely made these weapons more difficult to handle. But I couldn't agree more that, overall, the CM series is far superior because you don't need a PHD in arcane rules to play the game. I also routinely made mistakes (in terms of rules, not tactics) that impacted the outcome. This doesn't happen in CMAK because it can't.
  4. I am glad someone else is able to share the feeling I had when playing SL and trying to survive an onslaught with my few forces, well led, hanging on for dear life. I also agree that the designer notes for SL were very well written - I kept my old SL manual and still pull it out from time to time. I like the passage where they refer to the commander who was killed by a sniper and his troops just stood by, weeping, because they thought he was immortal. The concept of the soviets being a brittle, leaderless mob (in the early years) was very appealing and seemed to model real life. In my opinion, this is the key thing - not the complexity of a simulation, but its ability to show the KEY factors that impacted the real-world. There are a million potential ways to model leadership, but SL took a relatively simple approach, and it SEEMED to model the real world effectively. I am sure many grogs would say that it didn't model the real world effectively, but it is not obvious to me that other models do a better job of this. I also liked the commisar role, which they get rid of about the time of Stalingrad. I don't know if it was realistic but, coupled with "berserk" status, gave the soviets unique characteristics. I think that the system didn't model the soviet resolution on defense very effectively. If you look at their performance, they generally fought to the last bullet on many occasions, such as the fortress in Brest early war. Certainly very large forces surrendered in encirclement battles, but elsewhere the common refrain is that the soviets fought to the last. The Finns were shown to be very independent and well led forces, able to rally without leaders. This was a very important ability and also let their forces fight well against a stronger enemy. This is kind of lost in CMBB, although they are armed with SMG's which gives them a distinct advantage in close quarter combat. One other force that seemed to be under-modeled in SL / ASL were the US Marines. From Wake Island to Tarawa to Iwo Jima the US Marines were extremely well led and dedicated fighters, nearly fanatic as would be defined in the system. Early war elite Japanese infantry (naval marines, too) would be in the same category. It is one thing to fight to the last bullet from a defensive position, it is another thing to bring the offensive to the enemy in spite of horrendous losses and exercise independent decision power on the battlefield that saves fluid situations.
  5. The other bonus to not packing your squads in buildings on top of each other is that a smart opponent will do what we refer to as rubblin'. This basically means you pre-emptively stand off and level likely sources of enemy troops. It does take a while, and you need decent direct fire HE (not usually off board arty), but it is a very effective tactic. The "threat" of rubblin' drives my deployment tactics - this also makes rubble a more appealing place because it can't be further reduced, although this does cause more casualties (than being in an intact building) if they use off board arty.
  6. I have the same problem with marders, and they face the right way
  7. I am putting this topic here rather than in the main forum because it seems less nuts down here... I am sure many of the people in this forum played squad leader (SL). One of the most mind-blowing (to me, at least) qualities in this game was how they tried to mimic troop quality overall and show how a well-led and high morale force could defeat a more numerous and potentially better armed rival. I am not just referring to the Germans vs. early war allies, also the British vs. the Italians under O'Connor. To some extent this was made more generic in battlefront. Squads are squads - if you have a romanian 10 individual platoon w/rifles and an LMG and a german 10 individual platoon w/rifles and an LMG they will play out exactly the same (assuming the level of experience is the same, of course). The # of leaders is the same for all forces. The # of troops in the HQ varies, which makes the HQ more or less brittle. The US seems to have larger HQ's even than the Germans. You can change the 0/+1/+2 capabilities on 4 dimensions of leadership, and this does impact the game. I recently revisited this thought again when I was reading "the blitzkrieg myth" by Mosier. Now this book is controversial - I realize that - but in the end he says the advantage of the Germans over their opponents came down to leadership and a quick reaction time at the front, not weapons or overall tactics. I realize that I can mimic a more well led German force by increasing the experience level and also by making their leaders more effective, and doing the reverse on the other side. It does not seem to have the same level of impact as the additional leaders did in SL, however. If you make the Germans veterans and the allies regular, you impact the game some, but not a ton. I am not attempting to open the whole "Germans are supermen" thread - but I do think that their leadership cadre is what allowed them to fight and win especially against the British in the desert and to hold on for so long against the Russians, when the soviets had more and better equipment and the advantage of numbers. It also accounted for their frequent counter-attacks when objectives were taken. Also perhaps I am trying to rationalize why I play the axis and lose more than I win against the Allies
  8. Hey that is a great idea! I never would have thought of that. I don't usually think "out of the box" My water assault will now be moved to the proper period. Just for grins I looked at your profile and saw that you were a futures trader... I work for the MERC in their technology dept.
  9. Thank you. I see them. It appears that the germans get the boats in all months (or at least a bunch that I checked) in the Italian theater but don't get them in the east african, north african or crete theaters. It would be nice if they had boats in the north african theater to simulate an assault on Malta. But I will take what I can get
  10. I was trying to create a non-historical scenario featuring an axis river assault about the time they could have perhaps attacked malta. The axis doesn't seem to have assault boats in this or any time frame in cmak. Is this true?
  11. I highly recommend that tank museum in belgium. Plus the park that it was in had a lot of other nice museums.
  12. Hey Znarf I agree that it is nice to have all the slots. I enjoyed a thousand ways to die
  13. I setup a number of scenarios for PBEM play. They are at the scenario depot under Carl Puppchen or can be found at this link. http://www.carlstumpf.com/combat%20mission/CMAK_New/combat_mission_home_new.htm Of course, I am not the best designer out there
  14. The scenario "Our backs to the Volga" is one of my all time favorites. I was wondering if I could borrow the map for a "random reinforcements" scenario for PBEM play that I created for CMAK. I converted the map over from CMBB to CMAK using the conversion program. Unfortunately there are no "factory" tiles so I had to use rubble, rough and the occasional building hex (you can't move hex to hex in buildings unlike factory tiles). I sent an email to "capitalist dog in china" who created the original scenario but it bounced back. A beta version can be found here on my random reinforcement cmak site. I will post it on the scenario depot if there aren't any issues w/using the map. http://www.carlstumpf.com/combat%20mission/CMAK_New/combat_mission_home_new.htm Thanks again for the great map and scenario!
  15. Aarrgh... I just posted a new version of my scenario "Bulge Exit Random" out at the scenario depot because the current version won't work. Thanks for the help.
  16. Sorry if this was answered before but I was looking to see if points were received for exiting prisoners off all sides of the map boards or only the sides of map that your side "controls". Does this matter? Also I am trying to confirm if barbed wire "blocks" half tracks or not. I know that tanks cross it with a risk of bogging. The wire seems to remain after the tanks have crossed it (not like engineers that can get rid of them I believe). Thanks for any help.
  17. I am wrong... can't set up a barrage in a meeting engagement. Just tested it out. Must have been an assault when my opponent caught me.
  18. I bought it for the desert and plus I love the game system... each time improvements from CMBO to CMBB to CMAK. One thing I learned quickly that I didn't anticipate is that the German victories so heavily due to tactics and not equipment. It was sad that the british failed to use combined arms tactics and cost so many lives as a result. When I do a battle vs a human and we both pick forces I frequently get my butt kicked playing the Axis. British equipment really wasn't that bad. That never really sunk in until I started playing CMAK. I have been surprised that not many people emphasize the battles for Crete.
  19. If you have a spotter with your forces in an ME can't you do a firing plan and put down zero extra turns?
  20. Jason C does write great posts. On defense my 2 cents is that even if your guys aren't in great positions think 10 times before moving them - they get cut to pieces between cover and lose the advantage of foxholes, and you might lose ammo on your mortars and they can't hit TRP's once moved. Sometimes sticking to a not-so-good plan is better than taking big lumps trying to fix it.
  21. The first time my opponent used what we call "rubblin' ". I setup like I usually do against the AI, in heavy buildings, and waited for the enemy to come. He just stood off from range and pre-emptively leveled all the large buildings with high caliber direct fire HE and smashed my best guys to pieces or sent them scrambling to lousy positions. Now it is tough because if you give up all those positions UP FRONT then your opponent has an advantage - also he knows I give them up (most of the time) so now he targets the LESS "good" positions where I put my people instead of the good positions and now they suffer casualties and can't return fire. Also the first time my opponent used the 'wall of guns' trick where you buy 15 20mm AA guns and ping the tanks to death by hitting them on the gun, tread, etc... The tactic of setting up mines adjacent to road blocks is a very good one. Also TRP's are awesome - you can target likely positions and call down a nasty barrage on the enemy. A semi-crazy plan is to figure out how far from the back end you can setup in a meeting engagement since typically you put your guys as far up as possible from the map edge (in a QB) to "race" for the objective. The computer sets the same distance for both opponents. Then lay down a turn 1 barrage right on the road at that point which sends everyone reeling and off trucks, tanks, etc... while your guys merrily run to the objective. A less crazy plan is to let the opponent take the objective in a QB but then pummel it with very high caliber HE - like above 150mm - this can cause HUGE casualties if they land on target - especially if the target is woods and you have a good LOS for your spotter. Usually turn 1 in a QB sometimes no one moves at all since you are at an advantage to wait for the enemy to move and shoot first, then move late in the game towards the objective after having beaten up the enemy. Good luck!
  22. As far as playing unbalanced scenarios, one way to indirectly balance them is to shorten the # of turns. Typically the attacker does OK throughout the game but in the last few turns when the defender breaks and runs out of positions or when their AT assets are killed, that is when the battle becomes a rout. If you have a battle with a few hard pressed defenders take 10-15 turns off the time limit - the attacker will have to be much more aggressive which will often (although not always) cause more casualties and leave your defenders in "good order" for a longer period of time. Another way to balance the unbalanced is to make a few of the attackers have to "exit for points". If they don't exit they count as casualties which adds a whole new wrinkle to the game because not only do you need to take the objective you need to screen off these units from enemy fire AND drive them all the way across the board. The final difficulty is that once you move them off the board they can't help you by firing on the enemy, so your force multiplier goes down. Of course, I tend to lose the scenarios that I design, so what do I know
  23. I usually play vs PBEM because both my opponent and I are constantly improving our respective strategies and it is fun to try to out-guess a human. Vs the AI I usually play at night when the wife is in bed and I have had a few drinks. I try to give the AI a big boost (at least 50%, maybe more) and a lot of times I will get beaten. If you play vs. AI you want to pick scenarios where they have a good chance. These scenarios are: - where they don't have artillery. The AI is terrible at arty - they don't plot well, anticipate or do much with TRP's - the AI is also terrible with mortars. They seem to drag them around the battlefield and don't shoot from an HQ. Don't waste their $$ on mortars or arty - the AI can't put people in trucks or halftracks. Don't expect them to use these vehicles - however, if you give the AI good armor, infantry and MG's - the AI can do OK on an attack, especially if you are outnumbered. You can give yourself lower ammo or casualties to simulate a pre-game bombardment. Expect a frontal attack like the russians would deliver, with little finesse. The AI tends to drive everyone at the same time so the vehicles arrive in dribs and drabs and the infantry later - scouting is poor and coordination is low - on defense, if you give the AI trenches, AT guns and infantry, the AI can put up a good fight. Often their positioning will be poor but if there is lots of terrain they can surprise you - certain eras are VERY challenging as the attacker. Take the italians or british on the attack in 1940 and early 1941 - they don't have much inherent HE capability at all - the italians especially tend to do poorly on the attack - if you can win with them, you are doing OK Thus the key IMHO is to pick AI forces that they can control, give them a boost, and maybe attack with a dis-advantageous group. I agree that a great AI is important - it is also good to have PBEM because even the best AI can't touch a human.
  24. I had the same exact problem with yahoo. Zipping is native if both sides are using XP. You get a bit of file compression, too. Yahoo just bumped up their limit on free disk space. Sometimes if you send a bunch of files it crosses a limit on the size of a particular email. I also use outlook at home which works even better.
×
×
  • Create New...