Private Bluebottle
-
Posts
198 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Private Bluebottle
-
-
About the C^4 stuff. I recently attended a conference where the point was made that its marvellous at telling you what your own troops are doing but patently useless at telling you what the enemy is doing. The speaker made the point that the US division commanders in the advance into Iraq in OIF, based themselves not to the rear, where all the computer stuff was but right at the front, exactly in the style that Guderian and others had advocated in WWII, purely because they didn't want to be swamped by information. I've also read reports from the users of all this stuff in the US Army that its about as reliable as a PC running an early version of Windows.
-
The American centric nature of both games means that I won't be as interested as I was in CMx1.
-
Why is it American centric? I was under the impression the UN consisted of a great many more nations than just the US.
Then there are the obvious problems of the US once more returning to the UN "fold", so to speak. I assume that one of the key assumptions is that there is a change of US presidency and a Democrat has been elected?
-
How about clearing mines? Surely the creation of mine lanes will be important. The use of mechanical and explosive means to clear mines, needs to be modelled as well.
-
I have only one major, great wish for CMx2 - that it come out for the Linux operating system.
After that, all others are comparatively minor.
-
That may be the case for the American side of the Pacific War but in New Guinea and Burma, combined arms was the norm, even if the actual actions were mainly short, little, vicious firefights at close range. Artillery, Armour, Infantry and other supporting arms, all played their part, even if Infantry was the queen of the battlefield.Originally posted by tools4fools:Not enough armor battles?
In game the US would have "übertanks" with Shermans or even with Stuarts. Japanese would have to use tons of "prototypes" to fight those. Not getting anywhere historically...
Would it be fun having big US arty and Shermans blasting away at Japanese infantry with little AT capability? Doesn't sound like intersting battles to me...
Would it be fun having your troops staggering around the jungle, fatigue kicking in real fast due to terrain, then suddenly close combat kicks in from some hidden defenders, unable to get reinforcements within time due to terrain...
Not very intersting either, smale scale infantry battle isn't CM kind of battle.
The moving combined arms battle would just not happen if they do it correctly, so much less interesting game play.
*****
-
If anything, the Pacific is far better as a theatre if CM is to be considered only suitable for company sized actions. Afterall, it was primarily an infantry war but there was in most theatres significant use of armour, albeit in smaller numbers than in Europe. In Burma, Malaya, Borneo, New Guinea, Java, the Pacific islands, tanks were utilised.
I suspect the real reason why we won't see a game about the Pacific War because battlefront aren't interested in it, rather than because its necessarily a theatre where CM scaled actions didn't occur.
-
I've read about Mapping Mission and its utility. I managed to download verion 1.15. Is there a later version which works with CM:AK as I have been unable to make it work with that game?
-
S.M.E.A.C.Originally posted by JonS:Personally, and in general, I'd like to see briefings presented in a format that I'm familiar with. So, the use of maps, black and white photos, and standardised orders formats. Even when that overall 'package' might not be applicable to the setting. The briefings (should) tell a story, and the multi-media bits are a means to that end.
Some people are better story tellers than others, and that'll always be the case. Still, adding tools to the toolbox enables the gifted and well as the lame.
Situation
Mission
Execution
Admin and Log.
Command and Sigs.
Situation - A brief description of the current situation, providing background as to what has occurred up to this point. It should also talk about intelligence on friendly and unfriendly forces. Known and suspected intentions.
Mission - stated in plain, no-nonsence language what the objective is of the operation.
Execution - How the objective is to be attained. Again in plain, no-nonsence language, detailing the tactics to be used.
Admin and Log. - Details of forces, attached units, logistics and resupply, etc.
Command and Sigs. - Commanders, authority, line of succession, etc. Signals - signals arrangements.
Just about covers it for me. Not bad for over 20 years since I last used it.
Thats what is needed, how to achieve it best is another matter. I don't want or need flashy "movies". I do want to have the ability to add maps, pictures (non-moving) and other types of information that will make me more aware of the situation, rather than some generic movie about some bloke nonchalantly driving a jeep up a hill, jumping out, seeing some enemy forces, swearing and jumping back in his jeep.
[ September 19, 2005, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
That's an awesome idea....has anyone thought of it before? Just when you think you've read it all.
Its a common method utilised by most GIS applications. Its been around for at least 20+ years that I know of.
Again, something that most GIS can accomplish without too much difficulty. Might need a lot of programming behind it, for all I know but Arc/Info, etc. can do it already.This would be extremely useful. Or give the ability to flip back and forth between two or more background images - that way if you had, say, a topo map and an aerial photo, you could work at tracing off of both of them in turn.
-
1) You owe me a turn.Originally posted by John D Salt:The trouble with CW, as I see it, is that chemical weapons are, to a first approximation, useless. Artillery carrier shells are not a great way to build up effective concentrations, and the incapacitating effects of most agents, at least prior to the nerve gases, is long compared to the typical duration of a CM battle.
All the best,
John.
2) Artillery can, if fired in sufficient quantity, build up effective concentrations of most WWI and WWII agents, for local effect. In WWI, artillery fired concentrations primarily for flank protection and counter-battery work. Its problem was that it took too long a time to build up the concentration when other, quicker methods such as the Livens Projector was available. The problem was that most of those quicker methods, were much shorter ranged than artillery, which is why quite sensibly, it was primarily used on the longer-ranged tasks mentioned. There are examples written about in a book I have on WWI chemical warfare where artillery though, was very effective in producing quick, localised concentrations when fired to counter counter-attacks.
3) In a WWII game, I'd expect to see chemical warfare limited to scenarios in China - where the Japanese did utilise chemical weapons. However, they were primarily short-ranged, tactical weapons, such as grenades, grenade-launchers, etc., which would make them ideally suited to CM. The results tended to be more moral than physical though, again, because it was difficult to produce large concentrations using such methods. Invariably only a few casualties would result and the rest of the defenders would flee.
-
Thank you, Michael. Of course I am. Modern warfare's speed couldn't be maintained without adequate maps. Modern armies (ie 20th century+ ones) maintain Ordnance Surveys, who's responsibility is the planning, preparation and production of maps of their own and other nation's terrain.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Bluebottle is quite correct on the importance of maps.
One of the biggest lessons that came out of the Boer War was the need for better navigation skills, first among officers and then, later among the other ranks. Armies today devote hundreds of hours to teaching navigation down to the commonest soldier. How to read maps, how to use navigation instruments, how to relate maps to ground and so on and so on. In WWII, the British Army alone produced several hundred hours of training films for the use of troops to teach navigation (I know 'cause I've sat through about 20 hours of them and bugger me, they're boring. Invariably the narrator suggests, "Look around for a tall object, such as a church steeple..." when discussing resections - not much use in outback Australia, I can assure you!).
The ability of the scenario designer to increase the "immersion" of the players and to provide them with necessary information to allow them to plan their battle would be of particular value I feel.
I'll add one other variable which I think would be useful - time. If the scenario planner could limit the amount of time available to a player to read and understand the briefing notes, it would add somewhat to the urgency of the matter. Perhaps a small clock in one corner, counting down the minutes. After that, only the text section of the notes would be available to be reviewed, to represent the problem of taking away maps/panoramic views from the briefing.
I like the idea you mentioned in the other thread of the use of overlays. That would be useful as well.
Like you, I'm not sure what Philippe thinks what happens during training in the Army but it appears he believes soldiers don't get taught navigation.
-
A unit "footprint" would be determined not by an arbitrary value but the terrain and the cover available to that unit.Originally posted by Kurtz:I'm a bit curious about this as well.
What was the squad footprint during WW2? 50x50 meters?
-
Originally posted by Philippe:
Just to clarify one of my comments from this morning, the genre I was referring to was a scenario designer's briefing, not the real thing. The real thing would not be hampered by misguided attempts at writing fiction (there are some real doozies out there). If you stumbled on one of those, I don't care who you are, if you don't know the code that wargamers tend to confuse with reality, there's no way you won't get befuddled. Apart from that, former contact with reality won't help a bit when confronted by bad fiction. In fact, it probably puts you at a disadvantage...
I've been wargaming for about 30 years now. I've seen/read a great deal of what has been written by and about wargames. I don't easily get confused about reality and wargames.
I suspect you're wrong. Armies cannot function without maps. The Soviets were a great deal less worried in WWII about "security" than they were about combat effectiveness. Most of the bull**** that grew up in the Cold War about maps and the fUSSR's military, came because of the reverse situation coming about.I suspect that briefings are a lot more lavishly appointed today than they were two generations ago. The Soviets were probably very abstemious about giving out their maps, and even more restrictive about who got to see them. And I'll bet nobody on either side ever got to hold a magic marker. So it may be a mistake to assume that the briefings of yesteryear were like the briefings of today.
As to what information is provided in a briefing in WWII, it depends upon the level at which it occurrs, how much preparation time is available and the amount of intel available to the commander, at the time. Same thing happens today. One thing though, that the subcommanders do know is the general lay of the land and that is what I'd like to know, as well, when I'm being briefed for a scenario. The easiest and best way is to provide a map to accompany the briefing.
You've never been taught how to navigate, have you, with a map and a compass? You don't need road signs. As long as a reasonable topographic survey has been undertaken and you have a compass, you can discover your location with a resection. As for not speaking the local lingo, its amazing how much information some cigarettes, nylons and chocolate can discover, through negotiation.One of the implications of all of this is that it is amazing that anybody managed to write coherent accounts of what happened. I have a funny feeling that in WW II most people were lost most of the time. Especially after the retreating army pulled out the road direction signs. I don't know what that town over there is, sarge, and I can't ask the locals cause they're all speaking French...
The ability of a scenario designer to add maps, pictures and other information to his briefing would be invaluable to the players. How much he adds or omits, should be though, up to him. An ability to load a html page into the game for scenario briefings would be IMO an invaluable addition to the game.
-
As long as you don't actively prevent it, I'll be happy. My fears were that you were intending to actively limit the scope of the game and actually prevent the deployment of units above a coy in strength on the map.
-
It is not lack of imagination, nor lack of familarity with the "genre". I spent 10 years in the army doing this stuff for real. Every briefing I attended or gave, had maps and/or aerial reconniassance photos when available. Its trying to figure out where the hell town XXXX is, road YYYY is and so on.
-
I'll name one immediately - Combat Mission, your own game. It is capable of simulation actions from section through to battalion, quite adequately, as it stands now.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Nobody simulates company centric wargmes. Name me one to prove me wrong
So we already are filling a niche, just not the one you want. And if we did go up to Grand Tactical then we would dispense with squads and teams. We'd have to in order to make the system viable to all but the few nuts that are crazy enough to want to play Regimental sized battles with the existing system.Steve
It appears to me though, that we may be speaking at cross purposes.
Tell me - will it be possible to have multiple companies of infantry/troops of tanks on the map, at the same time? Will it be possible to co-ordinate their movement/fire?
If the answer is yes, then you're not doing IMHO a "company sized game" but rather a battalion sized game.
-
I had, when I made my original comment. I still stand by it.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Sorry, you really need to go back and read the entire thread; you're just repeating the same uninformed posts from several pages ago. [/QB]
-
I'd hope that there may be something new in the way briefings are presented in CMx2. At the present moment, they are a slab of text, which are in my opinion hard to follow. In real life, briefings are invariably given with reference to maps and/or aerial reconniassance photos.
Ideally, what I'd like to see is an option for the scenario designer to include a simplified map of the battle area beside the briefing notes. The map should include the various reference labels which are present on the game map. The designer should be able to edit this simplified map, if they desire and remove labels/features.
This would enable players to read the briefing notes and refer to the map while doing so. I find it annoying and disconcerting to say the least to be thrown into a scenario without much in the way of, for want of a better term, "situational awareness".
-
Battalion sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a regimental action.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Company sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a battalion action.
It's a slippery slope. Anybody can draw a line in one place or another and say "this is it" and, provided the rest of the sim is geared towards it, make a decent case for the scale being correct. Close Combat, which was more or less a platoon level game, did a pretty good job of simulating things realistically. Small maps, detailed terrain, small units. Unfortunately, vehicles were more difficult to squeeze into that environment since their intended use was not supposed to be up close and personal. The denser urban maps balanced this out fine, but the more open ones bordered on a bad joke sometimes
In general, I think the optimal organization is 3 levels of command and one that is more or less a paper-pusher. For example:
Squad
Platoon
Company
[battalion]
Platoon
Company
Battalion
[Regiment]
Division
Corps
Army
[Army Group]
The more levels of command that are maintained, the less realistic and the more difficult the play. Especially the latter. Few CMers, as a %, want to play monster Regimental games. Yes, it can be done and some people only want to play that way, but I'd be shocked if this were more than a few % points of our total audience. With the game as it is we get those few people and the rest. If we prevert the game design philosophy to favor monster battles the % will change because the overall number of people interested in the game will drop off dramatically.
Hence the reason for keeping CMx2 the same as CMx1.
Steve </font>
-
Quite.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:
Personally, I believe that the scope of the game should be optimised for the battalion level game. It is at that level that most actions are fought, in most battles. Company sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a battalion action.
What do you mean by "optimized". If you read over this entire thread, you'll see that a battalion commaner has a much different perspective than a company commander. See my proposal for a Battalion Command game in another thread that I started and just bumped. </font>
-
My point is that that it nearly impossible to "stalk" tanks because it is too easy IMHO for the stalkers to be spotted and thence annilated before they can bring their weapons into play. In particular, I'd like to to be much harder to work out what each subunit is armed with, so that AT units don't specifically get targetted in the manner they presently do.Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):I don't think infantry got as many chances as they do in CM.
-
I decided to email the RAC Museum at Bovington about the matter and received this reply:
It appears I was incorrect, it wasn't HESH, per se but rather simply a bloody big HE charge. I apologise, in that regard.I have checked the `Service Instruction Book for the Churchill III and
IV, A.V.R.E. Fitted With Mortar, Recoiling Spigot, Marks I and II' First
Edition March 1944. This book provides information on the No.I.
Demolition Bomb. There is no mention of a H.E.A.T. version. However, the
shell is not described as being a H.E.S.H. type either.
The No.I. Demolition Bomb had a base filled with 25/75 Pentolite or 50/50
R.D.X./T.N.T. which was then sealed with wax before the main body was
filled with Nobels explosive 808. We believe the design of the No.I.
Demolition Bomb is too basic to be identified as H.E.S.H. type
ammunition.
The closest we can come up with an individual associated with the design
of the A.V.R.E. and its gun is a Canadian R.E. officer called Denovan
although there is little information about his work.
Re: Sir Dennis Burley
Another document The Armament Design Establishment `Development of
H.E.S.H. Shell by C.E.A.D. To June 1951' mentions that the Mk. 1 round,
designed in 1944, for the 6.5in gun was developed entirely by Sir Dennis
Burley. The 6.5 inch gun was designed for the Churchill A.V.R.E. Mk VII
and fitted into Centurion A.V.R.E.s. As you are aware, Sir Dennis
Burleys' work was on rounds for the recoilless rifle and there is no
evidence to suggest that he worked on the No.I. Demolition Bomb for the
290mm spigot mortar.
I hope this information is of help to you.
Yours sincerely,
Stuart Wheeler
Assistant Librarian, The Tank Museum
-
Actually, Nigel makes the point that HESH wasn't developed for the 25 Pdr, until after WWII. He doesn't say that British didn't have HESH or that it wasn't developed until after WWII.Originally posted by DEY:According to this site the Brits didn't have HESH ammo until after WW2
So we already are filling a niche, just not the one you want. And if we did go up to Grand Tactical then we would dispense with squads and teams. We'd have to in order to make the system viable to all but the few nuts that are crazy enough to want to play Regimental sized battles with the existing system.
Problem with NVIDIA card
in Combat Mission - Tech Support
Posted
I just installed a new NVIDIA GeForce FX5500 in my PC and I can't play CM. All I get is a constant rolling, at high speed image on the screen when I start the game in order to set the screen resolution. Its unreadable. Any suggestions?