undead reindeer cavalry
-
Posts
1,224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by undead reindeer cavalry
-
-
as long as the telepaths have their mana levels on green there is no need for command delays as the orders are transmitted to men instantly using various telepathic methods. though once the mana has been drained, the men are forced to use archaic ape-like primitive communication methods, like verbal suggestions, hand signs, whistles and low technology devices utilizing radio waves.
-
While splitting off a team may not fit real world Syrian doctrine
the kind of splitting discussed is in no way against Syrian doctrine. there is no military force on this planet that has such a tiny squad footprint as currently forced. but i admit, my interest for this game has reached the zenith many moons ago already, so i am just talking as i walk by.
-
Testers come in for even more abuse because they often post with a more enlightened understanding of what's going on since they are able to see "inside" to a degree regular customers can not.
perhaps share some of the Secrets with the Unwashed? perhaps if we primitive natives knew more of the inner workings of the Holiness (also known as CMx2 engine) we could understand the design & implementation decisions of the CMx2 universe a bit better and as a consequence protest less when we misidentify an issue as an outrageous crime against all that is good and proper in the world we are trapped in. we insignificant natives do not hold secrets of fire & metal; we can't construct rocket spaceships to lauch us up to the infite worlds of gods above us. no Nazi saucers are beaming us to bases in Antarctica or Moon. we are trapped down here, praying for Reveleations on the Mysteries of this world. in misery we tread the path randomly, blind & deaf, and the path is full of traps and plague. flying serpents, famine, zombies and 80mm StuG fronts torment us day after day. oh reveal to us the secrets of fire so that we can fight the hordes of darkness!
-
yup. you have to remember they took quite a beating when Shock Force came out. stuff like that leaves marks. those bruises take a while to heal, on all sides.
i think at least one part of all the frustration, on both sides, comes from the lack of documentation. is something a feature or a bug? how is something supposed to work? how do things work in general? what affects what? why is it important that feature X is done the way it is done? it's hard to understand the big picture or the technical ramifications when you are given hardly any info on the inner workings. it was, and still is, a hard fight to get that kind of info sucked from the Keepers of Mysteries.
-
just learn to take some of that stuff as a comical aspect. don't take it so seriously, as annoying as it can be. we all have our faults and you have to understand that the poor guy is acting as a sort of PR guy for a business. since when have those guys been known for solid objectivity?
Steve at least listens and after he has been cornered good enough he will later do what needs to be done, if it can be done, even if he doesn't acknowledge it openly at the moment. or someone else gets it done, what do i know. it may take months or years but some of that stuff has been done and Steve admits it himself just a few posts ago. he may not GET IT immediately, and thus throw the rationalization tantrum, but later he just may get it. also remember that the game is his baby, so it's just natural that he may be a bit defensive.those poor BFC bastards have earned with CMx1 at least one or two more shots at making a decent game before we lynch them for good. what comes to "explaining things away", it's just his opinion anyway, what does it matter. you can always laugh and call his rationalizations ridiculous piece of **** if it really warrants it. no need to get all sad and bitter. it's most likely some technical limitation that is forcing some game functionality decision anyway. perhaps some game design calls have been bad from a wargaming perspective, but at least things are moving to the right direction. when you accept the nature of things and expect less, you will not get so disappointed. you will also in time get to like the guy a bit more, with human failings and all that. what's not to like in a stubborn bastard? every now and then he also makes a very good point. it's not like he is always wrong.
-
usually those players who choose Tiger IIs are rather bad players. on two occasions i have taken out Tiger IIs with a AT-mine & tank hunter combo. the Tiger stupidly drives into mines, gets immobilizes and a bit later KOed by nearby tank hunters. never underestimate human stupidity, especially when there are only a few turns left and the opponent feels he needs to do something.
-
Is the 'best' tank the one in individual combat or the one you need to win the war?
tanks or men do not really fight the battles in wars, it's the units of higher structure that do the wrestling. that higher level stuff is always far more important than some weapon system specs. in that sense the question of having the best tank to win the war is a bit pointless, as the answer is "pretty much any tank; the tank does not matter". it would make more sense to argue about various unit structures and doctrines, or specific officers. economics perhaps, but that part is fairly deterministic and leaves less room for opinion versus hard data.
while the other group go for the best tank to win the war: T-34 and Sherman.yeah, if Soviets would have had Pz-IVs instead of T-34s, or Westerners Panthers instead of Shermans, they would have lost the war, right?
So to cut through the Gordian knot, I posed the question - what was the best tank for Germany to win the late war? Using that to draw out the attributes that are needed by the 'best tank to win the war".
the one with well trained working parent organization and reasonably protected skies.
What tank attributes were critical for winning these battles?no tank attributes were critical for winning those battles.
-
i'm just posting a pointless thumbs-up for adding FOW weapons positions and foxholes. superb stuff! very promising that you wanted to do this enough to find a way to do this and find time to implement it. excellent. i am looking forward to getting the game in my hands.
-
ok, so we are stuck with no FOW field works. it sucks and all that. i will die a little everytime i see a squad, or much worse a crewed weapon like an AT gun, positioned outside the position they did sweat for for hours to create, as it does a great deal of damage to the sense of really being there (and is damn ugly intellectually). i can deal with it. i will cry. then start to issue new orders as the sobbing slowly ceases and my mouse hand doesn't tremble too much any more.
so, that being done with, what about improving the way things are currently done in CM:SF? for example trenches can't be positioned freely (like in CMx1 for example), but must follow certain rough angles. they also are very shallow and do not offer too much cover. foxholes even less. perhaps make a few variations about them, like with overheard cover or some extra depth? this isn't that hard to add and i guess some of this is already planned (i haven't really followed this forum for a while). what about letting the player to position the trenches?
EDIT: OK just read the other thread. very happy to see that player can position trenches during the setup phase.
-
i somehow had missed this and was a bit surprised when i read it in a Finnish military analysis.
by 2015 the majority of conscripts in Russia will be Muslim.
so how many decades does it take for Muslims to creep up the chain of command? in 2050 half of the generalship is Muslim?
what a wonderful array of tongue-in-cheek hypothetical future wargame scenarios this allows.
-
Steve,
i don't know if you read it, but in my post i wrote "i don't think you really want to simulate stuff like how far the conscript commander's eye is from the display, what the exact air huminidity level is etc". you just appeared to think your sceario was very complex, when in fact it was trivial in its simplicity what comes to the models used by some military simulations.
what comes to your "approximate evaluation", you appeared to think there are no hard answers. the only way to do it, would be to tweak some made-up parameters patch after patch until things would feel right to you. you are wrong. there are definite answers to these types of questions. there are decades of studies (with real world experiments) about this stuff. the whole point is not needing to guess about the real world stuff. how you utilize all that data is up to you.
BTW there are very general models out there, not just "very narrowly defined" studies. please do some reading if you are interested.
As far as I'm concerned, CMx2 is a better model for simulating the modern battlefield than anything else out there. Specific programs might do specific pieces better, but none that I'm aware of has the depth and breadth that CMx2 does. -
Really? News to me. So, since you probably have the equations at your fingertips, what's the answer to my question?
"how long would it take a Conscript BMP commander to see an Abrams at 301m, at 12:32 with the sun in back of him, after a reasonable night's sleep, with nobody else shooting at him, while... etc., etc. "
I'm dying to know
your scenario is too vague. too many missing parameters
Seriously, as far as I know there is no comprehensive study with equations for any of this stuff. There are rules of thumb and/or equations that are extremely "brittle" we can go by. There are questionable, though generally useful, mathematical attempts from people like Dupuy. Lots of stuff out there that isn't applicable due to scale as well. But ready-to-go equations that cover tactical warfare in detail compatible with CM's needs? Never heard of any so if it exists it would be interesting to check out.
i think even very basic ACQUIRE type model would suit CM level. the basic equations are pretty simple (relatively speaking) and are surprisingly accurate when compared to real world trials & exercises.
for a quick starting point for further reading see for example http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2006/ARL-TR-3833.pdf . it is a bit dated though, missing several of more modern models.
if i were you, i would contact NVESD (www.nvl.army.mil) and ask for their most recent revision of the NVThermIP model -- it doesn't necessarily require military clearance or governmental sponsor, so they just might approve BFC. for a brief demo of NVThermIP see this slide show: https://www.sensiac.gatech.edu/external/products/models_simulations/nvtherm_demo.html or this manual: http://www.zieg.com/links/sensors/NVThermManual5.pdf (note: old revision of the model).
if they don't, and you don't want to get into governmental stuff, just go for less restricted model or create your own based on your specific needs.
there's lots of data out there and it covers in practice everything you will ever need. the stuff you have pointed out are nowhere even close the outer edges of current research. the difficulty is rather to choose where to set the limits of simulation and what it is that CM really simulates (e.g. should you perhaps rather go towards Agent Based stuff, see for example http://www.dodccrp.org/files/IC2J_v2n2_02_Dean.pdf).
anyway, if you really want to get using these types of equations i suggest getting a book called "Electro-Optical Imaging System Performance" (be sure to get the most recent edition, which i think is 4th). it will save you lots of time.
another practical shortcut would be to use a very simple equation together with hand picked stuff from various field experiments (i don't think you really want to simulate stuff like how far the conscript commander's eye is from the display, what the exact air huminidity level is etc).
-
Not only that, but there isn't a lot of hard information to go on in terms of things like "how long would it take a Conscript BMP commander to see an Abrams at 301m, at 12:32 with the sun in back of him, after a reasonable night's sleep, with nobody else shooting at him, while... etc., etc. Combine this with physical properties of the vehicle itself... it's extremely complicated.
i hope you mean "hard information" in the sense of giving the player some numbers. not "hard information" in the sense of having a source that tells you the real world probability of detection, because such sources exist in numbers. 50 years of studies out there, with neat and tested straightforwad equations waiting for your input parameters.
-
yeah, platoons have firepower superiority from around 350 meters, depending on actual unit types and such. if the platoon has an ID, they can just shoot out a HMG on a foxhole. at around 400 meters the platoon is likely to run out of ammo. HMG remains an annoyance to around 600 meters (causing some losses but does not stop a platoon) after which the fire becomes totally meaningless (something like 1 casualty for all ammo).
the advance & hide combo is a bit too effective. it takes an optimal situation, which is not likely met in actual battles, for HMG to succesfully stall an infantry advance.
i do not think HMGs should be more lethal, but i think they should pin down infantry for longer periods and have lower ammo consumption.
-
Also why do the MG teams open up at approx 300 metres, surely the crew can spot the advancing infantry, remember those 6X30 binoculars!
because MG fire is useless in CM at ranges upwards from 300 meters, and the game engine knows it. firing would be just waste of ammo.
-
i thought it would be obvious, but when i write "300+ meters", i do not mean ranges UNDER 300 meters, i mean ranges upwards from 300 meters.
so start with the platoon at something like 500 meters and open up with the HMG42s.
-
Adam,
JasonC knows that HMG42 is useless against infantry at 300+ meters. he most likely opens fire at under 200 meters. which one must do anyway, because otherwise the MGs will just run out of ammo.
-
talking about Omaha is totally pointless without addressing specific sectors.
it was NOT a case of infantry being caught in flat open field, receiving MG fire from 300 meters, and just advancing forward.
-
there are a number of studies and reports on those subjects. typically it's something like 25% do most of the actual fighting, 60% just hang around, 15% are actively "missing".
the difference between results of military trials and actual combat is huge. combat lethality is about 10% of that of trials. losses are spread differently as well, in combat losses are mostly missing (temporarily) and wounded.
aimed fire at targets caught in open is lethal. usually you just don't get that kind of situation. the enemy makes use of cover and you yourself are likely to receive fire. men are also pretty scattered, so that you have only a couple of shooters at a handful of good targets. you get to fire a number of shots and then the moment passes.
the problem with CM is that it's just a game that is trying to be entertaining. battles are supposed to have interesting events and they shouldn't take too long to play. also the inner mechanics of the game are rather limited.
what comes to pavement tiles, they aren't that different from open ground.
-
I have a couple questions on that. First, how far apart should a squad be spread out, and are the men in pairs or singles or what?
a squad is supposed to have a footprint 50 meters wide when on defence. when moving it depends on factors like formation.
WW2 era field manuals and such are a handy source for quick checks on stuff like that. reality was different from field manuals, but it gives a general idea of how things were supposed to be done by book.
Any leads? Short of a trip to the city I haven't been able to find anything like that.giving leads is hard because the subject matter is so huge and there is so much data out there. it ranges from general Operations Research to neurological details of human biology. if you google, try to use as formal terms as possible (e.g. "target acquisition" instead of "spotting"). you might want to first google sites that publish military studies, raports and papers and then try to find good stuff with their internal search engines.
on the subject of WW2 rifle / LMG fire i would recommend as a good starting point an old paper called "Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon". it's available for free as a PDF over here http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD000346 but the quality of that scan is truly abyssmal.
some of those other generalized numbers i gave you came from "Stress of Battle", which contains huge amounts of that kind of stuff from British OR studies. there's a preview version of it at google books but unfortunately it appears to cover only some of the first pages and cuts off parts dealing with rifle and MG fires.
-
they say the open tiles in CM aren't really open, the greater detail is just abstracted.
there are lot's of studies about spotting, target engagement ranges, fire effectiveness such. supposedly some studies went thru millions of casualty reports.
getting familiar with these observed dynamics and then designing the game so that it gives similar results is more likely a better approach than trying to simulate individual weapons or fires accurately. most of the important variables in scoring a hit are not related to actual shooting with a weapon.
the generalization goes for WW2 that 2/3rds of rifle fire goes at under 300 yards, and most of actual hits come from under 100 yards, and it doesn't make any difference wether the fire is aimed or not.
one other generalization is that the defender needs to fire five bullets per minute per meter to stop an attack.
a defending MG (or "equivalent", like 10 rifles or 0.3 mortars) is likely to cause around 0.5 casulties when odds are 1:1. it rises per attacker's odds (ratio to power of 0.5). attacking tanks negate it (halved per every 3 tanks / mg). and so forth. there are a gazillion of studies about this type of stuff.
-
What causes the morale effect specifically?
i don't know about other nations but there were some Finnish (psychological) studies on the morale breakdowns in some Finnish units during the Soviet summer 1944 offensives.
IIRC the primary cause of the morale effect was threefold.
first of all there is the basic fear of being surrounded -- being unable to withdraw to safety if circumstances come to require it, and thus face all kinds of nasty stuff.
this can be either negated or reinforced depending on the unit's knowledge about the existence and availability of friendly supporting units. is there a local reserve that could counterattack the enemy? is there enough friendly artillery in the rear? what is the general situation in the area (e.g. is the front moving so fast that an encircled unit will fall too far back)? how are the units on left & right doing? what are the general odds between defender and attacker on the sector? are things going as expected? in general, does the unit feel it has means to defend succesfully (not now but later).
then there is the general fatigue level (both mental and physical) of the unit. if low, the unit is likely to fail in forming an accurate estimation of the situation (meaning a very pessimistic estimation -- stuff like becoming instantly routed when seeing tanks that are in fact friendly).
some Finnish units suffered from most of the above stuff. the front was moving fast, so that becoming encircled ment certain fate. there was very little information about supporting arms. enemy displayed huge odds. fatigue levels were dire.
thus Soviets found out that often the most effective tactic to overcome local Finnish resistance was to threaten it with encirclement. the defending unit would soon withdraw with little losses to the attacker. in contrast it was very hard to rout Finns by actually attacking them.
a good case of classical maneuverism from Soviets there.
-
It only affects the unit being targeted, nothing in between. I also believe area fire works in a circle around the centre of target rather than along the line of fire.
it affects all units within certain radius (25m?) of the target point.
sometimes i could swear that there is slight simulation on friendly units in the LOF (slight suppression). i have gotten the impression when the fire has gone thru or just above very low quality friendly infantry. but i guess it has been just a conincidence and the infantry got spooked by something else. i haven't had time to run any tests.
-
I do have the case of the crew of a MkIV abandoning when fired with an HMG at the rear when it was aware of enemy tanks to the front.
Another is the crew of a 25pdr surrendering with enemy to the front and a sniper shooting them in the back.
It is curious that in most games because of hard map edges and limited fronts this area of unit reaction is not often seen.
regarding tank crews abandoning the vehicle, i'm not sure how much the different angles matter. i think the effect is caused by the combination of one effective threat and the total volume of fire generated by both effective and non effective threats.
i think the code doesn't care how much of incoming fire is actually dangerous as long as even one of them is dangerous.
to deal with Tigers etc i often make an AT net that consists of a single effective AT gun and a number of non-effective AT guns. they all open up together at the same target. the crews tend to abandon the vehicle pretty quickly. they wouldn't if i just used the effective AT gun or just the non-effective AT guns.
that's just the impression i have gotten from experience. i have not run any tests.
Steve at least listens and after he has been cornered good enough he will later do what needs to be done, if it can be done, even if he doesn't acknowledge it openly at the moment. or someone else gets it done, what do i know. it may take months or years but some of that stuff has been done and Steve admits it himself just a few posts ago. he may not GET IT immediately, and thus throw the rationalization tantrum, but later he just may get it. 
'I wanna send my RPG guy onto the roof' suggestion
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
fair enough & a good reply (am i not wonderfully self-righteous for giving comments like that?) .
tho i do remember the split squad bug a bit differently.