undead reindeer cavalry
-
Posts
1,224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by undead reindeer cavalry
-
-
exactly.Originally posted by John Catsack:CMSF already has some kind of voice, near visual and far visual communication modeled (it has icons for them). Maybe Syrian squads could split, but sub squads would be unable to receive orders unless they have communications with their parent unit.
-
Steve,
i think we are getting confused because we don't realize that there are two different meanings for splitting a squad.
i think what people are talking about is technical game term of splitting a squad: ability to position a part of the squad separately from the rest. they are not talking about military doctrine.
commander's ability to order the positions of squad's MG and AT pairs is one of the very fundamentals of any modern military doctrine (including the Soviet one). it's one of the primary tasks of the commander of a squad.
doctrinally, a squad's formation is several tens of meters wide even in a standard formation. in CMSF squads are bunched up in quite unnatural ways.
in game terms the Syrian player needs to be able to adjust the positions of MG and AT pairs in order to use the squad realistically. the same applies to US player as well, but US side already has some split functionality.
-
the engine supports splitting squads into teams (and each team does spotting individually), so one "easy fix" would be to keep the squad split into three (or so) teams internally even when the squad isn't really split command wise.
or well, it wouldn't really fix the issue, but it would make it less dramatical.
-
apologies for horribly slow reply, i've been quite busy with other stuff.
i'm familiar with standard CES procedures - relative combat power, minimum planning ratios and such, but these deal with specific tactical/operational situations. i'd be interested to read more theoretical studies on military application of odds. something that deals with more abstract properties (e.g. "loss regeneration ratio") and aims to construct algorithms.
do you know any good works worth reading?
-
to me CMSF feels a lot like Operation Flash Point because i mostly play platoon level battles in CMSF. in standard OFP you command only a squad, but there are mods (e.g. Chain of Command) that let you command forces up to a battalion if that's what you want. Armed Assault might be better if you have a more up-to-date computer, but i'm not sure if there are yet any similar mods for ArmA.
-
WW2 contains a good number of overstacking cases.
Operation Barbarossa perhaps being the biggest one, with almost total break down of German logistics that was quite near of causing a German defeat already during the first winter. they survived only because Soviets failed to utilize their superior odds.
another good case of WW2 overstacking is Winter War, where Soviets got both logistical problems and unability to utilize their superior odds, which lead to some of the worst warfighting seen in modern times.
you can have too many troops, so that infrastructure, transportation and logistics cause problems. it's not just a question of how you use all your troops, since reseve troops are useless if you can't transport them where you need them, or worse still - you are not able to use them at all due to supply and service shortages.
having great odds is not enough in itself, and in historical perspective it's perhaps likely to lead to inefficient execution, perhaps because of command push (e.g. army level isn't too interested about or even aware of regimental realities).
nevertheless it is clear that odds are crucial and it's quite possible that theory of odds is often neglected. i can't remember reading any worthwhile game theory studies about odds. it would be very interesting if anyone could point out some modern studies about proper application of odds in combat.
-
what comes to Soviets and Germans, i don't think there was such a huge difference in reality.
i think the idea of fundamental difference is most of all a mental fabrication born out of human need for tales and myths. showing the errors contained in these mythical ideals is noble, especially if these ideals are tainting the thinking of this day, but i think one needs to be clear whether one is attacking a mythical idea or presenting a historically incorrect claim.
-
i agree and see the merits of the whole idea of odds. it's clear that all things being equal, odds will dictate the result.Originally posted by JasonC:URD - largely a scale issue.
what i suspect is that advancements in various technologies have pushed the scale up considerably, up to the point where it's become difficult to achieve the required scale.
-
i don't know if the cause was the change in equipment at all levels and thus change in the nature of warfare, or horibbly incompetent warmaking, but WW2 saw a great number of battles where odds well above 2:1 did not ensure victory.Originally posted by JasonC:Now if we see double numbers, such a weight in the scale against the greatest generals, we may be sure, that in ordinary cases, in small as well as great combats, an important superiority of numbers, but which need not be over two to one, will be sufficient to ensure the victory, however disadvantageous other circumstances may be. Certainly, we may imagine a defile which even tenfold would not suffice to force, but in such a case it can be no question of a battle at all.
Heinrici considered that against a good defender the attacker would need at least 6:1 odds.
-
yeah the game is not nearly as bad as some make it sound. it's already good fun with 1.02 as long as you don't have any special expectations regarding some aspects like multiplayer.
-
indeed. individual kits don't cost too much, but when you do a serious modernization/upgrade it quickly adds up to serious numbers. e.g. the current up-armor & gun shield upgrade for M113 costs "only" 100 000 dollars a piece. doesn't sound bad. but add a remote turret system and it costs 200 000 - 300 000 dollars extra. thermals, comms etc cost a whole lot more. still you need to add in various special dingdangs like counter sniper systems and such.Originally posted by tiny_tanker:So in the end we'll have a vehicle that costs the same if not more than a Stryker, still has trouble being air transported, and it more vulnerable to the main killer ied's, not to mention the lack of being self recoverable. The Stryker just makes sense in comparison.
-
i might as well post a couple other recent contracts for comparison.
modifications of already existing vehicles:
M1A2SEP modernization - 2.3 million a piece
Bradley M2A3 modernization - 2 million a piece
LAV III modification - 1.4 million a piece
whole new vehicles:
Boxer (German Stryker equivalent) - 3.3 million a piece
Pandur II (Austrian Stryker equivalent) - 3 million a piece
Patria AMV (Finnish Stryker equivalent) - 2-3 million a piece
Piranha III (Swiss Stryker equivalent) - 2.5 million a piece
-
in the latest contract (april 2007) one Stryker (command variant) costs 1.8 million dollars.Originally posted by Bigduke6:* For the price of one Stryker ($3.3 million)
[ August 29, 2007, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
if you can field only a limited number of vehicles, while you do have practically unlimited amount of money to spend, you of course make those limited number of vehicles as good as possible. it would be stupid to use BTR-80 instead, just because it costs only 300 000 USD a piece.Originally posted by Bigduke6:Disagree, just because the systems are the most expensive doesn't mean that money was, or is, unlimited. Besides, a dollar cost comparison between a Bradley and a Stryker is a good way to determine how much of the military budget each vehicle absorbed, at least up front.
Bradley absorbed over 5 500 000 000 dollars of US military budget. a single Bradley cost around 3 million USD.
[ August 29, 2007, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
for US the cost is in practice meaningless. money is not the bottleneck.
Stryker is not an exception in that it's the most expensive wheeled APC/IFV in the world: Bradley was the most expensive tracked IFV in the world as well. M1A2SEP is the most expensive tank in the world. you get the pattern.
looking at the price tag is meaningless if cost is not an issue.
-
i remember seeing somewhere a sales estimate for CM and i think it was around 100 000 copies. i don't remember if it was just for CMBO. someone with some extra time could try to google it.Originally posted by Sivodsi:Any chance of the BFC being persuaded by a petition of say, 10,000 signatures?
How many signatures would it take?
anyway, we are talking big money here. to get into meaningful figures we'd need something like 10 000 preorders, 100 dollars a piece. never going to happen.
-
there exist no technical limitation what comes to map sizes, unit counts, terrain fidelity and such. it's most of all a design question, and secondarily a question of how much coding time you are willing to invest in it.
even what comes CMSF, with its fancy calculations of bullet trajectories and all that stuff, it is all computed in REAL TIME.
-
i wouldn't have even tried it. i have hardly tried any of the relatively numerous realistic 2D simulations of modern combat out there, not to mention realistic squad level 3D shooters (OFP being the exception, as far as it can be considered to be realistic).
i have tried to not think about CMx1 when i play CMSF and i have to say i do enjoy CMSF.
to me CMSF is more about harmless fun, less about playing a serious wargame. don't know if developers meant it to be like that. i couldn't care less how CMSF simulates things behind the scenes - would be just as much fun (not being sarcastic, it is fun) if tanks had health bars.
to me CMSF is a bit like OFP. in CMSF i command a platoon but it's quite abstracted, in OFP i command just a squad but it's less abstracted.
i hoped CMSF would do to SPMBT what CMx1 did to SPWW2, but it did not. it doesn't make CMSF a bad game.
-
i totally agree about different attack forms and such, and i see what you are talking about and i agree that such tactics are good and often even necessary.Originally posted by JasonC:On the last point you were discussing with Adam, I think the answer to your question is no, not every mode of attack would wind up inside the defender's strongpoints fighting in multiple directions. That result follows from pushing hard into his position before engaging.
An alternative is to "eat" the position one strongpoint at a time from well outside of it, picking the foremost positions apart with ranged fire cautiously, etc. Slow methodical roll instead of rapid thrust.
Adam's point is that multi-celled defenses are themselves an adaptation to defeat penetration-attempt thrusts. If you "slow roll" through them instead, you can get several many on few fights in sequence, exploiting their original dispersion to fight only a third of them at a time.
The point is that different attack forms are better against different defense forms. Fast into them, reorient laterally, and roll up, is strongest against an all-up, all on-line, linear defense. Which you can't really "slow roll" (you wind up fighting a whole prepare MLR, all vs all, etc).
i wholly agree that my approach will not work well in all situations and it would be just plain stupid to use my approach with certain types of forces.
i think we are picturing quite a different scenarios and that's my fault for not being more precise about force compositions and such. perhaps i wrongly read Adam's reply too much in the context of my scenario, where as he was describing a scenario that is totally different. the assault i use covers easily up to half of the whole map, so i guess we might be discussing tactics of whole different scales. i'll try to post more precise example in future when i have got more time.
i don't agree about not winding up fighting defender's strongpoits, but i don't really have time or energy to discuss it properly at present time. partly i feel like such a discussion is a bit pointless, because most likely we are picturing too different scenarios. perhaps scenarios of whole different scales. wether or not you wind up fighting defender's strongpoints is not really a matter of opinion, as it's largely dictated by the scenario setup.
nonetheless i find the subject interesting and it's always fun to debate/discuss with you (at least in the end). i'll try to find time to post something more worthwhile about the subject. i think positive aspects of frontal assaults haven't received enough attention on these forums.
-
it might cost a bit too much for Western Allies because of their high arty prices. possibly, i have never tried.Originally posted by AdamL:If the benefit from doing that exceeds the cost - and there will be an exceeded cost over slow approach - then you have a good tactic.
i fear you are confusing outposts and actual formations, unless i misunderstood you. Soviets would prefer broad wedge, though often were forced to use line.The Soviets would build their defensive positions in triangular patterns, pointing outward with communication between points.
wouldn't any kind of attack lead to the same situation? :confused:Any rush would get you wedged inevitably between two of those positions, often three. -
mostly yes.Originally posted by JasonC:The idea behind my proposed counter is that the smoke-n-rush is designed to defeat an "up" defense, one that depends on stalling the attackers with long range fire over open ground areas.
the key difference is that i take an objective by a frontal assault and then roll it. smoke just makes it possible against an opponent with superior long range firepower on a fairly open map.So he is ready for that and is spending FO points to counter it.maneuver follows only after the assault, when i have won the firefight and have overrun the local defenses, and i am fighting in the depth of his defences, broadening the breakthrough. at this point the front has usually realigned from horizontal to vertical.
yes there are ways to make it harder, but even a fallback is good enough for me because his defensive plan (e.g. keyholes, killsacks) has been rendered far less effective.Fine, so don't do that, switch to the alternate defense scheme. Back, reverse slope, stealthy, a defense you can't find. Use the smoked time to make small adjusts to such a back deployed defense.And then reply to his smoke with your own HE...
-
i have pretty much given up scouting and instead have gone for decisiveness. it's pretty much just a classical frontal attack with smoke cover and concentration of firepower, something like this:
1) i buy lots of light offmap arty.
2) i identify the area which i need to take (e.g. the one where enemy main body is likely located).
3) i identify the best route to get there. the best being the route with LEAST cover and lots of space.
4) number 3 is more important than number 2. the point is to get the majority of my forces "at his end". once there, the rest is pretty much just execution.
5) i concentrate the great majority of my forces for this attack route. the rest of my forces are just for harassing and mind games, unless the map offers special potential for something else. i keep armour with infantry.
6) once i decide i am good to go, i fire massive amounts of smoke that cover the open advance route (with good error margin) for minutes. offmap arty (save for heavies) is pretty useless for HE fires, but it can generate serious amounts of smoke.
7) move infantry fast under the cover of smoke with slight echeloning (should not be a problem since i chose route with lots of space) and get overwatching support elements ready (since i chose the route with least cover this should not be a problem).
8) i keep 1/3 of armor close to or within the infantry main body, so that i get support fire at targets the overwatching elements may not be able to reach, and to make advancing infantry eliminate possible enemy light advance positions faster.
9) i keep 1/3 of armor in second wave, with tank riders, but not too far back so that they can still utilize the smoke cover.
10) i use the last 1/3 or less of armor (with some light infantry support elements) elsewhere on the map so that enemy can't easily relocate his forces or just to stress and confuse him.
11) it is important to wait for smoke to disappear, rather than advancing out from its cover - even if it means i am not as far forward as i perhaps could be. if possible i also try to plan the smoke fires so that i get a rolling barrage effect, so that while first enemy positions come into LOS the ones further back are still blocked by smoke.
12) anyway, once the smoke disappears the 1st wave is at good shooting range of the enemy and with my superior firepower i will win the firefight. enemy can't utilize his support weapons effectively, because i am already too close (e.g. his own cover blocks most of his support weapons' LOS), his support weapons may still be isolated by smoke and i can outfire him.
13) i advance patiently but in a determined fashion, making use of slight echeloning, and just keep pushing forward till i have overrun enemy positions. usually it doesn't take long, because i have serious superiority in firepower.
14) i launch the 2nd wave with tank riders and leap to the second objective already before 1st objective is completely in my hands. i use support mortars, guns, or tank main guns for smoke if possible.
15) this 2nd wave is important as it gives my attack width (or depth, if the front is now vertical rather than horizontal), so that enemy has to fight a front rather than just a point. it's easy to suppress a point and my attack is quite concentrated and without 2nd wave it may be difficult to spread out after initial success (especially for armour).
16) there is no need for the main attack to take place immediately. i can first advance with minor forces elsewhere for 10+ minutes if that fits the map.
17) this stuff works well when i have to attack with Soviets on a map with considerable lack of cover. it doesn't work if there's too much cover so that it's hard to concrentrate firepower, or the battle is so small you can't afford enough arty. it might not work with Allies because their arty is quite expensive, but it should work with Germans.
[ August 21, 2007, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]
-
i play 95% of my games against Germans and my opponent likes to play with fancy latewar felines. my experience is that these close defence grenades are ridiculously overmodelled in CM. combine it with the cocktail throwing Soviet infantry and you get some really "interesting" situations.Originally posted by The_Enigma:In game however its a leathel close range defence weapon for those tanks.
An enemy squad closes in on it and you will see little grenades start to fly into the air at them.
Makes closing in on these tanks pretty hard sometimes since these grenades can end up routing your men after only a few blasts.
-
i think some CMx1 fans are having a bit hysterical reactions. sure, CMSF has bugs and it would be cool to have some extra features, but CMSF is not a bad game. even with its limitations CMSF is a good game.
Red Army Studies Website
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
you can get them from the "original" source:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/index.html
in the search field type in "military history journal".