undead reindeer cavalry

yeah, definately check maps at Der Kessel.

has anyone tested how much crew experience effects the likelihood of bogging and immobilization? i would expect it to be a very important factor. does crew experience level effect actual vehicle turn rate etc? i suspect not. would be cool if it did. i'd like to see vehicles bog more, especially when making hard turns, having stops and so forth. one fellow i play against thinks that it helps to survive a bogging if you fire the main gun of the vehicle

i think you might enjoy studying the Soviet Vistula-Oder Operation of 1945. it's a totally devastating awesome operation, and qualitative superiority doesn't play such a part in it. i believe we might have seen something like that in 1975.

unfortunately i don't have time for it at the moment. i hardly have time to keep up with this thread. perhaps later with a bit more meaningful setting (for example with historical outpost scenario). IMO even the basic setting of having to test platoon vs 2 HMGs displays the flaw in the CM suppression modelling. it should be obvious that a HMG section pins down a single rifle platoon cought in the open and it shouldn't require testing. it's a bit like having to test how a Tiger fares against a lone SU-76.

seems like we agree on the basics. i don't want more casualties, i want more realistic suppression and pinning.

JasonC, unfortunately i don't have much time to discuss the various points you have risen with your input. my interest lies in the MG infantry suppression model of CM, not so much in the scenario i described or the reasons why we get different results in running it. i gather that we both agree that a section of two HMGs is capable of suppressing a rifle squad on open flat terrain, if the HMG section has plenty of ammo left and manages to keep up concentrated fire for at least 2 minutes without disturbances. i can't run tests right now, but i have the impression that one further requirement is that range is not greater than around 300 meters. do you agree with this?

there is a definite source for this? if so, i don't know what it is. what about other famous Finnish snipers like e.g. Sulo Kolkka - were his numbers screwed as well? he scored 400+ kills in three months and used Mosin Nagant with no scope like Höyhä.

as to why JasonC fails in the attack i can only guess. i suppose it's some of the following: 1. he accepts the defeat from the very beginning and concentrates the HMG fire on the range when they are already spotted. this is suicidal tactic in real battles. 2. he used the defensive HQ in active role, where as i prevented it from firing, because i was only interested in the HMGs' ability to suppress attacking infantry. 3. intentional bad playing on the attack. e.g. moving the HQ into HMG fire, moving squads that are under concentrated fire, not leaping with squads that are not under concentrated fire etc etc. 4. CM engine did some "bad" dice rolling on the HQ bonuses. 5. he did only isolate tests so that he didn't experience the cumulative burdens of concentrated fire, like ammo hogging, jamming problems, rapid infantry advance. all this is rather moot. the point is not wether you need one or two weakened rifle platoons to overrun these defences. the point is that the MGs fail 100% in suppressing the infantry even with this ridiculous setting.

two HMGs do NOT rout even a single infantry SQUAD that is under HQ control, until the squad is at around 200 meters & even then only if the HMGs still have enough ammo to have effective burts. without getting to how to make use of this situation with the other squads and keep running over the HMG section, i will simply point out the following fact: 200 meters in itself is already far far too late to start pinning down parts of a single infantry PLATOON. at 200 meters the HMGs are already spotted and in real practice that equals immediate elimination. no, the HMG section should have pinned down that entire PLATOON for good already right at the 500 meters. it should do it for COMPANIES. to me it is obvious that MG suppression model of CM is deeply flawed.

if you want to do a test about the issue then simply run something like this: the plot: a weakened rifle platoon will advance like brainless automatons on open flat ground towards two HMGs (with HQ command) at a treeline. the weakened rifle platoon will simply overrun the HMGs while suffering around 5 casualties. defender's forces: 2 x HMG (e.g. MG42) 1 x HQ attacker's forces: 1 x HQ 3 x Rifle squad (drop one squad from 4 squad platoon as it's not needed and would only make the test slower to run) all units are regulars. map: open flat ground, except for woods at one edge. place a flag at the woods and the defenders on the treeline close to the flag. put the attackers 500 meters from the treeline. if you want the machineguns to open fire earlier or later adjust the startup positions of the attackers. commands: command defenders as you wish. command attackers towards the treeline using a combination of advance & hide. advance about 20 meters per turn. stop an individual squad if necessary and then later catch up with 30 meter advances. when you get about 150 meters from the defenders stop using hide command unless necessary, so that you give a little pain to the MGs. at around 100 meters advance in two big leaps to 30 meters from the defenders so that the squads use grenades. HMGs should be overrun in 20-25 minutes.

Omaha is an absurd pick for a scenario about a pure infantry assault, as the assault included tens of tanks and godless amounts of arty. still the German machineguns were the worst thing for the attackers at Omaha. one MG does stop a company at open flat ground. as shown single machineguns stopped infantry for hours even at Omaha where infantry had tanks, special equipment, huge amounts of arty support and were transported to 500 meters from the MG positions.

Finns thought scopes sucked because you had to rise your head up higher when aiming, thus making yourself easier target for the enemy.

exactly. in CM the attack is never paused. in CM you can advance thru every time. it doesn't matter if you happen to have 76mm support or whatever. you can simply advance thru on flat open terrain. it's impossible to have things that happened on Omaha beach to happen in CM. e.g. the German machinegunner who kept firing for nine hours. gees, nine hours and it was less than 500 meters. what inept wankers those American soldiers: it should take only 10-15 minutes to advance 500 meters to the MG. and they even had tanks and all.

my quoted "argument" above was a direct response to your claim that MGs would already pin well enough in CM & more pinning power would only make the attack last longer. thus my response is of course directly related to CM. realistic MG suppression would cause the attacks in question to fail in CM. totally untrue, as we are talking about companies on very specific combat missions ("carry out an assault against hill x starting at 0700 hours..."). one MG against a company is more than enough. it doesn't fail in CM. i'm not sure if you comprehend the difference between advanced & outpost positions and the main line of resistance. these are not infantry vs dug in infantry battles. these are MGs firing at advancing infantry, pinning them down for good, then withdrawing if enemy sends enough of big players to help the infantry thru. yeah, it should be dangerous. at the moment it is not dangerous in CM. in CM you can easily move a company 100 meters in 5 minutes while under MG fire from under 500 meters on open flat terrain. you may get 1-3 casualties if you are unlucky.

yes, long enough for the battle to end. that's the whole point of advanced or outpost positions. you simply don't do 1.5:1 infantry attacks against prepared positions over open terrain. defenders don't suppress well enough. a single machinegun should suppress a company for hours. now in CM a company can simply walk over a MG. hell, even a platoon can do it. not the way. plenty of real world records of such attemps and all such attacks accomplished was deeply traumatized machinegunners. the point of outposts or advanced positions is not to destroy the attacker, but to stall and misdirect the attack. the position can suppress a simple infantry attack over flat open terrain for indefinite period. it's not "20 guys", it's long range defensive weapons specifically chosen for that task. its construction is different from construction of the main line of resistance. i guess we agree on how CM works. i just find the CM model is broken, where as i gather you find it works the way it should. [ March 31, 2005, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä got 500+ kills in 100 days and he didn't use a scope at all. he said using open sights gave an advantage especially against enemy snipers.

i play CM infantry battles pretty much from this "attritionist firepower perspective" IF i am trying to do my best to win the battle. the thing is, i find this style and these battles to be dull and unrealistic (annoying). i prefer to play CM infantry battles more as role play gaming, using realistic tactics even when i know it means i lose. i find it more fun somehow. i think the main reason why the firepower perspective gives superior results is because the modelling of suppression and LOF is so weak (hardly exists) in CM. IMHO it ruins and breaks infantry battles as much as borg spotting ruins and breaks armor battles. as is, you can have overwatch support advancing infantry THRU the advancing infantry. at the same time defensive fire is always just point fire which makes historical defensive use of MGs pointless. these two things combined makes historical defensive tactics meaningless. there is no point to try to have advanced or outpost positions, because defensive fire does not suppress enemy infantry the way it should. at the same time it's much more easier to support advancing infantry than it should be. as is, you can have a company of infantry cross an open flat field while MGs are firing from the treeline. the advancing infantry may pin a bit, but the overwatch will hammer the MGs at the treeline. in reality the overwatch couldn't hammer the MGs so easily, because friendly infantry would be in between. at the same time a single MG at the treeline could easily pin & brake companies of advancing enemy infantry. that is one of the reasons why you have advanced & outpost positions before the main line of resistance: enemy advance is stopped and enemy is forced to call in arty & other powers that be. the result is that enemy attack stalls long before it comes even close to the main line of resistance or the enemy is forced to commit his aces to the game prematuralely and most likely in wrong place. i really hope that CMx2 fixes this LOF and suppression issue.

you can download the manual from the-underdogs.org. Command HQ manual

David Lynch has Finnish roots. as Finns lost twice to the Soviets in ww2, Eraserhead is bound to lose as well. at least if the giant infant won't appear.

i thought large save file was the only reason that makes "PBEM" problematic. obviously i am missing something.

the correct way to reduce it is of course to optimize the saving process. you do not need to save everything every single moment. 50 megs gives you 491 430 400 state changes. do you really have that many state changes during a turn, and if so, why.

There are a lot of T72's version diffrent not only by model, but also the country it is serving or even the "rules" of service park. </font>

it's not hard to grasp at all. why is that so hard to grasp?

if the armies that lost were bad, then why not simply point out the better and stronger ones of that period?

Can we write it off as unexpected success against very bad opponents? </font>