DavidFields
-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DavidFields
-
-
You are telling this battle story wonderfully.
Your faith in flametanks is much greater than mine. I don't like my armor to be that close to anyone, and I just find their are just too many thinks in a usual CM battlefield that can prematurely knock them off. Hence, I would rather take the equivalent points in infantry.
But there are likely a lot more expert players here to comment on that.
And, maybe a tip?: given the Borg spotting, button all your armor and let the infantry do the spotting.
Isn't moving armor forward the usual mistake we all are impelled to make?--exposing it to either guns or infantry anti-tank weapons. Unless I am definitely on the attack, I try to think, "Do I really, really need to move this armor?" That is especially true, I think, when one has plenty of turns.
[ April 04, 2008, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]
-
I like that you play QBs with so many turns, to allow for maneuver (and it puts ammo use as an important component).
But, everything being equal, doesn't that advantage the attacker?
Given any particular attack/defense point ratio, I would think a 45 turn scenario is going to look a lot different than a .....15 turn one.
-
Well, keep up the fight, Tux. What is great about this game is how the obvious is so much less so with FOW, and a few bogs, mines, or some ammo exhaustion, can change the tide.
Two things particularly interest me so far:
First, I am impressed/interested in your choosing the defensive trenches/mines etc at the beginning. I am often too nervous not to pick more troops. So far, the trenches have seemed to help neutralize the artillery. The mines....always a nerve-wracking gamble to me as whether they will be effective. (Though, on the other hand, I dread running into them when I am on the attack).
Secondly, I seem to recall that your opponent had infantry loaded on his tanks at the beginning of the engagement? I don't like to risk infantry/mgs on my tanks unless there is no chance of contact (rare), or time pressures require it. But is that too conservative an approach?
-
Perhaps I am wildly wrong, but, as a practical matter, where there really many roads in the Soviet Union in 1941 where one could drive 55-60 mph?
-
One should be able to get college credits just for reading these threads.
Claus B and Flamingknives enhancements were particularly lucid.
Thanks
-
Re: Descent on Maleme
The map may not move, but the NML needs to be moved all the way across the map--indeed that is the entire goal.
Indeed, moving units all the way to the end of the map does not result in a win--one could be have units at the end of the map, easily, in the first battle--since the Germans start with units scattered across the whole map. And I have had masses of units at the end of the map in the later battles, but no win because there were enough enemy units not near the end of the map--those end-of-map units just helped me move the NML along faster for the next battle.
So, is that like a Static Operation without flags? (I have never played one of those)
-
I have played both the Blitzkrieg and Descent on Maleme (CMAK) a lot recently.
I like the quirks which come with Operations--though I can imagine it drives some other people nuts--to the point of hating the things.
Descent on Maleme is interesting in that, as the Germans, you start with many of your forces well behind the enemy line (paradrop). Which way to move those forces, forward, or back toward your line, is thus an interesting decision. I think the issue of depth of penetration versus causing casualties can be reconciled as follows: given a certain degree of penetration, destroying enemy units moves the "average" down the map. I like this subtlety.
I agree there is an essence of pass/fail in these operations. But if, as the attacker, one reaches the end line, are casualties of no importance, really? I thought the level of the victory did depend partially on it--more so with Assaults than with Advances. It took me 5 battles to defeat the AI Russians in Blitzkrieg [nice, from a game-play perspective, that each side gets significant reinforcements each battle], and seem to remember getting something more than a marginal. But by the end of the last battle, the Russian AI had lost every unit--autosurrendered at that point?.
I think I had a locked AFV once, when it was bogged at the end of the battle.
[Re: Blitzkrieg. Against the AI, I found the most interesting battle the second one, both as attacker and defender. (With the AI on attack, I gave it +50% and +2 morale)]
[ March 04, 2008, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]
-
-
Great question. Interesting this was not settled long ago.
I have been surprised to find that I often find myself thinking of tanks as mobile MG platfoms--using that ability as much as the shelling ability. I work had to preserve those thin-skinned AFVs, in particular, for late battle clean-up.
I had wondered if that was doctrinarily consistent with their RL WW2 use. Yes? Reading An Army at Dawn, about the war in North Africa, I was struck by the descriptions of the overrun Allied troops being MGed by the tanks--including the escaping crews from destroyed tanks.
[but, then, I tend to think of tanks, anyway, as infantry support weapons, and am annoyed when my units have to go to AP rounds]
-
IMHO we rationalize these things because part of the fun is thinking that moving around these pixelated images in some way corresponds to a reality.
Of course, in reality there are no 40 meter cover arcs, way-points, or orders given at 1 minute intervals. On the other hand, IRL a commander could probably tell the AFVs what ammo to have ready to fire, which we can't do.
So in that sense a "bug" (leading to an "exploit") would be something that lead to behavior beyond plausible reality.
In my opinion, this is on the edge. It would be more interesting if it were reproducible in a scenario. Then one could find some story somewhere of some infantry commander, or upper echelon officer, intervening in the command of some AFV platoon, and make a battle representing that. (Sort of like having the Crack level of expertise, so one can put Whittman in....someone is going to correct me on the spelling)
Personally, I have treated it more as a bug, and an irrelevent one. Maybe....I will make something like my own "House Rule" that I will only use it with, say, a company comander.
But I have so many other issues to worry about, like trying to effectively use thin-skin Russian armor with long command delays, that I doubt I will worry about this issue very long.
-
Yes, I have seen that, and was puzzled by it. So puzzling that I declined to take advantage of it.
But I wonder if this is "working as designed"--something intentionally to reduce the impact of losing an HQ tank? Hard to see how it could be accidental (though I know nothing of the coding).
Of course, the tank is no longer as mobile, if it is tied to an infantry unit.
-
Times have changed since CMBO. I don't see how they don't have beaches--from a marketing perspective.
If you tell most people/gamers you are building a Normandy game/simulation, and then don't have the beaches, I think you will get some head scratching.
Even myself, when I bought CMBO years ago, had to keep repeating to myself "Beyond Overloard", "Beyond Overlord", to understand what was going on.
Even then, weren't there people trying to build custom scenarios which looked like beaches?
What percentage of the population, if you just walked up on the street to them and said, "Overlord" would know what you are talking about? "A demon in a fantasy game", would likely be the number one answer of most gamers, and you would draw a blank on....the overwhelming part of the rest?
So, you might as well put "Normandy....But Not the Beach Landings" on the box if they aren't going to do the landings, or endure some incredible accusations of false advertising.
-
And then, of course, if the Russians intervened to support the Iranians.....at least covertly.
Ya think the Russians would tolerate us putting 200...300...500 thousand soldiers in Iran to keep it supressed? Betcha that would push Russia more toward a military dictatorship and build-up.
Then China takes a little swipe at Taiwan--because it then could.
And as I look at the original question, "Given current force levels" would seem to decidedly push the answer to "no". [with caveats from my original post regarding definitions]
-
The key words in the question, IMHO, are "could" and "occupy". The US has the firepower to exterminate every Iranian-that would certainly simplify occupation. (And I recall calls during the Hostage Crisis to "Turn the Deserts into Glass"--eventhough Iran is not mostly desert, but that point was lost on the people advocating this course.)
But if the question was: Could the US occupy Iran without enormous international condemnation, and without caualties that would break the will of the US electorate to continute? Then I think the answer is a high probability "no", baring an exceedingly unlikely series of events. (ie--I would put the West getting hit by a rogue, stolen Russian nuclear device well above the probability of it getting his by an Iranian device in the next 5 years.)
Indeed, there is probably more than a 30% chance the US electorate will elect someone who will pull the US out of the Iraq/Iran area almost immediately--not that I am commenting on the advisability or not of that (which would be a political statement)--but just trying to estimate probabilities which are germane to the initial question.
No?
-
For the fun of it, a scenario with frequent thread discussion (doubt I need to note it, but "spoiler alert"):
1. What, if any, scenario has better replayability than this one?
2. Is there any circumstance that one sends any German units around the left flank (russian right flank)?
I was trying to think about why this scenario is so replayable.
First, I think the default Russian set-up gives a great challenge (non-blind). Fair. Subject to few exploits (except maybe the "fake them out of the foxholes" routine.....which is not entirely unrealistic).
But then, playing free set-up, it is still challenging. What one loses in difficulty by the Russians misplacing things (like guns on its far right flank), one gains in difficulty by being "blind". So some initial probing, particularly on the German right flank, is necessary.
It's size is larger than the old Byte scenarios, but not much larger. Therefore, it plays quick. (Many scenarios risk being too tedious in detail for the attacker, and too static for the defender)
It is largely infantry. I think that type of scenario can give greater variability of approach--because slow speed means one must commit to a route early. (feel free to disagree with me about this one)
It does not take AI bonuses, which, to my tastes, is good (I think they distort the action too much)
I think there is a nice balance between the german high-ammo units (HMG...and I think the IG ammo load is excellent) and low ones--just about all the infantry.
A good blend between skill and some luck on succeeding.
As for my question number 2 above, my provisional answer would be: "no"
-
I suppose the exploit could also work with Shrek equipped infantry just behind a ridge-line, against AFVs? Or no? (I have not tested.)
But likely less decisive/annoying than guns, because the survival (or not) of some guns can be absolutely decisive for a battle?
-
"No reverse slope guns"
This is because of some LOF quirks that could make them unhitable?
-
I, too, don't like to jump on the word "gamey" too often.
But this "FO on and off the truck" is one that I won't be using against the AI, at least.
But thanks for the info--as you said, it would be frustrating for me to accidently stumble into this, and be frustrated by having no idea why my bombardment stopped.
-
I presume you are much further along, so I can comment.
The Middle....makes me wish I played human players in CM (never have). Sounds like a real struggle.
That reminds me: I think I initially brought my isolated squads on the hill "back" toward the german side--thus sandwiching the Allied squads to some extent. (the ones I did not just leave in place)
Hope you both are having fun.
-
1. I guess, then, some Allied infantry where truely heroic in their actions--it is not just mythical/movie lore.
2. Sounds like some of the CM limited ammo issues are realistic (even if one can argue about time-frames). I had thought that pre-set gun positions would have had "essentially" unlimited ammo--from local resupply, if given a few hours.
3. You are describing very disciplined attackers, and very disciplined defenders (in general). Impressive, in a military sense, all around.
-
JasonC: I like your estimations of which weapons caused how many casualties. Do we have any idea how effective the initial Allied bombardment was? I get the idea that despite the huge amount of ordinance expended, the amount of damage actually done to the German defense was small.
But perhaps I am underestimating the carnage inflicted by Allied guns. If only a fraction of the MGs/mortars survived, they could still cause major losses, and it would still look like "hell" on the invaders side?
(As most people on this forum likely know, the German cemetery at Normandy--or, at least the one I saw, if there are several--was very moving, in an understated way. Granite crosses, in a wooded area which seemed very serene.)
-
The more I look at it, the more I think the abstractions done for CM were brilliant. One is never going to track every bullet, for example, or model every board/nail in a house. But the idea that the further away from the wall soldiers are, the more likely that the projectiles will hit something to sap the kill power...and keeping it at that conceptual level...seems absolutely appropriate and real.Originally posted by costard:This game rocks.
One could vary the probabilities according to building, or even have some random variability in the drop-off, but I don't see how the conceptual underpinning is going to be improved upon any time soon.
-
Great to read the comments. Let's see if we see other aspects similarly.
I could put "spoiler" here, but I am just talking about specific tactics for this scenarion/operation.
1. I found it best to put the german guns well back--like 1000 meters or more. The anti-armor guns still penetrate the light Allied stuff. Nothing can touch the Matildas, and the guns were too fragile to use closer. The gun emplacements on the airfield, when captured, where nice for this.
2. Ah, the hill: I found putting things, as I would naturally do, on the rocky areas of the hill, shooting down into the valley, surprisingly problematic. Those darn allied flak guns could fire up at them and remain unspotted, or only sound contacts. It is....sort of a trap. Even regular infantry units started unraveling by a continual thump..thump..thump......thump..thump..thump.
Against the AI, pushing hard in the far south seemed to be the winning move. Given the size of the map, and the infantry nature of the forces, one can essentially isolate the fight into two separate fights. Against a human, both sides would have to guess where the push should go/was going to go--and would have a darn difficult time shifting to counter if the guess was wrong.
3. German heavy machine guns are one of my most favoretist units. Lots of ammo, pack a punch, actually somewhat mobile, 2 or 3 of them in interlocking fire, with good cover, can essentially shut down an area to infantry counter-attack. And on offense, putting 2 or 3 on enemy unit--it is like a laser--you know that squad is either going to die or break that turn. (From the CMSF threads, I know realize this is over-modeled. The losses are too linear in the game--soldiers who find good cover could essentially be fired at indefinitely without loss if the MGs don't move--pinned, but not killed.)
-
50 bucks, easily.
But it ain't happening. It is mostly the old guys, like me, who don't care about the graphics, who would buy the mild upgrade. Heck, I was just happy to have a game I didn't have to roll dice and consult CRTs. But that is too small of a market for them--they would have to charge...oh, 200 bucks maybe. (Complete guess, but just thinking about the overhead)
However...if they get us WW2 AFVs at CMSF resolution, that will be sweat.
Doubt, however, we will ever see something ever again on the scale of CMBB. So, if we were smart, we would buy a bunch of them for later resale--with the likelihood of a big premium. And adapting CMBB to later operating systems? I could see that as a cottage industry.
People still play chess. I'll bet someone will be playing CMBB in 2020.
Not another AAR!? Tux Vs. Juste
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Ok, I have reviewed your whole AAR again. Excuse any of the following which is off-base because of some misunderstanding of where units are.
And think of this as a chat, not a critique. (I assume you want some chatter, even if inadvertently misguided)
Your left flank, that is what intrigues me. You lament your loss of TC, but the "solution" to this (and a past-preventative for TC loss) would be an infantry platoon in the woods in front of, or to the front-left of, the Tiger.
Advantages: More durable spotting than a sniper. You can stay buttoned, and since this is not CMSF, whatever the platoon sees, your Tiger sees.
Disadvantages: (Which is what your were contemplating, I assume) A major attack by the enemy on your left flank would likely obliterate that squad, and thus you wanted everyone back in their strongest possible defensive positions.
As it is, if you are both bold, we might have a geographically asymetric battle, with your opponent pressing on your left flank, while you are pressing in the center. (In chess, it would be like a Sicilian Defense) At that point, each of you will have to determine whether to press the attack hard, or shift to meet the others attack.
If I were you, a key unkown is whether your opponent has sent enough power down your left flank to overwhelm your town defense.
Unfortunately, he may be able to spot your Tiger better than you can see his armor (Though he may be frustrated that he cannot move it forward.) Potentially, he could mass units in the woods on your left flank, overwhelm your town, and then hope your Tiger moves to help, leaving a flank shot.
It was very good then, that you moved your StuG as potential support.