DavidFields

Stop...stop...you are giving me heart palpitations with the excitement of thinking about the film. But, unfortunately, this excitement factor is probably why they are used so unrealistically in most game simulations. In reality, I can't imagine carrying around this flame-bomb anywhere where there could be any stray bullets, cigarettes, or even falling debris. Or wanting to be around someone who was carrying the thing. Realistically, there should probably be a dip in morale (at least...I would be alerted, if not cautious--accidental friendly fire could suddenly mean more than just saying "sorry") for any unit around the flamethrower? And then one could program in a small chance of the FT spontaneously blowing up each turn? Then watch people develop the more, I would guess, realistic tactics: keeping FT off the front lines, bringing them in only for fixed-suppressed positions--and away from masses of friendly units.

Well, to be on topic: I think we have determined that if one puts a German HMG or two, in non-obvious places, covering open terrain, the Russian (if AI) is going to have a very hard time breaking that area. Particularly if the Russian force is mostly infantry, of course. One can then pick whether to engage at range, just to break units and shut-down that sector, or wait for units to close (if they are weak, and seem to have no overwatch), and kill them. Even if the infantry has indirect support, a customary counter for the HMG, the AI will not target anything until HMG is IDed (I believe--though I don't know what level ID is needed). Often the AI can be faked out by showing a non-essential unit/position elsewhere--since it seems to indirect-target the first thing available. (Still, indirect fire is still why an HMG in Rocky or a a building is better than woods) Even with armor/infantry Russian units, the AI has extreme difficulty, because the HMG strips the infantry, buttons the tanks, and the AI will be more likely than a human to just blunder the armor forward, making it extremely vulnerable to any AT asset. To see/kill it, the Russian armor has to blunder almost exactly on the HMG, where one can, possibly, just shut down the HMG until the armor goes away. In short, if the visibility is good, and the terrain reasonably open, I think a German HMG can exploit the AI weaknesses to the hilt. Additionally, there is the ammo load. Can anyone think of other units that one can fire almost continuously during a 20 turn scenario? [Now back to Descent on Maleme--fighting against the CW, but you might see why I am thinking about German HMG vs the AI] [supporting evidence for the above: JasonC has a training scenario which shows how even human players have a tough time with a HMG, and I believe a recent AAR he did featured German HMGs prominently in demolishing enemy infantry] [ October 20, 2006, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

Interesting ideas, Tar. But, as I noted above, my guess would be that the RealTime, real-time, time pressures would generally be on the attacker, because with FOW he/she will not be able to extensively plan an attack ahead of time, but will have to adapt to events on the fly. The attacker tends to have more assets to manage, and tends to need to be more mobile--movement, with FOW, always a potentially very deadly activity. (of course, one can design scenarios which are the exceptions to this.) Unless there is some sort of time-limit for set-up, the defense can usually ("usually") meticulously plot out terrain features and kill zones for its fixed units. Whereas trying to get all the attackers units to make a cooridinated advance while finding the best cover will either require quick hands, perhaps, or superb tac-AI. Except: If one plays, or the correct scenario strategy is, for the Russian-style: plan the attack, bring overwhelming force to bear, and let the thing role. Historically, and actually, not always a bad strategy/tactic. In real life, one does not want "balance". But as a game....

My prediction, let's see what you think about it: When the game first comes out, people will complain about an imbalance for the defender--if the scenarios have been play-tested by some skilled players--or that some objectives are just too hard. This will be because learning to coordinate units on an attack in RealTime will be quite a skill. In particular, I'll bet people will have to learn to "exploit" (in a positive sense) the indirect/air resources. (That is my personal concern, since I am not familiar with modern warfare, and I will bet that blindly trying to figure out which of my assets can call in what with what munitions in what amount of time will not be a winning RealTime strategy. Study and memorize beforehand?) Then, suddenly, when people start learning the system, the same scenarios will be derided as being too easy for the attacker, or to achieve the objective. Demands will then be made for modifications or new scenarios. But, as a game designer, you must know that you can never please everyone all the time.

Favorite CC?: 3. Had the wide range of units--like CMBB. Yes, too bad about the campaign--nice at the start, but off-kilter by the "Moscow" scenario. Better if one played each sub-campaign independently.(but, always so tempting to start from the beginning) I enjoyed the Normandy CC for its campaign (though I usually finished it too quickly), but the sameness of the allied units (except the recon stuff) made it less interesting to me.

It is interesting to me that Battlefront is now a tad harsh on WeGo. As I noted in an earlier post, I certainly like it a lot. Again thinking back to CC (I don't see CMSF feeling like the current RTSs), clicking "density" will be dependent on the tactical situation. Attackers will likely have more clicking than defenders (unless the attackers move into a critical position, and the defender has to move reserves/forces to counter--the ideal tactic of turning a global attack into a more favorable local defense.) Indeed, I could see the clicking situation turn into part of the planning of tactical situations, much like real life. If one has to make too many decisions too quickly, one has diminishes control and intelligence. Hence, proceeding with an attack/defense with the appropriate "tempo" will be important. To be clear, I have no problem with "instinct" play. It is part of acting on incomplete information, dealing with uncertainty, and adding a strong element of prioritization--much like FOW in general. Can be very fun, and quite a skill.

If I remember a game like CloseCombat correctly, I doubt RealTime will be a clickfest. Indeed, I suspect the opposite may be the complaint. As I recall, when a CC battle began, sometimes, if the attack was stealthy, you would see nothing, or do nothing, for large segments of time. (Again, if I recall correctly, after CC3 they cranked up the AI aggressiveness to make it more fun--even if it is smarter for the AI to stay put, more fun to fight off an attack. I don't think Battlefront received enough credit for the We-Go concept. From a SP perspective, it meant that something was always occuring--either you were planning your moves, or watching the movie. One has total control of the pace. 3d, real-time, may be were everyone thinks they want to go, but it takes some subtle understanding to make a simulation a fun game.

I like JasonC's answer. Indeed, he has just given me a new tactic: reverse movement as rotation. (Wasn't rotation faster in CMBO?). Of course, both rotating, and movement-as-rotation, assumes your command delay is not too large. Otherwise...there is no choice. Now a RL or game mechanic additional question(s): Does rotation affect fire accuracy (of the firing/rotating AFV) while it is occuring? Does gyro-stabilization help with maintaining accuracy while rotating?

Ok, I guess. At least until the night gets late, and I have had excessive vino. But the situation can make one look either brilliant or foolish. I like to play a conservative, keep casualties low, infantry ahead of AFVs, scout carefully, type of style. This can look brilliant against a "trap" type situation--scenarios where if you rush forward you are overly exposed to a counterattack, or there are hidden AT or MGs which would rip you apart. This look less brilliant when the winning strategy, though not known to be so on first examination of the situation, is to dash forward and get somewhere first, or to rip through an area which, as one has to take as an act of faith, is devoid of defenders. I suspect I would have been summarily shot in the Russian WW2 army because I would have a hard time giving an order for a tank rush across an unscouted bridge. On defense, I like to trap--internal kill zones, and maneuver. Strip off the infantry, then AT assets further back, then flank assaults at exposed areas. In chess, that would be the equivalent of Black with a tight pawn formation seeking a slight tactical edge, wearing down the White attack, not a Sicilian Defense gamble. Throwing a bunch of tanks over a ridge on a shoot-and-scoot near frontal armor defensive engagement--I would want to give that task to someone else. Oh, and playing SP, I can take hours/days with a movement--indeed I will just stop playing at critical moments, and take a walk, just to savor the tactical situation. The process is just as important to me as the result. Good question. Brings out what we think a good/bad commander is.

I had to laugh out loud when I read Sgt.Joch's, possibly correct, analysis. Let me see: One possibility is to back the army, probably a Sunni General, to institute a coup, dismantle or neutralize the democratic institutions, and then to have him tyranically weld the country back together by force. Hmm...then we step slowly away from Iraq and think, "So THAT is why they had Saddam Hussein". Though, at this point, I think Iran, the Shias, or the Kurds are too strong to allow that (even with the American army?) possibility--tasted power and will not go back. I think we knew this from the beginning about the Kurds, but just winked at it. But I think the Sunni/Shia issue escaped high-level understanding? But I see no successful invasion-Iraq scenarios: Bush takes the war "seriously"? Calls for a draft, or a massive infusion of money to boost the volunteer army? Put 300-500 thousand troops into Iraq, a "cop" on every corner? There may still have been too many pressures in and around Iraq to make it look, short of emptying it of people and sending several million American immigrants, like Texas.

Good point. I have trouble using smoke effectively. But the current operation I am playing is on open map, and gives me little smoke. As a post-script to my initial question: After pouring 100s of small arm points into flak-in-foxhole positions, only to have the guns be suppressed, I had an infantry gun fire from around 1500 meters (blast 47? 27?), score what seemed to be a direct hit on a different flak unit, and KOed it. Quite impressive to see that fired round fly across the map to its successful impact point.

As, I think, a neutral observer, it seems to me that Andreas went out of his way to be gentle an unoffensive. If one wanted to be "critical" of Andreas's veiws, and I would not, one could note that they are the dominant Western liberal/democratic views. (small "l", small "d") And one could suggest sympathy for the suffering of the German people in a variety of ways, such as the relocation after the war when the border was moved west. And it is perhaps a legitimate point that the victors of a conflict might, either purposely or inadvertently, minimize the positive aspects of the defeated power with regard to, say, science and some cultural achievements. But I can't figure out from the posts what PAINFBAT was talking about. And the we-were-better-than-the-soviets attitude of Stoffel's is....beside the point? Isn't it? As to the who responded to the topic's theme. Isn't the first post about lamenting that a Nazi-era monument was torn down? I see nothing but intelligent, to-the-point responses of those posters who doubted such lamentation was a good idea. And I am still enjoying the operation Descent on Maleme, as the German player--wow those flak guns are annoying.

Camouflage: Let me see....might be useful at range (1000 meters), in a defensive situation, with an AFV in scattered woods--waiting to lure in light armor (HT/Armored cars) before they spotted you and went into reverse. I personally would not trust it to save me in a potentially lethal dual. Or it may have helped me when I was forced to hide Half-tracks in scattered woods at the beginning of a scenario--effectively compensating for the fact that the map was too small (more so in CMBO), and that the HT would have actually have unloaded their infantry well before probable contact. But their are so many other variables involved with visability/spotting: weather, time of day, whether the opponents AFVs are buttoned, how deep the AFV was in the scattered woods (in brush, I can't imagine it helps at all--though I stand to be corrected), intervening terrrain, too make me certain that the camouflage ever helped. I can't say I ever had the guts to put a thin skin tank destroyer in some vulnerable scattered woods thinking that the camouflage was going to keep it safe. "Hide"? In CMBO it was useful as fire control, but cover arcs are now better for that--except when I am too lazy and just want to hit the "H" key. With both issues, I always felt I was trying to cover a steel monster with a fig leaf.

I visited a German cemetary in Normandy once, which was beautiful, discrete, and peaceful. Smooth, soft-brown marble crosses, in 3s, peacefully set in some woods--with a sort of universally set spiritual entrance. It was very moving to calculate the ages of some of those-- boys-- killed. This monument in Crete sounded if it was nothing of that sort. An eagle swooping down on prey? I doubt that, for example, even the widows of the Confederacy could have put such an in-your-face monument in Gettysburg. A monument wistful about the slave trade? A monument with a CSA soldier trampling a US flag? I don't think so. The death of people can always be lamented. The death of some ideologies need not be.(Though, perhaps with this group, someone will prove me wrong with some Gettysburg monument picture.) And, to actually mention CM in a thread, I happen to be 1/2 way through the operation Descent at Maleme. Superb--as a subject, as an operation, and as a map. Kudos to the designer.

Very interesting, JasonC. I did not realize blast ignores concealment. But then I trip over what looks like what would be the consequence: It would seem that HE would then be particularly good at blasting wheat/bush, while, given the same firepower, both would be the same when firing at someone in a foxhole. This goes against my usual practice, I think, of trying to "hit" those troups/guns in foxholes with HE. Perhaps I am still affected by the idea, as I noted above, that "blast" is not target-distance affected--many prepared defensive positions are not going be designed so as to let me wander easily toward them with small-arms units, so I consider direct and indirect HE the usual countermeasure to such positions.

Thank you. A very clear and cogent response! (And it confirms my sense that those little infantry guns the Germans sent into Crete are no infantry-killer monsters. So, since their blast does not drop off with distance--unlike machine guns--it would seem that the best tactic would be to keep them well behind the forward line, so as to minimize counter-fire, and to use them for long-range, albeit inaccurate at distance, suppression.) [ September 20, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

1. Does the "blast" effect from a gun have the same effect as adding an equivalent amount of small arms fire? In other words, if I have an Infantry Gun with a blast of 27, does that do the same potential damage firing at an infantry unit or gun as an MG, at long range, with a fire-power of 27? Or is there something about "blast" (other than area effects) which would make that IG blast number more effective? 2. More of an observation, but I would be interested in any comment: When going from CMBO to CMAK I was prepared for many of the changes--more fragile infantry, cover arcs, etc. But what I was not prepared for was the, it seems to me, tremendous effects of having rocky terrain. It almost seems like a magic carpet to me with regard to infantry movement (I am exagerating, of course)--excellent cover and concealment, but seems to have little effect on my units LOS. Instead of moving my infantry across the "green" highways of woods/brush, I now find myself studiously avoiding brush, and zooming in to look for those tell-tale rocks to guide me forward. I was interested that the addition of a type of terrain could change decades of my play style (going back to "Panzerbush" of AH Panzerblitz). Anyone else notice such a change?

Aco4bn187inf: Thanks for reminding me about the possible escaping. I had forgotten that, and had been starting to get in the habit of just sending the prisoners to the rear enescorted. I don't remember any "escaping", but I may not have been paying attention to this at the end of the scenarios.

Nice analysis. Thanks. The CM scale of battles, though wonderful to play, sometimes makes it hard for me to visualize the true scale of large WW-2 maneuvering elements. Artillery is particularly challenging. No one is going to make a scenario where the attacker only has artillery, and just pounds a position for 30 minutes with area-fire salvos--at least, I don't recall a scenario like that, though if I had the strongpoint map that is being developed per this topic, it might be an interesting exercize to see what would happen in such a case in CM. And yes, "modern" doctrine--with its almost videogame element of kills from afar--may now be going "post-modern" due to that latest skirmish. As usual, adaptive defense tactics will initially be considered "unfair" by those who want to stay with previous doctrine.

The veterans may give a more thorough answer--but I believe there is a certain chance each turn of a bog turning into an immobilize. Don't think the "Fast" order affected it. (The posts on "bogging" almost have a religious overtone--I am not being negative, just noticing. I think we would be posting on the humidity in our house, or what shoes we were wearing, when we bogged, if we didn't restrain ourselves on how likely(?!) crazy that is. And yes, I "handle" my bogged vehicles very carefully, and softly, with my mouse clicks--as though that would help it unbog, or prevent immobilizations.)

As a historical answer, I assume from the discussions here that the Germans used armor to deal with these positions. But from a rock/paper/sissors perspective, it would seem that HE would be the counter of choice: with air recon, and either fixed artillery, indirect SPA, or air. The moderen doctrine is that if you can find an enemy, you can kill him (or, to a newer degree, her). A "strong-point" seems to me to beg for a barrage. The German doctrine may not, historically, have adapted.

"My guys seem to have no balls as though the russians are giants they always shake, panic and break. my units are surrounded there are 3 of their units to my one they never have enough cover to attack" Observations, JasonC. Nothing stupid. You can either admit to the obvious, that you were unjustifiably rude, or you can mask the issue with your expertise. Your choice, but, in the spirit of intillectual honesty, you might admit that your knowledge of T-34s is greater than your expertise in working with others.

Would artillery be used as a counter-response to such a strong-point?

A reasonable request: "Can anyone give me some general advice for quick battles and attacking when playing as the axis." A rude response: "You are stupid, that's it your problem." Justification: Insufficient. Thus ends a lesson for anyone modest enough to realize they could learn something about dealing with people.

FaxisAxis, For not being one of the "regulars" to this forum, I am going to be a bit bold here. JasonC has, it appears, better than an encyclopedic knowledge of WW-II equipment and tactics. He will write off paragraph after helpful paragraph of detailed descriptions (I have on my to-do list to reread his discourse on Russian attack doctrine, to further compare it with the more common descriptions of German and American/British doctrine--narrower, echelon application of force, if I remember the gist) I have never seen him this rude before (maybe I have missed it). Perhaps he should have considered not answering the post, if the helpful urge did not possess him.