Jump to content

Rankorian

Members
  • Content Count

    712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rankorian

  1. I was very impressed with the video, and I was particularly impressed with the spacing and pacing of the squads and tank movements. "Don't just do something, stand there" can be, I think, a good mantra in CM2, as the spotting algorithm operates--and probably was the case at the time. I am the opposite with regards to pace, perhaps to slow. I seldom use scout cars as scouts, because they are so fragile, and large--so they can easily be destroyed without even seeing what his them. At the CM2 scale, if we already sort of know where the enemy is, than I figure their job is done
  2. Looking at the table under the tree, I am having even more thoughts. I was thinking the decision with any of the campaign scenarios was "play or don't play". But is it correct for me to infer from the table that the German forces are largely persistent from one scenario to the next? (I did not think they were, and did not even realize that was possible or done in a campaign) [Rankorian palm-slaps his forehead] Which would mean that if I heavily damaged the enemy forces, and took the loss, I would be in much better shape for the next scenario than if I did not play
  3. "Kobayashi Maru"--given the world wide expanse of the internet and these forums, I thought it was some distant Japanese saying. But, ah, it is a Star Trek reference--unless I am missing something more learned. The problem, I think, is that we cannot, unlike Captain Kirk, alter the underlying (CM2) programming to a win, and the result is a possibly frustrated public. Is it good for the character of the public?--could be a debate. Is it good for Battlefront? With all sympathy to BFC, my opinion is no.
  4. As I read the table, if you "allowed" yourself to lose (in other words, did not keep playing each scenario until you win), you would be "rewarded" by getting easier versions of future scenarios. See, for example, the 3 different versions of "For those about to die"--8,9,61. This is interesting and admirable conceptually. Indeed, it raises the option of looking at a tactical situation in a scenario and taking the rational decision that the best thing to do is not to play it. (introduced, in think, in C and F "Hard Knocks"--yes the first in the series was winnable, but it is skewed
  5. Since to apply, you must have been in existence, and that likely meant you were a vampire--did you mention to the recruiting office that your night-time recon efforts were excellent, and you would not likely be drawing from the usual canteen rations? Seriously, depending on the situation, sometimes the troops that are willing to flee, and fight another day, are more situationally correct. And even if the troops are elite, having a big HE burst in the middle of them...the WW2 uniform was not much better than wearing a t-shirt with regards to shrapnel protection.
  6. Nice blast from the past. It may get me to try Assault again in CMRT. I would like to eventually finish that scenario....and this gives me some ideas.
  7. I am looking forward to see how your attack turns out--forget (almost) win/loss, I will be interested to see your tactical moves. The way you have moved your units thus far has (other than the recon jabs) has almost been poetic.
  8. First, I am not arguing with anyone. I am learning effective game tactics. But let's take this situation: seen in this DAR. Your screening infantry sees a target several hundreds of meters ahead. Your tanks leap forward, shoot the target, and then retreat. Unless I am mistaken (and people will chime in quickly to what extent I am), that C2 did not exist in WW2. If infantry communicated with the tanks, it was generally a very local, almost tactile experience--maybe some hand signals, or a phone on the back of the tank. CM2 has non-Borg spotting, but we, as players, can break
  9. I am sure your opponent is a excellent fighter, so I say everything with the utmost respect. I do not like the use of those Panthers. In overwatch, initially 3 on his left flank (your right), 2 on his right flank--with a screening force in front, and then moving the 2 over when he understands you moves. I think that would have been the baseline/default positioning. Keep them at a distance, clustered, with only front armor to be seen. On the other hand, your handling of the Sherman tanks shows why we should give that fighting vehicle more credit, particularly in the m
  10. Great presentation. It is almost as though it was a story-book for a movie. Overall shots, and then close in ones. Hey, was that Brad Pitt sticking his head out of the Sherman?
  11. The line of trees on the right you used--could not have been better positioned if you had walked out and planted the trees yourself. The Panthers have a justifiably great reputation.....when they can present their front armor from a distance. Not to be too "catty" [to use the slang for such German armor], but your opponent may have been better served by holding his Panthers back from Noville, in overwatch position, and at a distance. Think of how that would have markedly disrupted your right flank move. Moving Panthers into a town, in my opinion, markedly weakens their power
  12. Wow. Given he started with the same point forces you did, where are they? Your spread out right flank, which is something I was worried about, is starting to contract in and become a noose. Could you be missing something off your left flank? Even if you were, there is a lot of killing spot area between Cobru and the left forests to stop movement there. Again, your movements behind Noville is much more risky than I would attempt--you are essentially separating our forces into 2. But....if he punches in one direction, you can forcefully counterpunch the op
  13. The down-side of that (so I have read) is that both sides can sit on their distant flags, and thus be boring. (since, with equal forces, attacking is risky). Given the known artificialness of an ME anyway, I am not against trying to turn it into an interesting cage match--as we are seeing here. I am reading the book "Zones of Control: Perspectives on Wargaming" (a 800 page book on wargaming--what is not to like?). Early on, I think from the designer of PanzerBlitz (I could be wrong about the attribution), there is a quote something like, "The Game is a Game." [CM, by the way, is just m
  14. Unless I am missing something, this is what I see: you have him surrounded, but he has, then, the faster internal movement. Normally, I would favor the faster ability to deploy internally. But, again unless I am missing something, he seems to have a lot of units in a small amount of area. That could prove to be awkward, as moving them could inadvertently expose them to fire from your units, and any fire from your units could potentially cause damage to his nearby units. You also know, sort of, where his units are--"his" town. He knows less about your units, except those he has see on you
  15. Hapless, you make some excellent points. Part of the difference, and it is a huge one, is that I essentially always play against the AI. The "psychological", then, never comes up--and I am a poorer "player" because of that. I also play scenarios, not competitive meeting engagements. If you know it is a meeting engagement, and that both sides (or, either side) can or should rush for the middle, I can see where that would alter many calculations. In most scenarios, you would have to put a gun to my head before I would run anything up a rode like you pushed the jeeps. (In particula
  16. I am very much enjoying this AAR. In general, I am not a big fan of splitting my forces, at least not very widely. I would have taken that "right hook" much less right, essentially down the middle and just to the right of your other forces. But I know I am cautious. Pushing your Recon 1 in jeeps forward so fast was breath-taking to me. Kudos. I was just praying you would then unload them quickly and put them in a quiet, observer place. Your position on the right grows stronger as the light improves and your units attack distance increases. Again, this is m
  17. [health care and higher ed bringing the city back. great restaurants. we go into Boston once a year to eat in the north end, but I always leave thankful of less traffic here. Legal Seafoods in Framingham is the closest I usually want to get] I did admit a WW2 vet to the nursing home, short term, a couple of weeks ago (he was in his 90s, mentally sharp). He had a knee injury from the war. It was from shrapnel from artillery, near Aachen I think. He was down behind a wall. He had friends nearby when the rounds came in. Nothing was left of them. But, in that sense, al
  18. I am a geriatrician (physician who treats the elderly). When I started my career, almost 30 years ago, there was always one question I could ask any new patient (this is in the US): Were you in Europe, in the Pacific, or have a reason not to serve? (because If you did not serve in WW2, you had a ready reason to give about that). Now, I have lost most of them, though when I have an alert new 90 some year old I can still probably understand where they were in the war if they were fighting in Europe. [early in my career, I did have a WW1 vet, who had been gassed in that war, but still li
  19. Combatintman, I was always surprised by the lack of comment on scenarios, also. I tried to get something going about them in Red Thunder--unsuccessfully. My approach to the scenarios is to start with the smallest and work up. With that strategy, I got to Assault, and not even to the end of that scenario, in RT. My suggestion--made with perhaps annoying persistence--is that they include tiny scenarios, as in 2-3 units on each side, to hook people in. It could be "StarCraft" style, adding new units with successive scenarios, and with some [fictional--though ideally based on
  20. 1. The T34/85s are fun. Mobile. Not a SU-Monster, for sure. Not uncommon. Reminds me of a Panther, or even more, an early war MK-4. By this point in the war, the T-34 part was mostly under armored. But as an infantry support tank, such as in this scenario (and those types of scenarios are my favorite), it is very good. 2. I have seldom been able to spot a German AT during my tinkering. That is delicious. The guns are far enough back, and in good cover, that I can have one of my tanks blow up and still not see where the fatal shot came from. This puts the AT units back as an important
  21. I have mentioned this scenario before. But after tinkering with the scenario, very intermittently for months, I wanted to write more about it--not as a historian, or a military person, but as a gamer, who is looking for a good game. Some people may blast though a scenario, getting perhaps a big victory, and then move on. But I like to savor the work that went into the scenario's construction. I plan multiple posts, and no pictures. This will be retro and conceptual. You can fire up the scenario to see most of what I am writing about. First, to me the scenario is a "puzzle". I mean that i
  22. You are exactly correct--and I almost put that. (I just thought Panzerblitz was a more interesting word, and FPL is 3 letters, not 2, and that the emphasis of the CM title is a certain offensive, not the leaders of the offensive. But, as I said, you are correct. The big game difference between the two games, IIRC, is that Panzer Leader had opportunity fire. This kept units from just running from woods to woods, which made the first title often be referred to as "Panzerbush") We have come a long way in 40 years--the computer now rolls the dice.
  23. Are we guaranteed that all the footage seen was from that offensive? What is the tank at approximately 1:41? There is some "stuff" behind the turret--a rectangular bulge--which looks non-WW2.
  24. It would have been a clever allusion to the history of tactical WW2 gaming, at least in America, to name it Combat Mission: Final Panzerblitz.
×
×
  • Create New...