DavidFields
-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DavidFields
-
-
5 hours ago, DesertFox said:
Found this map-site helpful to keep track of the Bakhmut situation. Some of you might know that site already:
The War in Ukraine : Scribble Maps
And a tweet about the actual situation:
Perhaps the attacks north and south of Bakhmut are in preparation for UKR to leave the city proper. With a fighting, mobile, withdrawal, the Russians would either have to commit offensive resources to pursue (which they might want to hold for counter attacks later elsewhere), or let the area go quiet (they can have their little parties in the rubble), which might suit UKR well at this time.
-
28 minutes ago, Huba said:
So, the May 9th is upon us, Putin will give his speech 12 hours from now and announce what's going to happen next from the Russian side. We have discussed all the possibilities quite exhaustively. Assumingno major new developments in next few hours, what are your bets on what Putin is going to say?
My take:
- announces Kherson Republic
- war to end as soon as liberating Donbas is finished (every day now, but it will take a great effort...)
- no mobilization, at least not general one
- Russia must be ready for war with NATO, nuclear sabre rattling
I don't think we can exclude Putin saying:
1. Ukraine does not exist. That land is now considered by Russia to be part of Russia.
2. The Baltic States are in the Russian sphere of influence. It is unfortunate that they are currently in NATO, but they will be forced out of it.
3. The same for various countries in Eastern Europe, which he might name specifically.
4. If Finland applies for NATO membership, Russia will consider it an act of war.
We, Russia, can do this because we are a nuclear power, and therefore no one can definitively stop us, even if it takes years of fighting.
Isn't this what you want, the Russian people? You want to belong to something great.
(He might throw in some "Nazi" language--but that is marketing, and ultimately not necessary for his assertion of Russia's supposed place. He might put a long, fiery, but ultimately dreary, historical preamble to the above. And some religion. He feels both intensely, and feels --so-- slighted. But, again, ultimately such verbiage is not necessary. It is a sheer Power/Will exercise. )
At least, from what I had read, the above was sort of what he was telling everyone prior to Feb 24. Didn't he say something like "Now will you listen to me!", shortly after the invasion?
David
-
1 hour ago, Homo_Ferricus said:
Unfortunately this is likely to be a morale-booster for the Russian troops at the front.
Sorry for the sort of double post. Do not understand this.
-
-
1 hour ago, Homo_Ferricus said:
I'm starting to get the impression that the static nature of the front is not so much Russia struggling to make gains on a daily basis, but a consolidation period for them to regroup and rearm. Significant amount of evidence for that, including Ukranie MoD claiming less activity along the lines. Seems like Russian drone activity has picked up steeply in the last few days, including their use of drones to guide their indirect fires. Drones and indirect fires is what wins for Russia (and everyone really). We saw it in 2014/15, see it in Syria (Russians and Turks), in Karabakh (Azeris), etc. They're starting to fight like they're meant to. I imagine the new strategy is to limit operations in most areas, suffer the attrition while gathering what ammo and supplies they can, bring drones to the front to find targets, and shoot all that ammo at said targets before making another violent push, this time aided by drones, more cruise missile strikes and a solid turnout of the VKS. If only to push the Ukranians onto the backfoot, so talks can proceed on Russia's terms. Rather than achieve original operational objectives of the invasion.
I'll also add that it's unlikely the Russian Army will break in the field, mutiny or withdraw at large without orders. Chechnya was god-awful, morale was non-existent, the economy was in the dumps, the Chechens were absolutely brutalizing the Russian conscripts. And yet there was no mutiny, no mass surrenders any higher than platoon level or so. Obviously times have changed somewhat, and Ukraine is not Chechnya, but Russians will generally tolerate a LOT before flat out refusal and rebellion. Probably more than they should in many cases.
Gamer, not a military person.
I do not understand the analysis I quoted.
Is there anyone from ... the US, to Thailand, to UAE, to any military grog in Argentina (just to say, everyone)...who do not see that the Ukrainians are likely massing NE and NW of Kyiv, in sniper and AT units, to move west and east, respectively, to cut off all supply from the Russian units around the capital? Probably already happening.
On the other hand (as a more neutral remark), could the ditching of bridging equipment, and what appears to me a lot of air defense equipment, just be a local soldier decision (however monetarily costly according to those above) that they just don't need them--or not a priority. Whether as a result of fuel or staffing issues, at the very lowest soldier decision, not sanctioned by those above.
"Rather than achieve original operational objectives of the invasion." With all due respect, I think the objective was strategic: the integration of Ukraine into Russia. I don't see drones accomplishing that.
"Ukraine is not Chechnya". Decisively, I think.
-
14 minutes ago, DesertFox said:
Pensioners like him, or this guy? Tough men, no question.
"The picture of that gentleman should be on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow.
-
On 4/20/2017 at 7:58 AM, PanzerMike said:
Well, this is the first time I see somebody have it relatively easy in Han-sur-Nied
You had a tougher time in Singling.
Your playing style is very systematic, conserving your forces carefully. That helps in a scenario like this. I do not have the patience for that. That is why I usually have my ass handed over in many scenarios, heheheh
Thanks for putting it up on youtube like you did with Singling!
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 and they should mostly retire--sort of like the threads on half-tracks.
Hence, I would have missed that "overrun" experience on the scout squad--which was amazing, and appears realistic, to see.
It would have also "killed" me to walk those platoons over open field to the town--I am not sure that I could have given the command. As it turns out, a mortar unit would, purposefully I am sure, have made staying in place with the two platoons and sending out a 2 person scout team a losing decision. I am conflicted, but also interested, when a scenario is built to seemingly challenge the "usual" decisions--I likely would have brought both platoons toward the center.
In all, the video shows to me a very subtle and sophisticated scenario (and, one of its excellent solutions), with a nice small, manageable mix of forces. The Panzer IV is my favorite tank, from 41 to the end of the war. This video may have induced me to buy this module.
-
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 it and took the loss?
If so, that opens up a --LOT-- of interesting choices (interesting choices being most of what makes a fun simulation). Again, much different than the "if you don't win you are a --loser--, no fun." If that is true, I am almost stunned--because explaining that would have been so easy and to BFC, in my opinion, so important.
-
"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.
-
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 toward not even trying to.)
The problem, in my opinion, is that would have best to be explained--even right in the manual, if the main campaigns consisted of this type of arrangement. Put in the manual, also, that beautiful campaign tree (because to "derive it" from countless play-overs would take mind-bending hours)
Perhaps "teaching people to lose", or to not fight, is an admirable.....societal goal. Or a skill that an actual commander might need (if given the authority).
But for the casual gamer to run into this philosophy, so different than most of what they are given to expect elsewhere is, in my opinion, unnecessarily off-putting. Most of us try to "solve" a scenario, and do not realize that it may be there is, by design, no solution. I read so many comments about "impossible" campaign scenarios with MG and the Italian campaigns that I barely tried them--they sounded "broken".
Seeing this tree gives me a far better understanding of what was going on.
-
9 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:
I attempted to volunteer for service in WW2, but the army rejected me on the ridiculous grounds that I'd been dead for nigh on 300 years. They got some chap called Lord Gort to take my place, and we all know how that turned out. In the meantime I can assure people that the working class oik who writes my letters has indeed read the manual.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
16 hours ago, Hapless said:
@Rankorian Don't worry man, its always good to get as many different viewpoints in as possible.
Not quite. With Panther 2, it fired on my infantry on the highway and revealed its position to the scout team in the building. The scout team was within shouting distance of its HQ, which was sitting in a halftrack with a radio so there is a spotting link via radio between the spotting unit and the tanks. There was a turn or two between spotting the Panther and the tanks getting into position and in that time they did get a spotting icon for the Panther, it just wasn't resolved- they knew that something tanky was over there, just not the details. To be sure, I was moving the killer Sherman up into position next to the scout team with eyes on the Panther so that they start yelling to the (unbuttoned) tank commander about that dirty great big kraut tank over there; but the Sherman spotted it on its on and made the kill.
Panther 3 is a little different- the Shermans had no idea that there was a Panther down the slope in front of them because it was too dark. But that's only in game spotting terms: you could argue that the tankers could tell that something was going on in front of them- plenty of muzzle flashes that are visible in the early morning murk but not resolvable, if that makes sense. From there its just a question of whether my orders to the Shermans represent orders from on high ("HQ says to move up and support the infantry getting hammered in front of us"- those guys in the streambed still had a radio I think) or whether they represent the tankers' own initiative ("The mission is to kill enemy tanks. Looks like there might be something ahead, let's creep forward and see."). In that case they actually spotted the Panther because it fired its main gun and lit itself up with its own muzzle flash.
Its a bit of a fill-in-the-blanks exercise I grant you, but once you start factoring the possibility that pixeltruppen can make local decisions on their own in line with the player-commander's intent, without waiting for orders you can pretty explain away any player based borg spotting :).
In the game, I'm still consolidating a little bit. I've managed to whack a radio operator down on the highway with some blind MG area fire and its starting to get a little difficult to keep track of AjarmanG's tanks: I'm not 100% sure how many there are and where they are now: one contact has popped back up on the Cobru road, one is definitely hanging around the top of town, I think the one on the highway has disappeared, that leaves the one in the centre of town unaccounted for... I'm trying not to think about it too much!
The real interesting news is that it looks like AjarmanG is worrying about his rear a bit and he's sent a long kubelwagen over to take a look. I'm all set to blow it away if it comes over the crest into my little staging area up there, but I'm fifty-fifty on whether to pop a halftrack up and swiss cheese it before it can get a load of sound contacts.
We'll see.
Your explanation is a fair one.
Carry on
-
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 that (absent a house rule that one can only attack a unit with a unit which actually is aware of the unit) by area firing, for infantry units. For armor, it is "seeing" what every unit sees, and then moving your armor when and where you want, presenting your armor frontally.
Then you wait for spotting. But in the WW2 IRL the attacking armor would have been very more blind and at a disadvantage. Mass would be more important. If, in the game, you may know where an enemy armor piece is because of some distant infantry unit, the attacker can gain the initiative. [this is, of course, an old issue: think of trying to simulate C2 issues in Napoleonic or American Civil War games--couriers--, much less with the Romans]
Tanks without, generally, even medium range effective communication with the infantry, mostly only able to fire when stationary, and substantially blind when buttoned unless one sat for awhile--that is my image of a WW2 tank. My guess is that things have changed.
I am on the edge of my seat to see how this proceeds.
-
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 more crowded Western Front.
Now I am going to make a generation specific comment: You --move-- your tanks. That is probably consistent with modern doctrine, and the Shermans are likely a good candidate for that. In my thinking, in WW2 tank thinking was that they were more mobile AT/HE/MG positions with armor around them. [ha...maybe such a generalization will get JasonC to jump in to eviscerate me] Yes they were mobile, but the concept was to move them to somewhere critical and sit and fire (yes there is the "shoot and scoot" in CM--but I consider that the exception to the rule, and was dropped as a command in CM2)
How is your ammo? Do your Shermans carry much HE? That might be critical near the conclusion of this battle.
-
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?
-
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 powers. The cats are not great street brawlers.
-
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 opposite side.
The H to H stuff is a real mind game.
-
22 hours ago, Erwin said:
The race to the center "flags" in ME's has been an issue ever since CM1 days. This must have been an auto generated QB map. Most designers know to place the "flags" away from the center, so each side has to attack and defend.
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 mentioned as a topical topic they just did not get to]
And, reading this thread, I am enjoying CM2.
-
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 your right flank (which, I agree, may be unnerving to him)
In general, I would think that a contest between two equal units one would want to be in the defensive position (particularly with FOW). This is what I find so jarring about QB ME battles: the initial rush to get into the central position (like gaining the central position on a chess board). The person who does not attack the enemies fixed positions first may have the advantage.
If he attacks Corbu, I think the situation will be very, very interesting. If he piece-meals the attack, or can't move units with precision, you have him. If he does, however, he might have you. That might then require you counter-attack at his rear to draw off units by threatening "his" town.
So, I would counsel patience (except, perhaps, to pepper some woods/target on the right flank to emphasize your potential threat there). But I don't have command--the weight of decision is on your shoulders.
-
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 particular since I like to play in self-imposed "iron" mode--and am disappointed in myself if I ever redid a move after I consciously gambled and lost on moving something)
It is like watching someone play a completely different game than what I play. It is excellent. You are describing the play well, and I commend you for your openness in doing this.
-
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 my bias: never move when you can stay still, particularly if you have fire superiority. If you actually do not have fire superiority on your right flank, I think you will be in trouble.
-
12 hours ago, Sublime said:
Hows biz in Worcester anyways Rankorian?
Regardless my point was more of the plausbility of any WW2 vets not only playing comp games but fast paced ONLINE aerial combat games. Impossible ? Of course not. Unlikely. Extremely.
[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, all vets have similar experiences--back to the beginning of human time.
You had a tougher time in Singling.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Thank you for the courteous replies to my post.
Or, 3. The primary purpose of the flank attack was to ensure the withdrawal from the city of Bakhmut was not hampered?
I think I learned from this forum that Bakhmut was not strategically important, and also that advance planned, massed, artillery grid fires against fixed or small geographic areas is one thing that Rus seems to be able to do.
In addition, and yes, as wargammer, I think people like you have tried to make me understand:
1. That to control a position, sometimes it is better not to occupy it, but to be able to put effective fires in and around it. (Which, possibly, the two UKR flank positions can do to the Bakhmut area, if they do not withdrawal nor get pushed back.)
2. If an opponent does "recon by pushing units ahead, and watching what blows them up", a counter to that is to move the defense revealed units (over an hour, day, week--depending on the operational level), so that no effective information is gained by that recon style. This, from what I have read here, is something Rus has largely not solved for. And thus a dispersed, mobile, defense by UKR west of Bakhmut will likely be effective?
Again, giving Rus the choice of commiting high quality offensive troops to try pursue, or letting the area go quiet.
DF