vincere
-
Posts
1,121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by vincere
-
-
Agreed. Might be a total PITA to try to code the animation and all the AI to go with it, but I'd love to see it.
Michael
PITA, yes. But they managed it for infantry behaviour around terrian such as walls. I'd assume if they ever get to it most of it would be done by the TAC AI.
-
...As for WWII, accounts of the Normandy airdrop for example, abound with "orphaned" paratroopers attaching themselves to other units but then largely failing to distinguish themselves in action or quickly becoming casualties when they try (e.g. 2LT Butterbar gets shot when nobody follows his lead).
In the game, a strong leader unit in command will raise the performance of both fragment units but they'd remain functionally separate even if they're in the same location and shooting the same targets.
The quality, anc cohesion drop is interesting. My guess, and it is just a guess is that there was likey some variation.
Read some 'Reynolds' on SS in Normandy and I seem to recall it was not uncommen for them to merge.
I guess we cold invoke the abstract time issue again and not that 2hrs CMtime could easily be much longer RL.
-
I'd venture to say the tactical spacing of the CMx2 game engine will be more realistic for WWII infantry than it is for modern day BLUE forces in CMSF. Squad tactical drills weren't as refined in WWII as they are for today's soldiers. While WWII tactical manuals do indeed advise of the dangers of "bunching up", especially in column, and noncoms would be barking out "Spread out, dammit!", small teams or even entire squads of green draftees would still tend to do so under stress. Take a look at (unposed) combat pics of WWII riflemen in action -- they really don't look much different than the pixeltruppen.
In my opinion, CM ought to "un-nerf" HE for this reason.
I hear what you're saying, but (intake of breath), err be careful of overstating it. Taking Brits here: section drils were not that far off recent times with the exception of taking down rooms.
It some point it'd be good to see formations, like double file along a track; extended line etc.
-
The front guy is Pierce Brosnan for sure.
Next they need to model battle fatigue on the faces as the fighting wears on
-
Does the Eurofighter count?
Michael
Definately not.
Wolrd class kit- struggling too.
-
Wasn't Steiner a Corporal on the Eastern front?
-
Ermmm - he didn't ask about bunkers - vehicles and sharing ammo. Anyways you'll be pleased tae hear that yes bunkers do have an ammo supply.
No ammo drops in buildings - least ways not in the beta I'm playing with just now.
Wow, thanks for that, ammo in bunkers is another step forward.
I get it now- unwashed masses of non beta testers have to think about their direct questions
-
It's a shame that ammo resupply is limited to vehicles. I seem to recal that Steve said that they'd try to look at other ways of resupply especially for the defender. I wonder if squads sharing ammo is it or whether we'll ever have ammo in a fox hole or building.
-
Holy COW. I never heard this before; and it sounds like credible statements. May have to get that book.
-
I think you are all making it up. And that actual training and previous combat experience, not demographic anything, mattered, if anything did.
And it is quite likely none of it did matter very much. The average rifleman, let it not be forgotten, never shot anybody. A man facing an entire enemy army with nothing but a rifle was a pipsqueak with a pea shooter. A few snipers with scopes and special doctrines on their use were effective, though on a tiny scale. But three quarters of losses were inflicted by artillery and mortars, and machineguns accounted for most of the remainder. Individual riflemen were mostly just targets.
Not what the recruiting posters say, no doubt, but the reality of war in that era. Which was large scale industrial murder by a gigantic machinery of destruction, not a medieval joust between individual knights errant.
Infantry were and remain more than just targets- they take and hold ground.
RogCBrand puts a possibility well:
It's not a question of whether rural people make some sort of uber-soldiers- they don't. We're just talking of certain aptitudes and abilities that rural people would have that would help them to adapt more easily and perhaps, on average, put them ahead in certain ways.There's a whole lot more to front line soldiering than the flashes of combat, and maybe there's something to it. It's going to go against most of our sensibilities because most of us are from cities, and we like to feel we all could be equal.
-
Yes, this comes up quite frequently. There is some truth to certain aspects of it. The one discussed in relation to the US Army is that the guys from out in the country had more practical experience with heavy machinery than compared to the average urban dweller. That plus the high mechanization level of US agriculture probably gave the US forces an edge in keeping their vehicles running. Enough of an edge to make any sort of significant difference at a higher level? Eh... probably not.
One thing is pretty sure, though. You take an average urbanite and an average rural soldier, give them equal training, and drop them into a rural combat environment... my money is on the rural guy having a better chance of survival. Instead, stick the same two guys into an urban battle for their first fight and my money is on the urban guy. After a couple of months of both forms of combat, I'd say it would be even money.
Steve
Hmm.. that's a good point; never thought of it reversed. I have to admit I bought into some of the German tactical superiority idea; let's face it, it's hard not to when even modern Western Generals continue to refer to German principals. However, clearly it's a very mixed picture with an interplay of so many variables I'm at "the jury is out position now" thanks to this thread.
I also had at the back of my mind a quote I hear recently about old Prussia's military relationship to the state. When asked the reply was along the line of the state and the military are one and I wondered whether this was still having an impact on German military psyche. I honestly don't know enough about this so is a genuine "I wonder?".
One thing's for sure though; if we were to use a boxing analagy it's a good fight with both sides game, and in the early rounds the outcome uncertain. Yes the Allies had the fight bagged by the 2nd half but Germany wouldn't go down and still looked like it could get a TKO. And I guess that goes some way to making it a good period to wargame.
-
I once had a stryker squad moving quick and whip out an AT4 and take out a BMP that cornered onto them about 30m. Was impressed and relieved when it was fini BMP
-
Which is exactly how we got the myth of Allied victory through superior numbers only. I mean, if the Germans were tactically superior, and yet lost massive numbers of men and material in the process of defending the best terrain one could hope for... well, must be the Allies just used more explosives. It couldn't possibly be anything more nuanced than that, could it?
Any unbiased look at the combat in Normandy shows that the terrain was more important than anything. When the Germans tried local counter attacks they were often bloodied pretty badly in the process. When they tried major operations they came off even worse.
Normandy was a meat grinder for both sides. Difference is, the Allies could afford the losses and the Germans couldn't. Plus, the Allies were trying to liberate and the Germans defend. In the end relative losses, time tables, etc. mean NOTHING if the ultimate objectives were not secured. It's like saying the Germans were superior because of their victories on the Eastern Front in 1941. Well, if the war ended there perhaps, but I seem to recall that the Germans lost the war. Correct me if I'm wrong
Steve
Normandy a meat grinder yes. Terrain being the single most imortant factor not so sure it does the topic justice.
If I recall correctly there's quite robust criticism of Epsom and Goodwood amongst others.
And there's analysis that the Brit command were sticky because they had one eye on manpower shortages, which were very acute at the sharp end.
The US had manpower pool in their nation; but for some reason (I think enconomy) they set themselves a limit of how many divisions they'd mobilise and pretty much stuck to it if I recall right. So it could be said the US way of war had a different emphasis by choice; which lead to a firepower emphasis.
The short answer is that there is no short answer. I doubt several Phds would solve it to everbodies satisfaction. Some problem is that there are still people hung up about Nazi worship; and still some actual Nazi worship, although thankfully not here much.
I would like to say that foriegn troops fighting for Germany were not necesarily inferior quality. I remember some discussion that Dutch troops were solid. And I knew a polish guy that fought for Germany; or put more acurately fought against the communists, and then later switched sides in Normandy and fought for the Allies. There was absolutely nothing inferior about his fighting ability or hardinous.
By the way; anybody else come across the notion that an average guys from rural areas make better soldiers than city slickers?
Re- Germany loosing the war-
whose economy is strongest; whose working conditions are better
edited: Some notion of putting the Soviets in a lower category. Let's not forget that thier operational doctrine radically improved and even they perceived manpower issues towards the end.
-
Tim Allen : When I walk into that (Sears) Craftsman tool department, my nipples get rock-hard!
When I think about operational level on top of CMx2 , my nipples get rock-hard!
Just your nipples: casual CM'er then eh?
Edited- there's a global strategic WW2 game slated for this year that will allow editing platoons casualties in divions. Bitter Glory will be hex based.
-
If you look at the thread I linked to above you will see that there has already been a Meta Campaign that used the Panther Games system as an operational layer. It was with CMAK of course.
Myself and a few friends (The_Capt being one) are in the midst of planning for another META campaign after CMBN is released using Battles From the Bulge (Operational layer) and CMBN (tactical resolution).
So you plan to mod B ft Buldge map to a normandy one, and can edit unit lossed each turn?
-
"emphasised German objective orientated orders rather than higher commanders telling their subordinates how to do their jobs in a dynamic environment."
Compared to the Russians maybe, but not with the Western Allies. Indeed sometimes the delegation of "How to do it" went too far with the Brits at least (an old problem, day 1 on The Somme wold have been less of a disaster if Haig had given Rawlinson less autonomy in the planning stage).
Good point; but I was still under the impression that even the Brits kept "how to" higher up the command chain while Germans devolved more of that down to the NCOs.
Regarding cohesion- I read an account of how the French so recked theirs pre 1940 that any army would have struggled. It was so convincing I stopped making cliche french retreat jokes after it.
Back to Western Front 1944. So if the Germans refited major formations out of the line; is it safe to presume they still trickle fed some replacements in?
-
I realise CMBN is priority which is understandable but is there any eta? I still haven't playe the German campaign yet due to the missing panzerfaust launchers.
Pretty useless playing without them.
-
Good stuff in this thread
Are you saying, in real life, a 6 man squad or 60 man company of vets is a better fighting force than a 10 man squad or 100 man company of 60%vet/40%green. I don't get it. Care to elaborate?
How did the other armies replace troops after extended combat?
I'm guessing it may be to do with how replacements were dumped in units without any time divoted to cementing cohesion. So maybe the replacements were FNGs like in Vietnam.
I can't recall for sure whether the Germans did it different; but vagauely recall them refiting major formations out of the line.
edited- it's a damned ineteresting question. No smoke without fire in my opinion. There persists this idea that they had an edge. I remember looking at this a while ago and "Combat Effectiveness in WW2" emphasised German objective orientated orders rather than higher commanders telling their subordinates how to do their jobs in a dynamic environment.
As for the supermen advocates. Yes some examples of very stiff fighting by SS units; but they took great losses in the process.
On a side note- What was they German Artillary arm like. We keep hearing how US arty won was so influential. But the Soviets were also giving them lesson after lesson in Arty so why didn't the Germans try to seek parity.
-
I'd add to Steve's thoughts that The Capt's position was winable. I was thinking my style of being cautious in Bill's position would have maybe played into your hands. Taking the hits like that, 4 down and none to show for it, I'd have backed off on the right and been indecisive trying to figure what to do. By that time Capt's armour could have consolidated. Very different outcome then.
Thanks for the AAR. Very interesting to see that Hull down looks like it works better than CM1.
Now to be honest, being an infantry guy at heart, Id still be optomistic in Capt's position, especially as somebody mentioned earlier if there was more terrain, or if you had some arty smoke for a late game objective grab.
What's the range of the infantry AT?
Am pre-ordering tonight.
-
Damn- no wonder I've been so 'under the weather' and cranky.
Off to get a prescription tomorrow.
-
I'd add that while not being super men the sniper's observation skill are advanced compared to private average.
-
I'm Curious whether the Jar or anybody else predicted this before this empirical testing?
Also is defenders comflage modeled- so defenders tanks and ATs much harder to spot if they don't move? In CMSF infantry AT can be a bitch to spot.
Very interesting AAR- tipping me towards pre-order.
-
Another data point FWIW (I have no personal experience to offer although the topic is interesting): Donovan Campbell notes in his (excellent) Iraq USMC memoir, JOKER ONE, that his (unnamed) platoon sergeant was pretty useless; he was very senior and a skilled target shooter but had little leadership, motivation or initiative. He did deploy with the platoon on a number of missions (this is a COIN deployment, keep in mind), but Campbell left him in charge of one of the other squads, keeping his first sergeant effectively as his 2IC.
Combat Admin guys being dangerously useless, self serving etc- well 'Black Hearts' is a darn good read with plenty of that in. Quit unique in what it analyses.
-
I had this and the alt w key sorted.
More recently I was playing with my NVIDIA settings to try and max graphics and it came back- so now I just tweak one setting at a time
CM2 infantry spacings
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Ah mannn, I loved those Pita giros.