vincere
-
Posts
1,121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by vincere
-
-
Good point. I forgot to mention that assumptions that better units universally perform better is false. There's actually a study in the US Army, recently, which showed that highly cohesive units were sometimes the ones most likely to under perform. It's what happens when the bond between the soldiers of a small unit becomes stronger than the bonds to the greater force or even nation.
Here is an abstract (one line emphasized by me):
Yet another example of why making assumptions about force capabilities runs into trouble with reality.
In CMx2 you can simulate these sorts of cohesion problems by decreasing the Leadership Bonus, reducing Morale, and/or lowering Physical Condition.
Steve
There are risks with this type of research. Can some of these be exceptions that prove a rule. Also value of high cohesion < when their task doesnt match the higher organisation- bringing them together is good leadership.
The tasks and conditions in theatres are so diverse that some of it sounds like a generalisation from the particular (which is bad logic. Meta study of 9 is not large).
My bias- a history of coming across some poo sociology and psycholgy research
Not that I think the above is poo. Have come across it before and it has value. Just, for me, I wouldn't generalise this to all or most high cohesive units. That said, it's been some years since I looked at this in depth.
-
It was a phenominal site which showed he obviously put a tremendous amount of work and creativity into it.
That's good word for describing it. Did you read the rules set. Some phenominal ideas that were relatively balanced; like his strategic points system that included high value targets for Blue.
-
Let's not forget that inside buildings cover and interior walls are abstracted. and with that in mind and unscientifically comparing RPGs with 155 and other HE does raise questions.
I may try a game on basic to see what happens more closely.
-
Scimitars are great!
I spent 3 weeks on one when they just had the Jaguar engine - sports car on tracks.
Agreed, I got my tracked licence in one. Cross country with it was best fun driving I ever had. Very fast and versatile.
-
Thanks for all the screenshots, real nice to see 'the action' this way.
And good to see the scrap in the woods is bloody and chaotic like I would imagine it should.
Yeah, the woodland scrap is looking good. Some of the undergrowth had some plants that looked like ferns, my second favourite plant in woodlands (and I only have two faves). Can't wait to get involved in some of those and larger forests.
Can armour actually enter? If it can, considering how cmsf played, tanks are going to be a tad vulnerable in or near.
And really enjoying the AAR preview, thank you.
-
i dont ever remember any debates about how to work with or around the rules... but i guess just like that sdp decided to drop the whole thing...
"LATEST UPDATES
web site last updated January 2nd 2011
Operation Nemesis has been cancelled. Due to the perceived shortcomings of the rule sets I've decided not go ahead with this meta-campaign.
I wish to thank all of you that enlisted and so enthusiastically put effort into this project. This website will close in short.
The TACMAPs of the MC will be uploaded to GAJs CMSF Mods Warehouse when I find the time.
cheers/sdp"
Holy cow, that's a shock. Thanks for posting it here.
sdp. I'm sad to hear that.
I appreciate the work that you put into this thing. (Everybody else that I communcated with also appreciated your noteable efforts).
That said, it is obviously your decission to put it down at any point, especially if you feel any of us have come accross as overly critical, or even just because you want to.
Is there any chance that after some time reflecting that you may reconsider your decison? Or be happy for somebody else to pick up where you left off- which as it happens looked pretty much done?
Once again, considering CMSFs limitations, great rules set, outstanding work on the map, counters etc so good luck if you decide to look at this again or try another project in the future.
V
-
I have little issue with how foxholes look, but very keen to know how thay work.
Is there any abstraction for cover between the pimples or will rounds and nasty bits of metal go through there like the the thin air that we see?
I presume the defenders will kneel to shoot over the mound?
And why not just have the earth go all way round?
-
The funny thing is, there is a Bradley TOW launcher animation. Of a sort.
No doubt plenty of others have noticed this too, but with a Bradley that hasn't yet fired any TOWs, the launcher is partially inside the ISU (integrated sight unit). Yet right before the Bradley fires its first TOW of the scenario, the launcher slews laterally several inches, so that it's no longer inside the ISU, and as far as I've noticed it remains in that position throughout the rest of the scenario.
Thought occured to me today. Knock the recon version of the Bradley but compare it the UK.
UK has a reletively high defense expediture and we still have Scimatar in this role: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV107_Scimitar
Entered service 1971. Bloody hell.
Recently used in Afghanistan to some effect as flank and recon screens and fire support groups. Kept out of RPG range from what I have read.
So is the BRM-1 the premier Russian recon vehicle?
-
That's actually 2 Multipurpose Vehicle (kubelwagen), with the '2' referring to it being the second one (the other is greyed out/deleted), not that there are two of them.
As it happens, though, there is another kubel and 2 Blitz's that aren't shown on the OoB. I truncated them off the bottom because they've been destroyed in the editor, and their only purpose is to add some litter to the sheeling of the intersection where the first lateral meets the main road (the D-28).
There is a little ammo in a kubel. Not heaps, but a little.
Thanks JonS. So can you be getting ammo from somewhere other than a vehicle?
I like the idea of having a reserve by the way. Hope having a reserve has more pay off than CM1. As stated likely size has something to do with it.
-
The bones are accumulating - nearly a foots worth I rekon
If that is cryptic to my post then that is what I was wondering/thinking. Just checked the OOB and he has 2x Kubelwagons. How much ammo could a Kubelwagon reasonably hold?
-
Did you say that you are resupplying ammo now?
-
Hi,
as i saw this picture some questions came to my mind:
http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/CMBN/Elvis_vs_JonS/2nd-installment-4-full.jpg
1. Those foxholes look very unnatural and a bit strange. The engine should be able to make them look a lot more natural and pretty i think.
.
You'd benefit from keeping up with the terminology. They are redesignated as 'earth pimples'.
-
Something might've changed...but I kinda figured leaves would be removed. What I am really hoping for is a more destroyed/ravaged look...like with broken trunks and such.
Mord.
Yep, been wondering the same thing. The occasional falling branch and tree would be welcome.
Wonder whether the undergrowth gets thicker.
-
CMBB was the last I played pbem.
But thoroughly enjoyed it, and most days over 5 turns would be played.
An aspect that I enjoyed with it was the banter with the enemy within the emails.
-
Ah ok then, I must apologize You that i understanded that post as sarcastic. :-)
No worries, it's so easy to misread things. Hey I'm distracting this thread from from the decent stuff so I'll shut up.
-
Personally I err on the patient side to get as much tweaking and any goodies if possible.
-
Ehm, sorry, my english is not good as I wish it should be, this is sarcastic or ironic post or what?
Not sarcastic at all. The quality of information and debat on these forums has a relatively high standard. And I wanted to add my opinion that your posts backed by diagramatic representation in this thread make an above average contribution in the already high standard forum.
Better to ask than to have any "sarcastic bastage" thought fester
-
Yeah, I wonder if they tweaked this again in the last patch.
-
PM sent,
Got it. Cheers.
-
Ohhhh...ohhhhh.....maybe we can have a note when they are done for the day so I dont keep on refreshing like a nutjob!
German....we are waiting your write up!!!
SCHNELLLLL!!!!!!!
Yes, and let us know if your like out of town for a day or two. I don't want to be disappointed on booting up after work
-
Nothing scentific yet but am starting to get the feeling that Javelins may have been nerfed when used on buildings.
Also that last three that I have fired at roof have it the corner edge where the red taget line ends. I scratch my head an ask didn't they used to fairly reliably hit the centre of the roof from to down?
-
Ah, so actually it was right that Leo2 side turret is thinner than in M1 or CR2?
One question because I can't find answer in books. The ammo loading hatch in turret left side, it was only welded without any changes or the hole was filled with "special" armor like the rest of side turret armor have?
Sir, I salute your in depth presentation. Very impressive.
-
Yeah, I saw Pentagon Wars. Very funny. Perhaps over done but that's often the case to make a point. A link off that had one where the General had put heat pads on a target to get a heatseeking missile to pass a test- that had me worried. There will always be flaws, but I guess the US seems towards the top at ironing them out. Or does that have more to do with actually being in combat for a nearly a decade.
I am not a very big fan of Bradleys IRL. As for the game, it should be remembered that it is a game,most of the same things that work in real life can at least give a good chance of working here,for the things that are different, if you want to enjoy the game,probably just have to adjust to the differences.Agree with this. And in RL tactics need to evolve rapidly.
Somebody whisper what the other more sim thing is... shhh...
-
I believe those represent fortifications (wire, obstacles etc.)
Cheers Gpig, looks logical. I didn't want to make any asumptions.
Thickness and penetration data
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Personally, this was a step backwards. Been reading about WW2 on and off since a teenager and still have no idea how every AFV compares- but I guess my pixel troopers would have an idea. Basically if it was reintroduced I'd use it. Used it in CM1 loads.
That said. If I recall rightly, some time ago Steve said that the reason <Enter> into detailed penetrations stats are not in were for two reasons.
I think that the system is so much more complex now so similar data would have less meaning?
The other was a philisophical decision. They aim for games to be played realistically and perceived people checking indepth tables all the time as moving away from that.