Zalgiris 1410
-
Posts
544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Zalgiris 1410
-
-
I think relative spotting ought to resolve this problem of the stalking TH teams being taken out before they close in on their AFV target hopefully enough somewhat Bluebottle Kiss.
-
I agree with you Michael Dorosh that this company-level stuff wasn't done well enough in CMx1, but from what Steve's been posting it sounds like that is what's almost entirely going on their BBQ. The system will hopefully progress to the bigger scale which is better IMHO, because that is where my interest is, it want matter if CMx2 is the best game ever as a company level game I'll still want to play the bigger scope.
IME I've found the CMx1 games lend themselves to the treatment of the larger scale than the company size intend and I expext that CMx2 will do the same when it provides the flexibility.
I think even regimental sized games will be successfully handled by the CMx2 engine eventually too, and ultimately treated better than CMx1 does with all the improvements shining through. I don't think that some people realise that already when playing Regimental sized battles that there are more units/pixtels on the map than the number there are going to be with the 1:1 representation for company battles will be. I fully enough understand that there are massive implications if that size is attemted to be handled in CMx2 though! However I don't agree MD that in order to do that well, the BFCs would need to remove the squads and teams from the player's control or such like, since we'll all just have to waite until technology allows us to process for that.
Only then for me will there fully be lots to see and do enough. *drools*
-
Private Bluebottle mate, the BFC has satisfied me enough that we will eventually be able to play the bigger sized stuff somewhere in the future with CMx2. We just wont be able to at first.
Mind you, one of the main reasons why I don't like playing the Company or so level in CMx1, apart form my preferance for the multi-Btln / Rgmt level, is that I don't think it actual is best able to depict it, sorry Steve.
So in a ways I'm actually looking forward to getting to play that lower level properly & much more enjoyably given the scope restrictions of CMx2, since I've avoided that so far in CMx1 I guess I've been missing out on something here.
I have also avoided playing in towns and cities for similar reasons because I also don't think CMx1 is good in that kind of urban terrain environment, though it has been very good for village fighting IMHO, but I usually play village battles with multiple Btln forces...
May be the BFCs ought to think about doing something extra with the CMx1 engine and puting out a completely combined CMBO/BB/AK version 1.4 with just only some worthy minor improvements at some time in the interium, what'd ya think?
[ September 13, 2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
I'm not saying that I don't want that end of game full movie reply option intead of greater AAR details, Peter I want both improvements please! :cool:
-
Yeah, yeah I agree with that idea J Ruddy, being able to capture the enemy wounded when you over run their positions, if not during the game play then deffinately afterwards at the end of the game.
I hope I posted that in the poll, at least I know I meant to at some point, but whether I got around to it or not I don't remember. :confused:
I've found it odd and unrealistic to capture enemy postions (quickly enough) and not pick up the wounded from knocked out squads & teams as surrendered and counted as such in the AAR.
-
I'll tell you who JonS, both the US/CW Rgmts/Bgds.Originally posted by JonS:And you seem to be overlooking the German A-Tk Pns which were separate from the IG pns. Not overlooking at all. Taking a standard regt sized unit from a standard inf div we have ...
A German regt with (roughly):
* upto 8 IGs (75mm and maybe 150mm) in 13 kp, and
* 3 x A-Tk guns (75mm, or 50mm for the poor divs) in 14 kp.
Total: 11 (max, generally less)
A British bde with:
* 6 x 6-pr in each bn.
Total: 18
An American Regt with:
6 x 105mm in the regt cannon coy.
12 x 57mm in the regt AT-pn
3 x 57mm in each bn
Total: 27
You tell me which army under-supplied their regt-sized units with DF firepower.
Your figures for the amount of anit-guns organic to the 14th Company of normal German Infantry Rgmts are completely understated.
You should have had it according to their TO&E:
13th Company- 2x 150mm sIGs and 6x 75mm leIGs.
14th Company- 4 Pltns x 3x PAKs each, total: 12 ATGs.
Thus 20 pieces of guns for ordinary German Infantry Rgmts. In the usual German Infantry Division they were supposed to also have a 36 gun ATG Regiment plus a Pltn of 3 ATGs & a Pltn of 2 75mm leIGs in their Reconnaissance Abteilung.
Therefore they had a total of 75 Paks, 20 75mm leIGs and 6 150mm sIGs per Division which comes to a full amount of 101 tactical DF Infantry guns.
(It ought to be noted however, that as the War progressed that these numbers were not maintained, since as with the reduction of Inf Rgmts from 3 Btlns to 2 the level of these guns was also reduced on establishments. AIUI the 3rd ATG Btln was not maintained, while the IGs began to be replaced in the 13th Companies by mortars at the rate of 2 81mms for each 75mm leIG and 2 120mms for each 150mm sIG.)
That's more than the figure for CW Infantry Brigades while AFAIK their Infantry Divisions had nomally no more than 2 ATG Regiments each similarly of 18 ATGs. Thereby giving the CW Infantry Division a total of 90 ATGs to which should be added their three Regiments of Artillery.
While in comparison with the gun support in US Infantry Rgmts, I think that given their better / bigger effects and their capability for very short to medium ranged accurate indirect fire the IGs organic to the German Infantry Rgmts probably more than make up for the disparity in numbers.
Some what related to this is the levels of mortars in these formations. The Germans had a Pltn of 6 81mm mortars in each Infantry Btln, 18 per Rgmt for a total of 54 medium mortars until the loss of the 3rd Btlns.
AFAIK the CK never had more than 40x 3inch mortars per Infantry Division, while the US I'm not sure about though I think somewhere between 24 & 36 81mm mortars though they also had 60mm mortars as well.
[ September 13, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
Yeah that's the resaultant problem that I find I am faced with Mike, having to do something I really don't like doing at all, splitting squads and using the "Bomber" half to make close assaults against AFV, because those two man T-H teams are just too small and vulnerable and tend not last long enough to perform their specific task.
-
While he may have read heaps of evidence, unfortunately IME JasonC is always only expressing his self-righteous assertions with nothing more than globs and globs of opinion.Originally posted by YankeeDog:JasonC has made the assertion (and, as usual, supported it with gobs of evidence) that, if anything, infantry are more effective at close-assaulting armor in CM than was true in real life.
So while more detailed modeling of what happens in a close assault, and perhaps some more graphic eye candy would be nice, I'd want to see more evidence before I concluded that the close assault abilities of infantry were, taken as a whole, undermodeled in the current engine.
I haven't been discussing the realistic effectiveness of nor the lack of eye candy for Infantry close assaulting actions in CM, yet. But I'll be interested in where that goes YankeeDog to be sure.
What is actually the subjuct of this thread is the size of tank hunter teams in CM which are supposed carry out most of those close assaults of tanks and I have provided evidence for my call for a grater number of members.
(My sources for my origional post were first and foremost "The German Infantry Handbook", by Alex Buchner, and my reading of things by Franz Kurowski, James Lucas and in a few instances in the recollections of Gen Erhard Raus, who incidentally provides the only account of Panzerwurfmine actually being employed that exists AFAIK. Mind you, since he had to rely upon memory when he came to write of this occation, which took place early in the Russian campaigne, he mistakenly describes them as functioning as though they were Panzerfausts for a time when these had not even been developed.)
[ September 12, 2005, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
:confused: I didn't understand Redwolf's post either tommy who!
Ah Steve there's the point, Allied Infantry had to still spend some time in Normandy learning how they could actually communicate with a engine running closed hatch tank. These improvisations didn't just magically occur over the night of 5/6 of June. AFAIK it wasn't for a few weeks before these techniques were developed and spread around.
What about for the whole period before D-Day, its going to be unrealistic, historically speaking, if there is no distinction between the function of the likelihood and the quickness of having close by ground Infantry spotting threats and this intell being told to a closed tank. Now also consider this in terms of representing the differentitation between the effect of these capabilities upon combined arms opponents with different means or levels of Inf/tank communication.
In some tactical situations this is almost just as important as to whether tanks have radios or not. How will CMx2 depict or manage the relative difference between mixed forces combat when one side employs better Inf/tank coms than the other?
BTW on a slightly related topic, I was wondering if tanks with Infantry passengers ought to have better chances of avoiding mines and of not getting bogged or throwing a track. AIUI looking out for obsticles and mines was part of what the riding escort or ordinary passenger Infantry were instructed to do for their bus ticket, as well as dealing with the threat of close assault or rocket armed enemy Infantry! Is this also going to be dealt with in CMx2 by some BFC? :confused:
[ September 12, 2005, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
WTF is that bloody pic doing in my thread roqf77? :confused: :mad:
Why don't you take your own, well quoted, advice and just 'go away we were here first dammit'!
Regards,
Saul.
-
I have a copy of that book Ardem, "Panzer Operations", 'The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941-1945', compiled and translated by Steven H. Newton.
However, I prefer the translations in "Panzers on the Eastern Front", 'General Erhard Raus and his Panzer Divisions in Russia 1941-1945', Edited by Peter G. Tsouras.
In both the actual episode is on page 64. I shall quote a combined version of both relatively exact treatments from the same origional source:
"the KV-1 emerged from the forrest and drove with such speed, and so close passed a well-camoufluged 100mm gun that the crew had no opportunity to fire at it. The tank circled the church and crushed everything which appeared suspicious, including Colonel von Waldenfel's regimental headquarters. Our PzKw 35ts were powerless--because as at Raseinai their fire had no effect on this monster. At long last, one particularly plucky NCO put an end to this critical situation. He jumped on the tank and kept firing his pistol into the driver vision slot. The latter, wounded by bullet spatter and his vision obstructed, was compelled to turn back. He obviously hoped that by crossing the Russian lines to force his troublesome passenger to abandon his ingeniously chosen position. Thus the smallest weapon in our arsenal had put to flight the enemy's heaviest tank. Shouting and swearing, the driver of the tank again steered passed the 100mm gun. Not until only seconds before the moment they were just about to cross out of the German lines did the NCO leap off the tank, leaving the giant-size vehicle to its fate. However, no sooner had the offending tank reached no man's land when it burst into flames, struck in the rear by a direct hit from the 100mm gun."
Please note that when Raus refers to a 100mm gun he means the K 18 105mm field gun, which has a very long barrel, very high initial velocity and a range of 19 000 metres! Better for taking care of superheavy tanks than even the 88mm Flak. And bloody oath do I want them included in CMx2!!!
-
Hmmm, this ought to be more of a can of worms than you might suspect Steve. I'm no expert on this subject but I think you BFCs are going to have to do your research. AIUI there were tank phones (usually somewhere on the back of a tank) that Infantry or their commander could use to talk to the crew to pass information etc. However AFAIK they where a late developement or at least the Germans had them, so I think, in Normandy at the latest while the allies didn't. :confused:Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Infantry next to a tank should be able to inform the tank about something they've spotted, at least in theory. The tank would need to be unbuttoned and not driving around (engine noise). Phones were routinely mounted on tanks (even current day tanks!) by infantry so we'll probably be pretty liberal with close in infantry support informing vehicles of what is going on. It is realistic and it emphasizes the realistic benefits to AFVs of having infantry close by.
Now what the conumdrum is with this issue is that players and posters are going to want to know if they exist on tanks or not and therefore this additional capability might have to be treated like as with tank radios. I mean in the Unit Info sheet AFVs are going to need to be described as to whether they do actually carry an outside access tank phone set! :eek:
[ September 12, 2005, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
I would say the logical simulation target for a game like CM would be the lowest level where the main ground combat arms combined, and were more or less controlled and coordinated by a single ground commander.Originally posted by Bigduke6:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />From Steve:
Battalion sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a regimental action.
It's a slippery slope. Anybody can draw a line in one place or another and say "this is it" and make a decent case for the scale being correct.
I include artillery both direct and indirect in this mix. Therefore I am talking about infantry, artillery, and usually armour.
Thing is, different nations, at different times, combined arms differently. Certainly company is the level to shoot for if your goal is replicating typical combat between U.S. and German ground forces in World War Two.
Company is not so hot a level for replicating, say, Soviets in WWII because it wasn't the lowest level where a ground commander typically combined arms.</font>
-
I would like CMx2 to do that for me Peter somewhat, though not as much as a twenty page print out, just the reports for each and every unit better than CMx1 does now. :eek:
-
Tanks shouldn't be able to see let alone engage those very close TH teams when there're in their blind spots and that ought to be better handled with the relative spotting.
BTW Ardem do you remember if the guy who used his body to block the KV-1s vision applied it alive or dead?
-
I'm sure we bloody don't Ardem, we're not that far from having a NZ sized and probably worse equipt Army.
BTW the only time little Johnny pulls the sheeps wool over anybody's eyes when actually making deals is only just everytime he is doing some thing particularly unpleasent to the Ozzie public! :mad:
-
Well no not personally, but for this discussion I'm referring to most of the whole assigned crew members being involved in either pushing or pulling their guns at least.Originally posted by JonS:Have you ever pushed a gun?
-
I was wondering if their is going to be better night fighting with pistol flares and very lights carried or as called for options and with artificial moonlight provided by AA spot lights when documented or acceptiable.
Of course during night battles IMO there ought to be the capability to target blind fire into areas outside of units vision range too. (Assuming no LOS but with LOF.)
Also this would help to allow for blind firing into and through smoke sceens, dust clowds, fog as well as at night, and for having actual blind plotted fire by on board mortars and Infantry Guns and for spotter plotted off board artillery.
Well hopefully, eventually, may be one day in CMx2.
-
My point stoat is that this 'reverse' or withdraw order should be conducted by the crews using some pull technique from behind a shield or not, as aposed to when they actualy push their weapon forward.
-
What I mean is that this gun/tank got this and that specific ID AFV with a hull penetraition on turn # at # secs, etc. During game then it can be a less specific version with just an estimated tally.
-
Yeah I don't like the abstracted percentage ratio handling of WIA/KIA in such specific instances in CMx1, they are just too unrealistic since the crew members would mostly be fully toasted.
I'd like to say that I am with the tendancy of this thread so far, only depict the casualties but don't make the players worry about having to do anything for them for playability sakes.
-
I know that stoat but I want a more specific report and for it to be availliable during the game too.
-
That looks really cool Rollstoy what's it from?
-
That looks really cool Rollstoy what's it from?
Vehicle/gun movement improvements?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Please roqf77 or anyone else could you provide greater details on the British and Commonwealth ATG TO&E which is well sourced? Thanx.