Zalgiris 1410
-
Posts
544 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Zalgiris 1410
-
-
I think that you can use covered arcs to make it stay pointing in the direction you want, though that said I take your point Hautmann Lisse.
-
I second the origional post above and add that I would also like to know specifically what my ATGs, AFVs and planes actually took out included in the end of battle AAR as well.
-
In order to 'reverse' or withdraw an untowed gun I should imagine that the crew for the most part pulls it back out of danger while trying to obtain some admittedly only minimal protection from the gun shield rather than dashing infront of it to push it while all exposed!
Same goes for mortars and HMGs as well IMO.
-
I only have CMAK in 1.01 version does anyone know if that's going to be a problem for playing solo a dawnloaded senario though I've been able to do that a bit so far, but I definately haven't been able to play PBEM with an opponent with the 1.03 version.
-
Dummy tanks and decoy mok up guns etc; AFAIK from what I've read these kinds of things were employed in more of a well off the CM map range to really be viable for being included in CMx2 IMHO. (I'm not insanely gonna demand them while I froff at the mouth.) :eek:Originally posted by SlowMotion:About tactical aerial intelligence height:
I suppose so. They had to fly lower (the example I found from 1944 was at 600m) in order to see more details. I guess higher level flights were used with targets heavily defended with AAA or fighter defenses, such as important harbours.
The previous post mentioning "well documented entrenchments" makes me think about how reliable those documentations really were - in WW2 and even today. Can we buy things like fake tanks to mislead enemy spotting?
That said, I'm largely referring to British deception plans in NA aranged under some circus or magician guy, who I think was also involved with creating a totally faked larger second invasion force for Overlord. Large amounts of radio traffic was simulated too, but again I can't imagine this being employed on the CM tactical scale, (in even the currently capable Rgmt v Rgmt sized games) all that frequently.
The other way false intelligence was created was by having real tanks and other vehicles drive about an area in a fronts rear excessively to create the impression (of non existant dummy forces) that will mislead enemy estimates etc. The Russians did this during mid 1944 in Nth Ukraine as part of Maskirovka (Maskirization) before the beginning of Operation Bagration on the 22nd of June 1944. The strategic deception led to the destruction of Armee Group Mitte because of the incorrect assumptions thus held by OKW.
I've also read of dummy battery positions being constructed to retared enemy counter battery fire effects upon the real gun positions. One at lest had explosion produced gun flashes and sound effects! :cool:
AFAIK the only case of really reliable "well documentated entrenchments" actually being obtained by enemy intelligences was the accurate and for in some parts of it complete documentations of the German coatal fortifications. Plans and most importantly the construction details were photograhed by the French resistance, at least by one member of IIRC. Some specifics were later captured during fighting, definately at St Nazaire.
Other than that, for fortifications on the large scale the rest were mostly in friendy home territories with the main exception being that for the Germans on the Italian mainland. Again, though in this theatre I don't think the Allies had all that good info judging by the troubles they experienced fighting there. :confused:
All the same, a lot of recce was of an operational nature and not of the tactical type relevent to CMx2, but plenty enough were of course devoted to these kinds of tasks for sure. I just hope the pecentages mix and the actual feel of it is reasonably right, hopefully enough in term of the realism for the WWII setting.
On the small scale as in the CM scope of things (& esp in that of CMx2) the way some BFC is gonna make it sounds resonable enought to me. There are plenty of recorded instances of partisans or civilians providing intell and answers to such querries as 'where's that gun or tank at?' etc. Spies where used at times tactically, though I doubt terribly all that very often Steve, since this was performed by such means as enemy inpersonating and speaking troops such as say the Brandembergers and also by farm children who the Russians trained and used and even gave awards to!
[ September 11, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
Hmmm, I hope that you are playing against a human opponent and you can ask him later to find the definate answer so to enlighten us all, best of luck.
-
Interesting conumdrum, may be the enemy squad was sheltered deep in the building or at the far corner, BTW I would now waite for the Church to burn and collapse before sending what's left of your infatry platoon over the rubble.
-
I hope that the BFCs aren't confusing their table top dancing and turning tricks on the game while on setting the UI for relative spotting!Originally posted by Battlefront.com:To stick with the Borg we would have to stick with Absolute Spotting. That ain't happening. Not even as an option (which I am sure isn't possible to do anyway).
The point is, however, not a bad one. Some people are not going to be (initially) comfortable with the more realistic implications of Relative Spotting.
And all of this will only be as confusing as we make it be. Trick is in the UI and we're all set on that one.
Hardware isn't the issue when it comes to removing the Borg. Restricting player control is. That's actually pretty easy for us to do. Just lock the camera to a Platoon HQ or Company HQ and bingo... no more Borg spotting problem. The game wouldn't be fun or really even any good if that is all we did, but the way to solve the problem is rather straight forward. It's just not a practical option from a marketing standpoint.
Anyway, in CMx2 who's gonna be looking for their mother?
BTW Steve I think I just had a heart attack reading your last paragraph. Player camera view restricted to only the vision of units! :eek:
(It must have been a heart attack cos my hand only reached down my front as far as my middle chest pump!)
[ September 10, 2005, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
Architects know very very little about their most relevent topic aesthetics, they have no taste whatso-bloody-ever. :mad:
-
I agree thanks, JasonC that's all been very interesting, but please what are your sources since you havn't provided any to qualify your opinion or have you just made it all up? :confused: :eek:
-
Actually I agree that the newbie has made a fair point and I realised the logic behind his strang born again borg point of view, sometime after I stopped gut-wrenchingly laughing and finally calmed down enough to a smerky gaspy giggle.
Perhaps it might have been a good thing if the BFC had of waited a bit longer for greater PC hardware capacity to deal with the omnipotent borg problem and solved just about everything else first and put out an improved CMx1.4. It would have allowed all those non relative spotting aspects to have been taken care of and provided a good additional intermidiatory CM game at least for those willing to cope with it before the final developement of CMx2. (But too late now, & at least hopefully also for its demo!) :eek:
[ September 10, 2005, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
I was always a little unsatisfied with the two man Tank Hunter Teams in CMx1, though having them there with their capabilities was appreciatedly better than nothing extra there at all for sure.
In the game IME they are undermanned and get eliminated too quickly and thereby also too easily, just as similarly do two man ATR, Panzerknockers and LMG teams are.
The problem as I see it is that they more often than not have to manoeuvre or approach towards an enemy AFV than the other two man weapon types have to to be effective in fulfilling the role.
So I guess I'm saying that the two man Tank Hunter Teams in CMx1 should be looked at seriously again by some BFC IMHO with a view to expand them to teams or demi-squads of 3-4 men.
This is not an unconsidered willy-nilly clueless wish, in case you are wondering, because their is plenty of historical material which founds the basis of this recomendation.
Actually I don't know where some BFC came up with universal two man sized Tank Hunter Teams in the first place, because all the sources that I have on these types of small, role specific units has them as consisting of 3-4 men.
It was recomended SOP for such Close Anti-Tank Troops to consist of at least 3 men, up to 4 and even 5, because it wasn't likely that only one or two close assaulters even if armed with Panzerfausts were going to be successful attacking tanks and more often than not loose their lives in the fail endeavour.
There was more to be done than could be manged by just one to two men in such attacks and the German close combat methods must approach the standed, because their Infantry had to perform it most often, though at least I've also seen the Rumanians had to arrange themselves likewise from early on because they went to war against all that Russian armour without an ATR.
To support what I am saying here somewhat I'll mention that Guderian stated in "Panzer Leader", that by May 1944 the number of the especially created decoration awarded for the individual destruction of enemy tanks stood at 10 000, and AIUI most by this date could not have been down to Panzerfausts & schrecks.
According to my information Close Tank Destruction Team members had to perform 3 essential tasks, blinding the tank's observation and providing a smoke screen, destroying the tank with the means availiable and securing the team against the tank crew and any supporting infantry, mind you this all required to be co-ordinated and time managed by the leader.
Smoke was used to hinder enemy observation and smokey or incidiary devices and materials where either thrown on or near the tank or placed over sights and slits, as well as hunging strung over gun barrels and therefore not only molotov cocktail like flamiable liquid bottles were thrown in this effort.
These actions are not depicted in CMx1, though I can understand the difficulty in creating these things to happen, however I would like to see occations where they took crowbars or axes to tool beat mounted MGs and rammed jamming rocks down main gun barrels in some sort of a desparate man hand fighting against tank kind of thing!
The means of tank destruction involved what was on hand but the option were to use explosive packages, concentric grenades, magnetic hollow charges and later Panzerfausts just like in CMx1 by German Infantry and THTs / Pioniers.
However they did also used T-Mines in verious ways placing them under tanks, on their tracks and even actually threw them at tanks including moving tanks, fair dinkum!
My main concern here for this thread is to indicate the historically realistic soundness of suggesting that the two man Tank Hunter Teams from in CMx1 ought to be expanded in CMx2 to be 3-4 man Close Assualt Anti-Tank Troops.
I hope that I have made a reasonable arguement for some BFC, any thoughts fallahs?
-
pad152 I think you may not be considering how much mine fields could actually be spotted or detected IRL especially by ordinary Infantry. It didn't always take a human probe to discover their location and they could probe for them with better impliments than their own foot prints. I don't think that mine fields are spotted easily enough in CMx1 IMHO. Mine fields were often intended as a means of terrain or approach denial both against AFVs (such as Daisy chains can do in game) and to deter enemy Infantry. They were layed out together along with tank ditches and obsticles and with barbed wire entanglements in their efforts by the defence. :cool:
BTW I think the idea of throwing mines was meant as a joke, however this leads me to the subject of them being used by Close Anti-tank Combat Troops, esp in the period ranging between late 1941 to early 1944 and beyond when the Germans and their minor axis allies had to deal with ever increasing numbers of medium and heavier Russian tanks and Assualt Guns while not having enough proper AT defences and weapon systems.
I'll start a new thread on the subject, so if you like you can take a look.
Edit: the relevent observation from it is this pearler "they did also used T-Mines in verious ways placing them under tanks, on their tracks and even actually threw them at tanks including moving tanks, fair dinkum!" :eek:
[ September 10, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
What the bloody hell do you want know that for Michael? :confused:
Though I guess you might have your own modelling reasons such as how to strut your stuff, pose, bendover for a verticle smile and so you can match which shoes to wear!
Anyway this may help with your conumdrum, and I quote from the account in the book directly:
"The RA Section was then issued with a 25 pdr porte ( sic ) (carried and fired on the back of an LRDG truck)." P. 46.
"The equipment was a 25-pounder artillery gun mounted pointing over the tail of a 10-ton Mack truck, which also carried the men, their gear and a load of ammunition.'...'The Mack was heavy.'...' We were not popular with the Rhodesians, but the firepower when we attacked the Italian fort at El Gtafia certainly was. The Mack was kept out of sight behind a ridge while Blitz and Jim, unreeling the cable, went over the brow to have a view of the fort. The patrol trucks took up positions; Blitz worked out the range and gave the order to fire. A correction or two and the fun was over. All the others advanced on the fort and some time latter returned with four prisoners. We moved away from the area and the patrol went off on other jobs while we waited." P.48.
"When the patrol and Blitz returned...we set off back, travelling at night. The going was rough, mud flats surrounded by small hammocks, and the Mack rode them badly. The engine stalled and the battery was too flat to turn the heavy diesel motor over. We tried cranking her, but even with a rope and two teams of pullers it was too heavy. It didn't work and John Olivey wanted to move on, so eventually it was decided to abandon the truck. Blitz would not abandon his gun though, and it was towed behind a patrol truck while the rest of us stowed ourselves amoung the other vehicles and we all returned to Jalo." P. 49.
Other than all that it doesn't state specifically, but IMO however I think and especially from Bill Morrison's first person account above, consider the apparent distinction between the portee Mack truck (as heavier I should think) and the other patrol trucks and how they operated very differently.
[ September 10, 2005, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
Origionally posted by c3k
There are plenty of INDIRECT fire weapons which utilize a highly elevated trajectory specifically to fire against targets with which there is no LOS. And I'm not talking about on-call assets.
Some examples: light & medium mortars; rifle grenades; PIATs; short-barrelled infantry cannons (German & Russian 75mm IGs and German 150mm IGs) are in this category.
This category of weapons is NOT displaced far away from the firing line. They are right up front, and they can be told or estimate where they want to hit, yet they don't have to see their target. "Sergeant, drop HE directly behind that house!" You can see the house; you saw a target move BEHIND the house; you have a weapon which can arch rounds OVER the house; you have NO LOS there, yet, you CAN fire at it.
Will CMx2 support fire by units where the is NO LOS?
-
I concur with ozi digger's info Micheal Emrys, as I have the same interesting book about the existence and usage of a 25 pdr portee by the LRDG. It is well described and treated by Mike Morgan on pages 45-50 who used multible sources including from actual participants.
In this short account it depicts the short lived LRDG's Royal Artillery Section in action. Firstly it mentions that some time in or after August 1941 it was Col. Ralph Bagnold's idea to create the RA Section for the LRDG to provide the capability to knock holes in any Italian fort. Origionally it was equipt with a 4.5 inch howitzer carried upon a 10 ton lorry and had also a light tank to be ustilised as an armoured Forward Observasion Post!
(Not explained if it was intended to be a 4.5 inch portee.) :confused:
His sources thinks that this equipment was handed over to Col. Leclerc and the Free French Army for the defence of Kufra, its base for the one LRDG mission it joined in, which occurred 13th - 18th of December 1941. The single 25 pdr portee was mainly tasked with providing forward observed indirectly fired shelling (ie from out of sight) on the Italian El Gtafia fort. The attack was made on the 16th and was successful due to the effect that the whole total of 14 shells fired by the gun in inducing the garrison to flee or surrender.
After the raid during the return journey the portee's lorry became kaputt, according to Bill Morrison in a first person account and if I'm reading it correctly on the 18th, and abondoned while the 25 pdr gun had to be towed back by another truck of the patrol.
So this was just one 25 pdr portee used on one occation and therefore should not be required in any CM simulation IMHO, especially considering that it fired all its rounds completely indirectly. So it funtioned essentially as a SPA piece.
BTW this interesting experimental invention reminds me of a field workshop innovation that I recall with pictures of a SP ATG from the Eastern Front. An account of its employment under its commander Hans Woltersdorf along with two snow crusted pictures of it are in "Das Reich" 'The Military History of the 2nd SS Division', by James Lucas. It consisted of a 50mm Pak 38 weild-mounted for forwards fire from upon a one ton half-track, which some small unit of the Das Reich Kampfgroup used to K.O. T-34s in the Ukraine during the Winter of 43-44! :eek:
[ September 10, 2005, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
-
Yeah, yeah a greater area of area-fire has been posted on in the poll as included in some people's wish list for verious reasons, myself in order to have something better than the pin pointed line of area-fire stuff in CMx1.
-
Some BFC is making CMx2 sound more and more like the Close Combat series, sigh!
-
Please don't rub it in, just rub yourself over it please.Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:I think we'll see a fall in the number of big maps being made
.Of course big is out for CMx2. A company is the new battalion, baby !
-
Please don't rub it in, just rub yourself over it please.Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:I think we'll see a fall in the number of big maps being made
.Of course big is out for CMx2. A company is the new battalion, baby !
-
Please don't rub it in, just rub yourself over it please.Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:I think we'll see a fall in the number of big maps being made
.Of course big is out for CMx2. A company is the new battalion, baby !
-
AFAIK Hauptmann Lisse the turretts on immobilized tanks and armoured cars do rotate I think and you can still give them covered arcs as well. (I'll do some tests to check.)
That said, I would like to make the turretts rotate where ever while the AFV's hull remains in place while it is stationary.
-
Well I'm happy enough if the Relative Spotting solves the prolem pretty much and may be attempt to use the correct set of existing commands for my units in such situations for which it is fun to figure out the technique.
-
Nevermind whatever happenned in sniper deuls in Stalingrad one thing is for sure, what is depicted in the film is fictional, though somewhat based upon the general circumstances of their pre-eminance in the Rattenkrieg. It was screened so that both it was cinematic, providing a close enough final confrontation with meaningful close up pics and IMHO in a metaphorical way. (The over-confident German sniper school chief coming out of cover and over stepping his bounds and getting wacked for it, just like both the 6th Armee was going to be and the Wehrmacht as a whole would also get it for the most part on the Ostfront.)
[ September 09, 2005, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]
Cliff.....
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
That looks really cool Rollstoy what's it from?