Parker
-
Posts
14 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Parker
-
-
Will CMC allow for multiplayer campaigns? I mean, more than one player per side, such that teams of players could fight several CMBB battles in a turn, and have CMC collate their results in creating the next turn?
Originally posted by Ike:My expectation for CMC - sorry to return to the thread topic! - is to be able to play a multiplayer campaign in less time that the original war required; to be able to play such a campaign with fewer referees or umpires than players and have the campaign run fairly smoothly; to be able to fight a campaign-related CM:BB battle more often than once every three months. Think that says it for me.
Now back to your regularly unscheduled off topic stuff, already in progress.
-
-
It's tricky to balance, but I've found that if they're very far back, they're not on-hand when you do encounter armor. Of course you don't want them in the very front line, but bringing them up from a trailing stance may take too long, or circumstances may make it impossible. In general, I keep them trailing a bit behind the platoon HQ, and that often ends up being one "cover tile" behind the HQ, but that varies of course. Then you have to hope it's "not too close" to get shot for no reason, but not too far to react when you encounter armor. Sorry to be so vague, but it sounds like you've got the right idea anyway.
[ November 14, 2007, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: Parker ]
-
It's tricky to balance, but I've found that if they're very far back, they're not on-hand when you do encounter armor. Of course you don't want them in the very front line, but bringing them up from a trailing stance may take too long, or circumstances may make it impossible. In general, I keep them trailing a bit behind the platoon HQ, and that often ends up being one "cover tile" behind the HQ, but that varies of course. Then you have to hope it's "not too close" to get shot for no reason, but not too far to react when you encounter armor. Sorry to be so vague, but it sounds like you've got the right idea anyway.
[ November 14, 2007, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: Parker ]
-
1. Survivors vs. Zombies
2. Survivors vs. new style Fast Zombies
3. WW II in the Pacific/Malaya/Burma.
-
Sounds cool! I'd like to play, on the Soviet side preferably.
-
I wasn't asserting it, I was asking if it was true!
-
Nobody would say that atrocities such as shooting troops trying to surrender were unheard of in North Africa, but I’m pretty sure the expert consensus is that there was a really noticeable difference of how often such atrocities were committed, as compared to the Eastern Front or in the Pacific.
-
So, getting back to the OP, did the unit break so quickly because a) “run” makes them very vulnerable to losses, which contributed to them taking several casualties almost simultaneously, or because
it was shot from multiple directions at once (which I’ve always thought contributed a lot to panic and breaking), or because c) the game defines infantry’s “back” as the opposite of their direction of travel, so running (or advancing or whatever) toward the rear causes a moral hit similar to having an enemy “get behind you” in the normal sense? Or perhaps a combination of a and b? -
Some good books on that topic,
Man, the State, and War, Kenneth N. Waltz
Arms and Influence, Thomas C. Schelling
War in the Modern Great Power System, 1495-1975, Jack S. Levy
The War Ledger, A.F.K. Organski and Jacek Kugler
although that last one gets very mathematical.
I'd say Man, the State, and War is the one for you to start with.
-
This is only partially on topic, but it has some relevance. It's a review of Paul Fussell's new book on the experience of combat in WWII, particularly on its brutality. Anyone read this book?
http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2003/09/22/fussell/index_np.html
-
Has some other thread touched on the doctrinal debate between close air support and interdiction in WWII?
-
Has some other thread touched on the doctrinal debate between close air support and interdiction in WWII?
it was shot from multiple directions at once (which I’ve always thought contributed a lot to panic and breaking), or because c) the game defines infantry’s “back” as the opposite of their direction of travel, so running (or advancing or whatever) toward the rear causes a moral hit similar to having an enemy “get behind you” in the normal sense? Or perhaps a combination of a and b?
What type of scenarios failed miserably?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Absolutely agree. "Cheap trick" is the perfect description.