Wiggum
-
Posts
704 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wiggum
-
-
@noxnoctum
I would expect those low quality troops to rout when facing such violent firepower.
Going prone and awaiting annihilation behind this stone wall is not what sounds traceable.
If they dont panic when facing 4 Shermans only 300m away with no AT capability...then give them some medals please.
-
Problem for me is:
Most CM maps are kind of small and with no room to retreat too you will run into those beaten bunch sooner or later.
Anyway, i will play another scenario now...maybe this tutorial was not the best to build a opinion.
-
Now im really confused...
So routing can only be simulated with exit zones ?
I think there should be:
Retreat (running into better cover or away from enemy fire into cover)
Rout (panic, getting the hell out of there / unit becomes useless for any kind of action = disappears)
Recovering from Rout is maybe not in the scale of CM, but recovering from a retreat is.
But beaten troops in the middle of a open field doing nothing else but awaiting annihilation...i dont know.
-
I always turn shadows of because they look ugly anyway and it improves the performance greatly.
-
I believe the manual is outdated in that regard. Surrendering has in every regard replaced the routing.
...which would explain those strange behaviour.
But why did they replace it ?
Surrendering is just not the same as routing.
-
@ Steve
I dont think the German force being "universally horrible" in this scenario.
In CMSF there were much more horrible Syrian forces if you ask me.
Again, facing those Shermans that were pounding them with so much HE over so many minutes without routing looks "bad-ass" to me...
@ MarkEzra
Thanks, dident have time to read the manual actually.
Manual says:
Heavily shaken, panicked soldiers may rout. Routing occurs when a soldier’s
combat morale is so badly shaken (usually after repeated Panic states) that
he stops any further participation for the entire remaining duration of the
battle. This may mean simply cowering in a hole on the ground or throwing
away his weapon and running away. Routed soldiers appear as MIA (Missing in Action) on the After-Action Report.
Unlike surrendering, routing is automatically successful, and the routed soldier disappears under a red exclamation mark.
So, there is routing in the game !
But without running to the map edges (which is a great improvement actually).
And routed troops are counted as MIA, like i expected.
But, is routing that rare ingame ?
If even the guys from the 795th Ost Battalion (Conscripts in CM categories = low quality) did not rout while facing some Shermans with overwhelming firepower ?
Then i would expect "better" troops to even stand more odds which should make real routing a really rare event.
EDIT:
And the troops recovering from a retreat should better search for some cover instead standing in the middle of a field.
If this is not possible then better take them from the map (count them as routed) instead.
-
If you ask me that could turn out to be a real issue...
Imagine large scenarios were you maybe will run into locations full of beaten enemys.
This can take away some immersion and also will lead to many KIA and WIA more which actually should be MIA because they would have routed if not magical stopped at the edge of the map.
-
So now we finally get a surrendering feature but loos the routing (troops disappearing from the map) ??
Sounds bad to me...
-
MIA stats only represent troops that surrendered (totally) to the enemy.
As for routing, I have noticed troops are much more likely to cower uselessly or give themselves short movement orders to cover than actually totally rout off the board.
Sure about that ?
I thought that MIA are the routed and the POW's ?
Another thing that looks a bit suspicious to me:
After a really well aimed and violent artillery strike which killed about 10 guys and wounded many more my squads close (~25m) to that event were only supressed for 1 minute...i mean i would expect them to be absolutly shaken and even panic !
I remember CMSF were some HE rounds fired into a building were not enough to supress the enemys inside for a single minute...
-
After playing the Demo tutorial (WEGO / Iron) i got a draw.
Enemy Artillery (Nebelwerfer with TRP ?) kicked my ass just like those dug-in MG42...
But, looks like the guys from the 795th Ost Battalion (Georgian) are really bad ass !
Facing some tanks that pound some HE into them from only 350m away dosent harass them much. You would expect at least some of them to rout, especially if there comerades are already dead and they (most likely) have no contact to their HQ.
I mean, what can we expect from fanatic Waffen-SS troops if even this low quality guys put up such a fight ?
I saw some of them run away to the edge of the map but they not routed (0 MIA for them) !
They stayed at the edge of the map while my guys shooting at them for nearly 8 minutes.
In CMSF troops running to the edge of the map were most likely routing units that would disappear and counted as MIA in the AAR Screen.
I mean, i not want them to run away after the first few rounds fired but come on, 3 Shemans pounding them with HE for so many minutes and they just stay...i mean not a single lonely and badly beaten guy of them routing ??
Any thoughts about that ?
-
My first impressions after 15 turns in the tutorial scenario (WEGO / Iron):
- WEGO is fun again !
- Graphics are great, trees no longer disappear at distance
- Many small but great improvements
- Small arms lethality seems right at long distance (300m +)
- Game is a must-have for sure !
Question:
Can infantry and tanks always spot and fire through bocage ?
I mean if they are right behind the bocage and facing correctly.
Bug report:
Some animation issues in WEGO replay, tank commander in the air above tank, infantry teleporting a few meters.
-
12minutes to go
anyone else took the day off work?
Yesterday my supervisor told me that he does not need me tomorrow (i work as a electrician).
Looks like he did know about the demo release...
-
I'am DOWNLOADING NOW !!
:DThe most anticipated Demo of the year for me.
Can wait to play this piece of art !
-
Ok, looks like i have to wait some hours...the worthplaying.com mirror (German) dont works for me and FileFactory looks a bit suspicious to me.
Playing COTA while waiting, could be worse....
-
Oh my god, even some stupid fansites which host mods and maps get it working to host a 500MB file on there own with good download speed (~300kbs).
Whats the problem for Battlefront to do something similar ??
-
Sounds like the demo will be out tomorrow...perfect i dont have to work !
-
My initial impression was that the airstrike was somehow underwhelming. Don't know if they are still being tweaked in the game, or what.
Then I thought about it a bit more. Certainly the evidence from the Falaise Gap was that tac air fighters were very deadly against ground targets, but at the same time I don't know how many kills there were per pass, per aircraft.
On the other hand, actual WW2 gun camera footage I've seen had results consistent with the game video...one or at best two hits on ground targets per pass.
I suspect that I was just being over-optimistic in my first expectations, and upon reflection, I think the game results are probably fairly realistic.
From the manual of another wargame:
Effects of Airstrikes:
Airstrikes have a very severe affect on the target’s effectiveness values.
Historically, units suffering airstrikes took a long time to recover and regroup.
The shock effect was more dramatic than any actual damage inflicted. That is why they were so effective at breaking up attacks and dislodging otherwise resolute defenders.
Fighter bombers can kill but the shock effect is much more important.
Its a old misbelieve that the allied fighter bombers killed the german tanks by the dozens. But the pure fear of airstrikes and the the terror unleashed by them on ground troops was enough to reduce their combat power temporarily.
-
The American WW2 experience with "elite" units was mixed. Certainly, the army deliberately created units that were "special" and unique, such as the paratroopers, rangers, 1st Special Service Force and a few others. Generally these units performed an an above standard level, but there was some feeling in the army leadership that said that the extra attention, time, training and effort that went into these units could have been better used to even out the overall force. This was particularly true when infantry losses in the ETO made it clear that they couldn't keep on sending the dregs to the infantry while the best and smartest soldiers went to the air corps, airborne, officer schools, tech schools, etc. The infantry had its own need for bright, capable soldiers and this was only learned fairly late in the war.
In a draftee army, there was little patience with prima donna outfits, as they were seen by some at the time. There was a real need for ordinary footsoldiers and it sometimes seemed that there were never enough bodies to go around, at least of the better qualified ones.
There is no question, though, that these special units did perform well and were in the end worth the effort to raise and maintain them. They were not always appreciated by the line units alongside them, at least until they proved their worth in battle.
The Marines were a special case of course. They were unique in that the whole lot of them felt themselves to be better than the army, or anyone else for that matter. For that reason, they were used as a battering ram in the Pacific, which was by and large run by the navy as opposed to the army. Army units did participate, but it seemed that the Marines were the ones usually selected for the toughest jobs and accordingly took the highest casualties.
That was true until Okinawa, when we began to comprehend what a battle for mainland Japan might be like. By then it was clear to all that the Marines would not be enough and the Army had to be there in numbers if Japan was ever to be invaded. Fortunately, many Army units in the Pacific had become quite battle hardened and nearly as capable as the Marines at amphibious warfare, so experience in part made up for those Army units, what elan provided for the Marines.
There is, then, a real balancing act to the creation of armies in wartime. If you create elite units, you may find them beneficial, but you have to be aware of what those units are costing in terms of the efficiency of your overall force. It seems to me that the Germans, in creating the SS, gained some benefits, but also paid a big price in that they diminished their regular army to get and maintain those elite units.
Great post gunnergoz !
Looking at the late-war german concept of "Volks-Grenadier" divisions can also be interesting:
Himmler himselfe (as commander of the ersatzheer) adopt that concept.
The title "Volk" should be something of an honor for the soldiers, giving them the idea to be something special in there own way.
And they were special, a hole new organisation with other weapons (less MG42 and more MP-44 but there was never enough ammunition). The officers should be politically reliable at least in theory...
What was meant to be a new kind of "elite" unit was nothing more then the last try to mobilize every men that could hold a gun (wounded, ill, guys from the Luftwaffe and Marine, young boys and "ethnic germans" from Poland or Romania that sometimes spoke only little german).
They relied greatly on horses (a infantry regiment had 9 motorised vehicles but over 400 horses !) and communication equipment was rare.
So, they were special and somehow were meant to be a new kind of "elite" but in the end they were ordinary or worse.
It is really suprising that such divisions with so many issues (low quality men, lack of training, low on ammunition, totally relied on horses, ect.) put up such a fight against superior allied forces.
Interesting to note that US targeted them with special surrender leaflets that pointed out those issues of the Volks-Grenadier formations.
-
"Much better?" They did not need to be "much better" only better at what they did.
Exactly, and they were better at what they did.
Like nearly all other airborn units at this time the were elite units, but a elite status should not be mixed with "this unit is much better then this because its elite".
Units made of volunteers, units with a great tradition or better equipment or just something "special" usually got those "elite" label in WW2.
So you can say that some SS divisions were elite, same as some Heer divisions (Großdeutschland, Fallschirm-Panzer Division 1 Hermann Göring).
But because there is not number to simply rate the combat power of those units and compare them to others it can not be said that a ordinary unit would have performed worser in battle xy.
-
Actually, if you do your homework, you will find the 82nd and 101st in particular did perform on the average better than ordinary leg units.
Yes, but does this mean that they were better units with more combat power ?
I would say that a fresh 29th Infantry Division could perform as good as the 82nd or 101st.
Would the 101st performed better then an ordinary Infantry Division if used the same way in the Hurtgen forest ?
Elite, yes !
Much better then an ordinary Infantry Division, no !
-
"SS - supermen or just mama's boys with lots of toys?"
...most likely this was discussed 1000 times in over 1000 differend WW2(game) forums.
Were they superman ?
No, but...
Were they mama's boys with lots of toys ?
No, but...
First, its important to note that the "elite" status of a unit does not mean that they were all superman.
In WW2 most "elite" units were meant to be elite from start on. They were well trained, got good Officers and NCO's and the best equipment.
Only a few units fought so well that they were considered as "elite" just by there combat performance.
So, divisions like the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler "must" be elite (take a look at the name).
Sure there combat performance was above average too, so they deserve this status.
But there were many ordinary wehrmacht divisions that fought as well as the best SS fomations did, they just not had those super cool insignia and uniforms...
Ok, the SS formations were more fanatic some will say, but many wehrmacht formations were as stubborn and willing to take heavy casualities.
The same goes for other armies too, for example the US 101st Airborne Division.
They were meant to be elite and fought well...but were they that much "better" then a ordinary Army division ?
The problem is how can you measure combat power ?
Just by looking at single battles, sure not...
By looking only on training and equipment, no...
There are so many factors that decide the outcome of a battle.
"Elite" formations like the Rangers or some Waffen-SS units could get a bad beating by ordinary divisions (look at the Battle of Cisterna).
A poorly planed attack will result in a disaster, even if elite unis attack.
Units without food and ammunition or with little experience and no cohesion are more likely to loose a fight or even surrender...whatever status they have or not have.
-
So, where is the link to the demo ?
-
This is all a mystery to me - I thought Steve had already said it wasnt coming Friday. I presume that meant the demo and as well as the game ...
As far as I know they would never release a game on a friday anyhow.
You guys are torturing yourselves for nothing ...
The demo could come out one second before friday...
When does the friday start in your crazy country ??
-
I hope the demo comes out some days/weeks before the full version, otherwise it would be total useless for me...
What about some routing ?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
But if you had canceled al fire orders, would they have routet then ?
I dont believe they are that smart to know that routing would be even more worse for them.
A FAST command and most of them could have gone away during my playthrough for sure.
I hammered the AT gun with ~25 HE rounds and in the end, the crew (some of them dead) still was at the gun although i stopped shooting at them 15 minutes ago.
They had enough chance to crawl away because there gun was KO anyway.