Dietrich
-
Posts
1,267 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dietrich
-
-
jnt62006,
I'm very interested in reading what you would write up about recon assets and such. Thanks, too, for your CMSF War Chest blog, which I've enjoyed reading and found very informative.
-
Sure, bumping the experience of scout and sniper teams one level above that of the other teams/squads in the unit is a reasonable work-around. But what about when the non-"specialist" teams/squads in the unit are already Crack (as in, say, a battalion of the Parachute Regiment or the 75th Ranger Regiment) and thus the scouts and snipers are Elite (nominally equivalent with best-of-the-best soldiery)?
That said, I've achieved reasonably good results with "merely" Regular scouts and snipers. (For instance, while playing a scenario in the Highland Games campaign a Regular sniper of mine scored a first-round headshot on a machine-gunner; granted, the range was "only" about 450 meters.) In my experience, how one uses them has a big influence on whether they do their jobs effectively or they (seem to) suck.
-
Touché, Fenris, touché.
The unsuitability of AT-ATs to forest fighting makes it reasonable to reckon they weren't involved (except perhaps peripherally) in the ground part of the Battle of Endor, but...
"...but what does any of this have to do with Normandy?!?", I can hear the rest of you yelling.
-
(Disclaimer: I have never been in the military, and I'm not as well-read about military matters as many of the members on these forums.)
In my experience, the more eyes one can get on the battlefield, the better. Recon teams are small and lightly armed, so they're ill-suited to combat. Therefore, I either send them to good vantage points or have them probe beyond the FEBA. I don't expect them to make any sort of penetration, since they're not numerous enough or heavily armed enough to do so effectively or to not get decimented. I prefer, though, not to use my scouts to entice the enemy to open fire, but rather to have them add to the number of eyes on the battlefield, especially the flanks. Whoever sees the other first has the advantage.
Some suggestions, anyway.
-
I know I'm not the only guy here that cheers when an Ewok becomes At-At toe cheese
Steve
I didn't know Ewoks fought at the Battle of Hoth!
If you had specified AT-ST, however...
-
*shrug* Just because one isn't anti-Star Wars doesn't mean one dislikes for-grownups movies which are entirely SFX-free. For that matter, it also doesn't (necessarily) mean one is anti-Star Trek.
For instance, I love Star Wars (I just wish George Lucas hadn't been the one to direct almost all the movies), but I also love Akira Kurosawa's work, Alfred Hitchcock, Fritz Lang, et al.
-
Months ago already there was a bug thread. Here's my contribution thereto:
Anti-vehicle stormtrooper equipped with AT4 instead of Merr-Sonn PLX-4 missile launcher. But the real bug is that the terrain is CM:SF-style rather than dense Endorian redwood forest.
-
Anyone else here think that decent health care is a human right in a civilized society?Yes, that group called 'the World'*.
* exception: USA
Since when do ruthlessly money-grubbing conservatives pols and pundits (who would rather that tens of millions of their fellow countrymen fail to get decent health care than that the government taxes them any more than it already does) speak for all Americans?
For those dying or with rellies about to die it is everything that is necessary to keep them alive regardless of cost.Except when those dying have already decided that they want to be "do not resuscitate".
-
Star Wars version would be awesome.Aaaaarrrrghhhhhh! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Nononononnono...
Must be a Star Trek fan.
-
What conservative pols and pundits painted as a "death panel" is actually (as per Section 1233 of H.R. 3200) an "advanced care planning consultation":
a consultation between the individual and a practitioner...regarding advance care planning... Such consultation shall include the following:(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.(
An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.© An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision[-]maker (also known as a health care proxy).What's sort of ironic is that what opponents of "Obamacare" paint as "death panels" actually have been going on for years (since well before the bill) and are for the benefit of the patient. Conservatives paint a picture of someone's aged parent being brought up before a row of heartless bureaucrats to be pronounced unfit to live, but in fact the decision-making power rests solely with the individual (the patient); and if even said individual is unable to make clear the sort of care they want (or don't want) to receive, the law provides for a surrogate decision-maker (such as a relative or a close friend) to make clear the individual's prior expressed wishes.
See also:
NYT: "My Near Death Panel Experience" by Earl Blumenauer (the Democratic Congressman who cosponsored the provision of AAHCA in question with Republican Congressman Charles Boustany)
(For the record: I neither support nor oppose "Obamacare". I simply enjoy deconstructing fear-mongering propaganda.)
-
We'll just call him the Sack Boy (® Sony Entertainment).
"Boy"? To my eye, anyway, he looks, not like some fresh-faced 12th SS Nachwuchs, but like something of an alter Hase. =P
-
-
Is there anyone here who wouldn't want to stomp around in one of their cool informs?
Darth Vader loves em.Darth Vader's outfit may be all (well, almost all) black, but to my eye he looks basically like a long-cloaked futuristic partially-armored samurai. It's the Imperial officers whose various black/grey uniforms look German-esque.
See? It's even grey-green à la Feldgrau. =P
-
I concur, Magpie_Oz; and the points you made were implicit in what I sought to convey.
"Removing religion" will not solve anythingBut that's just it: Critics/opponents of religion imply that if there were no religion, there'd be less brainwashing (being told to believe and do the supposed bidding of a "sky bully"), mutilation (female circumcision), murder (honor killing), terrorism, war, genocide, etc.
Scientists, philosophers, pundits, and comedians (many of them well-educated and intellectual white guys; show me the Tibetans who decry Buddhism or the Japanese who decry Shinto! =P) in recent decades have merely taken advantage of the anathematic name religion in general has earned for itself. "Religion", "Christian", "Muslim", etc. have effectively become four-letter words. And to top it all off, those are already areligious themselves have nothing to lose by denouncing religion.
Then again, if religion were done away with, pundits and comedians would have a lot less to mock and rail against. =P
(For the record: I'm not anti-religion; I'm not anti-science. In my previous post I simply used sarcastic hyperbole to make a point.)
-
First there was Tube Guy™, then there was Stielhandgranatebeutelmann. :cool:
-
their infamy was a virtual death sentenceOne reason Heer wasn't often seen in camou smocks was because they did not want to be mistaken for SS in the field. A British Tommy might be inclined take a regular infantry soldier prisoner.
The Osprey Publishing title Panzer Crewman (1939-1945) by Gordon Williamson cites an ironic incident:
Whilst Allied intelligence were fully aware of the range of uniforms and insignia worn by Panzer crews, many Allied front-line combat servicemen saw a black uniform and death's-head collar patches, and assumed the wearer was a member of the SS.One former Waffen-SS soldier from Silesia provided the author of this book with a clear illustration of the perils of wearing the black uniform. He described how he was captured in Normandy wearing a new field grey tuniche had obtained to replace his existing tattered one. No insignia had yet been added to the new tunic. He was held prisoner in an old farmhouse with several other captured Germans, including some seriously wounded Panzer crewmen in black uniforms. Some time later, free Polish troops entered the farmhouse. Because of his Silesian dialect and the lack of insignia, he was able to pass himself off as an ethnic Pole forced to serve with the Germans. The Poles, who tried to encourage him to join the Free Polish Army, thus treated him very well. They then went into the next room, spotted the wounded Panzer crewmen in their black uniforms, took them for SS and shot them on the spot. So innocent army tankers had been shot whilst a member of the SS the Poles hated so much was treated like a long-lost brother.
-
Experience: From what i've read it was pretty equal here between the US 29th ID and the German 352nd ID, both "Veteran" I'd say by this point. (On D-Day the US troops would of course have had less experience, but by July 11 and the drive on St. Lo they'd been slogging in the hedgerows for awhile). The US 35th ID didn't land on D-Day and was inexperienced, but had been trained so I'd rate them "Regular." And the German paratroop units (3FJ, etc, when we get them in a module), I'd rate as "Crack" (saving "Elite" for the SS).
Well, there's elite (the very best soldiers, with the best equipment, the best training, and the highest motivation, i.e. commandos) and then there's "elite" (somewhat better than the run-of-the-mill troops but not the best). I would reserve Elite for units which are actually the best in their respective armies; for instance, if I were making a Pointe du Hoc scenario, I probably set the Rangers as a mix of Veteran and Crack with fairly high leadership/morale modifiers. FJ are "elite" in the generic, layman sense, but I wouldn't consider them "elite" in an on-par-with-commandos sense. The same with the Waffen-SS; they're highly motivated and well equipped, with a core of veteran NCOs, but I would set them generally at Veteran with good leadership and morale modifiers. But that's just my reckoning. I can't claim to have read hundreds of books about the fighting in Normandy like each of y'all have. =P
At the risk of being pedantic I would say, purely from an English-usage pov, that 'exhausted' should be the ultimate state, following on from 'fatigued'.Correct. In the UI, Exhausted is highlighted in red, whereas Fatigued, like Tired, is highlighted in yellow.
-
Get rid of religion
As much as I see/hear people go on and on about how bad religion is and about how stupid and hateful religious people are, I have yet to see/hear anyone actually go all the way (so to speak) with the basic anti-religion thought. If one takes the statement "religion is evil" to its logical conclusion, one arrives at a getting rid of religion. But one ought to think long and hard about all that getting rid of religion would involve. It would involve destroying all religious books (or at least locking them away, as if they were ink-and-paper bombs), demolishing all religious buildings (even the great cathedrals and such, which now are more tourist attractions than houses of worship), and imprisoning all religious people (i.e. those who refused to renounce their beliefs). So basically getting rid of religion would involve temporarily going Nazi on a world-wide scale. <good-natured sarcasm> But hey, if that's what it takes to ensure those who don't care for religion never have to see, hear, or even think about it ever again, then go right ahead. =) </good-natured sarcasm>
If I had the opportunity to interview Richard Dawkins, one question I put to him would be: "Mr. Dawkins — given your stance regarding religion and the fact that religion is responsible for much harm throughout the world and throughout history, would you be in support of an actual ban on religion? If yes, would you concur that such a ban ought to be in effect worldwide?"
-
I've downloaded it and played it several times, though I have yet to actually win it. One of the best-made scenarios (in terms of map design as well as AI planning and briefing composition) I've played yet. It has changed not only the way I tackle MOUT but also the way I design urban maps. Thanks again, LongLeftFlank, for all your assiduous work. :salute:
-
What happened to the web cam they snuck into the Battlefront warehouse before the NATO module release?
It was destroyed when somebody accidentally detonated some of the demo charges which were supposed to have been already allotted to the Canadian combat engineers.
-
We've had enough bones. We need flesh. Flesh for .30-06 or 8mm Mauser to pierce.
-
-
Eventually it'll be impossible to watch any video (i.e., not just a much-watched one) on YouTube without having to first sit through a commercial. Wells Fargo has a before-the-actual-video commercial that's five and a half minutes long (though a button pops up counting down the seconds till you can skip the ad).
-
Just give us one platoon of infantry and a tank for each side, just one map even, and we will be distracted for days while you get everything polished and ready.
Isn't that what the (forthcoming) demo is for? =P
Darth Vader loves em.
Good Recon Practices
in CMSF Strategy and Tactics Forum
Posted
Thanks for the recon 101, jnt62006. =) From what I had read before I had gotten the idea that recon is rather deliberate, but your elucidation gives a better idea of the planning and purposefulness behind real-life recon.
I reckon a way to simulate the sort of deliberate and purposeful reconnaissance which would precede a modern combined-arms attack/assault would be to have recon units already sited in concealed positions at the scenario's start and have the initial intel set to show that the recon units had been actually reconnoitering the terrain beyond the FLOT. Does that sound reasonable to you?
You pointed out that one doesn't conduct stealthy reconnaissance with Bradley CFVs. In the case of a US Army HBCT battalion scout platoon, to what extent would said force (given the CFV's firepower) be expected to attack/drive off enemy recon units or other light resistance? Would it be more typical for the CFVs to be used, not for delivering direct fire on enemy forces (even ones which they could readily defeat) but for safely (albeit not stealthily) transporting the onboard scout teams to places from which they could sneak into position for reconnoitering?
footnote: Even though CMBN is imminent and I'll be playing it ravenously, I have several scenarios which I plan to finish up and release in the (hopefully) near future.