Jump to content

Combatintman

Members
  • Posts

    4,343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Bil Hardenberger in What Subject For The First CMCW Module?   
    Oh I know, and I'm sure it was popular - but best to restate the 'not going to happen' argument early I think.  Particularly given what @Bil Hardenbergerwho was one of the main movers and shakers in this project has said.
  2. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Blazing 88's in moving groups on roads?   
    My solution - first vehicle 'Fast' second vehicle 5 second pause 'Quick', third vehicle 10 second pause 'Move' or variations on that theme depending on the number of turns in the road etc.  Is it painful - yes, should there be a follow command - yes, but as others have pointed out, it has not arrived because the attempt to make one would just not work satisfactorily in testing.
  3. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from LukeFF in Soviet campaign game 1- why does my FSE show up in a shooting gallery?   
    Even if they were based on non-Soviet publications those so-called "Western assertions" were solidly based.  I know from experience that both the US and UK had some pretty swept up Soviet studies branches staffed by Russian speakers and specialists in the discipline and no doubt other NATO nations had similar capabilities.  On top of that the intelligence operations with which I am very familiar, having worked on one of them, were enduring, comprehensive and multi-disciplined.  The doctrinal pamphlets therefore benefited from the results of the massive collection effort.  The Soviet Army was largely a conscript army which in time of war prioritised getting to places quickly, en masse supported by massive amounts of firepower.  To achieve all of this, it needed forces that were well-armed, reasonably well-protected and mobile that could deploy quickly and with the minimum of coordination.  For this it employed a series of simple but highly effective drills in offensive operations.  Those drills were practiced on exercises which were overtly publicised and often attended by Western military attaches.  Fine if you want to go with the 'yes but they will only show what they want people to see' argument but other exercises were tracked by NATO intelligence and in Germany these were covertly tracked by the three Allied Military Missions (BRIXMS, MMFL and the USMLM).  Skepticism is fine in limited doses but it is not so in this case.
  4. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in Soviet campaign game 1- why does my FSE show up in a shooting gallery?   
    Even if they were based on non-Soviet publications those so-called "Western assertions" were solidly based.  I know from experience that both the US and UK had some pretty swept up Soviet studies branches staffed by Russian speakers and specialists in the discipline and no doubt other NATO nations had similar capabilities.  On top of that the intelligence operations with which I am very familiar, having worked on one of them, were enduring, comprehensive and multi-disciplined.  The doctrinal pamphlets therefore benefited from the results of the massive collection effort.  The Soviet Army was largely a conscript army which in time of war prioritised getting to places quickly, en masse supported by massive amounts of firepower.  To achieve all of this, it needed forces that were well-armed, reasonably well-protected and mobile that could deploy quickly and with the minimum of coordination.  For this it employed a series of simple but highly effective drills in offensive operations.  Those drills were practiced on exercises which were overtly publicised and often attended by Western military attaches.  Fine if you want to go with the 'yes but they will only show what they want people to see' argument but other exercises were tracked by NATO intelligence and in Germany these were covertly tracked by the three Allied Military Missions (BRIXMS, MMFL and the USMLM).  Skepticism is fine in limited doses but it is not so in this case.
  5. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Soviet campaign game 1- why does my FSE show up in a shooting gallery?   
    Even if they were based on non-Soviet publications those so-called "Western assertions" were solidly based.  I know from experience that both the US and UK had some pretty swept up Soviet studies branches staffed by Russian speakers and specialists in the discipline and no doubt other NATO nations had similar capabilities.  On top of that the intelligence operations with which I am very familiar, having worked on one of them, were enduring, comprehensive and multi-disciplined.  The doctrinal pamphlets therefore benefited from the results of the massive collection effort.  The Soviet Army was largely a conscript army which in time of war prioritised getting to places quickly, en masse supported by massive amounts of firepower.  To achieve all of this, it needed forces that were well-armed, reasonably well-protected and mobile that could deploy quickly and with the minimum of coordination.  For this it employed a series of simple but highly effective drills in offensive operations.  Those drills were practiced on exercises which were overtly publicised and often attended by Western military attaches.  Fine if you want to go with the 'yes but they will only show what they want people to see' argument but other exercises were tracked by NATO intelligence and in Germany these were covertly tracked by the three Allied Military Missions (BRIXMS, MMFL and the USMLM).  Skepticism is fine in limited doses but it is not so in this case.
  6. Upvote
    Combatintman reacted to Roter Stern in Does anyone think that the Dragon ATGMs in 1979 scenarios are too powerful?   
    Did a bit of repetition - recorded the outcome of 550+ Dragon hits on various Soviet tanks at various aspects.
    I'll keep it to the point:
    If a Dragon manages to score a penetration, it is a guaranteed K/O - 292 penetrating hits recorded, all of which resulted in a (often catastrophic) K/O. The real weakness of the Dragon is reliability. I didn't keep track of how many nosedived and hit the dirt short of target, but it was a lot; and that's considering the Dragon teams were not being fired upon. T-55s and T-62s have no protection against the Dragon - first hit to connect is a guaranteed penetration at all aspects and hit locations. I stopped recording 55s/62s results after the first 48 frontal hits resulted in 100% K/O rate. All other Soviet MBTs seem almost impervious to the Dragon in the upper frontal arc (front turret, weapon mount, upper front hull). Of 280 hits that landed in upper front, only 2 managed to penetrate (0.07% rate).  At the same time, all other arcs offer no protection - of the 290 hits recorded to sides (even at rather shallow 30* angles and including turret sides) and most importantly lower front hull - all scored a penetrating hit, a 100% K/O rate. So a true case of YMMV:
    On one hand, a T-64/72/80 in a perfect hull-down position might appear "invincible". During one contrivance, I had to stop after 30 (thirty) consecutive hits failed to K/O a single T-72; however, make no mistake, there was not a single relevant subsystem left functional on that tank. Where as on the other hand, something as simple as a 30-degree traversal of the turret relative to the ATGM team pretty well guarantees a K/O on the first shot to reach the target. I think no matter which side of the Dragon ATGM you find yourself in, such dramatically polarized results can most certainly lead to frustration.
    p.s. In case anyone is curious what my last two hours looked like, here's a 12 min segment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2midc46M9CA
    (You can also get a sense of how many missiles fail to reach target ... or even clear the launcher, as a few unlucky teams caught their own shrapnel)
     
  7. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from Lethaface in The CM2 FAQ Thread   
    To pile on here - the drills we were taught in pre-deployment training involved ensuring the safety of yourself and the casualty at all times.  The IA drill; therefore, was to win the firefight first and then either extract the casualty to a safe place or attend to the casualty at the point of wounding rather than urinate about trying to treat someone from the prone position, which as LukeFF has pointed out is not something that medics are trained to do and from my less expert military experience is almost impossible.  If none of you have tried moving dead weight then try it and remember that an injured inert soldier will be a lot heavier and more difficult to move than most people when you take into account the equipment they'll be carrying and, in the modern era, the body armour they will be wearing.
  8. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from kohlenklau in kohlenklau CMFI North Afrika QB map-mod project   
    El Mechili 1:100,000 map sheet circa 1942:
    txu-oclc-6540189-16.jpg (3807×3195) (utexas.edu)
  9. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from THH149 in A new test for scenario designers?   
    @chuckdykeyes you can do this in the editor but it can be tricky if you want your Tiger to go to a hull down terrain spot because you create the AI plan in 2D.  The mechanism to move the tank would be a simple trigger to have the Tiger move from its hide.  So if you want it to move to its fire position from its hide when hordes of T-34s come over the horizon then you would set an enemy armour trigger to trip at a time and space that allows your Tiger to move from its hide and get into the hull down fire position.  On firing the trigger, the Tiger moves.  You can specify an exact action spot for it to go to (your hull down position) but to get it exactly right you need to correlate that position that is obvious in 3D mode to the 2D action spot in the AI editor which is the tricky part and requires testing and adjusting frequently.
  10. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from LukeFF in The CM2 FAQ Thread   
    To pile on here - the drills we were taught in pre-deployment training involved ensuring the safety of yourself and the casualty at all times.  The IA drill; therefore, was to win the firefight first and then either extract the casualty to a safe place or attend to the casualty at the point of wounding rather than urinate about trying to treat someone from the prone position, which as LukeFF has pointed out is not something that medics are trained to do and from my less expert military experience is almost impossible.  If none of you have tried moving dead weight then try it and remember that an injured inert soldier will be a lot heavier and more difficult to move than most people when you take into account the equipment they'll be carrying and, in the modern era, the body armour they will be wearing.
  11. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Bulletpoint in The CM2 FAQ Thread   
    To pile on here - the drills we were taught in pre-deployment training involved ensuring the safety of yourself and the casualty at all times.  The IA drill; therefore, was to win the firefight first and then either extract the casualty to a safe place or attend to the casualty at the point of wounding rather than urinate about trying to treat someone from the prone position, which as LukeFF has pointed out is not something that medics are trained to do and from my less expert military experience is almost impossible.  If none of you have tried moving dead weight then try it and remember that an injured inert soldier will be a lot heavier and more difficult to move than most people when you take into account the equipment they'll be carrying and, in the modern era, the body armour they will be wearing.
  12. Upvote
    Combatintman reacted to LukeFF in The CM2 FAQ Thread   
    Not really - that, and despite me repeatedly mentioning here that in my 4 years of active duty as a combat medic we never, ever trained once to treat casualties while prone, there are certain members here who continue to ignore that. 
  13. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from zmoney in Let's talk about the Road to Nijmegen   
    It cannot be done and it is an immersion breaker - I played a red v red campaign in CMSF a few years back which showed promise until I busted my @$$ trying to capture a particular objective and pretty much flattened it in one mission only to see the building miraculously intact and back in enemy hands in the next mission.  To me Campaign Design 101 should be never to set missions on the same piece of ground more than once until such times as the game features persistent damage effects on maps.
  14. Upvote
    Combatintman got a reaction from LukeFF in Let's talk about the Road to Nijmegen   
    It cannot be done and it is an immersion breaker - I played a red v red campaign in CMSF a few years back which showed promise until I busted my @$$ trying to capture a particular objective and pretty much flattened it in one mission only to see the building miraculously intact and back in enemy hands in the next mission.  To me Campaign Design 101 should be never to set missions on the same piece of ground more than once until such times as the game features persistent damage effects on maps.
  15. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Lethaface in What Subject For The First CMCW Module?   
    Probably due to the fact that 41 Pantserbrigade based in Seedorf/Hohne was the only significant element of 1 (NL) Corps based in Germany in peacetime.  Anybody interested in the Dutch military in this period should bookmark this site:
    Netherlands Armed Forces Order of Battle 1985 (orbat85.nl)
     
  16. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from chuckdyke in A new test for scenario designers?   
    You can record - the only way to test something is to save it as a scenario and then 'play' it in scenario author mode so everything that you can do in a normal game, such as take screen shots or videos, you can do in scenario author mode.
  17. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Canuck21 in Map Question   
    @Canuck21 - you're overthinking a lot of this ... so don't 😏
    Make what you want to make and don't be constrained by the labels ... what is a tiny battle?  Is it about the size of the map, the size of the forces or the length of the mission?  Is a three hour mission, set on a 4km x 4km map involving a platoon on each side tiny or huge; is a 30 minute mission set on a 1km x 1km map with a battalion on one side and a company on the other medium or large?  Here's what the manual says:
    "The scenario’s approximate size, from Tiny to Huge, gives players an idea of the overall scope of the battle. Each scenario author probably has a different idea of what Tiny or Huge is, but usually the amount of units involved as well as map size and battle duration should be factored into the setting here. As a general guideline, a Tiny battle involves platoon sized forces, or smaller, for each side and a very small map. A Huge battle involves a force of several companies on each side and a very large map. The rest fall somewhere in between."
    So as you can see, even Battlefront doesn't know.
    Likewise for Battle type ...
    "Specifies the general nature of the battle and who is the attacker. Depending on the nature of the scenario’s storyline you may wish to be “vague”, or even inaccurate, so you don’t give away surprises.  Assault, Attack, Probe, Meeting Engagement."
    Again, Battlefront doesn't know and tells you it is ok to get it wrong if you really feel like it.
    Next - park the QB thing until you've got out of the question asking phase of your scenario design journey and have released a dozen or so scenarios that you are totally happy with.  I've no idea how many scenarios I've made but probably in the region of 70+.  I have never ever made a QB because I still don't understand how to make good ones.  As I don't really play them either unless I just have one of those days where I need to fire up the game and kill something without thinking too hard about it, I'm also not overly interested in making them.  I also don't think that there are many people out there who have mastered QB scenarios, I am aware of three or four guys who have done so and one of those has disappeared off the edge of the planet. 
    As I've said in other threads - make what you want to make.  I think you've got yourself into a mindset of 'ooh I just want to make lots of stuff' - no bad thing but if you make something for the sake of making something then it will probably be a bit sh1t.  Additionally you will burn yourself out.  I am working on a project at the moment - I have spent the last 6 weeks spending at least four hours a day making maps for it.  I am 75% into map four and to be honest I'm struggling to keep going with map making right now.  This is a project that I really, really want to see come to fruition so I am persevering with it but I know when I have to start map five that I'm going to have the same feeling - if your heart's not in it then you won't finish anything or you'll just get threaders with scenario making.  Find something that inspires you sufficiently to want to spend about a month making the map, picking the units, programming the AI, testing the AI and writing up the orders and graphics.  That can be a piece of ground that looks like an interesting tactical problem, a real action that you've found a map of or a written account or something different like making a map of your Mother-in-Law's house and then working out how to destroy it ... or whatever ...
    Chill out mate ... seriously ...
  18. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Redwolf in What Subject For The First CMCW Module?   
    Probably due to the fact that 41 Pantserbrigade based in Seedorf/Hohne was the only significant element of 1 (NL) Corps based in Germany in peacetime.  Anybody interested in the Dutch military in this period should bookmark this site:
    Netherlands Armed Forces Order of Battle 1985 (orbat85.nl)
     
  19. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Canuck21 in Battle Types Question   
    Correct - if it is a scenario, you can make it whatever battle type you like and it will have no bearing on what you have done elsewhere in the editor; however, it is obviously good practice to call your scenario a meeting engagement if that it is what it is because it is one of the things a player will look at when deciding whether they want to play the thing or not.
  20. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from George MC in A new test for scenario designers?   
    Yep - I agree with @domfluff - there is no misunderstanding of your original point.  I agree that maybe that scenario could have included something in the description along the lines of Beginner for US and Expert for the Russian but then of course there are players who have an inflated sense of their skill level or comedians who leap straight into Iron mode the first time they play the game.  It is also important to remember that the Steam hookup with Slitherine will be bringing in new players who are unfamiliar with the whole Battlefront system and probably need a few easy scenarios that they can win without doing too much in order to get to grips with the game.  If they keep bumping up against scenarios they can't win without playing it more than a couple of times, they are unlikely to keep playing the game or buy another module/title.  Not every scenario or campaign has to be pitched at challenging genuinely experienced players.  How many threads have you seen recently along the lines of '[name of scenario] help needed' - or 'I cannot get past mission 3 in the [name of campaign] - Please help.'  Or look at the thread asking how many times people play a scenario in order to win it - the balance of opinion there seems to be I just get frustrated and move on or I had to save every turn and replay and I feel soiled.  My stuff is generally pitched at the novice to average player mainly for this reason and the fact that the main tester (me) is a middling player.  I would rather kick a scenario out of the door that can be won first time rather than making it difficult for experienced players and then having to keep coming onto the forum to explain how to win it.
    Otherwise, the points that both domfluff and I raised about design philosophy, your target audience in terms of H2H, one side vs the AI or both sides vs the AI, and the constraints that you have to work with in the editor are extant and valid.
  21. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from TJT in It'd be cool if...   
    Heaps of people who served in BAOR do exactly the same - don't worry about the BOAR thing.
    The image below, although having US III Corps reinforcing NORTHAG which was a role that evolved towards the end of the Cold War, pretty much sums the deployment piece on the Central Front.  There are of course better and more detailed maps out there but this one was easy to find and gets the message across.

    I can guarantee you that in the time frame of the game - the only Brits you would have seen alongside the Danes would have been 6 Field Force/1 Infantry Brigade/UKMF which as I said earlier and the image illustrates, would have come from the UK.
    Prior to 1975, and I haven't researched that in detail because it is irrelevant to the time frame of the game, 3 (UK) Division apparently either had a role in Denmark/Schleswig Holstein or there was talk of it having one.
    If you are interested in BAOR barracks, this is a good starting point:
    Barracks (baor-locations.org)
  22. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Canuck21 in Battle Types Question   
    Yeah - @kohlenklauhas pretty much nailed it.  The probe/attack etc options are really only relevant if you're making a QB as this affects point allocations and VPs (I think) - if it is a scenario then the battle type appears as text in the 'Load Game' menu but the label you apply has no effect on your AI plans etc.  It just gives the player a clue as to what they might be doing i.e., probe, assault or whatever ... if they read it of course.  In my experience, they'll go by the description that you put in the 'Description' box under the title in the 'Description' part of the editor.
  23. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from Splinty in Imperialist imagery overload   
    Exactly what I said on the Beta board - have a like.
  24. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from domfluff in Imperialist imagery overload   
    Exactly what I said on the Beta board - have a like.
  25. Like
    Combatintman got a reaction from George MC in Imperialist imagery overload   
    Exactly what I said on the Beta board - have a like.
×
×
  • Create New...