Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

futon river crossing

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    180

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by futon river crossing

    Combat Mission unrealistic

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Let me start out by saying I'm unconvinced that a "realistic" representation of WWII tactical C3 and forcing the player to rely on the chain of command would result in an enjoyable game or eliminate gamey tactics at all.

    I'm going to defend the OP against some of the modern military types who are suggesting that an almost complete lack of terrain knowledge and intel on enemy forces was unlikely in WWII. We live in a world of instant communication, where GPS and satellite imagery are taken for granted, and most developed countries would view the casualties from a battle like Tarawa as a national catastrophe.

    WWII was fought on a titanic scale where a lot of the leadership were "90 day wonders", radios were lacking or dodgy and the idea using lives to lubricate the gears of the big machine wasn't as repulsive as it is now.

    As was posted earlier...

    "So we are trying to replicate a world where the commander:

    - doesn't have a map;

    - hasn't been given any aerial reconnaissance photos;

    - hasn't spoken to any of the locals;

    - hasn't sent out any of his own reconnaissance to tell him what the ground is like beyond what he can actually see, and

    - hasn't got a set of binoculars to look for himself."

    I'd say that a lot of the time most of the above was true for a company commander. His map probably lacked details, he rarely if ever saw any aerial recon photos, the locals were either not forthcoming, untrusted, absent, limited by language problems or could give information that was of questionable value anyway.

    The info he got from patrols was limited to what the patrols could see and hear, and was subject to human error and basic fear, and personal recon even with binoculars gives only so much information depending on the terrain and the presence of the enemy.

    My father, a WWII infantry vet, told me that they got a Division intel officer to come check out reports that were being made of German activity in his sector. The guy showed up clean and shined with a tie. When he said doubtfully that he heard and saw nothing at the Company HQ, he was told that patrols were making these observations, and he should accompany one.

    This involved a night time river crossing in a small boat, since daylight crossings were too dangerous. When they got to the opposite shore and went a few yards into the woods he told the patrol he'd seen enough, and didn't listen when the men of the patrol (he outranked them all) insisted that the German positions were still some ways off. When he got back to Division he reported that the men in that sector were jumpy and probably overestimating German activity. This was the 28th Division in the Ardennes in early December of 1944.

    I don't think every staff officer was incompetent or more concerned about his own skin than acquiring information, but I do think this sort of stuff was fairly common. The vast draftee armies of the time were quickly raised and trained, and would probably seem somewhat strange to the highly trained, high tech volunteer soldiers of today.

    The best post of the thread.

    Ah yes military intelligence - surely an oxymoron if ever there was one!

    0

    A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    The results, to me, seemed to have little or no connection to the outcome of the battle!

    The objective didn't appear to have been taken; the Germans lost 42% of their tank force and 22% of their manpower; the US still had a sizeable infantry presence which the Germans, with only tanks and in the given terrain, could not have easily rooted out.

    A tactical or marginal victory at best and even that is questionable IMO.

    Yup - I agree - and complete silence on this from all in the know! Fishy very fishy ;)

    Add to this that the AAR writers said they often ignore the "Battle result" and something smells fishy ;)

    How are you going to have ladder games where the results are nonsensical?

    I think this deserves an answer.

    0

    A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    The results screen is a concern. The Allies killed 5 axis tanks, yet scored no points, that's nearly half of his opponents force! I can see obviously that the Allies lost this game - but to be awarded no points for your efforts seems - well, absurd.

    The results screen has 2 points scoring sections "Ground" and "Parameters" and both are noted as secured for Axis - I understand "ground" - but what were the parameters? These seem important, since as Steve has said, there are no pints for killing the enemy, but I must have missed where the "parameters" were mentioned, or discussed.

    What, for instance, in this game would have given a "Minor Victory" or "Tactical Victory".

    Without understanding what the "Parameters" were this result seems nonsensical to me, and from reading this thread, others too.

    0

    Thickness and penetration data

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I have not played CMBO for years, nor CMBB/AK - I can't remember the strengths/weaknesses of which tank, what gun, which barrel length, was it a late model etc etc. I'm not a grog - I just enjoy these games - but I can tell you the "chance to hit/kill" was useful - as were the stats tables with penetration and armor thickness - I referred to these all the time. I don't want to have to search Wikipedia every time I pick a tank for a QB, or when I decide to break cover and fire on a tank with my AT gun - how's that supposed to work when you're playing real time?!!!

    I played a recent game in CMSF (I got my ass handed to me) - the scenario was described as balanced - I had 3 T72's (I forget which model) and some troops - my opo had 3 Challengers and troops - as I was under the impression that the scenario was a fair matchup, I assumed that the T72's could take on the Challengers - not a chance, I landed numerous shots on my opponent - to no effect, and the Challengers swatted my tanks like flies :D - nothing in the game helped me out - Indeed - I'm still none the wiser, was it a fluke result, and I was merely very very unlucky? Or was there no chance of me ever killing those Challengers? I still don't know. A simple %hit/kill graphic would clear this up. As it is, presumably I'll have to replay this many times to find out. Maybe I should intuitively know this stuff - but I'm not a grog :D I suspect that many buying CMBN aren't grogs either.

    The thing I find odd is that there is time to put in details like matching ammo pouches with the weapons carried by infantry (a cool feature to be sure, but hardly essential as far as gameplay is concerned) and multiple helmet types and the like, stuff that doesn't really advance gameplay, but really useful features that improve gameplay are left out.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...