Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

kevinkin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,208

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kevinkin

    Soviet SMGs

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted · Edited by kevinkin

    "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity." Albert Einstein
     
    Perhaps scenarios could be designed using time as a major part of the objective/parameter setting. Maybe the major. The scenario time would be longer than normal. With the overall result based on obtaining terrain objectives, or a percentage thereof withlower casualties and shorter time being "better" than higher losses and longer time. There are too many ways to set these up that a single example would not be sufficient. The ceasefire option would become more important with the player having to determine if they have maximized their result then and there vs continuing. Causalities above a certain level would be highly punitive. Objectives / parameters achieved would have to be well worth the cost of pushing on. The use of the ceasefire button would be prohibited until a certain time, causality and/or terrain threshold was met. The use of the button would have to be regulated for the offensive and defensive side via the scenario briefings. I imagine most scenarios would end via the ceasefire button not the countdown timer.
     
    Kevin
    0

    Soviet SMGs

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted


    The discussion of how weapons and combat are modeled is always fascinating. And why wouldn't be, having elements of the computer, real and historical worlds. But I wonder if we should also look at the battles and combat scenarios we fight the model in. Perhaps the length of battles is to short to accommodate the players available playing time. This produces combat with too many losses than would be tolerated in situations unless very very dire. Rushing to objectives will certainly magnify the effectiveness of all arms.  We rarely have the time to explore the map with prep fire followed by a carefully reconnoitered advance. Even in multi hour battles, are the maps too large to cross without taking huge casualties since the attacker has to rush? In large scenarios, many may not have the inclination to repeat the battle using a more deliberate pace of operations if they were mowed down in the first try.Maybe we should judge the combat model in light of what we are asking the troops to accomplish. 
     
    Just another angle on the topic.
     
    Kevin
    1

    QB: a fight to the finish...or not

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    BP

     

    For a regular scenario it is up to the designer. But for a QB, only the map and AI plans are provided to the player. Those maps have to accommodate

    the various selections a player can choose when starting the QB. The map designer can't know what those selections will be and the AI is scripted

    in a general, less specific, way compared to a regular scenario. So QBs can proceed and end in some funny ways.  

     

    Kevin  

    0

    Artillery and marshes

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Maybe this will add to the discussion :

     

    "Then there is vegetation.  Fragments and blast will strip away foliage and eventually reduce large trees to shattered trunks. The branches and trunks will absorb many splinters, one test for the 58 ft-lbs criterion was that a fragment penetrated about 1 inch into wood.  In heavy bombardments the blast will move the loose and shattered vegetation on the forest floor to the edge of the impact area or pile it up against obstacles such as large branches 'cut' from the trees.  However, before the trees are well stripped by shell fire the shells burst in the branches and are effective air-bursts. Flying debris can be a hazard, particularly rubble in built up areas when large shells are used.  In either soft or hard ground artillery shells do not cause a noticeable hazard from flying spoil and forest debris usually offers little danger except at close range to the burst."

     

    BRITISH ARTILLERY IN WORLD WAR 2 - EFFECTS & WEIGHT OF FIRE
     

    http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm

     

    Note: No citations on the site that I can find.

    0

    Artillery and marshes

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted · Edited by kevinkin

    I am shooting from the hip but I believe the tree burst effect (a form of airburst)  is more moral than physical on dug in troops. But in the west US troops had to keep moving and in the open they needed to deal with the physical effects as well (many non-killing injuries from stupid metal and wood splinters). On defense, weapons like mortars need to be above ground to fire so they are at risk more than the rifleman. Perhaps using trees was a way to produce an air burst effect with available flat trajectory fire with say heavy flak like 88s? Although the canopy absorbs lateral moving fragments, a lot of shell fragments are directed down toward the ground (but with less energy) than would otherwise occur in the open. Tree bursts have both moral and physical effects and I think are best employed in suppression fire to harass the enemy with non-lethal wounds and lack of sleep in muddy below ground foxholes. Catching moving troops above ground in a forest would require excellent observation and timing. Not impossible just tricky.   

     

    Kevin

     

    PS didn't the Band of Brothers have a tree burst scene in it towards the end of the series?

    0

    "CMRT Blood on the tracks"

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    Great looking scenario!

     

    For H2H, the AI plans for troop movement and artillery are ignored when players select the two player option.

    So they can remain and the scenario file can be left largely intact. Perhaps consider adjusting FOs for the Axis side if needed.

    Reminder, conduct edits on a copy of the original file.

     

    Thanks again.

     

    Kevin

    0

    QB unit purchase - can you introduce "casualties"? And other questions

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    I guess a hybrid would have a "designer" add OOBs for both sides on QB maps (AI plans and all) and post a set of say 4-5 for each type of battle. I think one could produce a few of these a week given the head start on the maps and have a collection for posting pretty quickly. Also, knowing the OOBs the plans could be made less generic if the "designer" wanted to take more time. The OOB units would have to placed in set zones and AI groups assigned by the designer. These would be launched from the scenario folder not the QB one. Players would get more historical OOBs (from the designer's perspective) and FOW with lots of credit going to the original QB maps. Would this work?

    Kevin

    0
×
×
  • Create New...