kevinkin
-
Posts
3,208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by kevinkin
-
-
Ok .. see what you guys mean. I have to consider the organic weapons before adding to the formation, Stragglers do have a PFs in low numbers.
Kevin
-
That's what I was thinking too. Will flip the ratio just to see the difference. Thanks. This type of situation dates back to Agony of Doom from SL days.
Kevin
-
Thanks sir. The TO does not supply any insight. A German infantry company has a tank killer team of 1 PF and 1 PS. The stragglers have to have those added. I think it may be understanding the availability of those weapons on the eastern front. I think PFs were more available which is why I believe my OOB is off.
Kevin
-
In WW2 tactical gaming, I always liked battles with a small defending group trying to delay a much larger attacking group. Mostly in town and light urban settings. During AGCs break up and attempts to reform what would the small anti-tank / infantry teams be armed with? I just put together a battle that plays well but I think has the wrong ratio of 3 panzerschrecks to 1 tank hunter. I think it should be the opposite (they are supported by a straggler group pluw an added LMG). I believe that the historical situation produced a wide variety of tactical groups trying to do their duty and survive. But perhaps the ratio above goes too far in providing the superior schrecks over the panzerfausts. Any thoughts?
Kevin
-
It's not that folks are not interested in the post Bagration I think. We just would like to go earlier first. The game would not be complete without the late war battles listed above.
Kevin
-
If the player fights with highly experienced well led troops poorly they will suffer the from the poor play but are they better off than if the same player fights with poor troops expertly?
Sorry, just out of the new wave thread.
I think player skill remains the key factor of the many factors involved.
Kevin
-
Not to forget this ballad ...
-
That was so bad it deserves this ....
-
Making/Designing a CMSF battle.
Kevin
-
Hi
Anyone interested in teaming up to make a 2015 Ramadi battle? If not the city proper perhaps the surrounding villages.
Kevin
kevinkin@comcast.net
-
I think of the old Panzer Leader and Panzer Blitz games and the scale of them battles and think placing them in a 3D game design would be a amazing trick and would be a successful new adventure. Plus maneuvering battles would become much more of a event within the gameplay because of the scale with which we would be dealing with.
I have thought that as well. But I wonder at what unit scale does 3D become unrealistic? Not at the platoon scale but higher I imagine. The post also brings up again the notion of a 2D "operational" layer with optional 3D combat resolution.
Kevin
-
Thanks John, will take a look. BTW, when was the material unclassified?
Kevin
-
Yep "An all new Sandbox campaign mode adding a strategic layer to your tactical battles"
More fun than a summer keg party by the lake with a rope swing?
Kevin
-
Yes. The value of truck delivered forces only becomes apparent on deep maps where they can operate outside enemy small arms range. Additionally the scenario may want to have a requirement to reload the force so to reach the next objective on time. Otherwise, design the scenario with the motorized infantry off loaded. Moving them around the battlefield loaded is a big risk. That said, armed half tracks can be deadly mopping up the last objectives if you are careful.
Kevin
-
Gee, local western police forces would have held ground better. Maybe even Mall Cops.
Moral is to physical as 3 is to 1 ....
Kevin
-
Perhaps players feel at a disadvantage if they do not micro manage - realism be damned. More true in ladder fights. But even against the Ai the will to win produces a paint by numbers approach to executing the players plans. Taking 30 mins to plot a one minute turn is counter intuitive - but we all do it at times with large OOBs. Everyone has their threshold on when the plotting become just too much.
Kevin
-
I do not think folks are advocating splitting squads from the start of a battle. More like move to the sound of the guns in squads aka columns and fight with splits aka in line when it makes tactical sense. So the newer option to split squads adds flexibility. In a WWII firefight, squads tended to break into teams even if their field manuals never taught them to.
Kevin
-
Back after experimenting with Jason's OOBs above with a few custom scenarios. They make for very fun battles. Plus they are quick to modify to see how slight equipment and/or enter timing affects the battle. One thing however. I have been using maps (farmland & rolling terrain) with 1 KM frontage and 1.5 deep. The effective frontage is more like 750 meters given objective placement. That seems about right. But I will ask anyway.
Kevin
-
One thing I am finding re: split squads is they can be a force multiplier. If you can work just a few into enfilade enemy rout paths the gamble can pay off big.
Kevin
-
I do not think scenario ideas have been exhausted yet. Even with the narrow historical window of CMRT. Don't forget that battles in AGN and AGS sectors can be designed for the summer of 1944 too. And there are a ton of hypothetical tactical situations that could be made. Reasonable battles back to the summer of 1943 can be set-up as well.
Kevin
-
Agree. Company size or lower most of the time. However an Armor heavy battle group based on a tank battalion with an infantrycompany in support can work for me - if the battle group reflects say 1/3 losses. So effectively about 2 tank companies and two infantry platoons (modified for nationality). Commanding armor is less taxing for me than infantry.
Kevin
-
Oh my. CMRT is certainly flexible. You have to give it that.
-
CMBO introduction of 3D/wego places the system in wargaming's hall of fame. I was into that from the demo days. But that's 15years ago and CM is still ahead of any competition that I know of. I can see folks questioning the nut and bolts of the newergranular system or the playability of large OBBs, but that's what we do in this hobby. It's all meant to provide feedback. Ifthe original intention was to claim you got more for the buck with CMBB so be it. Today, greater depth can be achieved with
inexpensive processing power and I think that's what most wargamers would like BF to concentrate on - not breadth.
Kevin
-
I actually use that technique a lot since its combines scenario design practice and game play. With 5 AI plans, several battle files and human memory they work out pretty well. Once you get in a grove the process goes fast and you can start coming back to your battles a week or so later to increase fog of war.
Kevin
panzerschreck vs (tank hunters) panzerfaust
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
The delaying force I am trying to replicate is on the battle scale to confront a Soviet forward attachment as described by Jason in a recent thread on doctrine. I find these to be fun as you stalk enemy armor in and out of backyards while holding back their infantry. Of course if you do too well the entire town would be flattened given enough time for the Soviets to bring up guns and alike.
Kevin