LUCASWILLEN05
-
Posts
1,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LUCASWILLEN05
-
-
Stryker might be ok against insurgents. However on a high intensity, high tech battelfield it leaves much to be desired. n fact one might as well be equipped with the old M113 or even trucks :-)
The best thing for the infantry to do is get out of their Strykers in a safe location as soon as possibe and proceed on foot with all the AT equipment they can carry.
-
10 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
To be honest, I haven't played enough with v4 to form a solid opinion on this issue (been taking a break from CM). But I know the intent was not to make a game of cowards, but to show them exhibiting a realistic interest in self preservation. For my part, I don't think that is necessarily having them break and run; going to ground and keeping their heads down while not firing their weapons is more in line with what I have read about troops in combat. But that wouldn't cover all situations either. Breaking and running—even with disastrous consequences for the men involved—did happen sometimes, especially with poorly trained or inexperienced soldiers. So, in the game, I wouldn't be surprised to see conscript or green soldiers doing that. I would also expect to see more experienced soldiers sometimes withdrawing under fire, but I would expect to see them doing it in a more careful and disciplined way, moving from cover to cover and not simply dashing out into the open. If the player has placed them where they don't have any protected line of retreat...well, you don't have any cause to complain.
Michael
In reality real soldiers are likely to be far more careful with their flesh and blood bodies than we are likely to b with our pixelated images:-)
That said you do identify more of the correct issues, Maybe he OP was using a poorly trained unit with low morale. Which could be much more common during the winter of 1944 - 5 on both sides.
-
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:
In this game, it's very easy to see if a unit is panicked or not. It says "Panic" in the unit's morale status.
I'm assuming people are not talking about panicked troops. Because obviously when panic strikes anything can happen.
At this stage I do not think we can go further without fuller details such as the level of suppression, state of morale, relevant enemy positions and how close these were to the unit under debate. I don;t feel there is anything anyone could usefully add without such information. Otherwise we can't analyse but only guess what might have happened to cause something like this. Without such details it might be best to call a halt
-
2 hours ago, sburke said:
Well this is why we need a baseline. You made certain assumptions above - the unit is under fire and in close proximity to the enemy. That is one situation. However it is not necessarily the only one. So let's change that a bit.
How about a platoon spread out alll in foxholes. No enemy in proximity. They get hit with a medium 81 mm mortar strike. Within a turn almost the entire platoon has vacated their positions and is now in the open. Would that cause you to feel differently?
that is actually a repeatable scenario and an easy one to set up.
In the absence of information in regard of what the actual circumstances were one must make certain assumptions regardng the actual circumstances were. As you say not providing such information is unhelpful.
Regarding your example, well if the unit panicked maybe they would still vacate their trenches and run. If howver a unit does not panic maybe it is worth you trying to top them, Success is not guarunteed. If however heir moral sate is such that you cannot control thm then there is really nothing you can do bu let the go :-(
I tnd not to worry oo much about wha happens to individual squads
-
25 minutes ago, George MC said:
He! Thanks
The key issue for me with the actions I was interested in was inability to construct suitable highways and overpasses. Many of the useful and CMSF actions took place at these intersections. Creating them in the current CMSF editor was a non-starter - I did have a go, just never worked out as i liked and my "fudge" did not provide the amount of cover I was looking for.
I'm busy with CMRT myself at the moment but I guess @LUCASWILLEN05 no harm in you giving it a shot. As you say maybe pick different actions to model in CMSF as you describe.
Sadly I am far to busy with real life course work at the moment :-(. However I know what you mean regarding those overpasses. of the biggest One of the biggest issues with SF
-
3 hours ago, niall78 said:
In many table-top or board-games broken troops are simply removed from play completely. Broken is the same as a KIA for all intents and purposes.
Not in all. In this case it was a set of rules entitled Free Fire Zone which are now long out of print
-
On 4/30/2017 at 10:54 PM, Stefano Z said:
Hello,
Does anyone do that? Is it considered gamey against a human opponent? It is my impression that if you are able to take out let's say a Javelin team, area fire where the wounded/dead are should destroy the launcher and missiles. Also killing the enemy's wounded should decrease the final score. Please advise.
Thank you,
Stefano
I wouldn't consider it gamey against human or computer. With area fire you are more likely to be trying to suppress anyone there. While you might hit someone at is a bonus. In fact you are more likely to increase he suppression level of any enemy in the targeted area and hopefully reduce he accuracy of their return fire The cost is that you will be using up ammo. You won't however know the exact you had, nor should you. Hope that helped
-
12 hours ago, sburke said:
Not at all (coming off as a whiner). The problem is simply this as noted is extremely subjective. Even assuming everyone agrees the behavior changed, it still leaves the question as to whether that is good or bad. The first step is to establish a baseline of the behavior and then I think one has to depend on the veterans on the forum to understand what might be normal behavior in their experience which honestly may also be very subjective.
I don't think you will find anyone here who feels the subject is unimportant, if anything the hope is to get it as solidly as one can on target including with different experience and morale settings.
On balance I personally regard it as good if a unit close to the enemy and under heavy fire bugs out in the event it breaks evn if the unit is under heavy fire. In such circumstances those guys would probably want to get out of there o somewhere a bit safer. In a tabletop miniatures game we might have a mechanism for panic. I remember one set of Vietnam rules I played years ago. When a unit panicked you rolled a six sided dice with results someting like this:
1 - 2 Panic Fire. Unit shoots with a very hefty negative modifier at nearest enemy
3 - 4 Panic Freeze Unit remains in position and does nothing at all until rallied
5 - 6 Panic Run. Unit runs away from enemy to nearest alternative cover
Maybe there is a similar mechanic at work now in 4.0
-
On 4/2/2017 at 0:11 PM, Combatintman said:
Agreed - I rummaged around this as well because until the last couple of years the only descriptions of actions in detail for the Iraq invasion were related to Thunder Run. I can't remember the exact reason why I discarded the idea of making scenarios but I think it just ended up in the too hard basket because of a number of factors if you were trying to attempt something resembling historical fact which is generally my preference for scenario design.
Maybe scale the scenarios down or just do part of the action.There are some very good texts such as Take Down (Jim Lacey), On Point (Franks) which I suspect you will be aware of. An action based on one of the engagements fought during he battle for Objective Peach. Objective Saints the fight for Baghdad International Airport for example might make good scenarios bu we probably have to accept the game might only portray a small part of these battles. Perhaps just a Company Commander's view. Maybe something like the whole of one of these battles might be gameable if approached as a campaign game?
-
Mali would make for some interesting gaming
-
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Striker_Vehicle_Controversy
Imust admit to a personal bias here, I don't like the Stryker and haven't since CMSF. All your fault BF :-)
-
33 minutes ago, Holman said:
I feel like this discussion is going in circles, but I need to add that, while I gave one example above, it was only one example among many I've seen. I'm not basing my sense of the 3.0/4.0 difference on that one instance alone. That one merely illustrates the larger pattern.
Once again, the problem is not squads panicking or that their behavior is out of the player's hands when they do; the problem is what the game has them do when they do panic. In about ten or twelve games under 4.0 I've seen multiple instances of infantry bolting into the open when they would have cowered in place under 3.0. I believe the older behavior is more realistic, and in 4.0 blindly running upright into the open out of cover has become unrealistically common.
I love the degree to which the TacAI is the heart of CM, which is why I want it to be the best and most realistic it can be. I trust that BTS is aware enough of these sorts of complaints to look into them. I'd be very happy to hear that that's the case.
Personally I have not seen a great deal of bolting out into the open though I have only installed 4.0 on CMBS at the moment. Maybe you have just been unlucky? Or maybe, as I suggested earlier maybe they have changed the program so that troops with a high level of suppression are ,more likey to bug out
My advice to you. net time you see somethig like the issue you describe is to take a look at the unit morale state and at the level of suppression (that little yellow triangle I have mentioned several times. What I suspect you might find is that the suppression level will be high and morale state will be bad. These two factors combined might explain why the bug out you are seeing occurs
-
1 hour ago, Holman said:
For purposes of this debate, figuring out what's going on involves comparing 3.0 and 4.0. I'd love for BTS to acknowledge that they've made a change for specific reasons or that something unintended has slipped in.
My sense of something being off comes from things like squads inside a stone church taking rifle fire (not even Bren fire) and running out the door to be killed in the street. Yes, the squad in question was pretty beaten up, but my strong sense is that in 3.0 and earlier they would have cowered in place in the church (making them immune to aimed fire) rather than running outside.
Fair enough to want BF to provide some reasoning for he change. However, you yourself do admit the squad was as you say "pretty beaten up" From that I would infer that morale and suppression was pretty bad. Maybe the squad in fact panicked. When people panic in dangerous situations i is not unknown for hem to do stupid things that get them killed. Such people are not in a state of mind to do he sensible thing - in that particular case to remain in he cover of that church. They just panicked and wanted to get out of there. What do you think is the psychological state most likely to get you killed in a fire or a stampede, You panic, make the wrong choice and you probably die
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201011/caught-in-stampede-what-would-you-do
Going back to what I said n an earlier post in situations like this these particular soldiers are no longer under your control and will act according to their perceptions of events around them. Not your perception as he overall battlegroup commander. OK so those guys panicked and got killed. That, and I do not wish to be callous, means a few more sad letters to write. Right now however you have a battle to win.
I think you are over obsessing about one incident here. Now a unit that panics might actually run away more often whereas before they might have cowered in place. I can live with that even of they do something dumb in a blind panic and that gets them killed That can be what happens sometimes and again what they actually do might well depend on other circumstances or even chance:-)
-
6 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:
yes my opinion is that the natural human reaction to bombs blowing up around soldiers in a building or trench would be to hug the ground, curl up, hide, and not move.Different terrain types might/should produce a different effect, like running away.
Unless what they are doing is bugging out. One of two things might be happening here. One is that the squad panics and they just want to get the hell out of here. The other possibility is that the squad leader ordered them to bug out. Either way the squad s not acting under your control a this point. This may mean they are not dong what you consider to be the sensible thing. Instead they are acting as they see fit according to their interpretation of the situation, not yours!
Is that annoying? Yes.But perhaps not necessarily unrealistic depending on what else might be going on. Whatever cover the squad might be in how close is the enemy? How much fire are hey putting down range? How suppressed is the target unit (look at that little triangle. It is questions like this that also need to be carefully considered.
-
10 hours ago, Holman said:
I really feel like I'm seeing units flee cover by running when they used to cower in place. It's not that they're not "tough" enough; it's that they run into the open when they used to (realistically, IMHO) hug the ground until they collected themselves. I'm seeing this in response to fire from other infantry squads, not incoming artillery.
I haven't done systematic tests, but this is my impression after about ten PBEM games under 4.0. I believe I was an active enough player under 3.0 to notice a significant and valid difference.Maybe this could be because he unit in question is too close to the enemy and are thus under much more accurate fire. Remember firepower does not just kill. It suppresses - has a morale effect and maybe the impact on morale is greater under heavy close range small arms fire - which will tend o be moe accurate. Even if the fire does not kill or wound it still is going to have a significant psychological impact.Take a look at that little suppression triangle. Maybe that is why the squad is bugging out
-
On 5/2/2017 at 1:59 AM, weapon2010 said:
Mind me very much
, amd Im not frustrated, Im simply asking am I making a valid point In that the Infantry seems "softer" in 4.0?I only have a small sampling to engine 4, but this is what I have noticed.
Maybe morale responses of infantry are "softer" in 4.0. Maybe it has gone too far for you to have an enjoyable game now that you are is able to use your old tactics as effectively as you once did. Maybe however he results are more realistic - if you do something that would b dumb in the real world you pay some of the real world costs of your decisions except obviously nobody dies and there are no real world widows and orphans. Perhaps, instead of criticizing 4.0 we need to consider and adapt our tactics,
I am not saying there is a difference. Rather hat this difference might actually be a good thing in that it forces us to consider better tactics based on those of the real world. Should we even have put our squad in the position where i is perhaps unsupported by other units on overwatch? Should we instead have detached a scout team from that squad and sent hem to recon possible enemy positions while keeping the rest of the squad back in cover. Maybe we need to be putting greater emphasis on issues like this as a real squad or platoon leader might have to.
If 4.0 forces us to think more along lines like that then perhaps that s no bad thing. If infantry are "softer" and act more like a real unit under particularly negative his could actually be a closer simulation of reality - in which case maybe the tactics we have been using are unrealistic, not the simulation..If that is the case then try different tactics more like those a real world commander might employ.Let the game/simulation teach you.Just a thought :-)
-
Some might find his interesting though personally would consider this title as a lower priority myself being more interestd near future high tech conflct
-
18 hours ago, db_zero said:
The leadership of China biggest worry is internal strife. The PLA and new tanks are first and foremost there to keep the people in line and if need be crush them if they get too ornery.
Taiwain is next on the list as is North Korea if it collapses.
Somewhere way down on the list of priorities is an actual land war with the west...
Many view China as a homogenous country which is far from the truth. Lots of ethics groups who have thousands of years of disagreements, political intrigue and disdain for one another.
Then there is the rural vs urban, costal vs countryside things going on.
The war being fought is basically a cyber one.
In addition to those issues you have correctly listed here is also the potential of an India - Pakistan War, trouble in Tibet, war with Vietnam (which is where the Spratley and Paracel Islands come in)
Though a land war against the West may be further down the priorities for Beijing wars on China's borders will be much further up the list
-
19 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
The problem with that is that the DPRK is a terrible craphole. It's broken as a country, has massive problems with literally every measure of human health and services. If China swoops in to pick up the pieces, the DPRK becomes their problem. Right now they can just Alfred E Newman every time the DPRK does something dumb and the blame/attention remains on the DPRK because its the DPRK and no one expects them to do a damned thing right.
China takes over, even through a puppet, it becomes their albatross around their neck. They want nothing to do with "owning" the Korean problem, and by most understandings would rather it bankrupt the ROK.
Basically the value of the bufferstate is outweighed by the cost of having direct control over it. The old "priority" of keeping Korea divided doesn't wash in the face of the amount of trade and increasing ties between the PRC and the ROK. A better "long" game would be allowing reunification, using financial aid to the new Korea as leverage while conducting a campaign to highlight how pointless American forces in Korea would be post DPRK.
Basically the DPRK is a feces sandwich and no one but parts of the ROK really want a bite.The US military has 4 ABCTs, two SBCTs, and at least one SBCT, in addition to major reserve and guard assets all aligned in Texas facing down Mexico. Does it mean they're standing by to go to war in Mexico?
The positioning of Chinese forces in proximity to Korea has many different possibilities. However again, the expense of assuming the DPRK seems to indicate it's more likely they'll want to make it someone else's problem.My ultimate issue with most of your assessments is you might correctly identify friction, tension, or even a possible conflict, but your assessment is almost invariably the total national commitment to a full spectrum of warfare with all echelons fully engaged, ending with one country utterly destroyed by the conflict and the other running a victory parade through their capital (see your assessment of a Ukrainian conflict ending with a NATO invasion into Russia). In a Pacific conflict, outside of a ROK-DPRK type war, it's doubtful we will see ground combat between two near peer foes simply because if the various air forces/naval forces are so shot to pieces as to allow for such things....it's doubtful the US, PRC, whoever is going to keep fighting the conflict.
We've entered an era of limited conflict. This isn't to say a "big one" is impossible, but the treshhold for such a conflict has not been met, and we're still a few crises back from being on that much of a razor's edge.That is how you understand my thinking. Historically we have had periods where we have had limited wars before. For example the Spanish War of Succession or the Cold War/Post Cold War era 1945 - present. What I am saying is, based on History periods of limited war are followed by periods of large scale warfare.
Western forces have been cut back dramatically over the last couple of decades. China and Russia however have been doing the opposite. Expanding and/or modernizing. Your view is overly Western centric. In reality it is Western militaries who my not be ready for a war like this. just as British, French and US forces were not ready for World War 2. I think you may be drawing some of the wrong historical lessons here
You do however seem to agree with me that the geopolitical situation can change. However, taken WW1 as an analogy I am thinking we are in a 1900s (1905 - 1914) position. You are thinking in terms of a position similar to the 1870s/1880s. Either of us could be correct on this one
However your reasoning in regard to current Chinese thinking on Korea makes sense. However it i possible that the situation in North Korea my change suddenly and swiftly.In those circumstances everybody will be trying to catch up
-
11 hours ago, exsonic01 said:
Food and oils might understandable, but TEL, weapons, and machine tools are not.
Could you please clarify what you mean when using the acronym TEL.
Regarding a refugee and humanitarian crisis in the event of a North Korean collapse/civil war this is considered to be a highly probable scenario Chinese contingency plans have been reported in the press
However a Chinese military move int a North Korea where a civl war has broken out is a plausible developmentSupposing all this were to happen wih the US and China at war over the South China ea. Th South Koreans, like the Chinese have advanced nto North Korea for similar reasons to China bu US forces beig eeded elsewhere have not gon with them. The US might still provide logistical support. For whatever reason, say a mistake or miscalcul;ation by local commanders, South Korean and Chinese forces class and the PLA pours south. Given what is going on elsewhre in the region in this sceario this would be a terrible situation for the US
-
11 hours ago, exsonic01 said:
Food and oils might understandable, but TEL, weapons, and machine tools are not.
Could you please clarify what you mean when using the acronym TEL.
Regarding a refugee and humanitarian crisis in the event of a North Korean collapse/civil war this is considered to be a highly probable scenario Chinese contingency plans have been reported in the press
However a Chinese military move int a North Korea where a civl war has broken out is a plausible developmentSupposing all this were to happen wih the US and China at war over the South China ea. Th South Koreans, like the Chinese have advanced nto North Korea for similar reasons to China bu US forces beig eeded elsewhere have not gon with them. The US might still provide logistical support. For whatever reason, say a mistake or miscalcul;ation by local commanders, South Korean and Chinese forces class and the PLA pours south. Given what is going on elsewhre in the region in this sceario this would be a terrible situation for the US
-
18 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:
You're kidding right?
He shoots down all your arguments with facts (not to mention the fact hes done tours in that region from a carrier no less), especially the one about an amphibious invasion of mainland China which is bonkers and you say hes being ignorant enough of you to ignore him?
I would read up on the technology of both nations and there capabilities so you would understand the naval and air aspect is what would decide things in the region, not the 1st MEU landing in China.
Jesus.
I am not in the business of making threats I am not prepared to carry out. In the light of your post I have done exactly what I said I would do.
Oh and by the way I said multiple times that any invasion of China would be years into the war. Not at the outswet. Your "logic" is like arguing the Allies could have implemented D Day in 1940. They did not and could not. However, what they could and did do was send an expeditionary force to Norway, in the British case to France. There were also expeditionary operations to Syria, Italian East Africa, and Madagascar. In the earl war phase of RoF similar US operations can be mounted, for example to India. A Dieppe style raid on the Chinese coast might even be considered at some point though unless there are very good reasons to the contrary that job might be best done using Cruise Missiles. Smaller Commando style raids anywhere along the coasts of Chinese occupied Asia involving perhaps platoon or company size unit
With war breaking out in 2021 a massive invasion of China won't happen until at least 2024 or 2025. Read my posts more carefully in future.
-
18 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:
You're kidding right?
He shoots down all your arguments with facts (not to mention the fact hes done tours in that region from a carrier no less), especially the one about an amphibious invasion of mainland China which is bonkers and you say hes being ignorant enough of you to ignore him?
I would read up on the technology of both nations and there capabilities so you would understand the naval and air aspect is what would decide things in the region, not the 1st MEU landing in China.
Jesus.
I am not in the business of making threats I am not prepared to carry out. In the light of your post I have done exactly what I said I would do.
-
1 minute ago, exsonic01 said:
But still, it is the PRC, who is supplying oil, foods, weapons, strategic assets such as TEL vehicles, heavy machines such as tractors and trucks which are being used as artillery and MLRS carriers in KPA, and multi axis machine tools for manufacturing which are banned by UN, to that "terrible craphole". And it is the PRC, allowing DPRK ships, illegally exporting weapons to Syria, to stop by at Chinese harbors and get resupplied. Those ships got caught at UAE later. Of course, PRC denied all of those charges, calling them "western propaganda", but they also denied all of the attempts or suggestions for further investigations from UN and any other nations......
If you're right, why PRC invest and support those items to "terrible craphole"?
They want to keep the Kim's regime. If Kim's regime fails, and they will intervene. They don't want to lose their hold over Korean peninsula. PRC regards DPRK as an asset. They don't like Kim's regime but that is different story. PRC is basically totalitarian and communist regime, and in their equation, keeping DPRK as it is now is costly option but brings more merits for them, enhancing PRC influence over east Asia, and ensuring their long term strategic goal - influence over entire 1st - 2nd island chain. Setting up puppet or second DPRK would could be understand in same logic. It will be costly, but it will bring other advantages to them.
Plus, IMO this is kinda similar with Putin's 'strong man' approach. PRC doesn't want to be looked 'weak', and they take care of this issue very seriously. It is kinda tradition of communist or totalitarian states. Keeping DPRK alive, or setting up the puppet in the Korean peninsula if inevitable, serve in this way as well. Giving up their influence over Korean peninsula would bring worries towards PRC leadership among their hard-liners, which could be the burden for chairman Xi, who is trying to become real "emperor" over PRC....
So my opinion is that expecting PRC behavior over DPRK should not be approached in economic motivation only. In this equation, political / geopolitical environments and their long term strategic goals should be significantly considered, especially if we are talking about communist or single-party-controlling states such as PRC. It is true, and I already mentioned, that the economic situation of PRC at the moment would be the important conditions for them to consider. But for me, it is hard to imagine that PRC will give up all of their influence over Korean peninsula just because of economic motivation.
I served long time ago, so my info and data might be outdated, and I maybe wrong. But, well, I think some part of them are maybe still valuable. Anyway, it was very good conversation & discussion sir, and thank you for your opinion
Exactly why Beijing will at least consider intervening in a North Korean collapse/civil war. Also the millions of refugees likely to be pouring across the Chinese Border tryng o escape from a ferocious and bloody civil war. Although obviously fictional Larry Bond's recent novel Red Pheonix Burning shows what the scenario might look like
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29211001-red-phoenix-burning
In the RoF scenario he situation would if anything be much worse.
The key issue for me with the actions I was interested in was inability to construct suitable highways and overpasses. Many of the useful and CMSF actions took place at these intersections. Creating them in the current CMSF editor was a non-starter - I did have a go, just never worked out as i liked and my "fudge" did not provide the amount of cover I was looking for.
, amd Im not frustrated, Im simply asking am I making a valid point In that the Infantry seems "softer" in 4.0?I only have a small sampling to engine 4, but this is what I have noticed.
Combat Mission: End of Empire
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I would not buy this myself. No interested in the period. But I would buy a Combat Mission War on Terror covering similar actions (present or future with modern day forces including Western intervention forces, Mali is an example