Sailor Malan2
-
Posts
303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sailor Malan2
-
-
I dont care what anyone here says the AI cheats with arty If you leave anything in one spot for too long no matter where it is on the map the AI will bring arty down on it and it will always be pin point accurate. I have only been playing PBEMs for a month and have noticed arty is not nearly as scary when fighting humans.. might kill and AT gun or bang up a squad nothing serious, but AI with arty will wipe out platoons and hit all your AT guns on the first turn =p
So don't stop in the same place! I have not seen this BTW... you can usually work out a potential LOS for spotters. I often see the AI shell the field where I was... just don't be there when it does. Even in Defence, you can move. Unless it is an actual 'must hold (like the objective)' once your position is located it is much less effective, so bug out to the next one..
-
What is wrong with a team trying to suppress a bunker? If the reverse was true (team encountered a bunker and just sits there) I think the complaints would be worse. The MMG might inflict suppression. As you said, you can tell them to stop next turn. If they didn't fire they might be dead by then (OK not in this side on case but generally). Anyway wooden bunkers aren't that tough and I have seen casualties in that sort of position.
-
The idea of an aerial spotter in a CM scenario (even the biggest) is just not credible... You try telling the position of the front line on the ground whilst flying in one of those. There are there for spotting rear area artillery positions, road traffic, etc. They are not yet another variation on Gandalf's staff blasting fire and death in Elvish...
Battlefront are doing a good job of avoiding WW2 as seen in the movies. Let's keep it that way.
-
I am reminded of those 'first world problem' jokes!
"My mortar graphic has the wrong font for the stenciled on logistics data. The game is broken!"
Good spot though! Has anyone checked all the other transient graphics - might as well get them all in one go!
-
I am happy to hear about French and French Colonials for CMFI as well as Commonwealth Indians. Did all Indian troops wear the turban or just Sikh troops?
IIRC, Sikh troops were allowed a dispensation not to wear a helmet in combat, due to their religious beliefs. Thus, not all Sikhs would necessarily wear one (although most did), but I do not believe other Indian/sub continent troops did.
I have heard it said that the turban provides adequate head protection for minor knocks and bangs. It is probably less good vs a bullet, but the battle bowler would only keep spend rounds out and ricochets. so for all practical issues I think it is about the same...
-
Ok. I guess I am just asking for an explanation of the name.
I thought "Blitzkrieg" was a very specific attack doctrine, which can be explained better on this forum by those other than me.
Is the title referring to the assault commonly know as the "Battle of the Bulge"? If so, was that really a blitzkrieg? For one thing, the air power, as evidenced by Stuka's early in the war, was not, I don't think, a factor.
A surprise attack, yes. But neither the earlier attack into Poland or France was truly a surprise, And thought the particular avenue of attack into France was surprising, I did not understand that as a particular "Blitzkrieg" aspect--the term being uses as a particular way of using one's combined arms forces.
I can't imagine the term is being used for the Allied's advance into Germany--which was methodical.
And at this point in the war, I thought the Russian's, and thus the Allies, had already found the counters for "Blitzkrieg", including defense in depth. I realize that one of the criticisms of German military thinking was not to adapt to those counter measures, but I thought by the "Battle of the Bulge", Blitzkrieg was not really a viable option for them operationally to pursue.
[Again, I am feeling old, and that WW2 reality is fading.]
But I am very willing to understand otherwise.
I
You may be over thinking this just a tad!
-
I can see a flaw with a 'target tanks' only command. Drive a soft vehicle around until it actually sees the ambush - no danger of it getting shot! Think I don't see a need myself.
-
I played SL/ASL extensively for a ten year period, but then in mid-1993 I stopped playing. At the time, I thought it'd just be a short hiatus, but I never played it again. I was a true fan. I had every release that AH made for ASL with the exception of the deluxe modules. And for a couple of years after I stopped playing, I was still purchasing content and annuals. I was thinking that someday I'd get back into it, but here it is over two decades later and my modules are all collecting dust in my parents' basement. (Nostalgia keeps me from selling them or throwing them out.)
Nah - move them in with you. Get them out and look at them occasionally. Have 'discussions' with your Significant Other about 'that old junk'. Then you are in my world. Although not with ASL - I am talking SL!
-
"ASL - World War 2 as seen in the movies"
Nuff said...
-
I concur. This test is a completely unrealistic situation. Who sets up an ambush where the ambushing unit is in the middle of a field of low grass with absolutely no cover except some obviously visible foxholes? Plus the fact that the target team had TA which restricted it from firing. It's very possible that the target team spotted the foxholes and possibly the ambushing team well before it walked into the ambush.
If you put a wall, low bocage or even tall grass/crops right in front of that ambushing unit then they will likely never see the target until they are right on top of them.
If you are well concealed, why would you hide? Just use covered arc to stop them firing at too long a range. The issue surely only arises when you need to hide the ambushers.
-
Ok I'm officially an idiot, I urge you guys not to bother answering me anymore...
Don't worry, you aren't the first, you wont be the last, and you probably aren't even the latest... someone else will have done it by now
-
The point is that the AI does not use the machine gun like it would be used in real life. If a cluster of troops was seen, the MG gunner would fire everything he had at that beautiful target until it was destroyed. Bursts are fine for suppressive fire, but for a nice rich target, he would likely go beyond the 'doctine' of bursts to hose down the enemy group.
What is this based on?
I had hoped this thread had died.
-
Me too. Same at night... Set up screen to make the orders easy but watch with immersion
-
Biggest issue with SL CoI etc was fires spread too fast. Fire could spread in wheat fields in minutes it seemed. Rarely if ever in Europe can that happen. I do not recall any accounts of actions in RL where fires in other than a specific building had an effect on the battle other than a little smoke, or a worst a very local obstacle
-
Oh, and Market Garden has been investigated rather well over the years. Take a brilliantly innovating and surprising idea, and then ensure you make every possible error in the planning process, throw in a Panzer Korps (I'll let you have a knackered one!), and then have bad weather and various operational issues.
Due to the above, MG was a 'unlikely to be worse than' result. If a few things had gone better (even with II PzK) it could have been different.
-
My argument, if I haven't sufficiently elucidated the point, is that the 600 men defending the Arnhem bridge had very little in overall resources relative to what an equivalent sized American formation would've had. This had cascading impacts on the indisputably staunch defenders who, in my estimation, simply didn't have that much to start with, considering that only one battalion, together with Brigade HQ, got there, fortunately without significant German interference, else the overall situation would've been far worse and sooner. There's a lot to investigate here, as my research is finding.
Regards,
John Kettler
Ah, just looking at 2 Para- why didn't you say? So a battalion, mostly on foot and having to cover 8 miles, ran out of supply. And a US para Btn wouldn't. Right, as I don't have the info, please could you provide comparative ammo and other kit for US and UK para btns, Compensating (of course) for the actual loads of 2 Para vs intent.
-
Because, like me, it never occurred to them it was needed? I work on the theory that the incoming ones belong to the bad guys? Or are you after 'realism'? In which case where is the 'tracer only on high velocity tank and AT guns?
-
The explanation I had heard previously is that the role of recon is such that it would normally make an absolutely boring scenario. 4 hours of watching to see if you see anything and then you would just report it. In other words a game of mostly sitting still with spotting objectives.
Not quite true: 4 hours of driving carefully across lots of CM maps to find which one the defender is actually on. Then withdrawing the recce and actually fighting the scenario.
-
I can't speak for Russia (but just wait a few minutes for grog to show) but Brit/CW recce regiments (both Armd and Inf) were specialists. The equipment and skills were different. It was never the aim that recce should fight in a sustained manner (not to say they didn't fight - one counter to ambush units declining to open fire when you suspect they're there is to engage their suspected location; it takes superhuman courage and determination not to open up when fired upon, and anyway it is probably suicide because one day they will have seen you).
I am talking about the specialist armd car and light scout vehicle users not just the recce platoon of a line unit or that 2 man 'scout team' you generate from a squad...
-
TrailApe,
When compared to the combat load US Airborne jumped with on D-Day, the British, in terms of what the individual paratrooper had on his person, did indeed go in light, and the pertinent equipment lists and individual loadouts have been presented as evidence. My question was why the paratroopers of 1st Airborne were that way, not whether they were light. Two different matters. I could've said that, compared to the American paratroopers, their British and Polish confreres seemed light, which presumably would have been more to your taste. I didn't. If you read something which came across as meaning the British and Poles were stupid, that's on you.
I was looking at it not from a perspective of their being stupid, which I neither thought nor said, but of my not understanding why they did something so apparently at odds with the historical airborne experience, which is that enemy resistance is often much worse than expected (see Crete for the FJ), leading to the need for more weapons and ammo than theoretically required, and relief seldom arrives as or when planned, which also affects water requirements, rations, medical supplies and things like radio batteries and radio parts. Before it was all said and done at Arnhem, the British pretty much ran out of water and were also hungry, therefore weakened by both, and had also gone through their medical supplies, to the point where sheets were being torn up to make bandages, there was no morphine and certainly no plasma. All these things, I maintain, directly and materially affected the combat effectiveness and staying power of the parachutists and glider landed forces, which also took substantial losses from enemy fire and various landing crackups, losses which greatly hurt 1st Airborne in such important categories as ATGs. The British lost, for example, 4 x 17-pdr of 8 in the first wave. Half. In the second wave, the British effectively received only 3 guns of the 8 planned.
http://arnhemjim.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-17-pounder-anti-tank-guns-at.html
In turn, this put much greater than expected demands on the infantry's man-portable AT weapons, leading to rapid depletion of now-vital PIAT stocks. The unexpected escalating scale and ferocity of German resistance also put paid to the small arms rifled weapon ammo consumption estimates, ultimately leaving the British with no means to defend themselves.
What you said derisively about pockets in Denison smocks and their uselessness for carrying cannon rounds tells me a) you fundamentally don't/won't/can't get my overall point and/or
you wish to demean and insult me.Regards,
John Kettler
1st AB held out for 9 days, having (as you pointed out) had some key non-arrivals in the first wave, and almost no resupply. Of course they ran out of stuff! Please indicate examples of a division sized units that were not short of stuff after being isolated (or at least partially out of supply) for 9 days. The only way I could think this would possible is if they happened to have an all round defense of a major supply dump when cut off!
-
Scarry. Was it working the same way in real life?
Yes! The skill in recon forces (especially mechanised) is to not have too many people exposed if fire is opened, and to have a reasonable chance of being missed when it is. Then move about to note where the fire comes from (including the forces behind the screen) and get out and back to cover to tell someone. This is 'classic' or British style recon (which they were pretty good at.
There are some variations - German style, which is more likely to take on the screening elements first encountered to find out what is behind (or even break through thin defenses), and US style recon, which is more like 'once fired upon, bring all firepower to bear to blow a hole in whatever is behind the screen'. Very stereotyped, but basically, light recon vehicles are there to be fired on. It is a very incompetent defender who gets seen before they open fire on a moving a/c. Really good defenders let recon move through without being spotted and ambush the main element. There are numerous cases in NW Europe of recon thinking a town is empty then Germans popping up later.
-
Subtle Vein's ones. If I want to know where fire came from I go to the affected unit (view 1 or 2, locked to unit), and the tracer is easily enough to give direction. If not, I accept it as fog of war. As soon as you zoom out, only automatic fire is visible, and only if you look hard, which is how I want my battles - stock tracers make Star Wars (iv) look subtle and underplayed on weapons fire!
-
Oh, and without the need for so many spoilers
-
You will find that doing a specific shooting range test will gather more objective info faster and with more accuracy than asking people for their opinions. People will tend to answer if they perceive anomalies whereas those who don't, wont. And perception is notoriously biased.If I had a £1 for each thread that claimed the game produced wrong results that then showed (via range tests) on average it produced expected ones, but with a scatter that encompassed unexpected ones, I would have enough to buy CM all over again! (Even with $20 vehicle packs
)
you wish to demean and insult me.
Wood Bunker Being Attacked by MMG
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
If you are setting an ambush it is vital to set a covered arc and hide, otherwise any target will give your position away. Also I am sure I have seen effect with MG on a bunker, but maybe I am misremembering that.