BletchleyGeek

Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy 1945 - 1975, by Max Hastings and Ghostwritten, by David Mitchell

So much truth in the bit I put in boldface that it may rip a hole through space time.

Merry Xmas @Mord, may your sense of humour fill these digital halls with laughter for many years!

I have myself witnessed that on one of the bigger CW armour heavy scenarios, a really long time ago. I haven't played battles recently that had both lots of armour and my infantry had the chance to get close to unhorsed crews.

I think these slightly different reactions for AT crews are in the game to some extent to compensate the fact that if the crew "bails out" the gun cannot be recrewed. So you don't want them to run away - making the crew braver to incoming fire - and the engine possibly grants the crew some magic resistances - essentially "saving throws" against spotting checks, fragments etc. - in exchange for the lack of flexibility and to avoid them being plastered like flies caught in sticky paper. As @George MC says though, I have never found an ATG hard to kill, provided that I spotted it first Crews in general haved different behaviours than infantrymen. Somebody observed that truck drivers perform generally much worse than their infantryman counterpart (that followed from a discussion around a bug test being invalid because it was using drivers rather than first line troops). AFV crews also have or used to have slightly different behaviours, fighting like panthers with rabies sometimes (that may have been a bug fixed years ago). Great thread @Swervin11b plenty of great contributions here.

Thanks @Mattis for the clarification. My observation is that the only games that shipped with v4.0 deployed on release were CMFB and CMSF2 (if memory doesn't fail me). Allowing very short times in scenarios for tactical wargames is something that has been around for ages. I remember clearly myself modifying Steel Panthers scenarios to set the durations to something more suitable for my opinion. Steve "Mad Russian" Overton, who was a big CMx1 scenario designer, explained a couple times on these forums or over at Matrix's PzC Ostfront that it was his preferred tool to induce pressure on human players, and in that way, "help" the AI. I think that short durations make sense for scenarios that try to depict an assault (defense) and the ensuing firefight. For instance, the scenarios @Bil Hardenberger and @ScoutPL released recently have very short spans, but also are spatially confined. In that context, when you got all the intel you need to have and the mission is clear (even in the meeting engagement, due to the dimensions of the battlespace, the terrain is very easy to analyse and you don't need to find the enemy, you just run into it), having a very short duration (like 30 minutes or less) makes perfect sense. After that time, either the assault was repulsed or successful, and either side would need to resupply and regroup for a counterattack (defense). Many scenarios are classified as "assaults" but actually, they're not. You need to find the enemy, you need to work out a fire plan (if the designer decided to grant you any artillery support), and a maneuver plan. That can take a varying amount of ingame time as player skill at managing his units is not even, and if assets are limited, it will be difficult to risk these in patrolling in open daylight or across potential enemy killzones. I have modified quite a few of such scenarios to change the intel level, so that I get the info I need to make a plan on the very first turn. I know there's a sizeable number of folks on these forums who like to have such kind of "mixed" type of battles, with a bit of recon, a bit of maneuver and a bit of close combat. With some very notable exceptions (like @GeorgeMC wonderful meeting engagement scenarios) I tend to find those bland, unrealistic, and a real drag. Others love them and all the power to them... but I really don't. I would really CMx1-like operations to be back, rather than having massive static scenarios.

Thanks for the post @Mattis I appreciate your sense of humour and your post made me laugh out loud a couple times. I am not sure that the new AI features are to blame for anything really. But the bit quoted above suggests a new type of victory condition which is quite sensible imo.

There you go. Great book, but I didn't remember that particular quote... the other episode I mentioned above has stuck to my memory. I also half remember some quite waspish comments by Major General Corlett (commander of the XIX Corps) about Bradley when he was kicked out of his command.

Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. ... No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. ... I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction. - Charles "Alabama Moon Boy" Lindbergh, September 1941 As with every conspiracy theory - and Mr. Tittles rant was right there balleting around the grandaddy of conspiracy theories - there is a kernel of truth. Of somebody's truth - there were as many experiences and takes on Worl War 2 as people witnessed it (and survived). It is historical fact that there existed a sizeable "America First" political movement. Which we can say it was pro Axis since anything not actively opposing the Fascist powers were enabling them. Pearl Harbour - last step in an escalation that started with the Japanese invasion of China - and the German declaration of war - final act in an escalation that started perhaps with the tearing down of the Munich agreements and the Kristallnacht - marked a turn in public opinion in America. Lindbergh himself tried to get into the war against the Empire of Japan and eventually managed to participate in combat in the Pacific by chance. No interest whatsoever with what was going on in Europe. I don't think that 100% of the millions (?) of US citizens that were in agreement with Mr. Lindbergh and his associates just woke up one Sunday morning to the news of Pearl Harbour, and just like Saul of Tarsus after his traffic accident on the way to Damascus, shed their ideas like one sheds dry skin or loses hair. Maybe draft dodging wasn't as much of a thing as it was in 1950 to 1953, or 1966 to 1972, other than some misguided guys of German ethnic backgrounds finding their way into the Wehrmacht. But definitely selective volunteering for service, to cherry pick the Axis power to fight was a thing. And many too came to see the war as doing their civic duty and changed their opinion, embracing the cause of their Republic as the Glorious One. Rooselvelt had to deal too with a restive Congress. They just did not have Twitter and a 24/7 news cycle to record every little bit for posterity. But I am pretty sure that there was a lot of log rolling, pork barreling and what not going on. Swervin has given some examples of how ruthless some senior US commanders actually were or wanted to be remembered by posterity. But quotes like that of Bradley need to be presented within their context: was it part of an interview with US newspaper reporters? During or after the war? For another example of "callousness", Rick Atkinson in Guns At Last Light goes in length and detail to remind us of the disastrous "adventure" George Patton sent an armored infantry battalion to rescue his son in law from a German POW camp. And definitely not every man in uniform was a saint of democracy. In the same book by Atkinson, the account of the logistical echelon of SHAEF isn't precisely an edifying read. More of a facepalm really. Do these examples tarnish the memory of those who sacrificed their lives in the altar of freedom from fear? I do not think so. If anything, being aware of these highlights even more strongly the value of what they gave up. Convinced of the cause, by accident, or in the many thousands of different random ways death visits upon soldiers in the battlefield. Going back to the topic of sensitivity to losses, I think that a useful framework to understand how States at war deal with casualties is the following. Each casualty conveys a political cost for the State. That cost detracts from the political capital and legitimacy for the existing political system to conduct war. In the 1930s and 1940s democracies, that cost was shouldered by the system, as political capital is evenly dustributed amongst a wide portion of the population. It is the government of the many, most of the time, for the many. There was certainly war weariness by 1945 in the UK, to a lesser degree in the US. This "accounting" was a factor in the decision making process that unleashed the first weapons of mass destruction. In totalitarian states, this cost is sublimated. Somebody, anybody really, pays for it in full, and an example is made of those found responsible. Typically the oligarchy at the top, led by the despot they enabled, deflects the blame to individuals via an efficient and ruthless army of enforcers. Stalingrad was the spark that inspired several plots to change the despot leading Germany. On the Soviet side Beria's NKVD never had difficulties to find spies, saboteurs and "wreckers" to make up for that political cost. Not sure how to translate any of this in game terms... other than what is done already by using victory levels. The downside is that those numbers are a surrogate for something which is always emotionally charged for anybody but psychopaths. We don't have cutscenes with us inspecting anti aerial batteries in Seattle after a bad result in CMFB or the image of two NKVD officers turning up at our command post, to illustrate historical outcomes.

That's a classic @Combatintman, my personal favourite is the story of the guy buildind fusion powered rockets - Tokamak reactor and all - in his shed by himself on his spare time. We really need a forum subsection called "The Attic" for John. He'll be feeling just at home.

That, or people hitting tab to have the camera follow the pixeltruppen and try to play the game as if it was a WW2 themed Dark Souls.

There is a famous computer war game that, for some time and reasons that escape my comprehension, was marketed as having AI so good that one could pretty much sit back and the computer do things for you. Guess what. There was a considerable number of comments on the Internet to the tune of "oh yeah it's so cool, but you know, the computer is so much better than me at playing the game that I eventually shelved it". That was pretty much a moment like this for those guys, having the goods and then letting them go The really funny bit is that it was complete baloney. Anybody who actually played the game with some attention, would appreciate that the AI while good and helpful, was immensely inferior to a experienced player with a bit of an eye to detail that used the available AI orders to the maximum effect.

Let me raise my drink to that And now let me write a down a worthy bulletised replica Remember than Green troops aren't just worse than Regular. They're GREEN. They shoot less, they're not marksmen and if they're roughly handled they won't be wanting to come for more. Using a heavy weapon just because you trucked the f*cking thing across a kilometer of deep snow, over a bunch of stone walls and across a ravine isn't a very sound rationale. Especially if it is not carrying any canister ammunition, like certain similar weapons used by the Germans do. Commonwealth infantry battalions are a very balanced force, which relies on Bren Carriers for mobility. No Bren Carriers = Not Much Tactical Mobility. The Canadian infantry is made of stern stuff, but they're not magical like the NZ infantry is. They're not pack horses either and they're not as highly motivated to charge onto HMGs as a bunch of Japanese infantrymen with their officers chasing them with very sharp swords could be. There is a trade off between speed and security. Exploring the middle ground, and using the idea of advanced detachments when applicable, is better than bound your way through the above mentioned deep snow and stone walls. Use your reserve to defeat decisively enemy counterattacks. Also, use your HMGs and LMG teams to supplement the fire power of the CW squads, rather than as independent units. That's pretty much it. I look forward to play with @General Jack Ripper any time. There's just three guys in the world I would go out of my way to play with again CM, and he's one

Thanks for the implict recommendation Dave. It also help that neither side had as doctrine "first strike": Chris Crawford - legend developer - point was that the first strike was pretty much the end of the road.

Interesting AAR @DMS. I concur that nothing - good - is cheap anymore, anywhere My own experience with the scenario is that the Red player has a real chance to overcome the German defenders. Even if defeated, I would say it would be hard in an H2H game as the German to keep casualties within the strict parameters given. The MILAN teams can be a distraction and cause some attrition, it would be funner if those guys came at a random timing. Also interesting is the choice the Syrian player has to make about the infantry on the slope, giving a good impression that reducing surrounded enemy forces while defending the outer ring is the hardest of tactical problems.

A war that never was is well served by a game that never(?) will be.

Not making any, just helping with WITE 2 at the moment. Some day, maybe

Actually I disagree at two different levels Michael. Models go wrong for very clear reasons (imo) and most of the time is for the better (gameplay wise) not to fix them. This is informed by my experience both playtesting and working on building sims. I think it is very safe to say that like 90% of the time that you see a reasonably well designed model go off the rails is because you're not capturing a human factor. For instance, you can work out a very reasonable and detailed model of logistics, combat and transport to portray a campaign like Typhoon or the Bulge. But if you don't have in your system something, mechanics or rules, that either create certain incentives or compel the players to employ their forces in a manner consistent with that documented for their historical counterparts, you can kiss goodbye to "reproduce" a historical outcome or anything resembling it. A typical example is having an operational representation of Barbarossa where the Red Army player isn't compelled to behave as if he thought his forces had a chance to defeat the German Army anywhere, anytime. Otherwise you'll get the STAVKA playing the part of Brave Sir Robin. Another typical example are games where the Allies player can evacuate the Dutch East Indies, the Malay peninsula and Burma in a game covering the initial steps of the Japanese offensive in early 1942 without any kind of repercussion. In the CMx2 games, and as @slysniper said on the recent thread on how to use snipers, for all its realism, is still a game. We do all kind of crazy things since pixeltruppen aren't real people. If they die, due to our stupidity or our excessive optimism or our timidity, we're fine with that and don't have nightmares, develop PTSD or feel compelled to write to Steve letters expressing our condolences. There's no consequence to our acts. Unless one day the pixeltruppen escape the computer and decide it's time to do like their Westworld colleagues and have some fun too.

The cherry on top would be to have a Ryan Gosling lookalike as a model for the face of the pixeltruppen. And of course, imitating that signature "naturalistic" interpretative style he is so appreciated for.

Looking at our profiles I only see one difference. Do we unlock the 1.74MB upload limit when over 1,000 posts? @Michael Emrys must be able to upload a gigabyte per post. By the way @Bulletpoint, how did you get to find out about this? Just curious.

140 kbytes for me @LukeFF - please let me know how to buy a ticket for the 21st century.

Since BFC approach is to have the data (TOEs, input for the models of weapons effects, etc.) that drives their simulation baked in with the executables, I am not sure how possible it actually is . I would wager that the "branches" of the engine corresponding to each "family" are probably at odds with each other in both obvious and subtle, irritating ways that require a lot of manual work. But a happy thought @LongLeftFlank. CMx2 in 2020 being two bundles, WW2 and Contemporary, on STEAM (tchoo-tchoo).

Making an adaptation/crossover of Pournelle's Falkenberg Legion exploits in the "CoDominium Future History" books would probably require less resources and allows to recycle existing art assets. No jungle terrain, sadly

True, we didn't have a thread specific to AB but general about WEGO and RTwP wargames ut

I don't think that 100$ would cover the development costs.