Jump to content

BletchleyGeek

Members
  • Posts

    1,364
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    BletchleyGeek got a reaction from BFCElvis in CM Battle for Normandy v4.03 patch has been released   
    Cheers then to @ChrisND!
  2. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to mjkerner in CM Fortress Italy v2.11 patch has been released   
    It apparently was that way in the 210 version (R2V release) and just overlooked by everyone. I had originally checked the games' "active " brz (the one in the  program files x86 folder). But I just checked my copied-and-exploded R2V brzs made at the time I installed it, and that texture is also unfinished. So it was unfinished from the git go.
  3. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to IICptMillerII in Best way to play operational level?   
    Part 2: Combat
    For simplicity sake, I'm going to use the scenario I made and showed above to illustrate how combat works across Tiller and CM.
    Company A/1/115th Inf Rgt moves down the road until it bumps into an Osttruppen unit (1/Ost.439) however the company no longer has enough movement points to assault.

    I end the US turn, and for simplicity sake during the German turn, they decide no one is moving or firing at anything. So the beginning of turn 2 looks like this:

    You'll notice that company A now has all of its movement points back and is ready to assault. Company A assaults the Osttruppen, and the battle begins. Before we can dive into the CM side of this, we need to take down some important details. The hex coordinates of the hex being assaulted (shown in the bottom right) the type of terrain (shown in the upper left when the hex is selected, under the unit portrait) the units involved and their status (who they are, how many men do they have, their quality/current state of morale/fatigue) including any fire support that is in range and you decide to commit to this battle. The final bits of info are the time and date (shown in the lower right hand corner) and the weather conditions, which is shown by clicking 'Info' at the top and then 'weather.' Once this information is collected, you can jump into CM. 
    In CM the hardest part of this process is finding/creating a map that will work for the battle. If you want you can make the map yourself in the editor, or you can find a QB map that is a close approximation. The latter is the method I would recommend for now. For this battle I chose the QB map called Attk Large Open QB-015. Once you know the map you simply orient it correctly (US attacking from West to East) create the set up zones and place both sides down on the map. For this battle its relatively simple, just a rifle company per side. Remember that Osttruppen were of very poor quality. I set their morale to low and their experience to conscript. Remember, this scenario is not meant to be challenging, its supposed to teach you the ropes. (Note: For Osttruppen I like to use the Grenadier Ersatz, but you need the Market Garden module for these units) One last point, if you decide to commit your howitzer battery to this fight, then go ahead and add 12 105mm howitzers to the US side as well. If you use them in the battle, then they will not be able to be used in another battle this turn. 
    Now that you have the battle set up, you finally get to the good part and get to play it out! (Note: I find that its easier to just play the battle in Hotseat against yourself than it is to bother with creating AI plans)
    I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head, so I'll make up some battle results here: US suffered 8 KIA and 14 WIA - Ost suffered 27 KIA 38 WIA 8 MIA. Again, for simplicity sake we are going to just add up the casualties for each side so we have a simple total to deal with. So company A suffered 22 casualties total and the Osttruppen suffered 73 casualties. 
    Note: I would highly recommend using this battlefield career recorder to track casualties for a scenario you play out: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=2990 Its really cool seeing the data as the scenario plays out. There are other recorder programs you can use but they're more technical. This one is more than adequate. Thanks @Ithikial_AU !
    Translating casualties from CM to PzC is a bit technical, but is easy to get the hang of. The first thing you want to do (and should have already been prompted to do) is save the PzC battle. Call it something like "My CMPzC Test Battle" or something else that you will be able to instantly identify. You should now have a save file in your PzC folder called My CMPzC Test Battle.btl. You now need to convert the .btl file to a .scn file. The good news is all you need is Notepad ++ (free for download if you don't have it already) Open the .btl save file with notepad ++ and simply Save As "My CMPzC Battle Test.scn" and you're all set. Now, open up pcedit.exe (the Tiller editor located in the main folder) and scroll all the way to the bottom of the scenario list to find your save file. Open it, and use the editor to subtract casualties from both units involved in the battle, as well as to move the Osttruppen out of the assaulted hex and move the US into the hex. Simply save the file and close the editor, then head back into PzC Normandy and open the battle back up (via the scenario selection menu) and you'll see all of your edits have taken effect and you can continue playing!

     
    Hopefully this quick and dirty run-through is enough to get you and others interested acclimated with the basics of the system. Once you get the hang of it it is loads of fun, and you can start making your own house rules to fit your style of play. If you have any questions please feel free to ask! Also just want to give a bit shout-out to Phil (Kohlenklau) for getting me started, and the other forum goers who helped pioneer the system!
  4. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to George MC in AAR: UK Armoured Assault - The Jocks give it a bit of Welly   
    Ha! ha! Posh git!
  5. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to JulianJ in AAR: UK Armoured Assault - The Jocks give it a bit of Welly   
    After Action Report UK Armoured Assault
    This is one of George MC's excellent scenarios, originally made for SF1.
    Summary
    A battlegroup of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards in their Challengers, supported by mech infantry and engineers, with arty and air support, attack Syrian positions.

    Challenger on overwatch
    AAR:
    Firstly, one of the nice touches is you have recon in position when the game starts. It is a minor gripe of mine that you often go into battles blind, and have to expose a few hapless soldiers to incoming, to find out where the enemy is: Reconnaisance by Taking Fire. I don't like it or think it is realistic.
    It's a fairly big battlefield. I decided on a quite conservative plan, given that I seemed to have plenty of time (2 game hours) to achieve the objectives. Basically I was going to hide in the deployment zone and take the first enemy position which is in a dip then move forward and see what revealed itself. I pushed some Challys into overwatch. Two were promptly hit by ATGMs – both survived, one with its 120mm knocked out, the other with its commander dead.
    I pulled back immediately and dialled in my artillery and the Harriers that were on station.
    I spent 20 minutes pounding enemy positions with 81mm, 155 mm and one of the Harriers (keeping the other in reserve, which proved to be a wise move). So I destroyed all of the AT threats I could find.

    A recent portrait of Syrian ATGM team No. 2
    Digression – We are fighting with the Jocks here, and the infantry brigaded with the RSDG maybe should be the Black Watch, so we have two units that fought together at Waterloo. Not having Scottish accents irked me (it's some form of orcish, I believe 🤣) I couldn't get HQS sound mod and George MC's and Mord's Cuss mod* to work together – they seem incompatible, so I wasn't entirely happy, as it didn't seem right to have legendary Scottish units speaking rather plummy English.
    (*further investigation by @George MC , it seems that the Cuss mod won't work with SF2. I might be wrong about the Black Watch – George checked when he wrote the scenario and the Orbat should be correct for the right time in an imaginary war.)
    (Politics Alert! British rankers traditionally come from the poorest parts of the country – Wales, Scotland, the North/Midlands of England, Cockneys (East End of London), and Ireland. It is probably nitpicking, but it would be good to hear more of these sort of authentic voices in BF games. /Rant over.)
    The first advance
    My forces moved forward. The infantry took the first dug-in position directly to the front, backed up by Challys and Warriors. I sent forces to the right to take a good position for the Javelin team. I didn't bother flanking to the left.
    After I'd bounded forward I consolidated then moved on to the next set of objectives, using light bombardments of 155mm to mash anything that seemed to be well hardened. I was taking hardly any casualties. Identified enemy tanks didn't last long, either hit by the Harrier or Challenger gunfire.
    One of the Static Tanks was still functioning, having been under an intense artillery barrage, and been struck by 2 x 155mm rounds and a 66mm to the back of the turret. I didn't find that believable, even if the crew had survived, I think they would have abandoned the tank. /End Rant 2.
     

    Infantry and armour advancing in close co-ordination, having taken the central farm. Out of shot to the right, the engineers are about to flank  OBJ Elgin
    Infantry and armour move forward and consolidate on the next enemy positions
    I'd moved forward on OBJ Elgin and Keith. My leftmost troops were closing in on OBJ North Queensferry from both front and flank. One of the nice things about this scenario is you can use the terrain to move infantry forward under cover.
    SPOILER COMING BELOW PICTURE

    A Challenger advances, the commander is an ancestor of James T. Kirk.
    Enemy armour reinforcements arrived. My Challengers in overwatch and the second Harrier dispatched them without any losses. One Chally took a 125mm hit to the added lower hull front armour pack, and survived. So that is 2 ATGMs and a 125 KE round that failed to penetrate.
    Pushed the enemy out of North Queensferry, a mainly infantry assault, supported by Warriors.
     
    (CM WEIRDNESS – BUT IS A SPOILER)
     
    Bizarrely, when the game ended I found that there was a static tank in the middle of one of my positions that I had overlooked. In RL I can't see how this could have happened, given that one of my observer teams was in an adjacent house and my footsloggers and armour were all around. As I prepared for the assault on the final objective, South Queensferry, I saw that my forward infantry were tired, so I mustered the engineers as a 2nd assault wave, bussed them into FV432s and drove them at high speed to the E of North Queensferry. The muster area was within metres of the static tank. I guess the high speed move must have not given it time to spot, because they must have crossed its gunsights....
     
    The Final Assault on South Queensferry
     
    I sent my infantry and armour forward under a smokescreen over one of the bridges. I had miscalculated (again!) as there were a few enemy infantry in the vicinity of the N/S Queensferry Bridge. I thought they were suppressed/destroyed/surrendered, and I had sent a Warrior to finish them off, but I gave it Hunt orders and it stayed where it was. A brief firefight took 2 of my 3 man scout team down. The Syrians were neutralised, but it felt an unnecessary loss.
    Some of my engineers were speeding to the other bridge to cross and flank. I was laying down immense amounts of small arms and MG fire on all known enemy positions.

    The final assault on South Queensferry - armour, infantry and engineers attacking under covering fire. The Challenger has run out of ammo and is parked in a safeish position.
    Time was running out. I was – typically – less careful about moving forward and took some more casualties, which were unnecessary. Most of the enemy troops were forced to abandon their positions and as they crossed the open streets, were gunned down in a deadly crossfire, from smallarms and vehicle MGs, and Chaingun/50 cal from Challengers a long way off.
    Another digression – I've become inordinately fond of the L94A1 Chain Gun and often use it in preference to other weapons. It saves the too few, and valuable, HESH or HE rounds for when you really need them.
    Results Screen
    I achieved a total victory: 30 British casualties to 410 Syrian, knocked out all but two tanks for the loss of none. I lost a few Warriors and 432s. Nevertheless some of my lads should not have copped it. I'm arranging to court martial myself. Oh wait, I'm a general. That will never happen. Queenie's going to pin another medal on me.
     
    Amusing moment of the game:
    Road Traffic Accident – one of my 432s rearended a Warrior on the bridge, entirely due to my inept vehicle handling. You can see it in the image above. Classic. I hope I don't get a ticket.
     
    Music
    I think appropriate music really heightens the enjoyment of a video game. Usually I find the in-game music track palls, however good it is. So I turn it off and have YouTube open in my browser. So I can do a quick search and find something that is atmospheric and feels right for the moment, then save it as a playlist. I have game music on my computer, like the Doom era soundtrack of pumping metal, which can work, but YouTube is more convenient and you can just search again and use something different if it doesn't feel right.
    For example, for fantasy games, Lord of the Rings soundtrack works brilliantly, but feels completely wrong if I am playing Shogun 2. There's lots of westernised Japanese samurai movie and anime soundtracks which really juice that game up.
     
    For this CM scenario I was playing various heroic tracks, and I also interspersed this with Scottish martial bagpipe music. My boys love it!
    I have also been known to play Ride of the Valkyries when the attack helos go in...
     
    Conclusion
    I enjoyed this game a lot. However the British side has a considerable advantage, in technology, military competence and arty/air support.
    (SPOILER)
    The armoured counterattack could be deadly if the T72s ganged up on the Challys – which are already zoned in by Syrian troops. But the AI can't do that, and just drove around aimlessly, getting shot.
    I could have improved with better fire discipline: I wasted a lot of rounds that I should have saved for later, running out of ammo at the last stages of the game. I thought Challenger 2s had 52 rounds but the game only has 48. Could really do with those four shells.
    In longer games, keeping track of ammo is very important. I blasted away with the 81 mm when more careful use would have kept some in reserve. Use more “Target Briefly” rather than using T and hitting a target with area fire for the full minute. I've been doing TB for 30 or 45 seconds so I don't shoot up something ( and forget about it) for several turns, and run short of MG ammo in a Chally (which I did!).
    Finally, if there's anybody who's good with sound, perhaps contact GeorgeMC and Mord to upgrade the Cuss Mod. It might be something simple like needing reformatting? It's a mod I would like to see operational again. I could listen to it fine in my media player so there's nothing damaged.
     
  6. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to IICptMillerII in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    You'll have to excuse the double post here, but I feel compelled to share this.
    I think some of the misconception about what is happening in the game is coming from the fact that the TacAI always aims for center mass. The real world is not like World of Tanks or War Thunder, where shot placement on specific 2in by 2in spots on a tank has been developed into some kind of gamer science. In reality, all gunnery (small arms, AT, tank, autocannon, missile, etc) is based on the principle of always aiming for center mass. This is as true today as it was back in 1944/42/insert warfare date here. The modern training doctrine, ie standard gunnery in an Abrams tank, it to ALWAYS laze a target at center mass, and then immediately fire. This is called 'lase and blaze' by gunners. There are many reasons to do it this way, but the most important two are 1) if you do not lase the center mass of the target, you can get a bad laser return, which gives you an incorrect range to target, meaning your shot will miss. And 2) because even in an M1A2 SEP Abrams tank, which has a gunner and tank commander sight that is 1080p resolution with a x50 zoom, it is still hard to pick out individual parts on a tank in combat conditions. 
    To illustrate this, here is a video of an actual Abrams on a training range. You can see the thermal sights they are using, the targets and everything. The gunner does not look for a specific part of the target to shoot at, he fires center mass after a quick and successful lase:
     (Btw the comments on this video are pretty hilarious)
    This second video shows an actual battle position (BP) engagement on a training range. Note that the tank pulls up into the firing position, scans for and engages targets (fires twice) and then reverses. All in the span of 20 seconds. This is irregardless of return fire in a real life combat situation. Tanks train to constantly reverse out of and advance into firing positions to reduce the chance of them being shot at at all:
    In summary: tanks always fire at center mass. Even in good hulldown, tanks still reverse out of line of sight to prevent themselves being shot at at all, and to greatly reduce the chances of them being ranged in on/hit if they are engaged. 
    Edit: Ninja'd again, by @Saint_Fuller who makes an excellent point which my post helps to illustrate as well. 
  7. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Saint_Fuller in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    Tank gunners aim center mass because that is the only practical option.

    Aiming for specific parts of the tank is some gamey **** straight out of some arcade tank "sim" game like War Thunder, where distances are compressed hilariously and engagement ranges are consequently stupidly short.
     
    This is a modern thermal gunsight. That object at 0:12 that gets shot at? That's a T-55, skylined, in the open, on a hill, under 12x magnification.

    Good luck finding let alone hitting comparatively tiny "weak spots" when the reticle is the same size as the entire damn target, with your WW2 daylight optics and fire control methods amounting to "estimate the range and then adjust by observing fall of shot".
  8. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Rinaldi in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    The point of hull down is that it forms a battle position. Its only one part of the formula of breaking an enemy targeting solution. The other one is time. Why should we take anything away from a 'test' that doesn't mimic a battlefield condition where a competent player repositions a tank in BP frequently? I also enjoy the casual ignoring of @Pete Wenman's results. It's okay Pete, the reasonable people see you. 
  9. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to slysniper in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    It would be nice if the game did aim for what is the weaker location of the tank  when it is fully exposed.
    But that brings up many questions as to how often should it do this.
    Because if it did it all the time, then the results would be more like the hull down results, with all that grouping now on the turret.
     
    But all gunners did not always aim for the perfect shot, so if the aiming should be adjusted, then to what.
    What percentage of the shots should be aimed at the turret
    what percentage at the tracks
    What percentage at the turret ring
    what percentage at center mass.
    How should this be adjusted for the crew experience.
    At what range should the crew be allowed to start targeting specific locations of the tank instead of center mass.
    Should these factors be adjusted for each tank since optic and trajectory of round is going to make the gunner confident to aim at such things at different ranges depending on the tank he is in.
     
    Ok, provide all that suggested data, then think about the work to put that all into the programming and to keep it accurate.
    And you wonder why they just programmed center mass.  I dont.
     
    Can the game be created to do this - Yes.
    You have proven to some extent what the game does, well, that has been known for along time. So you show what the weaknesses of the game is.
     
    What I am asking, is figure out how to answer all my questions and then suggestions as to how best to implement it.
    Plus I am sure I have missed other factors that we should be implementing.
    Like the fact  that the game does nothing to reflect viewing issues. Presently a tank on the skyline is as hard to spot as a tank in the shadows under a thick tree canopy.
    There is no factor for any viewing issues other than a number added to make it harder to spot for certain terrain types that your line of sight passes through.
     
    There is no adjustment to spotting for a target on the move compared to a non-moving target.
    So if we are going to fix targeting. lets fix these items also.
    So lets get a chart going for all the possible values there also that could impact the spotting numbers.
     
    In otherwards, where do we draw the line at how much data to try to create and calc to represent this one feature in the game.
    Personally, My answer would be very simple. Just have the game target the turret 40 percent of the time, hull 60 percent.
    If the tracks are in view, then maybe aim for them 20% on a tank that has armor past your likely penetration ability.
     
    But it would be a discussion of what the game should be doing, with the realization that the present game engine will not ever do that, but if the concepts are good, maybe it will impact the next game engine. I just think the focus needs to be helping to try to make the next engine better, than the concept that there is going to be programming changes to a present engine that it was not likely designed to do.
    So providing realistic numbers on what we would like to see the game do would be a much better discussion.
     
     
     
     
     
  10. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to RobZ in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    Test results
    Tests done in a more "natural" map instead of flat ground. Shermans are at 900,1030 and 1050m. All shermans are placed in light forest with trees. Shermans are of variant M4A3(76)W. Panther is of variant Panther G mid.
    20 tests done with panther hull down, 20 tests with panther open ground. At test start the panther will drive to its correct position so it is not exposed at the start, all shermans stationary. Disregard the forward observers, they are behind terrain and does not see anything. At this range and angle the shermans can penetrate the lower glacis and the front turret, only the upper hull plate is immune.
    Skill: regular, normal, 0 for all tanks

    The map.

    Panther hull down/open from sherman's perspective (one of them).

    Panthers perspective.
     
    Results:
    Panther in hull down position:
    4/20 times success; 20% win rate
    failures:
    12 times by main gun destroyed: 4 times muzzle hit, 2 times barrel hit, rest are mantlet/weapon mount hits. Rest of failures is crew dismount and tank destroyed.
    Panther on open ground:
    11/20 times success; 55% win rate
    1 success had the panther immobilized by lower glacis penetration, engine destroyed
    failures:
    4 times by main gun destroyed: 1 time muzzle hit, rest mantlet/weapon mount.
    1 time destroyed after +50 hits, crew panicked earlier, but the tank was still operational
    rest is lower glacis or weapon mount tank destroyed
     
    So after all that i did another 10 tests in each position with shermans all beeing elite crew to see what happend
    Panther in hull down position vs 3 elite shermans: 0% win rate
    Panther on open ground vs 3 elite shermans: 40% win rate
     
    I got many pictures from the different successes and failures, but i dont want to clutter the post, but in general this is why the panther wins open ground scenarios:

    The AI will always aim for the upper hull plate, which is the only place they can't penetrate. This is the aiming issue im talking about, the AI aims for the exact same location every single shot and will never deviate at all unless terrain forces them to. Once they are zeroed in, there is almost no hits to the turret or lower glacis at all, these lower glacis hits was two of the first shots fired. The panther won in the scenario that picture is taken from.
  11. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Pete Wenman in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.
    My set up
    Two Panthers firing under AI control
    Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.
    Range just over 1500m
    I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.
    Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,
                          AP Shells fired to destroy target
    Try                        OG                                HD
    1                            3                                    6
    2                            5                                    9
    3                            3                                   14
    4                            2                                    6
    5                            4                                    8    
    So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.
    That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.
    Works for me, but you mileage may vary
    P
     
  12. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Thomm in Fire and Rubble DAR: BFCElvis vs Ithikial_AU - Soviet Side   
    As a native speaker, I have to pay some respect here!
    For full effect, please use proper capitalization, as in:  Truppen-Grillen
    Best regards,
    Thomm
  13. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to c3k in Invisible tank destroyed   
    Not that it helps, but there is a spotted icon for the tank you label as "invisible". So, if you've selected the Panther, that front tank is KNOWN to the Panther, it just doesn't have enough information to solidly ID it. (CMBO had generic tanks that would be used for this type of thing: you'd see a blocky tank instead of a missing tank with an icon.)
    As well, the way LOS works with foliage is a bit spotty. There's some fuzzy LOS to take into account breezes and openings. So, with foliage, what you see (on your screen) is NOT what you get (with LOS calculations). It is frustrating, but like many aspects of any game, without that simplification there would be too much of a burden to let the game be playable.
    Not excusing it, just explaining it.
    A final note: LOS uses spotting cycles. At certain intervals (with some random elements and with weight given to optics, field of view, experience, suppression, etc.), and ONLY at that moment, does a unit check for LOS. An interval of 8-15 seconds "feels" about right from my experience with the game. Meaning, if that Panther waited longer, it may eventually get a solid LOS to the tank marked with the spotting icon.
    (All the above is based on "Iron" difficulty. It is the only level I use. It allows the player to know what each selected unit sees and knows about. I find Iron is much more conducive to good Situational Awareness than the other difficulty levels.)
  14. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Combatintman in The Year Ahead Bone Post   
    No such thing as typical - what sort of battalion - what type of operation?  In simple terms it all comes down to ground, weapons systems and movement rates.  A Brown Bess musket in Napoleonic times had a short effective range as did the artillery pieces and horses tended to get knackered out charging around all over the place, hence why Waterloo involved massive numbers of troops on a piece of ground that would probably be a battalion-sized AO in modern times.  So when you apply the principles of offensive or defensive operations to any given army, the numbers work themselves out.   
  15. Like
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Ultradave in Nearly the Summer Solstice here in UK   
    I lived in England for several years. We lived in the north, just outside the Lakes District. We had to have room darkening shades. In summer, it never really got full dark. Almost, for a while. Sunset almost 10pm, sunrise at about 4:30am (which means it starts getting light about 3:30.  
    Winter was the opposite, sunrise 8:30am, sunset 3:45pm and the sun barely got above the distant treetops.
    It took some getting used to. But we loved our time there. Great place to live.
  16. Like
    BletchleyGeek reacted to JulianJ in Nearly the Summer Solstice here in UK   
    Never gets properly dark when you have a burning wicker man to light up those northern nights. Happy Solstice!
  17. Like
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Lethaface in Fire and Rubble DAR: BFCElvis vs Ithikial_AU - Soviet Side   
    AFAIK the Pz Faust 100 is also in CMFB. 
  18. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to SimpleSimon in Tank Gun Damage   
    Which is sort of a wider issue all around with the scenario designing to me. Not so much the forces involved, but the awfully harsh mechanisms for scoring the player's performance. You're compelled to instigate total bloodbaths in most CM scenarios and campaigns in a way that could lead to a medal in very few Armies, dismissal in most, mutiny in all. 
  19. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Bil Hardenberger in A suggestion for the next CM setting: WW1   
    I will be the dissenting voice here.. WW1 combat at the CM level was not all about static trench warfare and trench raids with a few tanks thrown in for flavor.  In the opening phases it was a war of maneuver, punch and counterpunch,.. I highly recommend you look up the Battle of the Frontiers.  Also warfare on the east, in Romania, and in Italy was more about maneuver than static combat.
    I have read Rommel's Infantry Attacks several times and it definitely does not illustrate a static war... although I can also see where trench raids etc. would be very interesting at this scale too (and yes there are a few of those in Rommel's work). 
    I also have no problem with it being primarily an infantry focused game (though tanks were not all the large slow lumbering behemoths you picture).. it would be a unique and little gamed period that was the birthplace (or the re-birth IMO) of modern infantry tactics.  Very interesting and rich period that I would love to see represented in CM someday.
    Sign me on.  Bil
  20. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Hapless in Tank Gun Damage   
    What Tiger? You were just rolling down the street when suddenly there was a huge bang and the turret filled with smoke, screams, shrapnel and blood. It would be nice to have more details on the actual engagement, but I seriously doubt the surviving crew were either still inside the Pershing or in any kind of mental state to do anything by the time the second shot hit the muzzle brake. It seems unlikely that they had any idea what was going on.
    But we're getting a little sidetracked from the main point. It might be profitable for people to start sharing turns when they take gun damage so we can see how often it happens and what common factors there are. Because I know it barely ever happens to me, nor does it seem to happen very often when I specifically try to do it to my opponents.
  21. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Pete Wenman in Tank Gun Damage   
    I'm not seeing a gun barrel penetrated in this pic. I'm seeing a damaged muzzle brake that would likely not prevent the gun from firing. 
     
    Really - you'd be happy to fire a 90mm high explosive projectile down a barrel that is that badly damaged, and potentially partially blocked. I was never a tanker, but if that had ever happened to my rifle I sure as hell would not have fired another round. Guns and their associated mountings and recoil systems are pieces of high precision engineering, with very small tolerances. If these are exceeded, due to damage or other external factors, they stop working as designed and that is inherently dangerous given the amounts of energy at play.
      P
     
  22. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to SimpleSimon in Soviet Infantry Battalion Attack   
    Bingo. Cheesing map edges enabled you to win in the first round. That's a way to play, but it's not doctrinal or in spirit of the game. If you had tried to play doctrinally as many would be inclined to the mission was going to be murderous and this is the first mission in the campaign. Can't ask the player to think out-of-the-box before they've had a chance to even see the box. Can't run before you walk, etc. Simpler explanation to me is just that the scenario designer just didn't know what he was doing, and based his scenario design on an ugly Cold War stereotype. 
    You might be able to achieve victory in the scenario by pooling your machine guns and SU-76s together....but this force is extremely fragile and its fire supremacy could easily be lost to any single one of the threats it's facing on the map. You're virtually bound to lose half of the assault guns to bogging and mines they can't avoid. If you leave them behind to skirt the forests then they're out of play entirely. One of map's three entrenched Pak 40s could stop every one of them and the Pak40s can see most of the map. This attack is just insanely fragile to me that it's totally not doctrinal for the Red Army and completely out of character. If it's not a serious attack then you'd have far more modest objectives, and the engineers and assault guns wouldn't be present at all. They'd be supporting the main attack somewhere else. The briefing and objectives are clear that this is an assault and you are expected to achieve your assignment but you're given a fraction of the tools necessary to achieve this. Your force resembles a Task Force or a Combat Command not the Red Army. The attack just doesn't make sense to me, it looks like it was planned by...well...an American. 
    I personally like modding the scenario with tons of artillery, more assault guns etc because that's me. I want to be the star of the show and I want my attack to be the real one. There's a credible way to mod this scenario without turning it into a major offensive that is completely doctrinal for the Red Army though. Make objective line 1, the line immediately across the river a Victory objective. All you're doing is pressuring the German defense then. Tying down 200 men with your 600 is not efficient but the Red Army has no shortage of men the Germans do so just by getting your force across the river intact you've achieved your objective. You're contributing a lot to the People's Victory by simply pressuring the German defense. Slap that cease fire and move on to the next scenario.
    If you're really plucky and don't care much for the importance of following orders in the Red Army you can press onwards for that Total Victory you want by reaching the touch-lines on the rest of the map. This is risky, you're not following orders now and don't have a lot of support. If it was me i'd dispense with most of my force and concentrate on getting platoon size groups between weaker sections of the German defense. Unlike the original scenario you are penalized for losing the Motherland's valuable manpower resources however, so the risks are quite high and the overall reward is just a better victory endorsement ya know? You can do it but your superiors would be less pleased than you might think. If you get bitten next time trust the briefing, execute your tasks as assigned from now on Comrade. 
    He was on odd guy. I don't think he was banned per se? He just sort of left. Everything he got sounds conspicuously to me like it came from Zaloga's Red Army Handbook which is available digitally on Amazon. Some other stuff came from the Osprey series books. He might have some texts or such in his man-cave that haven't been digitized or are out-of-print...but most of the best stuff on the Red Army is recent. Much of the 1970s texts and earlier are not usually in good faith, and frequently anchor their entire narrative on...German accounts.
    One thing I agree with him about though? Commanders who justify attacks by excusing heavy casualties as "planned" are in fact excusing their own ineptitude. They wouldn't last long at the front. They'd be removed and given an administrative position before long...if they didn't mysteriously turn up dead in a ditch somewhere first. By 1945 the only men in the world who associated victory with lots of their own troops being dead were the Nazis and Japanese Empire. 
     
     
  23. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Ithikial_AU in Fire and Rubble DAR: BFCElvis vs Ithikial_AU - German Side   
    I've got permission from BFCElvis to post about something a little to the side of this content.
    Fixing the Hedgerow Bug
    It's perhaps most prevalent in CMBN given the abundance of hedgerow maps/scenarios but applies across all titles for infantry behind hard cover. You may have noticed my Green troops in this battle have not been running away or into the streets towards the enemy during these firefights with the Soviet infantry.
    This whole DAR has been using a version of the F&R beta that includes some tweaks to the TacAI to address infantry bolting from cover when coming under small arms fire. Infantry that come under small arms fire are more likely to seek cover and 'cower' rather than displace, even when pinned/rattled. Infantry are more likely to bolt when under attack from high explosives... (which let's face it makes sense. )
    The changes I've noticed:
    - It becomes very hard to dislodge infantry already set up in a building or behind a wall. Even when you lose LOS/LOF there's a good chance your opponent is still there. (I've joked it's going to take naval shells to dislodge Veteran troops).
    - Getting the jump on the enemy while they are moving / before they are set up and ready to seek cover still causes morale to collapse very quickly. Case in point: like when most of my Pioneer platoon evaporated under SMG fire within 30 seconds.
    - Infantry taking persistent casualties will still suffer morale damage over the long term. Like my Volkssturm surrendering after a solid five minutes of constant rifle fire back and forth.
    - Expect longer drawn out firefights in urban and hedgerow maps. That also means watching those ammo counters more closely.
    - High explosive and flame options just became a lot more valuable in urban combat. Close quarter AVRE or M12 GMC anyone?
     
    Still being tested and subject to change but there are positive signs among the beta testers so far.
    All for now.
  24. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Vacillator in New CMRT Scenario: Carius at Malinova   
    Four years later than the last post and I've just played this as Carius and co.  Yes @George MC it is excellent.  Lost one Tiger and one Stug so far with some minutes left (I got all of the Stugs back to the village and set them up in ambush positions to back up the couple of Tigers I had there).
    Favourite moment was watching one of these Tigers bounce 88s off the turret of a tough IS2 which sneakily had made its way into the back of the village from the slopes on the right flank.  No penetration achieved by the Tiger, but it did make the IS2 go into reverse - straight towards two waiting Stugs.  Both Stugs opened fire and and penetrated the rear hull and turret.  Very nice moment for me but not for the IS2 crew...
    Thanks George - hope you can add more scenarios in Fire and Rubble if you haven't already 😉.
  25. Upvote
    BletchleyGeek reacted to Chibot Mk IX in Fire and Rubble DAR: BFCElvis vs Ithikial_AU - German Side   
    probably due to some nasty aftereffect

×
×
  • Create New...