gunnulf
-
Posts
53 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by gunnulf
-
-
Womble beat me to the draw on that one I guess
-
2). Since setup-phase pre-registered artillery comes in immediately, those target points should automatically become target reference points for the rest of the battle. Why could the arty teams have a target set at the beginning of the battle and then lose that reference and need extra time to target it again?
If you are going down that route then you are getting a TRP for free effectively (they cost 30pts in QB - effectively the cost of the rounds used to range on that target before the battle). So you shouldnt be able to do prelim fire without a TRP really & the ability to do prelim fire is a kinda free bonus right now. In house rules I generally like to limit prelim fire without TRPs to 1 unit HE & 1 unit smoke for attackers and none for defenders (who wouldnt know in advance when H-Hour was). Then in open play TRPs are allowed obviously. Artillery does need limiting factors to prevent the god-factor already mentioned.
-
Yes, and they were all 3 ranks higher than you...
-
Certainly for the German side I think there should always be a hefty set of TRPs, just about everywhere they might be fighting. That's because they had months to prepare their Normandy defenses and the fallback line of strongpoints and resistance nests, and had been living and patrolling and training in the area long before it became a battlefield. So IMHO the German side should get TRPs for just about every crossroads, farm complex, town, hilltop and any other tactically meaningful spot of ground, regardless of the battle type or length of time the FOO had been there.
Not so sure that logic applies universally. Certainly if you are talking about the first few days after D-Day in defence of static positions, but after that the majority of German forces in Normandy would have come in from elsewhere. Additionally TRPs are effectively calculations of bearing/distance from batteries to the target point and again while in the first days your logic applies after that then battery locations would be relatively newly established. That said it would be standard to begin the registration process whenever a defensive position was established.
-
A button to toggle rapid versus deliberate rate of fire would be a good thing, obviously rapid will burn through your ammo fast and soon have you stopping to change barrels
-
Not sure about this. I would definitely like to see reduced spotting ability, but green troops break to easily to mount any kind of attack. I have tried using green mortars, FOs and IiRC it just made them less accurate but the tight pattern still happened.
That sounds fine. Once a mortar is bedding in and then dialled in it will fire in the same direction each time (with wind and slight baseplate shift creating the spread). So green would mean they were less accurate in aiming the mortar, but once the weapon was set then it would be right or wrong fairly consistently until the fire mission is adjusted. Green troops would be unlikely to mean they would spray and prey with a mortar in the same way as they would with a MG or rifle.
-
Helmets? Not perfect but better than nothing...
-
Send couple of emails last couple days with no reply - is that email definately correct?
-
Cheers Kurt, email set. Let me know what you think.
-
Anybody up for a bit of PBEM action? I have a fair bit of time on my hands right now so should be able to match several turns a day if anybody is free. Or a slower turnaround is fine too.
Keen to get a few US vs German games done before the Commonwealth mod rocks up...
-
Cheers for that, very interesting, particularly the level of poor intel on panthers before D-Day. I knew the yanks had turned down offers of Hobarts funnies which obviously complicated matters on Omaha to the near point of failure but I didnt know they had turned down 17pdrs and made a conscious decision of leave 76mm gunned M4s behind for logistical/complacency reasons.
-
I tested and created this table a while ago. Maybe helps:
http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/German_Artillery_Characteristics
and this for naval support fire:
http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/US_Naval_Fire_Support_Characteristics
-
While technically possible to fire it standing from the hip then tactically if you make a habit of standing up in the open 50m away from the enemy your own life expectancy would probably be quite limited. It takes 1 second to get on your beltbuckle and get more accurate fire down and better avoid incoming. The only real utility of the assault fire mode might be room clearance if no other automatic weapons available or possibly in a suprise short range encounter to get a few rounds down and startle the enemy to give you a couple seconds to find a better fire position. IMHO.
-
Are we getting confused with the PzII Lynx? I think that might be in the next module. There was no Cheater.
-
isnt it true that P1 inputs his orders and sents to P2
P2 inputs his orders and then the turn calculates (but P2 doesnt see result yet)
P1 recieves file back. See's minute play out. Inputs his orders. Sends
P2 then sees the minute play out. Inputs orders. Game calculates.
So there is no opportunity for P1 to rerun the turn when he sees it as it already calculated on P2's computer. And P2 wont see the results until next time he recieves a file. Its pretty flawless in that respect really.
However work on your trust issues anyway... Try standing with you back to your PC, eyes closed, arms outstretched, and fall backwards. It will catch you. Sort of... unless its a laptop... 2nd thoughts, just trust the system as by my understanding it is fairly cheatproof
-
Ok, now I know you aren't reading my posts.
QUOTE]
I did read them... but I...did...disclose...I...were..inf..an...try... Me don't read too clever
Have a good day old chap and will have to wait out to see if the developers make any sense of it all.
-
Cowboys? Certainly the RA was - and is - filled with chaps who are over 6ft, brave, witty, urbane, handsome, strong of jaw, noble of purpose, and pure of heart. I'm not sure about those other people though.
Didn't read my post, huh? Or sburke's?
Sure, 'Repeat' is a conceptually pretty straightforward idea, and if there were only one observer and one fire unit it would be pretty strightforward in practice. The problem is when you have multiple observers and multiple fire units, and the combinatorial options grow exponentially. Conveying which FO or observer unit has a valid 'Repeat' option available, from which fire unit, to what target and with what settings in a straightforward and understanable way is a non-trivial task.
And, even if you manage that feat, you're still struggling with the basic premise that artillery (like everything else) in CM is already much faster, more flexible, more predictable, and more reliable than any commander in 1944 could reasonably have imagined. Also, this kind of functionality is really only relevant as battles get up over battalion sized, on maps larger than 1km², and more than 90mins long. While CM will happily allow battles that size, I don't believe it's intended to be used that way. Decrying a lack of functionality for situations it isn't really meant to cover doesn't carry a very strong imperative. IMO, etc.
Regards
Jon
Edit: this is somewhat tangential, but I know a bloke who was GPO with 7RHA in Helmand a few years back. When they arrived, and after the previous mob had departed, they had a look at the target records they'd inherited and discovered there were hundreds and hundreds of the bloody things. It seemed like every intersection, tree, house, and dtch which had ever been fired at - and quite a few that hadn't - had been recorded as a TRP, 'just in case.' Infantry in contact and the FOs were spending more time tying to read their maps buried under all the TRP markings and then arguing about whether fire was coming from VX1234 or VX 1243 than they were if they'd just started from scratch. Remember, this is with a computerised CP, automated target record keeping, GPS, and excellent comms. So they deleted all of them, re-recorded a single generic TRP at a good location at a density of less than one per km², and cracked on with their damn job.
Cheers old fruit. I have agreed all along across many posts here that dig deep and it does get complicated with too many variables. But all that is being proposed really is the simple version as per jarinks summary. 1 spotter in contact already with 1 firing unit. If no other tasking happens first then a button could be available to click and fire again at a much reduced time than begining the process from scratch. KISS.
Re. the helmand TRP-fest: I have no doubt that 6 months sat in the sangar then a combination of keeness and bordom contrived to let them get carried away a tad...
and no doubt a whole horde of dropshorts coming in cleaned up the system, bless them. However in Normandy wouldnt have been in location quite that long obviously... All said next regimental event I am going to collar one of the old and bold mortar boys and sit him in front of the game and pick his brains In the meantime lets see what happens in future versions.
-
Artillery officer. 21 years.
Great, lets talk business. Whats your take on the rest of my points? As an FAO if you are in contact with your battery, you have aquired, requested, you have spotted, you have FFE 12 rnds, target not neutalised so you call repeat, what do you expect to happen?
A mortar platoon sets up a baseline. Do they set up aiming posts? Do they take notes, keep a log?
Did the guys in WW2 know their craft or were they just cowboys throwing bombs about?
And finally moving to the game terms - would the suggested implimentation by jarink above sound like a sensible way to model the repeat command in a way that adds a bit of flavour, without adding god like abilities to recall any mission by any unit?
-
Here's my suggestion on how this could be implemented in-game.
- An Arty mission is called in as normal and goes to FFE.
- After it completes or is cancelled, a "REPEAT last fire mission" button appears for that battery/gun/mortar below the other mission types (point, area, linear)
- If the unit is on-board and performs any other orders (move, fire, face, etc.), comes under any level of suppression or loses C2, the REPEAT button goes away.
- Otherwise, the REPEAT button remains active for X number of turns (amount X depending on the level of support; for example Battalion 81mm mortars might be able to REPEAT for 9-10 turns while Corps 155mm Howitzers only can REPEAT for 5 turns) The X number could appear on the button to help the player remember how long this command is available?
- If calling a REPEAT, the FO does not have to have LOS to the target; it fires with the same accuracy as the previous mission.
- If the REPEAT button is selected, all of the mission parameters (type, duration, number of tubes, etc.) from that unit's previous mission are re-used and cannot be modified until the mission is in FFE. (this should reduce the potential "gamey" use of quick missions to register a target then blanket it with an emergency barrage later in the game.) If adjustments are called in, normal spotting rules (including LOS and any delays) are back in effect.
- If the REPEAT button is selected, the mission parameters are displayed along with the normal target indicators.
- If the REPEAT button is clicked but the fire mission not confirmed, then it's just like any other arty request that isn't confirmed and nothing happens.
- Once the REPEAT mission is in FFE, it's treated like a normal fire mission and can be cancelled, adjusted or REPEATed.
Spot on. Simple, understandable, achievable.
- An Arty mission is called in as normal and goes to FFE.
-
I'm going to quote gunnulf here, for convienience. My comments should not be taken as referring only to him, or only to the points raised in the quited bits of his post.
This is an assumption that simply isn't valid. Most targets would NOT be recorded. I'm also not aware of 'flicking back through the fire orders log book' as being a valid engagement technique.
Indeed.
There is rather large potential UI can of worms - how to show the player that they can fire faster on a target, but only if it is [here(1)], and only if fired by [that(1)] fire unit and called for by [this(1)] observer. Meanwhile, if instead the player wanted to fire [here(2)], that could be faster as long as it's fired by [that(3)] fire unit and called for by [this(9)] observer. Or [here(6)] with [that(2)] by [this(4)]. And so on. That sounds - to me - hopelessy confusing and infuriatuing for players. Delays will be all over the place like a mad women's wotsit, and most players won't have any clear understanding of why or what they need to do to make it 'better.' The alternative seems to be to allow the placement of TRPs during play, which would much more streamlined from a UI perspective, but only quasi-realistic.
Bear in mind that artillery (like everything else) in CM is already much faster, more flexible, more predictable, and more reliable than any commander in 1944 could reasonably have imagined. Also, this kind of functionality is really only relevant as battles get up over battalion sized, on maps larger than 1km², and over 90mins long. While CM will happily allow battles that size, I don't believe it's intended to be used that way. Decrying a lack of functionality for situations it isn't really meant to cover doesn't carry a very strong imperative. IMO, etc.
Regards
Jon
Sorry, I disagree and with respect I think you are speculating without too much basis. Plus you selectively quoted me, I made a difference elsewhere between 60mm coy level mortar firing on the hoof who would be unlikely to record accurately their targets (though in defence they more likely would) and established and more stable mortar baseplates and gun lines who would record targets as they were received. In simple terms they would record the grid ref/fire mission when recieved in notebook, plot on map, make there fire calculations, and use aiming posts to lay the barrels onto target. I speak as an infantry officer of 12 years with 2 years in mortars. Whats your qualifications? Things have changed I know but the basics were developed in WW2 and they are not so different if you take away the computers. You train to fire with and without. Give them some credit for knowing their craft.
That said, thats all largely irrelevant to the main thrust of the arguement which is that the ability for a spotter to call for a repeat of the last mission without having to go through the same delays as if it were a fresh mission, so long as the firing unit has not been tasked with another mission (and shifted its guns elsewhere). Its very very simple to understand, its realistic and it improves the game. Its not an instant win button, just an enhancement that improves the flavour of the game.
-
Use the 'split' button and your squad will divide into 2 or 3 teams of 2-5 men (depending on the squad). You can then spread them out. Its a matter of experience and practice to place them within visual/verbal range to keep them in C2 depending on the terrain. 50m would be a good start.
-
Perhaps only FAO (as the professionals...) could have the ability to repeat, and it should be the same mission as the previous request. I.e. if the original request was medium/short the repeat should be too. Encourages more use of FAO's to organise artillery & mortars (again historical) who would have the direct link, rather than every commander with a radio who would have to relay messages through Coy/Btln CP. Makes these call artillery in emergencies only and probably just the intergral mortars. Still a slight delay but much much reduced from having to wait 10 mins. I can see the danger of artillery being the Queen of the battlefield, but would be good to improve the characteristics of how it is called. You still have the same rounds with the same power, just more realistic deployment.
-
Well, thats the whole point of doing it isnt it? As per historically. Anyway, I think its a good historical technical feature. Its up to the developers as to whether they want to impliment it or not in the future. If you really hate it then you can always agree a house rule in your MP games.
-
I think the fact is, it is not how it worked back then, and all these guys want to have arty controlled like the envision it today.
The only people that can answer what is realistic are not on this forum, that is for sure. But take just one issue. Radio's, back then, they were so flighty, when you did get communication, you made your request hoped it was clearly heard and that you might be lucky to still have communications when it was time to adjust spotting rounds. These simple things were not as realiable as today and the control on the battlefield was not designed to max. each round like we do today.
I totally see and appreciate your point. I'd love it if there was a random factor for radios not working at any given point, or requests denied for higher level assets, or the joy for an FAO being able to reach that nebelwerfer battery in 2 mins sometimes rather than always waiting 12/13mins for example. However nothing would piss off the general player base more than not being able to fire their guns relatively predictably I'm sure.
However I think we do our forebears a dis-service to not recognise that by 1944 the artillery arm was pretty efficient and effective. And remember implicit within the C2 in game are field telephones which were widely used both in the attack and defence.
and no doubt a whole horde of dropshorts coming in cleaned up the system, bless them. However in Normandy wouldnt have been in location quite that long obviously... All said next regimental event I am going to collar one of the old and bold mortar boys and sit him in front of the game and pick his brains
Why can't Combat Mission look and run as well as Wargame: European Escalation?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Basically in terms of old school tabletop & dice wargaming then W:EE pays homage to a 1/300 scale modern warfare rulebook. It even has a nod to modular terrain block hills. Great fun and very well thought out and executed game that I have been enjoying a lot. Some things abstracted for scale and gameplay but gets a good balance in my opinion, and looks good too and really captures the 1/300 size well. You just know the developers used to play it with Heroics & Ros models. I still have boxes of T80s and Challengers etc in the shed somewhere...
CMBN is more in the 1/72 scale territory obviously, much more attention to realism & detail and specifics. You know the developers would have been playing the games where it would take a few minutes to total up the pluses and minuses for every tank shot and games would often run out of time to play in an evening..
Again, I have boxes and boxes of PzIVs and shermans gathering dust...
I just count my blessings that both games exist and allow us to play out both genres with such ease and recapture the spirit of the tabletop with undreamed-of style and speed. Bravo!