Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ultradave

  1. No, he's not. He specifically stated indirect fire with "target, FO, gun." Lining up with the observer on the line of fire is much easier if you have no FDC. This is because without a FDC there isn't a way to plot the observer's line of observation and convert HIS right 200, drop 200, into what that means in left/right add/drop for the mortars to calculate new deflection and elevation numbers to fire. So if he is close to the line of fire (no matter the distance from him to target or mortar), his add drop left right will be the same as what the mortar needs to account for. Then "all" they need to do is convert range to firing data. The FO just needs to have a good estimate of the distance at the target location. Normally in indirect fire, WITH a FDC, it makes no difference at all where the FO is in relation to the target or firing element. In the Call for Fire (CFF) the FO will report HIS azimuth to the target. That's the compass direction from the FO to target. In the FDC you plot a back azimuth from the target. Somewhere along that line is the FO. Now when the FO provides corrections, you plot them in relation to that FO to target azimuth in meters L/R U/D (what the FO is seeing and wants). Mark the new target point. Then switch to the firing line and calculate new deflection and elevation to that new adjusted point. The FO can be anywhere. As long as HE (the FO) knows where he is, and can estimate reasonably accurately the range from him to the target and provide accurate L/R U/D corrections (which is why he needs to have a good range estimate from him to target), then the FDC can quickly convert his corrections into gun corrections.. Using a 60mm in direct fire, it's like having the observer right on the line of fire. Observe the rounds, estimate corrections, covert the distance in meters corrections to deflection and elevation corrections. Whump. Do it again. Dave
  2. When I was Artillery School, it was always a running joke that some of the Marine instructors (we all go to Artillery School at Fort Sill, OK, Army and Marines, and instructors are a mix of Army and Marines), would keep the Marine LTs after class to tell them "what of all this good $hit you just learned about we DON'T have." So I think the USMC must have been worse off than the Army at the time. Reagan also had the good timing that he came into office when a number of the new, much higher quality weapons programs came to fruition, M1, M2, M3, B1, etc. Some had been started years before, languished and finally became production ready. William Perry as under-sec of def under Carter had much to do with that quality vs quantity push. (need enough qualitative superiority to overcome the numerical superiority). Personally, I was always grateful for Carter for the 2 very large raises we got in one calendar year. Made a huge difference in quality of life. Probably kept many good soldiers IN the military. Dave
  3. Yes, that's pretty much it, and we were under no illusions at the time how difficult and how costly that was going to be. For example, as a Field Artillery officer, one of the important things we were taught about the nuclear artillery shells of the day was how to completely destroy them to keep them from falling into Soviet hands as we were overrun. I don't think anyone really had any confidence that REFORGER would actually have time to work, should it happen for real. Dave As for this comment, the Army back then was good. We were well trained, and we would have been fighting on "home ground". We knew every detail of the terrain and had prepared fighting positions and detailed tactics on how to use them and how to fall back and make an invader pay a price. Every inch of West Germany was well surveyed and mapped, and we trained over and over again on the course of a potential invasion. The issue is more that the Soviet Army would have been larger, and their equipment was equivalent or slightly better, with the huge advantage of a head start in passing out ATGMs like Halloween candy. They were everywhere. Dave
  4. Lots of good advice here. I would add, as a former Cold Warrior myself, what was drilled into us at the time. Knowing the Soviet Army to be a very capable opponent, the mantra was : "If you can be seen, you will be hit. If you are hit, you are dead." None of this M1 Abrams shrugging off multiple hits. One thing that has been discussed is creating a shoot and scoot command for movement. It's especially important here, and it's worth spending the time each turn to work on moving tanks or TOWs up to good hull down positions, pausing so they can acquire and fire, and then reverse back to cover. If you stay exposed, waiting to move until next turn, as soon as you fire, there will be (usually) multiple incoming rounds. Dave
  5. What you could do instead is use the Suggestions button to buy the units for you, and then select the uniform option you want. Let the computer still do automatic for the adversary. A little less surprise, but you can create your own variety. The suggestions sometimes leave something to be desired, but you can iterate to get something you like, then tweak the uniforms to your liking. Just a suggestion. Doesn't help you with the surprise element but might be an improvement, or something to use sometimes. Dave
  6. Should run just fine on your MacBook Pro. I have a 2018 MacBook Pro with 8GB RAM and no GPU and it runs just fine. If CMFB runs ok on it, CW will too. Dave
  7. A few questions so someone can help: 1) What are you installing from, the full CMRT installer or the update? 2) Have you tried a fresh download, in case the one you are using is somehow corrupted? It should be bigger than 2.5GB as the zip file is 3GB for the update. 3) What happens when it stops? Any error messages? 4) Can you look at the application and see what it *did* install? (what parts may be missing - might get an idea by comparing to another CM title). Dave
  8. He already knows where the enemy armor is because the Soviets start with scouts up on a hill with a clear view of the valley below and more in the town objective, so you can watch them enter and move forward. Great view from the hilltop on the Soviet left. The trick is to either 1) go for it and do as others have said and rush the town with everything right away. That way you avoid the losing proposition of duking it out long range with those M60s and can play cat and mouse and make them try to move you. Or, 2) try to have your whole force, T-64s and APCs with ATGMs, in covered positions and then pop up all at once to take on the M60s from two angles. I play tested this a number of times as the Soviets and both of those can work. Both can also fail miserably (ask me how I know this ). Dave
  9. It was playtested though, both in the 79 and 82 campaigns. I had no problem at all with it on my 2018MacBook Pro that does not have a GPU card, 8GB of RAM. Dave
  10. Yes, we know that trick , but that's not really what @LRCwas talking about. Column movement for vehicles in line, following a road, so you don't have to micromanage waypoints for each vehicle in line, or say for an infantry platoon using a traveling overwatch movement style. What would be nice is to give an order with waypoints to the first unit in line, then select each other unit and click a button that says "Follow" and then click on who to follow. Basically it would automatically duplicate the first unit's waypoints. This was tried and extensively tested, however, it didn't work consistently enough to make it into release. It's a highly desired feature so maybe someday. We can hope. I think that final order part might be a step too far but, hey, you can always ask, right? Seems like for that there would be so many variables like wanting to deploy in an irregular treeline or behind a meandering wall. Dave
  11. Nice, but it's not really how things are done. The observer making the call for fire specifies the target description and the fire direction center decides how many rounds of what type. At least in the US Army. Can't speak for others. Dave
  12. The answer is there is not a "follow" command. A while back there was an attempt to add one (with the big engine 4.0 update I think? can't remember when for sure). It was thoroughly tested and it just did not work well enough for release. It sort of worked but had enough quirks and times when it didn't it would have just generated a ton of complaints/bug reports. It's something that many would dearly love to have, especially at the beginnings of scenarios where you tend to be lined up and want to move quickly somewhere to deploy. What you did is to issue the same command to the group, which means they all turn at the same TIME, not the same PLACE. Turning at the same place is the dream/desire. Dave
  13. It's not just "The Yanks" I spent several years living in the UK as a consultant (along with about 15 other Americans) to their nuclear submarine program. Until we got used to it, we had a flip chart in meetings with abbreviation equivalents, with a lot of good natured banter as to whose term/acronym was the "correct" one. The UK MOD/submarine program has just as many abbreviations and arcane terms as we do. Easily. Dave
  14. Before changing anything, you would need to first make a copy and save the hotkeys.txt file in your installation. Rename the original something like hotkeys-orig.txt. If you want to revert, then just trash your hotkeys.txt file and rename the original saved one. If you've already changed some things and want to revert and didn't save it, then just copy one from another CM installation. Dave
  15. I tried the provided save and it did crash on me just as @liamb described. Started a new game of my own and the same thing happened to me. I did not play this one myself in beta testing (busy with others). I have Big Sur 11.3.1 Confirmed with a PC beta tester this appears to be a Mac only issue (no idea why that would be). I've logged it in the bug reporting system. Dave
  16. Do you have a save you can post. I"ve not had this problem, if fact it's the first thing I do in that scenario, along with snagging every LAW available.
  17. One up to date point. There is a difference between the direct download from LnL and the version on Steam. Steam version is newer (stable beta build working toward next full release) Presumably when there is a new full version they will sync up. The beta on Steam is better as it has some fixes that are worth having. Also, multiplayer exists. One on one with a real time opponent. As @markshot says, it doesn't lend itself well to turn based pausing. I've never played multiplayer but it's there. Dave
  18. Thanks. 10 years as a US Army Field Artillery Officer. I was a FIST Chief, Fire Direction Officer (FDO), Inf Brigade Fire Support Officer, and FA Bn Asst S-3/Bn FDO. Late 70s and 80s so the period covered by CW. Dave
  19. For those who just got it, take a look on the LnL forum for a couple of outstanding AARs that are downloadable as pdfs. Really well done graphics give you a good feel of how to plan. Also, Dave's walkthrough on YouTube of the Return to St. With demo scenario is a good intro to getting up and running with the basic concepts. Dave
  20. I predict more CO2 players coming up
  21. OK, I see what you mean. Cannon Battery is a name. The piece, for example the US 155mm Long Tom in CMBN, is a gun, as opposed to a howitzer. A gun has a higher velocity, lower trajectory than a howitzer. Both are cannons. As a newly commissioned officer, you would attend "Field Artillery Officer Basic Course" and then "Cannon Battery Officer Course" Cannon is an encompassing term. In the game, using CMBN to check, a US 155mm howitzer battery when Personnel is specified, fires a mix of airbursts and ground bursts together, and so does the 155mm Long Tom, which is a gun. US 105mm, and 75mm pak howitzers will also give you the same mix of air bursts and ground bursts if you specify Personnel. If General is specified for the target, then you'll get ground bursts (Point Detonating). The way this is done is similar to reality. The FO specifies the target - "infantry company in the open", "infantry in trenches", and the FDC picks the fusing. VT fuses were valuable and even in the Cold War era we didn't have a ton of them - maybe 25% of our load. The majority was PD or Time (for calculate airbursts as opposed to VT which goes off when the round reaches a height). A Time fuse is calculated to go off 7 meters in the air at a point where the trajectory crosses over the target. Takes a little extra time to calculate because you have to figure the target hit firing data, then adjust that to be higher and calculate the time of flight to the target point on the new higher trajectory. VT you don't calculate time - just the new trajectory. For mortars, there were no reliable VT fuses until 1983. Since mortar shells are coming down at extreme angles, having a fuse that is precise enough to detonate the round 3-7 meters off the ground was quite a technical challenge and mortar VT fuses didn't enter production and distribution until then. In general VT fuses in WW2 were used for AA guns long before they were used for field artillery. Less chance of the secrets falling into enemy hands from unexploded rounds. Time fuses for mortars don't work well. The time increments are 0.1 seconds and with an almost vertical trajectory that 0.1 seconds is a huge margin of error. Same with howitzers firing high angle - you can hit the same point by elevating the howitzer below 45deg and above 45deg. Guns can't do that. But for the same reason as mortars, it's not recommended to use VT or Time fuses in a high angle mission. Trajectory is too high for it to work the way it's supposed to. Dave
  22. A howitzer is a cannon so I'm not sure what you mean here. Did you mean artillery but not mortars? Dave
  23. GHQ Micro-Armor on the screen, with terrain tiles and all.
  • Create New...