niall78
-
Posts
278 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by niall78
-
-
On 02/02/2017 at 3:26 AM, John Kettler said:
IICptMillerII,
When I was living out in Burke, VA (a suburb, effectively, of Washington, DC), I got to go to a wonderful used bookstore--wonderful because there were so many military people in the area who read books of interest to me, during which I got a look at Dupuy's casualty estimates for what became GW 1. They made grim reading and were on work using the iconic (used for all sorts of military studies and analyses over a considerable number of years) QJM (Quantified Judgment Model. Yet Dupuy didn't merely wind up with egg on his face but more like the entire egg production of a sprawling chicken farm. Why?
The model failed to take into account such things as Day One massive destruction of key command facilities, the commandeering of fiber optic trunks to inject false military data, the surgical piercing and subsequent destruction of centralized control for air defenses, astronomic levels of bombing during Desert Shield which, while the bombing didn't kill all that many tanks, effectively destroyed the logistics and morale of troops who were generally hungry, thirsty for considerable periods and long abandoned by their officers well before the ground war began. It failed to account for the destruction of much of the Iraqi Air force in its previously practically impervious hardened shelters. It failed, as well, to account for wide scale employment of PSYOPS tech of the most revolutionary and highly classified sort. There was no real appreciation for what the Tomahawk could do, either, still less when used in great numbers, or the soon to be dreaded "steel rain" from the MLRS. Nor did he know about the F-117 Stealth Fighter. This is by no means a complete list. Saddam had lots of veterans, but they were veterans of years of war profoundly and utterly unlike what they found themselves in. They got stomped as a result. The US and Coalition members brought their Cold War front bench, the real pros who would've faced the Russians in Germany, to the game, together with all their best toys and tactics, to include massed air power wielded with decisive force, speed and violence unprecedented in the history of air combat. The effect was shattering and simply not factored into the QJM's parameter set.
Custer was grossly outnumbered (9:1) and, we now know, completely outgunned. We know this thanks to comprehensive tracking of the movements of specific individuals via their cartridge brass uniquely identifiable by firing pin and extractor markings, recovered bullets and more. The Sioux moved freely about the field, crushing position after position, while Custer's men largely stayed put. We also know where those who fled died. Custer also left the withering firepower of Gatling guns behind. Imagine he missed them keenly when it was too late. The below is deemed the top analysis of the matter. It began as an article and became a very limited edition book. The author is C. Lee Noyes, frequent contributor to periodicals on the Wild West and the ACW, as well as the author of several other books.
Regards,
John Kettler
I found Red Sabbath : The battle of Little Bighorn by Robert Kershaw to be an excellent read John. He tracks the battle though every stage using the bullet cartridge evidence. It wasn't so much a battle as a rout. As a poster above said it was a strategic loss. Once the attack order by Custer was given the tactical battle was lost - it was just a matter of how badly Custer's force would suffer. -
Just getting a play through of this now Lille Fiskerby and I have to say this is amazing work. I'm just getting stuck into the third battle but I can see myself returning to this campaign time and again over the years. Thanks for sharing it with the community.
-
Just gave this a run through and had a blast.
Thanks for the hard work Mark.
-
Infantry firing anti-tank weaponry at other infantry is very common in my experience. Especially if the opposing infantry is in buildings.
I would have thought this AI behaviour is entirely appropriate if a little annoying from our God perspective - "Damn it! I'm expecting enemy armour in fifteen minutes!".
-
Thanks Vein. Much appreciated!
-
5 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:
Not to mention the vast bulk of us probably have no connection to the IT industry and don't know a thing about what our ideas equal in terms of programming/resourcing implications.
I admit (as one of those forum guys who's posted ideas here before) I've felt sorry for the BF team in the past reading through some of the threads since most don't have any thoughts on how there idea would be implemented. I get the same thing in my job when managing our economic research projects or even from ad-hoc requests with the questioner having no grasp on what is actually possible. "We want this and this and this and this, oh and is it possible to cross reference by that." (And my team gets complaints when we say no - funny that!)
All projects have to start somewhere and the 'ideas phase' can be a lot of fun, but those that leave the 'ideas phase' open too long are destined to never get there project completed on time/budget.
I'm sure BF aren't feeling much pressure from the talk on this forum. Meanwhile it is vital for small niche companies to be 'in touch' with their fans in this day and age. To have no forum of ideas from fans or no interaction with those fans would be disastrous. Before the internet companies spent a fortune trying to engage their customer bases in all industries - now they can get engagement for free with a little effort.
Companies that don't engage actually cede that advantage and give it to third parties. Their customer base's major contact point with them is now through a nearly uncontrollable and unaccountable third party.
I don't think we see too many crazy ideas in general on this forum anyway. This is more a fun dream thread - I'm not really expecting BF to release a CM:Battletech.
Other things like fire, better defensive works implementation and other tweaks that are frequently mentioned or new time periods or settings are much more achievable aims in the mid to long term. BF hearing this is no bad thing. It's up to them to then prioritize these customer ideas with their own ideas and the resources they have available.
-
Great job. Looking forward to giving this a run through.
-
39 minutes ago, c3k said:
When I have a bogged vehicle, I'll cancel its movement orders. I don't know if it helps, but in my mind, it increases the odds of unbogging.
I play WEGO. Sometimes tanks bog and then immobilises before I get a chance to intervene but when a turn ends with a tank still just bogged I cancel its previous movement order and then order a direct reverse. I find this usually frees the tank. It could be part of my imagination and the odds are exactly the same no matter how the player intervenes between bogging and immobilised conditions but this seems to work well.
-
17 hours ago, rooibos said:
This game has no presence.
It's never mentioned on reddit (except for by one notable user, now banned... I know who you are :D). And reddit is the biggest website on the internet. It doesn't have its own subreddit, and everything has a subreddit. There are only a few dozen CM videos on youtube with over 1,000 views.
It's not mentioned on gaming websites- Rock Paper Shotgun is pretty much the only one, and even then it's in the "niche wargaming for old dudes" column. Hell, the only reason I bought CMBS or even knew about it was because I remembered the Combat Mission name from its connection to Close Combat, way back when CM was turn based. I used to post on the old SSI boards a lot.
Despite what the higher-ups say, I'll still harp that not migrating to Steam is a HUGE mistake. Christ, a game about driving tractors and planting corn sold 8 million copies on the PC.
There is one professional review on the Metacritic site for CMBS. One review from a magazine in Finland for one of the finest tactical modern combat simulators ever created? I find that quite shocking. A general web search isn't bringing up many reviews either - just very niche website reviews from the usual suspects.
Viability is non-existent for Combat Mission for the general gaming public. It's even hard to see for it's niche core audience - wargamers - in my opinion.
-
9 hours ago, rooibos said:
probably having a community the size of my mother's bridge club doesn't help
There's a time issue with many players who use community created scenarios and campaigns. I'll download a scenario or campaign as soon as I see it mentioned in these forums.
It could take me months or even years to actually play the scenario - by the time I do play it I mightn't even realise it is fan created. I get to play six hours a week so might do a scenario a week. I'm playing CMRT at the moment - if I grab a CMFB scenario it might be next Christmas before it gets a run through.
For some reason though these forums and the additional content sites seem very quiet for what is a very successful and long lived game franchise.
-
I can only begin to understand the work creating a scenario - let alone a campaign - must entail.
I must have every fan created scenario and campaign released for CMSF through to CMFB. I can only pay a very poor thank you to these creators from this forum every once in a while. Poor pay back for the thousands of hours of fun and challenge I've got in return.
Battlefront have created products that I've loved since CMBO. The fans who mod and build scenarios and campaigns for these games prolong and improve each offering immensely.
I'm very happy to pay for additional scenario and campaign content from Battlefront. I'd be willing to pay for fan created content as well. Not a big ask considering the work that goes into such creations.
-
10 hours ago, Blazing 88's said:
FYI... Even better, have you tried the free open source MegaMek game which also has a Mercenary campaign tracking /generator MekHQ (in depth and vast)?? Don't let the name fool you, it is Battletech.
You don't just get Mech's you get EVERYTHING to play around with (Original and user created maps, Mechs, Tanks, Vehicles, Infantry /Elementals, AeroTech, Jumpships, Starships, etc). All the original Mech names are used (Warhammer, Phoenix Hawk, Shadow Hawk, the Clan stuff, etc). The unit library is filled with all the centuries covered in Battletech, including the new stuff......
Very well done and continually updated. MegaMek /MekHQ are worth your time to have a look at if you are a fan of the BATTLETECH games.
Did I mention MegaMek and MekHQ are FREE!!!l.... runs on PC and Mac (some other OS as well).
Was a big MegaMek player. I helped run a few of the on-line campaign MegaMek servers for a good few years.
For those that like modern graphics Jordan Weisman - Battletech creator - is releasing a new turn based tactical Battletech game in 2017. It blew through its Kickstarter of $1million by another $1.7 million. It'll be super if even half the promised content is live on release.
-
Early Blitzkrieg and Russia ('41, '42 or '43) are the ones I'd really want to see. Playing 1941-42 CMBB campaigns and scenarios were probably my all time favourite CM moments.
Cold War gone hot would also be super interesting. We'd need rules and graphics for chemical and biological weapons and also maps big enough to use tactical nukes of course.
Frankly I'll throw money at any era Battlefront want to simulate. I love the WW2 titles but I had great fun with CMSF and am immensely enjoying the hypothetical CMBS as well. Bring it on Battlefront! You produce the tactical simulators I dreamed of as a kid when I imagined the future of computer games in the early Eighties and I'll support you with cash every chance I get.
Did somebody mention CM:Battletech? I'd cut out a kidney for that - and no I'm not joking.
-
I play the Russian side a lot. This is vital information I wasn't aware of. Thanks for the tips antaress73.
I find all sides ultra lethal in CM:BS. What sees first usually kills or cripples first.
Modern era requires a bit more patience in general compared to the WW2 titles. Sneaking small forces into positions to try and get spots on at least some of the OPFOR before you advance and being prepared to wait till your force generate those spots. Any major movement without reconnaissance in the battles I play usually end up with my units burning after a few turns. Even as the US non-KIA hits will often degrade an AFVs fighting ability dramatically - I've lost numerous main guns for instance on my Abrams to missile teams I never even spotted during the action.
I like Bradleys but they die very easy. I keep them well back over-watching from the backfield with their TOWs. I also dismount any forces inside as soon as any type of contact with the enemy is possible. This is vital for any type of APC or IFV from any of the forces in the game I feel. There's an ever present threat of mass-casualties any time a full infantry hauler is exposed to any type of AT fire. Artillery or air-power makes such full haulers dangerous even when traversing non-exposed parts of the map in CM:BS - this is a big difference from the WW2 titles where air and artillery are a lot less decisive.
-
9 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
I don't often see mines used as 'genuine' belts of minefields in the game because the gameplay just comes to a halt. Its rather like battleship and Xylophone rocket artillery in that way. You use it a couple times just to witness its effect, but since it badly unbalances gameplay you avoid it. Using mines as 'booby traps' at a crossroads or obvious maneuver point is more common. All bets are off playing QB against a human opponent, of course. He might just spent ALL his points on mines and artillery rockets! Though he'd have difficulty finding anyone to play a second game with him.
In my mind we see tactical minefields in CM. Hastily laid affairs by the local forces. They'd displace a lot of this stuff if they moved position. Proper minefields laid by engineers are out of the scope of CM because - as you say - a mission wouldn't be fun played with the whole map covered in 'professionally' laid mines.
-
1 hour ago, H1nd said:
Tell that to Finnish combat engineers... we drilled combat breaching days on end with bangalore torpedoes. In ww2 engineers were often called to breach fortified positions and in addition to busting bunkers i'm pretty sure it involved lots of mine defusal and breaching. And that is also a thing to remember: all you need to do is deactivate mines. It was quite commonplace to quickly remove detonators but leave the mine itself in place in case of boobytraps. Once again.. finding the mines is the hard thing. Removing or deactivating them is the easy and fast thing.
I might be mistaken but I thought the main use of the Bangalore torpedo was to clear wire obstacles without directly approaching them under fire?
I can see how they might detonate mines but I've never heard of them being deployed with mine clearance as their primary objective.
We are of course missing them from the game even if their use would probably be limited to assault scenarios on emplaced positions by specialist assault squads - as per their historical use.
Personally I don't see guys sitting in minefields screwing out detonators under fire after sniffing out the mines in the first place as very realistic. Again it's not something I've ever heard of anyone doing under fire and not something I'd expect to achieve more than we can already achieve in game in any case - a relatively safe path if care is taken.
In game I usually just avoid minefields unless it's a very long timed game and I had ages to pick my way though it safely or the minefield is completely unavoidable in which case I factored in casualties as part of the scenario expectations. Just as was the case in real life I'd assume.
-
I think the portrayal of minefields is quite good. I find clearing minefields to be outside the scope of CM in any case. Never once have I read of anyone properly hand clearing a minefield while under direct fire - it simply doesn't happen at the pointy edge of a battle.
-
It was very important in a lot of books I've read to control the battlefield at the end of a battle. You can then haul off all your 'knocked out' tanks to repair them. The Germans were always loath to leave tanks on the field while their recovery and maintenance units were always ad-hoc - the usual supply nightmares as well. The Americans had salvage refined to a tee with specialist teams with proper standardised recovery vehicles. The 'replaceable parts' innovation that was at the core of American tanks helped immeasurably. It's much easier to put a new engine in a mass produced Sherman than a semi-bespoke Tiger.
Many of the Tiger tank memoirs spend as much time talking about recovering other damaged Tiger tanks as straight combat. All though the war controlling the wreckage after a battle was vital business.
In real life a tank is very rarely rendered completely useless. In CM I view them as knocked out when they are combat ineffective and immobile. I view them as destroyed when they burn.
Maybe I'm weird but in many games I've set knocked out or abandoned tanks burning with further fire to ensure their destruction. Kind of a role-play decision rather than a hard-nosed tactical decision.
-
On 05/08/2016 at 0:42 PM, pcelt said:
Thank you very much Bootie for your help. Unfortunately I am having some problem getting it installed and working .I have d/l some tank mods etc which work fine but this mod I find a problem----could someone please list the steps I need to take with this particular mod ---it is many years since I last modded Normandy game.
Many thanks for any help.
Just drop it in your Z folder with those tanks mods and it should work perfectly.
If you see colourised weapons in your game interface you know you are rocking Juju's UI.
-
4 hours ago, dragonwynn said:
No problem naill78 let me get a little feedback on the first few missions and I will put it up for download. By the way are you one of the designers of the Stalingrad Mod or am I thinking of someone else?
It's great to read this campaign will be released Dragonwynn.
I've had no input into any mod let alone the magnificent Stalingrad Mod. I wish I had the talent or the time.
-
Can't believe I missed this. I'd love to play this Dragonwynn - I have all your other released work but find this time period and front super interesting. It would take me months to play it out though - the reason I don't normally volunteer to play-test stuff when the designer is waiting for feedback.
-
On 21/07/2016 at 3:20 PM, Bootie said:
Here is a review I did of a book to avoid!!
Great review. Had exactly your experience when reading this book. Frankly Sven Hassel books were better as they contained some humour - this didn't even have that.
Makes me sad as just maybe there was a real story to be told. Albrecht Wacker wasn't the one to tell it though. This book was pricey as well in hardback. If I wanted Hassel or Charles Whiting in Kessler mode I could have bought their whole output on E-Bay for less.
-
Great job as usual Kohlenklau. Love your work!
-
48 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:
That is the simple explanation, but it only provides a small part of the answer. What is left unanswered of course is if there were more competent technocrats involved in 1940-41, why was arms production so low and so poorly run.
I remember reading the many technical specialists volunteered or were called up and sent to general fighting units instead of being retained in their industries. These people - electricians, fitters, engineers, etc were pulled from general service and returned home to work as the war progressed and the need for such specialists grew acute.
Maybe the lack of highly trained technical specialists stymied early German wartime industrial expansion?
Book Recommendations for Salerno and Anzio Landings
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted