DougPhresh
-
Posts
769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by DougPhresh
-
-
I wouldn't mind what Decisive Campaigns did and have Warsaw to Paris in one title and then Barbarossa in another.
Modules for a Blitzkrieg title could pad out the Dutch and Belgian roster in one module, maybe add the Soviet invasion of Poland in another.
Modules for Barbarossa could add the NKVD, VDV and Naval Infantry, Finland, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria and stretch the timeline until December of 41. It would be easy to split the modules by theater so there are coherent campaigns, scenarios and maps. A North module has Finland and Naval Infantry, a South module adds the axis minors plus NKVD and VDV.
That seems to be pretty consistent with how Battlefront manages Base Games and modules. I think with the massive amount of work to create early war content, TOE and OOBs, and so on compared to using what is already in-engine, this would be a good way to use the new engine. Working Early to Late with a new engine also avoids trying to sell people the same game twice. That's a problem Command Op 2 ran into. The engine was massively improved but the content was very similar to the previous title.
-
5 hours ago, slysniper said:
If I had to complain about arty vs armor, it would be the modern games do not create enough immobilization in my book. The wwII tanks go down pretty good to it as to at least being immobilized. I would love to hear why a modern tank would hold up any better to it as to getting track damage and such.
That is where I think it lacks any correct outcome.
Nope. I've seen tankers in waist deep mud trying to deal with tracks, I'm going to say they are probably just as vulnerable to battle damage.
-
The Churchill V is not described in either the Gustav Line manual nor the Rome to Victory manual.
-
1 hour ago, Sequoia said:
Interestingly Steve himself once mentioned the possibility of not partisans but an Elite forces pack for CMFI consisting of, iirc, the 1st Special Service Force and the 442 RCT among others. If there's still a chance of it happening "Nembo" and the other Italian add-ons would be good additions.
I'd like that a lot. The Vehicle Pack and Battle Pack for Battle for Normandy were outstanding. What I like best is how the additions of each module and pack make it over to other titles. I think that was a really smart way to do things. That's why I think Fortress Italy might be the best way to get North Africa.
I wouldn't expect Steve to tinker away at partisans just for Fortress Italy, but the addition of partisans elsewhere helps lay the foundation for an Italian module or pack (43-45) for Fortress Italy. The way I see it a pack or module focusing on Italy would require four things: The Partisans, The Co-Belligerent Army, The RSI and the Royal Italian Army. Because of how complete Fortress Italy is due to the other titles, the work that remains to be done for an Italy pack/module is also what would be needed for Africa, or at least Tunisia.
With Soviet Partisans and Volkssturm coming with Fire and Rubble, partisans may not be as remote a possibility as it used to be. Most of the work is already being done by making partisans from scratch over in Red Thunder. Italian names and voice files are already in the Fortress Italy base game. Of course the exact organization, equipment and appearance of a partisan band in Milan would be different from one in Minsk. Luckily Stens and Brens are already in the game thanks to Gustav Line (Which is thanks to Battle For Normandy: Commonwealth Forces and that interconnected development strategy).
It's a smart way to use the work done for other titles. Allied and German equipment through the end of the war was done in Final Blitzkrieg and made it over to Fortress Italy with Rome to Victory (and the work bringing the Commonwealth to the end of the war in FI is now being used for FB). Equipment for British and Americans through the end of the war, plus the voice files, ranks and so on in the base game gets us most of the way to the Co-Belligerent Army.
A combination of the German equipment we have and the Italian Equipment already in the base game goes a long way towards the RSI. There would need to be a bit, maybe quite a bit of work done on ranks, uniforms, TOE and OOB there. Luckily that work wouldn't go to waste! Why? Because the RSI mostly used equipment and uniforms left over from the Royal Italian Army, plus some rare mid-war vehicles and equipment which could be a nice treat like the Strumtiger, Elefant and Jagdtiger (To clarify: Not that the RSI used those AFVs! Mostly Pz IIIs and IVs - which already exist in-game - Just that the P26/40 might be fun in the way those other rare AFVs are).
The field guns, AA, AT and so on needed for their TOE from 43-45, and to match the rest of the forces across titles would also complete the Royal Italian Army in Sicily.
With a change of tan uniforms for the grey, a complete Italian Army in Sicily gets you North Africa at least through 1943.
It's a good way to add more to an existing Base Game while laying the foundations for a new title.
-
1 hour ago, Sequoia said:
Doug, what is missing from the Italian Sicily roster? I thought the Italians had no real armor formations in Sicily for example?
Catching Up To The Engine:
It's more that engine updates have left Italy behind. Italy has no AT bunkers, no AA, no flamethrowers not even tank hunter teams.
Now, I'm not sure what guns they had casemated on Sicily, or if those played any part beyond the first day, so I suppose that can be discounted.
On-Map AA would make a big difference. It would be a nice addition to scenarios where the Italians are defending a static position, and in QB both for fire support and to lessen the plastering by Allied air.
The Italians have both Pioneers and the specialized assault troops - Guastatori who had flamethrowers.
There are perfectly serviceable AA guns and AT rifles mounted on the AS.42 Sahariana. They would just need to be added in the dismounted role.
These are all small additions, more to bring Italy up to the engine standards, using much of what already exists in Fortress Italy and laying the foundations for the larger role Italy played in Africa.
Moving on from what we mostly already have:
Some of the Italian artillery in the 75mm - 105mm range would be nice to have on-map in Sicily, and crucial to have on-map in Africa. Italian Artillery was not only commonly used in the direct role (they had slow and inefficient management of indirect fires) but the Italian Artillerymen were almost uniquely courageous and competent. Field Guns were often the only component of entire Italian brigades that gave the British any trouble. They had some pretty good guns, although rare compared to museum pieces or French trophies.
55 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:I think North Africa would also be the first module to require on-map depictions of field artillery and Allied anti-aircraft guns too. The 25pdr and French 75' frequently ended up being used as anti-tank guns since the 6pdr wasn't available in quantity until the end of 1942. Much like the East, the frontline in North Africa was highly permeable, and frequently artillery positions ended up in the fighting since there might be nothing other than a thin line of infantry between them and the enemy. Perhaps no one at all.
The Italian Dual-Purpose AA/AT guns were also pretty good. Never as famous as the 88, they gave the allies trouble. The 90/53 is already in Fortress Italy in a SP mount.
Having a HMG would be nice, and the ballistics are already done because this is mounted in a SP mount in Fortress Italy as well.
The Parachute Division "Nembo" was present in Sicily. It would be a nice addition, but I think more importantly would lay the foundation for the "Folgore" which became famous in Africa. The best of the Italian infantry in Africa, Italian Paras were also the better units available to the RSI and Co-Belligerents.
-
Quote
The attempt to jump the Rhine had failed. The sense of euphoria in the Allied camp—palpable just two weeks before—dissipated almost as rapidly as it had arrived. The bubble had burst, and it was now clear that final victory over Germany was going to have to wait until 1945.But why had Market Garden failed? Certainly the plan was risky, overly complex, and more suitable for a map exercise than an actual field battle against a live opponent. The commander of the British 1st Airborne Division, General Brian Urquhart, was correct when he wrote that “too much reliance was placed on armour and on the main axis.” All sorts of things had gone wrong, moreover: the fair weather turned, radios failed, and a full copy of the British operational order fell into German hands. American writers with a special dislike of Montgomery have, over the decades, indulged in a certain schadenfreude over his failure. Finally, the insufferable one had been laid low, caught in a trap of his own making.
But remember the old saw: the enemy gets a vote. Market Garden opened just two weeks after one of the most ignominious defeats in German military history. Even a week before the Allied drop at Arnhem, German columns were scurrying out of France without order or discipline. The men were no longer listening to their officers and seemed only to want an end to the war and a chance to return home. They looked more like fugitives than a modern army, a coarse Soldateska: unshaven, unkempt, and inebriated on looted cognac. Not in its worst moments in World War I—not even at the very end—had a German field army ever approached the devolved state of the 1944 model in the west.
But what a difference two weeks can make! In that brief span, the Wehrmacht had righted itself, restored its discipline, and regained its sense of purpose. Now it had won a clear and indisputable defensive victory over the Western Allies—the very thing the Führer had been calling for (and predicting) since the landings back in June. The Germans re-formed their lines, foiled a well-supplied Allied stratagem, and mauled an Allied airborne division, killing 1,500 and taking another 6,500 prisoners (out of a 12,000-man unit). Total Allied casualties numbered over 16,000, German less than half that (somewhere around 6,500). As these relatively small casualty figures indicate, Arnhem was a pocket battle within the grand scheme of World War II. Its implications and impact, however, were massive. The Wehrmacht had served notice that it was still game, still in the field, and still a force to be reckoned with. It wasn’t the return of Rundstedt, or the fanaticism of Model, or even the fear of draconian punishments that had done it, as much as each of these played a role. Rather, the victory over Market Garden was proof that enough German soldiers—company grades, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted men alike—still found the Hitler regime worth fighting for. No matter how distasteful that judgment appears in retrospect, no one can discuss the historical problem of the Wehrmacht honestly without recognizing that fact.Perhaps it was all a matter of timing. When Montgomery was planning Market Garden in early September, the Wehrmacht had apparently fallen apart, and all sorts of risks seemed reasonable enough. When he attempted to execute it a short time later, that favorable moment had vanished. Toward the end of the previous global war, on August 22, 1918, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig surveyed the dissolving German forces to his front and noted that “risks which a month ago would have been criminal to incur ought now to be incurred as a duty.” Perhaps Montgomery—a student of history—was thinking of these very words as he contemplated his options in early September. If so, he had gotten things exactly backward, and Montgomery was neither the first nor the last commander to fall victim to Clio’s caprice. Market Garden made perfect operational sense on September 10 but none at all on September 17.
Robert M. Citino. “The Wehrmacht's Last Stand”
-
Generally, against players as well - think like the Canadians in Normandy - shoot them to pieces.
QuoteThe fights at Putot and Bretteville on June 8–9, as well as the battle of Norrey (June 9–10) were slaughter battles, in fact, in which the youthful grenadiers of the 12th SS came up in waves and the steady and well-equipped Canadians mowed them down in the same fashion. Throughout all these battles, the Hitlerjugend Division, in particular, attacked recklessly and paid the price. The division used the same tactical approach that had worked so often in the Soviet Union, but it had failed spectacularly here. Colonel Hubert Meyer, the division’s Ia, later wrote: “The tactic of surprise, using mobile, fast infantry and Panzers even in small, numerically inferior Kampfgruppen, had often been practiced and proven in Russia. This tactic, however, had not resulted in the expected success here against a courageous and determined enemy who was ready for defense and well equipped.” Indeed, the Canadians shot them to pieces. “The Germans thought we were ****ing Russians!” one of the men in the Regina Rifles later commented. “They did stupid things and we killed those bastards in large numbers."
Citino. “The Wehrmacht's Last Stand”
-
-
14 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
That's very interesting SimpleSimon. I have never heard that. I read Beevor's Arnhem book last year and he puts it all on Monty. Very interesting.
Pop History is Pop History. Citino, one of the best western historians of German Arms, while focusing on the Wehrmacht thoughtfully analyzes the Soviets and Western Allies where applicable, using the latest research.
His judgement of Monty from the beginning to the end, including Market Garden, I think is fair. Monty was the epitome of the British Way of War, with all the good and bad that comes with that, in the way that some German generals embodied their way of making war. Americans judge him harshly because the American conception of battle, operation, campaign and generalship generally is different.
Maybe it's because I was trained and served in a Commonwealth military, but the Commonwealth campaign in Normandy is I think one of the best fought positional campaigns, featuring some of the best set-piece battles ever. Fire plans, firepower, shooting the infantry onto the target, displacing the enemy from their positions by weight of fire, these all make sense to me - probably for the reasons they frustrate Americans and Germans.
-
The newer formations use the better system, where Infantry refers to Infantry Divisions with all of their vehicles along for the ride.
This applies to units added in R2V and the forces in SF2.
On 1/10/2020 at 1:18 PM, DougPhresh said:I suppose this could rightly apply to all CM titles.
I really appreciate the equipment selection as well as the appearance selection in some titles.
As seen below, a British Mech Infantry Battalion in Shock Force 2 has a variety of options in Quick Battle:
However, as a quality of life improvement, it would be nice to know what the 4 APC options are for without exploding the OOB view and discovering through trial and error. I believe the ww2 titles do this already.
In this example:
- Sniper Team
- Platoon HQ
- APC (Includes Company and BN HQ vehicles)
- Javelin Detachment Vehicle
- Fire Support Section Vehicles
- Mortar
By comparison, below is a Russian BTR Motor Rifle Battalion in Black Sea:
The issue with Black Sea's selection is that there is not enough granularity.
A default option for the Russian Motor Rifle Battalion (or Tactical Group) BTR, is the assignment of BTR-82s to the infantry platoons in each company, but the cannon-armed BTR-82As to the weapons platoons. This makes sense and boosts organic firepower while preventing spending points on cannons that will not be fired. However the player cannot make that decision, only choosing all BTRs except for HQs. The BTRs in the weapons platoons can be deleted and replaced with single vehicle BTR-82As but they won't have the proper ammo for the support weapons as vehicle cargo.
With the variety of very expensive BMP-3Ms, I would also like to have more granular choices, like assigning APS only to valuable HQs, or to 1 company or platoon out of 3. This is similar to the Dutch assignment of CV 9035s to only a few units within a formation.
I think the best elements of both approaches should be combined. Shock Force 2 and Rome to Victory have impressed me especially with the change to how force selection works. Infantry units, while being infantry keep their organic vehicles. For example a USMC Infantry Battalion:
I believe that is how the editor has always worked, but it is a big step forward for QB. I'd like to see that standardized across the board. It is certainly better than Black Sea where a US Army Infantry Battalion appears twice. Once stripped of all vehicles under the infantry tab:
and again with all of the assigned vehicles under the mech tab:
In conclusion, the QB force selection in Shock Force 2 represents a step forward in how forces are split up into Infantry/Mech/Armour while retaining organic vehicles, but could use improvements in how labels are applied when selecting which vehicles be assigned to which sub-unit within a formation. Black Sea labels only HQ vehicles and "everybody else" and could use more categories. Moving forward, having QB selection mirror the editor, with more granularity in assigning particular vehicles to subunits and clearer labeling would be a quality of life improvement across all CM titles.
-
3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I think they are supposed to suffer from that. It's part of what makes them different to play I guess.
Italy, sure. Of course Italy had problems top to bottom.
The Soviet Forces in 1945 were perhaps the most powerful force in military history. If nothing else, Battalions were able to exercise C2 across their assigned frontage which they presently cannot do.
-
Whatever gets us better maps (across titles, please!) is okay with me.
Something that @Battlefront.com might consider is a map showing where scenarios and QB are. http://www.combatmission.fr/fortress-italy/scenaroutai-fortress-italy/
My thinking is that not everyone knows the typical terrain of Sicily, Central Italy, the Po Valley and so on. Having a map might also help players when they are brainstorming "what forces and missions might exist at this point in the war?". A map to connect all the dots may help explain where an American mech battalion would be fighting in August of '43 for instance.
-
What maps were added in CMFI R2V?
@Battlefront.com, could a future patch standardize map naming? Some titles have for example (1600 x 2000) which I like, some say Huge, Medium, et.c , and then after that the naming is completely bonkers! Some are named, some describe the terrain features and some in R2V (the better maps IMO) are named for the scenarios they were converted to QB from.
-
It would be nice to know what is base ejecting smoke and what is WP but as a general rule of thumb, direct fire is WP.
Now if this engine had spreading and deadly fires like CM1...
-
Even with a rifle at your shoulder advancing cautiously, you'd hardly be exhausted after a few hundred meters.
I know that's not how soldiers in the second world war carried their rifles, but in SF2 it's egregious seeing soldiers exhausted after doing what even the National Guard can do on their weekend exercises. Advancing with your M4 ready is not a bag drive.
-
It depends on where and when. In Sicily the Germans had the HG Division and 15th Panzergrenadier Division so there were half tracks aplenty.
As the war dragged on, and in the static, mountainous fighting in Italy in particular, German AFVs were less common.
-
I've maintained that with Polish voice files already in CMBN and CMFI, at the very least I'd expect to see the First Polish Army
-
I'd like all QB lists to be updated to the FI/SF2 standard. By that I mean infantry units having their organic vehicles.
Right now there is no way for say a British Infantry Battalion in Fortress Italy to have Bren Gun Carriers in the Carrier Platoon.
-
In a QB context there is no consistency across titles. Even in WW2 titles, sometimes Huge gives enough for a tank battalion, sometimes only enough for a tank company.
It would be nice to have consistency where say Huge = Battalion+, Large = Battalion-, Medium = Company+, Small = Company, Tiny = Platoon
Where battalion refers to a battalion of any arm, of any nation. If I set Huge, I should be able to take an infantry, mech, or armored battalion plus supporting elements.
-
On 2/2/2020 at 9:18 AM, Warts 'n' all said:
There will be times when a tank crew can spot an infantry unit 800 metres away, and times when they can't see an infantry unit 10 metres away. It's called fog of war. That is why we use combined arms tactics.
That doesn't really address buttoned AFVs spotting infantry hiding in a building.
-
This is a headache. If it's not possible to type in points, maybe this could work:
Attacker has infinity points. When their purchase is completed, defender gets allotted points according to a ratio set by the scenario type.
e.g Attacker ends up spending 14000 points, defender then gets 7000 in attack, 14000 in meeting engagement etc.
Cross-posting:
Just now, DougPhresh said:In a QB context there is no consistency across titles. Even in WW2 titles, sometimes Huge gives enough for a tank battalion, sometimes only enough for a tank company.
It would be nice to have consistency where say Huge = Battalion+, Large = Battalion-, Medium = Company+, Small = Company, Tiny = Platoon
Where battalion refers to a battalion of any arm, of any nation. If I set Huge, I should be able to take an infantry, mech, or armored battalion plus supporting elements.
-
In pure game terms the reason I think changes are important is pretty straight forward: For the Russians moving forward into Fire and Rubble and any hypothetical Afrika Korps title with Italians, those nations are suffering from C2 over distance being limited to radio.
-
Italians would need a huge revamp for an Afrika Korps title.
What I would gently suggest is a major pack for Fortress Italy filling out the Italian roster in Sicily, then moving on to add Partisans, RSI and Co-Belligerents.
This way all of the work needed to bring the Italians to North Africa is done in advance and the pack is at least making money in the meantime during the very long development time needed for maps, scenarios, campaigns and TOE and OOBs for the other nations.
All of that Italian content needs to be created anyway, why not put it in an existing product line rather than sit on it until the base game is ready for release?
-
Loading ammo for a AFV, while not an all-day affair is not something you want to do while in action.
For example:
QuoteThe Leopard 1 stores most of it's ammunition in the hull, and is very vulnerable during the transfer of rounds from the secondary storage into the ready racks, as the turret must be rotated to the flank and the vehicle cannot observe or fight. The smaller ammunition allows higher rates of fire than the 120mm armed tanks, and the brass cases afford some protection to the ammunition which the combustible cased 120/125mm rounds lack. Within SB this allows a loaded round to be replaced without being expended first, allowing more suitable ammunition selection when facing multiple target types.
That's just moving ammo already on the AFV to the ready rack. Taking on ammo involves a lot of time with your hatches open doing everything but effectively fighting your AFV.
Having said that, there are some situations like on-map mortars on the defending side of an assault where I can see a 200% ammo count at scenario start making sense, to simulate having a prepared position.
Smoke vs WP
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by DougPhresh
Even in Shock Force 2, the only Canadian units with access to both base ejecting and WP smoke are the artillery. More than that, you fire smoke missions with whatever ammo stores issued you when you left the Z Lines, usually not both.