kensal
-
Posts
411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kensal
-
-
Fuser
Maybe you should do a short modding AAR in the same manner as JonS' scenario design thread, to explain how it is done. I am sure that the board would find it very interesting and it might help get more people modding.
-
I always understood they were quite popular vehicles with crews due to their ease of concealment and low profile
-
You're the one that I want
Oo oo oo
You're the one that I want
Oo oo oo
You're the one that I need, oh yes indeed...
-
kensai,
I initially fundamentally misunderstood what you were saying. To have broken a U.S. regiment in 45 minutes seemed impressive to me, so I couldn't understand why you needed sympathy. But now that I understand you're talking about your regiment's being broken… How splendid the ambiguities of the English language!
Regards,
John Kettler
Ha, yes. I suppose it could be read that way for a couple of seconds but this is not an achievement to be proud of unfortunately.
-
Basically I've broken a US infantry regiment. In less than 45 minutes. The situation is not dissimilar to the first day on the Somme but up the side of a mountain. In a snowstorm.
This thread is for anyone else who has suffered playing this scenario. I need some sympathy
(btw Tux, you're not invited! :mad:)
-
Thanks I'll give it a whirl
-
Bil
I do like your icons (and other icons that other modders produce). I think however that many, if not all, icon sets do not cover all the cmbn or cmfi unit types, which leaves certain unit types with the default icon which does not always work so well.
Particularly it seems that the default CMBN scout unit often does not get covered and some sets do not cover engineers. Your set above seems to cover these two unit types, but does it cover everything (as far as you are aware)?
-
Ah, I thought it went through five stages: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and then Acceptance.
Oh, and then getting the credit card out after all that. Make that six stages.
I think the Stockholm Syndrome comes into play as well at some point?
-
Again, there's a difference between individual crew training and formation training. The game only simulates individual crew capabilities. You, the player, are providing 100% of the formation based experience. The two things should never be confused.
I have some personal experience related to the difference. Many years ago we were in negotiations with the US Army's TRADOC AT missile systems group. As they put it, their crews had the best training and simulators (very fun too
). They could be relied upon to effectively engage anything they got into their view. However, the training of NCOs and officers necessary to get the crews in to those positions was not very good. Mostly because military budget cuts had dramatically curtailed large scale training maneuvers. Battalion staffs did exercises on computers and map tables, crews did training in simulators and classrooms. They weren't out in the field together with combined arms groups in the real world. There's a big difference between an elevation line on a map and a viable firing position in reality.Anyway, my point here is that Panzer Brigades largely suffered from adequately trained crews led by inadequately trained officers. Mostly because there was no established doctrine about how to use these units to their best advantages while at the same time avoiding their weaknesses. If they had a few more months to train in realistic conditions I'm sure they would have performed a lot better than they did even if crew quality didn't change one iota. They would have performed even better still if they weren't tossed into combat by senior officers who hadn't a clue what to do with them.
Steve
Yep ok, I understand the distinction in what you say and how that relates to the game mechanics
-
I don't agree. We're talking about crew training levels, not overall force wide capabilities. The Germans maintained very high standards for crews pretty much through to the end of the war. I doubt very much that the crews in Arracourt would be considered "Green" and absolutely they were not "Conscript". The factors that caused numerous operational and tactical defeats are vastly more complex than that anyway.
Plus, the units getting Jagdpanthers were generally seasoned units with seasoned crews that switched out other vehicles for the Jagdpanthers. For the most part they were not manned by entire crews straight out of bootcamp.
I am not sure that I agree with this. The panzer brigades were manned by a mixture of seasoned troops but also many who were not. Perhaps more crucially though the formations had virtually no time to train together and I personally don't think that all the crews for the armoured elements for these formations would necessarily be deserving of regular or better status.
A similar point can be made about 12SS in Normandy, which undoubtedly had very high commitment but lacked training. The handling of its tanks in the early part of Normandy did not suggest that they were very well trained. I don't think a green status would be unreasonable given that green is indicative, AFAIK, of not having been in battle before
-
JonS
There are some aerial photos here but you have to register (and pay a registration fee) in order to get decent sized images.
-
No one on this thread has called you ignorant. You have had replies which very politely note your comments but disagree with them. What is wrong with that?
The only point you have been called out on is using the word 'ragheads'. It is a pejorative applied to people from Arab countries and no different in principle to perjoratives used for other groups. Your suggestion that it is ok to use it in the context of pixelated truppen is wrong because it is still applicable to the ethnic group represented by those truppen. Anyway you only got a slap on the wrist from c3K for it - just accept you made a mistake, say sorry and move on.
Sorry to come over all PC but there are people from many countries and ethnic origins on these forums and they should not have to deal with descriptions like this.
-
A 1 meter berm really covers only a small amount of the frontal area of a tall tank like the Sherman so it's not surprising there was little difference in that situation. But the 2 meter test proves that you can get a very significant cover advantage without sacrificing spotting ability.
So I think the rule of thumb for in-game tactics at the moment is to get your tanks as hull down as you can while still maintaining a blue target line to any areas likely to contain enemy units. Partial hull down is good. Full hull down is bad. I'm sure there is room for improvement here and hopefully BFC looks into it, but that is where we stand for now.
Sorry, can you just explain "Partial hull down is good. Full hull down is bad". Do you mean the spotting disbenefits of full hull down outweigh the protection from hits? Also I have found that tanks and AT guns can't see over a 2m berm. Have you found otherwise?
-
OK, perhaps I oversimplify. But my artillery experience dates to the days of charts and darts and firing sticks however, well before GPS, computer fire controls and all those cool things that are taken for granted now :-). I'm really not THAT far removed in my experience and techniques from those in WW2.
But even without good maps (which was a fairly common experience for me too), presuming I can figure out where I am to some reasonable level of accuracy (enough that I know I'm not calling fire down on my head), if I can see the edge of the woods and presumably somehow call fire on it, I can call fire 400m into the woods just as well. Granted, I can't see to adjust and walk it on to the target, but maybe all I'm trying to do is keep everyone's head down so I can move (I suspect they are in there somewhere and want to suppress them so I can move)
I think the reasoning behind not being able to lay artillery by map co-ordinates in the game is based on the principle that TRPs represent artillery targets that have been zeroed in by map co-ordinates, whereas if you don't have that already sorted before the beginning of a scenario you would not have enough time to do that within the timeframe.
-
I think that 2.12 does include the ditch lock feature, so I will remove the reference to MG. Sorry for the confusion
-
I couldn't resist using the ditch lock feature.
Someone is now going to tell me it ditch lock is included in 2.12....
-
Conditional AI triggers would be great for scenario design. I would like for example to be able to trigger an AI counterattack for a scenario, if, but only if, the player reaches a particular objective.
Similarly I would like to be able to trigger an AI withdrawal from a particular defended position if the AI defenders take a certain level of casualties.
I don't think at the moment either if these things are possible?
-
Not sure I understand why some are complaining about the difficulty of urban assaulting - it took the Germans four days to recapture a few blocks around Arnhem bridge, and they only managed it after bringing up heavy weapons.
-
They appear to be made to look like late F or early G models, I dont think there were that many MKIV Fs and Gs in 6th Army at the time of the Stalingrad battle, maybe a few, but every tank in the CGI sequence looks the same.
Its still pretty cool, what can be done these days with computer enhanced movies.
The really stupid detail about the MKIVs is that they start the scene lined up and backed against a large building, facing enemy positions on the other side of the square. Unless they were parachuted into position like that (the special effects do seem to suggest that), they must have driven up the side of the building, made a 90 degree turn exposing their flanks to the Russian positions, before reaching their starting points, doing another 90 degree turn to face the square. hmmm
-
dont believe everything you read http://www.mourningtheancient.com/truth.htm
I read it and didn't believe it....
-
Not sure I agree. On Elite and Iron, you will frequently get kills that you do not see at the time. In fact, I'd say in my games, more enemy infantry kills are unobserved than observed.
I am playing PBEM A Temple to Mars on Iron. I am hoping that this must be right because I sure as hell haven't seen any direct evidence of any of the enemy being hit....
-
Challenger will be next. Then, maybe the rest of CMFI Shermans to finish them all and forget them for once and all.
BTW: I just noticed, we are about to get to 1000 (!!!)replies in this thread, 60000+ visits,...this is quite an achievement for us all,..
Fuser, a mod request for the 1000th poster..
-
BTW: I just noticed, we are about to get to 1000 (!!!)replies in this thread, 60000+ visits,...this is quite an achievement for us all,..
err no, don't be modest, it is a reflection of what you have done
-
The Italian smg ingame is a different type, the Beretta MAB 38 (as opposed to the MAB 38/42). It was also used by the Germans, although I don't think they produced it.
Fallschirmjäger in Normandy with the older Beretta model:
Infantryman in Normandy:
The guy at the bottom is in the original force specific background mod. He appears to be wearing spurs...
). They could be relied upon to effectively engage anything they got into their view. However, the training of NCOs and officers necessary to get the crews in to those positions was not very good. Mostly because military budget cuts had dramatically curtailed large scale training maneuvers. Battalion staffs did exercises on computers and map tables, crews did training in simulators and classrooms. They weren't out in the field together with combined arms groups in the real world. There's a big difference between an elevation line on a map and a viable firing position in reality.
Title Suggestions
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
How about 'Belorussian Strategic Offensive Operation' - the Red Army knew how to come up with snappy titles