Jump to content

firelock

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by firelock

  1. Understood. But I still don't think a unit starting in an undamaged building should be combat effective after that building has received enough fire to destroy it. Even 50 cal will make Swiss cheese of a wooden building quickly. It's not somewhere you would want to stick around in once detected by tanks.
  2. Another River, Another Town. One of the better first person accounts of WWII tank warfare, which are surprisingly rare. The author was a natural at his job, despite relatively little time in the gunner's seat. I can only suppose many who were not so good didn't live to tell their story.
  3. Standing their ground after the two story building they are in collapses around them? Not likely. It's not about the training. It's about the physical/psychological limitations and the motivation of a modern era soldier. Ukraine 2015 is not Stalingrad 1942. Even if they were still physically effective after a building collapse, which is doubtful, not sure even the best soldier is not going to seek to live to fight another day if that is an option. Watch Youtube videos of the fighting in Ukraine and Syria and you will get a much more realistic view of combat than all the Jane's books and hardware websites could ever give you. A lot of spray and pray. A lot of noise, fear, panic, confusion. And a lot of "discretion is the better part of valor" moments. I know those videos are usually showing poorly trained militia vs the best troops, but then not all those fighting in Ukraine would be the best troops. They may have improved, but if the Russian Army's experience in Chechnya is any indication, they are not particularly well trained nor motivated. Not sure how we would know. There are some indications from current fighting in Ukraine that not that much has changed. Bewildered columns blundering into captivity and units unaware that they were not just on maneuvers. It's just my opinion that the game system is still a little too lethal in some regards. I attribute this to the incautious nature of a keyboard warrior who doesn't have to risk his life or the lives of fellow soldiers. The modeling of the weapons systems is excellent. Cheers!
  4. I understand the transportation is available. Just not sure commanders in real life want to put their vehicles at risk as much as is required by many scenarios. If good cover is available this works great. But many times in real life, a more cautious approach on foot would be more appropriate. I guess what I am really saying is, a longer scenario time would be more realistic in many cases. But I understand this could get boring and tedious. Probably has more to do with the scenario design than the system. I would love to see an infantry command that fits somewhere between "hunt" and "quick". Or at least a hunt that does not fatigue quite so much. A few minutes "hunting" should not render a unit tired so quickly imo, but I know this has been covered elsewhere. I use the WEGO system mostly and tend to lose units who fail to react between turns. My fault I know, but it can all get a bit tedious micromanaging individual half squads. I agree about the lethality of modern warfare, but the WWII systems seem to have a similar problem with high casualties. Even victorious units often lose in an hour what a unit might be expected to lose in a month or even an entire campaign. Maybe target aquisition is too quick and too certain? This applies more to the WWII games. Modern systems have given troops a terrific ability to spot and fire on targets quickly, but they must still be identified correctly to avoid friendly fire, etc. This takes time. The fear of firing on friends by mistake cannot be accurately modeled in the game of course. The commander is omnipotent. I have played all the campaigns. I find them to be the most rewarding. I love the game. Its the best available in my opinion. I am still awed sometimes at the level of detail and realism. I just think it doesn't hurt sometimes to sit back and look at the results of a typical game vs reality. In real life men are not mindless machines, and are not always as unrealistically brave as we would like to think they are, and that factor is probably the main reason we see high casualty rates in this game vs what we tend to see in reality. I'm also not sure the lethality of modern warfare is psychologically sustainable over a prolonged war. This games has showed me that.
  5. Very interesting parallels between the Japanese and radical Islam.
  6. I also would like to see a Barbarossa and France 1940 game. Africa would be great also. I remember playing the old AH game Tobruk as a kid and loved it. The weaker weapon systems and shorter ranges would be well suited for this system. Not sure a Pacific game would be that interesting tactically. It was basically massive firepower being called in and then brutal mopping up. Outside of initial setup for the Japanese, not that much to do at this scale. The vehicle system is the best part of the CM system. Infantry combat is not it's strength. One thing I would like to add. A lot of scenario designers seem to be overly concerned with play balance. In other words, closely matched forces where either side can defeat the other. But sometimes, as in a hypothetical 1940-41 game, the odds were often not equal. I would like to see more scenarios where a small inferior force can win by simply doing better than expected. This can be reflected in the victory conditions. I know many scenarios like this exist, but would hope that an emphasis on play balance would not preclude a game about more unbalanced campaigns like France in 1940. I think it would be fun to see what well handled British or French tanks could do to a Panzer spearhead, or an advancing infantry column.
  7. Hits will most certainly have an effect on crews, at least psychologically. The degree of that effect would be related to factors like what vehicle they are in, what hits them, training levels, preexisting fatigue, etc. Not sure how the game system reflects this but I assume it does. If someone thinks a 155mm shell going off 10 ft away from your APC would not effect you in any way, I beg to differ. Crew experience would be a major factor. In Black Sea, most crews, regardless of training, would have to be considered relatively inexperienced with actual combat. I agree with the post above that the normal response is often simply to seek cover. Sometimes just the distraction is enough to have a useful effect. Some of this discussion has jumped between WWII and modern combat. Big difference in an Abrams and a Sherman in terms of the effect non penetrating rounds would have. I personally feel most thin skinned vehicles like APCs would not stick around too long to find out what exactly is hitting them, but would rather seek to move and get out of the line of fire. The crew, knowing full well the lethality of modern weapons, would be affected at least in some manner, ranging from mild distraction to utter panic. Artillery in WWII was used on armor for just this reason. It has morale and other effects that go well past a simple kill. Love this game system, but one thing it does not model that well is the human element. It can tend to ignore the strong sense of self-preservation in humans. A certain percentage of soldiers have always shirked and even fail to fire their own weapons. It's a little too easy in this game to mount the Charge of the Light Brigade. I will level a building and then have a RPG gunner who was in that building pop up and and hit me from the debris. A fanatical member of Isis maybe, but a Russian conscript? Probably not. This is not a criticism of the game. Its done about as well as could be. Just could use a little tweeking in this regard. Anyone else notice the huge casualty lists that occur in a one hour game? Especially in infantry, I don't find them realistic. A unit that sees itself suffering 40% losses in 30 minutes will most likely become combat ineffective well before it can mount a final push to the objective. Real combat is often much more desultory than the game system tends to favor. Things are not decided in an hour. A lot more scouting and observation time is often needed to get men to risk their lives. A lot of scenarios tend to devolve into mad rushes for ground objectives, with little time to allow recon to get into position. The system sometimes forces a player to unrealistically disregard the human factor and just plow ahead. It models vehicle behavior pretty well, but the infantry is often pretty much forced to jog into battle or risk not getting into action at all. Of course I understand that realism had to be balanced with gameplay and enjoyability.
×
×
  • Create New...