Josey Wales
-
Posts
118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Josey Wales
-
-
I'm looking forward to this, you've done a thorough METT-TC analysis and these more traditional AAR's are a pleasure to read through.
Although WW2 is usually more my thing, I have a vested interest in you winning this battle. The 9th/12th were my old regiment, and I spent the majority of my service in A Squadron...no pressure!
-
I'm looking forward to this, you've done a thorough METT-TC analysis and these more traditional AAR's are a pleasure to read through.
Although WW2 is usually more my thing, I have a vested interest in you winning this battle. The 9th/12th were my old regiment, and I spent the majority of my service in A Squadron...no pressure!
-
11 hours ago, Macisle said:
Wow -- thanks, Josey! I'm a big fan of your videos and keep an eye on your channel so I can watch whenever a new one hits. You're one of the best AAR video makers out there, so your kind words here really make me feel good. Here's hoping some part of my map makes it onto your video battlefield some day.
Yeah, on video production, I think the natural human tendency is to want to talk too much or make things too long visually -- to kitchen sink it, as it were. Your videos have been very helpful in making me aware of how to strike a balance. One of the experiences that stood out this first time was trying to get the right amount of narration to support footage I wanted to show, but then having to get more footage to support the amount of narration wanted to do. Over the course of the video, the workflow went from narration supporting captured video to capturing and editing video as needed to support finalized narration.
In Part 2, the back and forth action will get going, so I'll be reviewing your vids to remind myself how best to balance things. Just like with talking too much, there is a natural tendency to want to show every bullet exchange from all the juiciest angles combined, the capturing and editing of which, is way too time consuming and not necessary. This is a long battle, so I'm going to have to look for ways to keep things engaging, but also moving along, to keep the number of parts down.
For the time being, for time's sake, I'm going to have to leave out graphics, but I like the simple, but effective and clear graphics you use. Hmm. Maybe down the line a bit...
I'm glad you liked the barrage. I sure did, too. It was my first time using 300mm rockets (outside of testing) and I think the show was worth the cost of CMRT right there! IIRC (and I may not!
), the rocket boys are reloading...
Thanks again!
You're welcome, and thanks in kind for the high praise.
Yes it's easy to get drawn into every little detail of a battle when editing and you have to know when to say 'Ok that's enough of that, what else is going on?' The footage/narration balance is something that comes with practice but I think you've got it spot on for the final cut.
One thing that was suggested to me and I have started doing is having the 2 opposing factions occupy different parts of the screen. In my last 2 vids I have placed the forces under my control on the left of the screen moving to the right, and the opposing forces on the right side of the screen moving to the left. If you watch clips of the 1970 movie 'Waterloo' you'll see what I mean, the Brits are mostly portrayed as being on the left of the viewer and the Frenchies on the right. It seems to have gone down well and perhaps clears things up a bit but it also limits the creativity in a way.
Anyway looking forward to part 2 whenever you get around to doing it... I know how long these things take believe me!
-
Excellent work, I'll be watching this series with keen interest. The map looks simply amazing.
I think your narration is spot on, let the video do the talking and just interject when you feel you need to add or explain something to make it clearer for the viewer. In my first CM vids I was jabbering all the way through then I learned to pace it and it seemed to go down better, but I think you've started off like a pro.
Best barrage ever!
-
This doesn't really answer the OP's question, but here's my tuppence;
I read up on British Army doctrine of how AT guns were deployed and used during WW2 and incorporated that into a H2H game where I built my defence up around some AT guns.
Guess what happened?
...I got well and truly defeated (total defeat) because I was so focused on following the doctrine that I had ignored other aspects critical to the defence. Factors such as the terrain, weather conditions and battle type had a much greater impact on the battle/game than me interpreting a field manual and trying to implement it in the game.
I think FM's give an insight into certain aspects and can provide a framework, but I would say far more important to success is playing the game and practicing over and over.
It's the same for real commanders, they can be the best student in their class during training, but only experience can make them great commanders. Some of the best commanders in history never had any formal training nor FM's to read.
I agree with @IICptMillerII keep it simple, master fire and manouevre, that's the name of the game!
-
Big respect to you @Drifter Manfor taking the time to put this together. I think you have helped uncover further the attention to detail that the designers have put into this game.
-
IIRC the only soft factor which affects spotting is experience. I don't recall fatigue having any affect on spotting but I'm happy to be proved wrong.
-
6 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:
Is it a "Pack" howitzer? If it is, then it won't have the same capabilities trajectory wise as a standard "Field" howitzer, to the best of my knowledge. Not that we had modern field pieces when I was fighting Charlie Stewart.
Yes its a pack howitzer, I've run some tests and figured out the issue. Basically the problem I am having is that it will always fire a shell on a relatively flat trajectory and the LOF is blocked if there is anything in the flight path such as trees or buildings. It looks like this can be overcome by careful placement, however I think the map I am playing on is too small and cluttered to really see any benefit. I can certainly see the benefit of having a battery of these on a larger less cluttered map as they can be used both directly (like an AT of Anti Infantry gun) and indirectly except their fire follows a much flatter trajectory than a mortar.
-
8 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
There is a minimum range for howitzers to be able to fire indirectly. Are you sure the AS you are targeting is beyond that range? Also, have you moved the howitzer during the game?
Michael
It could be that I am targeting within the minimum range for the howitzer. There doesn't appear to be any information in the manual regarding minimum ranges so I can't be 100% sure about that, however it seems the most plausible answer
Yes I've moved the howitzer laterally to see if that had any effect on its ability to get line of fire but it didn't. I can't move it further back as its at the edge of the map and moving it forward would put it in a direct firefight with tanks & infantry. It can direct fire over to the other side of the map (medium sized) much like an AT gun (flat trajectory).
-
I'm playing a game at the moment where I have an on map 75mm howitzer team. I have a C2 link to it via radio with my FO but I'm really restricted as to what I can target with it. I can get line of sight to multiple locations (from my FO) but I struggle to get line of fire. When I did finally get it to target a building, it fired in a really low trajectory arc narrowly missing buildings with my own troops in.
I'm playing a scenario, so the designer intended for the howitzer to be on the map.
I thought a howitzer would behave more like a mortar, ie would have a high trajectory, but it acts more like a field gun. If its meant to be used as a field gun then why is it showing up in the artillery panel, am I missing something?
-
Nice demo of the Coy HQ providing C2 to the fireteam as well.
-
MOS thank you for making the effort to redo this. I did have trouble trying to follow the original but it's really clear and obvious with the images and your explanations.
I think some testing needs to be done to prove that having a tentative contact makes acquiring an actual LOF of fire to the contact quicker. I hope it does.
-
You should definitely create a response video with this information. Good effort.
-
6 hours ago, JoMc67 said:
That's what it seems, and both players would need to use said Mods.
*Side Note...Wish CM had an 'Crouch Animation'. I Think this would apply to troops that use the 'Quick' or 'Evade' Commands, while 'Run' would still use the 'Stand' Animation...This might also help in reducing casualties a little.
Actually, the exact Animation is not as important to me as would giving a slightly better 'Saviings Roll', if you will, for 'Crouched' troops advancing.
From Rockin Harry's Alternative Buddy Aid Animation page;
"Since H2H/PBEM play is untested, players should be aware that only one player using the mod probably gains an advantage the other player has not (better stealth/survival for medics)! Unless there´s no confirmation on likely problems or cheating opportunities with this mod, I recommend NOT using this mod in H2H/PBEM play."
Testing would be required to confirm or not if this is a real effect. Because if it is, then unlike any other mod it will give rise to circumstances where one player has an unfair advantage.
If it is found that it does give a benefit to survivability for medics then it should become a feature of the base game so that everyone is on a level playing field.
-
I think he needs updating if he's basing his opinion of CM on series 1.
I'm happy for someone who's already made contact with him to send him a link to one of my vids, the Bear Claws AAR seems most popular. Or as @MOS:96B2P says any of the Armchair General series.
-
15 hours ago, Erwin said:
Am probably not explaining myself properly. Yes, the effect of being in C2 is statistically provable in CM2 if you run 100 similar tests. My point is that the tiny % of improvement of performance having a unit inC2 is not observable/discernible in a single non-repeatable situation - like when you are playing the game (as opposed to running multiple similar experimental tests).
Of course having C2 is better than not having C2. However, using good tactics, having sufficient fire support etc. is much more important re winning an engagement than worrying about C2.
Ah ok I see what you're getting at. Well yes I have to agree that in game a +1 here or a -1 there makes no observable difference as factors such as the players ability, the cover available, the weapons you're being attacked by all have a more observable affect than say being in C2 or not.
What I would say (to borrow from Al Pacino in Any Given Sunday) is that at times, a game of CM is a game of inches and that the effects of the soft factors are real and are indeed affecting the situation even though it doesn't appear so and even though the affects are less noticeable than some of the other factors mentioned above. You're right, its subtle but that's what I like about it.
-
Multiple tests were done and the statement below is true;
"Being within a close C2 link (Close Visual/Voice) does provide resistance to the impact on Morale caused by Combat Shock - troops within C2 range of their HQ unit are less affected by the temporary impact of suppression upon Morale as they are less stressed by being shot at and the immediate impact of seeing team/squadmates killed & wounded is reduced."
If you're not seeing any observable difference when a unit is in C&C or if a Co CO has taken over command then I can only think that you have not set up the parameters so as to be able to see it. The unit needs to be suffering from Combat Shock, i.e. it needs to be under incoming fire and then tests can be run to remove the close C2 link by moving the HQ unit out of range and/or back into range to see the difference. I have demonstrated this in the video accompanying the post 'The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue'.
A change in the Morale state is observed when the close C2 link is removed/replaced if the current Morale state is being caused by Combat Shock (suppression). It is repeatable and therefore statistically relevant.
The Coy HQ and Bttn HQ perform the same role in this respect as a Plt HQ and can be used to step in should a Plt HQ become incapacitated.
If you're expecting to see an effect on a Morale state which has been arrived at by Combat Stress (the build up of casualties within the unit or by units closely associated organisationally) then I'm afraid that you won't see one regardless of if the unit in question is within C2 link or not and irrespective of if the C2 link is being provided by a Plt HQ, Coy HQ or Bttn HQ. This is because a Morale state which has been arrived at as a result of Combat Stress cannot be recovered from.
-
5 hours ago, Erwin said:
"...fatigued units have no penalty to accuracy..."
That surprised me. When one thinks "fatigued", one visualizes breathing heavily, adrenalin and high blood pressure affecting eyesight etc. You sure about that?
I realise it's counter intuitive but the only factor shown to affect accuracy is experience. Exhausted regulars will shoot better than rested conscripts. This was tested on upgrade 4.0 so I can't say if the case was different for earlier versions.
-
Quote
Ditto - yes
-
On 12/11/2017 at 10:45 PM, user1000 said:
but then the clock is ticking and you have to wait for your men to come back down form fatigue level to aim or move normal again.
As fatigued units have no penalty to accuracy then crawl would be the logical option so as to minimise casualties and combat stress.
-
3 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:
+1 Nice. I just got through Part 1. Will do Part 2 tomorrow. Was the XO KIA with the Company Commander, or was it just the CO that was KIA?
Thanks, I lost the CO and XO at that point so basically no functioning Company HQ after that.
-
A CMFB meeting engagement between Big Joe of the FGM and myself.
Part One;
Part Two;
-
I always play WeGo and prefer medium battles from a video making perspective as it allows a decent turn around for uploads but also tends to have more variety in equipment and terrain than a small battle which in my mind makes for a more interesting watch.
I would however really enjoy a playing a huge battle that perhaps lasted months but I may end up losing some subscribers.
-
5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Oh we used to DREAM of 1024x768. Every morning our father would get us up an hour before we went to sleep, then we'd eat a hard lump of coal for breakfast, and if we were really lucky we could watch him use Lotus 123 in 320x240 on a Compaq Portable running DOS 1.00.
Paradise!
we'd get up 3 hours before we went to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, wait 26 hours a day every day for Elite to load on a tape recorder and when that was done, dad would bash us to sleep with a Sinclair ZX Spectrum...if we were lucky!
), the rocket boys are reloading...
Kharkov Map Sneak Peak
in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods
Posted
Another outstanding episode, good luck against those Tigers!