Jump to content

SimpleSimon

Members
  • Content Count

    461
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

SimpleSimon last won the day on February 5 2020

SimpleSimon had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About SimpleSimon

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

829 profile views
  1. What is the rationale of the current mechanics Red Thunder governs air attack by anyway? It's inconsistent with the other games and its problem has nothing to do with whether the Russians used Forward Air Controllers or not. The whole thing is just really weird. They're far too responsive and controllable in the active phase, taking orders to point attack individual foxholes which they most certainly did not do in 1944. But that's not the worst issue with them by far. It's that they cannot be controlled at all or influenced in the planning phase that makes them an irrelevant feature. Th
  2. I laughed at that scene but not in the way one might think since I knew it'd ruin what is actually a pretty good show for some viewers too caught up in petty details.
  3. The controller is manufactured overseas unfortunately and they're taking much lower priority in available shipping space over critical supplies. I have the X-56 myself. I wouldn't blame people for sticking with the older models though, i'm not crazy about the self illumination feature. I'm overall very pleased with it though. With DCS especially i've found a job for literally every button and switch on it and I think the swappable springs for the joystick are really cool. It does have a bit of play in the stick out the box, but that doesn't bother me much. The throttle is super-fine thou
  4. Well infantry attacks were by no means abnormal operations-despite the findings of the Royal Artillery after all, it was agreed that heavy fire by itself was usually not decisive. What I'm just noticing these days is that broken scoring mechanics and map context are really corrosive to the scenarios often more-so than balance. Like Hammer's Flank drove me nuts in base but really it'd be easy to fix by just relieving the player from the insanity of having to capture and clear an entire 2km map covered with overlapping entrenched MG42, flak, and anti-tank positions with some mortars and gun
  5. There's way too much small arms fetishization if you ask me. HE-Frag was the overwhelming contributor of the combat casualties of both wars. Something in the realm of 4/5 of them. The Royal Artillery conducted research after the Great War showing this and in spite of the new weaponry of the next war records from casualty clearing stations on both sides still bore that out in 1945. This is a big reason why there were so many delays replacing the Lee Enfield and ultimately why it wasn't replaced until the war ended. Riflemen don't kill much, they need their weapon more for personal protection so
  6. It's more than a little annoying to me that IL-2 1946 still has things like night fighters and carrier operations that none of the current IL2 games have. Carrier ops require really high fidelity and lots of new flyable airplane models so I get why that's been on the backburner but man Great Battles has the freaking 110 and Ju-88 fully modeled but that's it. No radar sets, no Kammhuber Line, no searchlights etc. I'm getting really tired of 30 years of P-51s myself and I don't blame anyone for looking at the recent sims and just feeling like they don't offer much. DCS has searchlights and
  7. Which is not what I said. I advise readers to be cautious of Guderian's account of history, not to avoid it. Whole books have been written about his lies (Wolfram Wette's is one) and there are few real historians, military or otherwise, who consider him a trustworthy source. It'd be pointless to tell people not to read him since a whole generation of western war histories-many of them them written during the Cold War-cite him and other German Generals after they were released from prison. For being the "losers" of history they sure got to control quite a bit...
  8. The entire first 1/3 of the book is about the Low Countries phase of the invasion. Horne's book does not discuss the actual campaigning in France for much length, it is mostly preoccupied on French politics leading up to the Battle and is scant on details. Shirer's book is the other big work in this light and while I subjectively sort of like it it isn't very focused on the fighting and Shirer's account overall is very melodramatic. It's a bit too emotive/sensationalist to be a credible research. A good read-but not for everyone. Guderian's account is the one we've all read before-
  9. Yeah Mikey, because you can't really get rid of them, which makes them really "over-powered" in a game mechanics sense. I lean toward barbed wire not only because it was more common but also because it abstracts a "removable" minefield. As for QB balancing I can't say. I always use the scenario editor. One place I tend to find the game's mines more appropriate is near map edges, which not only discourages a bit of the edge running stuff but also adds a bit of narrative context by implying that your attack is happening where it is because the sectors to its side are impassable "here's why
  10. It'd be cool if engineer skill level affected things like the quality of mine removal but sadly the fact that mines are never truly 'removed' leaves them a bit overpowered as a game mechanic I feel. They should be used with great caution in a CM game. What isn't used enough I think is barbed wire obstacles. Those are more binary and oddly people only ever seem to use them in way that makes them worthless ie: 2-3 bound together in an open field where they restrict neither movement nor enemy fire. They should be strung out in places like forests or low ground where the enemy might try to ma
  11. Most certainly not. The strap is just for carrying. The rest is a spade for firing from the ground.
  12. Personally i'm holding out for the appearance of Hungarian and Romanian troops in one of the CM games one day but I doubt i'll see em. The Hungarians especially had a large assortment of domestically manufactured armored vehicles, (the Toldi, Turan, Zrnyi etc) while both of them have large stocks of those old Skoda and German World War 1 field artillery tubes still around that I want to try out. It'd be especially cool if more of the guns would start appear as on-map assets too but *shrug*. I kind of want people to get a better sense of how "the infantry" usually fought, but most of the
  13. Where? When? How? It's a machine gun. It's likely competition was to be bolt action rifles and pistols which the British expected would make up the grand majority of the enemy's small arms stocks as they had in the last war. They could not have foreseen it would be the MG34 when the Bren was selected for service in 1935 and the Bren wasn't going to be selected with what the Germans had in mind anyway. It was selected to replace the Lewis. Did it make a better machine gun than the MG42? Sadly no. It was another example of an Allied "good enough" weapon that equipped their Armies. Their victorio
  14. It didn't become obsolete, it became inappropriate. Tbh I often hear the word 'obsolete' a lot and it never fails to give me pause. What does it mean? Since the Bren is obsolete what does that mean exactly? That it's not a threat? Couldn't be since it fires bullets and last I checked, modern guns still fire those. No the Bren's problem just as the problem of the generation of weapons that came before it was that the Armies it was built for reconfigured around light, mobile, and fast cadres of uniformly well-equipped and motorized task-force style military formations. The US Army typically refe
×
×
  • Create New...