Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by SimpleSimon

  1. I take your method quite seriously MikeyD, and I believe it pays off. I just think that what you might not realize is that your notion of fun sounds quite a bit like my notion of intuitive. Bet if you name some scenarios you've designed, they'll generally be the ones I have positive memories of or have found no need to rework or edit. Unfortunately it seems like a lot of guys are using an inverted version or your construction here, which goes like "start with an order of battle / read one account / profit????"
  2. One glance at the DCS forums reveals a similarly demanding "community". People want to be in charge of development and will have to just settle for the fact that they aren't. If guys wanna see the glass half empty they always will. I don't blame customers for continuously pushing for better products, as long as they understand that necessarily requires higher costs in development that they should be prepared to pay especially to an independent developer like Battlefront. A little bit of self-teaching goes a long way though, and my mileage from the games has been greatly extended by teaching my
  3. But that's easy. Just give the defenders an exit or a way to preserve their strength rather than be forced to Festung every inch of ground they're on because the scenario designer didn't get how to make an AI plan.
  4. What do things like "Total Victory" or "Tactical Victory" mean anyway in the context of these games anyway? In the end it's always going to be "what I think it should mean". What I think is that the VP system is a fairly nebulous mechanic by which performance is graded, since there is no uniform standard, and i've mostly discarded it. My own measure of conduct is A. Own force casualties B. Enemy force casualties C. Context objectives, captures, touch, exit zones, etc. Most of the time i've found myself going into the editor these days and just altering the parameters
  5. Strategic bombers got most of their survivability from their formation and its massed defensive fire. One or two were very easy targets for interceptors. The Allies did use Strategic Bombers occasionally in missions directed against frontline troops, such as the huge raid on Panzer Lehr's positions west of St Lo prior to Operation Cobra. That still involved something like 3,000 airplanes of which 351st bombardment group was only one formation. One exception is that the USAAF did practice level bombing by lone or small groups of B-17s against enemy shipping, usually with disappointing res
  6. The He-111, JU-88, Pe-2, etc all performed bombing like that, high speed and low level against suspected or known enemy positions. You'd rarely see something like a Lancaster or B-17 at those levels yeah since they were by design Strategic Bombers intended for high-level bombing and far more role-specific. They'd never be used in a CM sort of situation because CM's biggest maps would still have them attacking targets dangerously close to friendlies and their circular-error-probability was measurable in many miles at normal bombing altitudes. Although their preferred targets were things l
  7. The Stryker MGS happened because the Sheridan went away and took its gun with it. A gun that fulfilled the need to neutralize ATGM sites from *outside* of their effective range as well as provide the infantry with a rapid-response alternative to heavy mortars which still weren't quite precise enough. Quite a few ATGM types exist today that have fairly short range, and even the ones that do have long range have long flight times. So long that its reasonable enough for a crew to engage and destroy the launcher after a missile has already been fired. The Stryker MGS is often referred to as an Ass
  8. The development process and early cancellation of vehicles like the T28 pretty directly reveals how military technology can evolve related to perceived threats instead of real ones, but rather interesting is why so much research continued on the vehicle for long after the war. The vehicle was authorized the same year US Army formations reached the much over-rated Siegfried Line and could plainly see what a joke it was. (Bulldozers could defeat major sections of the line...) The two vehicles were retained and used until 1947 though. Probably the US military was interested in studying the
  9. Depends on soft factors but in general, hand-thrown anti-tank weapons are a point blank weapon mainly for self defense. They can be used in a vehicle close assault, but the circumstances for that to be anything other than totally suicidal will be rare. In any case, dont bother with any of the "target" commands, just a movement command as close as possible to the enemy vehicle. Initiation of attack is based almost entirely on proximity.
  10. AI defenders are almost always reliably static and this has a knock-on effect down the entire game causing players to count on static defense for every scenario. So you can always deploy your forces optimally for a siege without needing to consider the risk of a spoiling attack. That the AI does not conduct very intricate attacks or very sophisticated attacks to me is no excuse for this. It's a major absence. If the AI force is strong enough and equipped well enough to push the player right off the board then its too strong for the context and the scenario's narrative needs revision or t
  11. Something i've noticed is that the British kept the Ordinance 3in Mortar in service until the 1960s, in spite of its relatively short range for an infantry mortar. Later variants extended the weapon's range to match peers but I think the British were honestly just pretty comfortable with the idea of pushing the infantry's mortars right up into the line with the rifles. Crews could get ridiculously good at dropping rounds right into enemy foxholes and such with a line of sight. If a Universal Carrier was around i'm sure they'd shoot-n-scoot fast enough to present a challenging target for return
  12. I lean a bit back to FI myself, if only because I preferred it being closest to the start of the war and like the challenges and context posed by Italy's terrain. Plus you have unique formations such as the Italians and Brazilians which I enjoyed a lot.
  13. I might venture creative use of Exit Zone mechanic. You're certainly going to have bloody battles in the biggest war in history don't get me wrong. Like i've been saying for years though, the games are far too predisposed to this, especially the campaigns, which rapidly become unplayable if you try to match all of their conditional requirements. The main thing I want just want to see is reform of the thinking behind scoring mechanics. If the enemy has a strong position maybe placing enough optional lesser captures on the map would create context by introducing reasonable measures for ind
  14. It's incredible to me that guys often agree to go into multi or QB battles over a 800x800m map with artillery on one or both sides at all. It's not "shooting fish in a barrel" as much as dropping hand grenades on fish in a bucket.
  15. It's amazing to me how profound the mythology of "Flanders" and "The Western Front" has been on the history. It's really exemplified in many of the game's scenarios I think. Gotta seize the enemy position by T+2:00 is never really a good objective to saddle the player with. Why that position? Why am I starting where I am? Why only two hours? Usually confronted with the context of a CM scenario I often quickly end up feeling like i'm going to need far more support or better circumstances or both to match the scenario in a single save without causing a huge bloodbath. That's why I like the
  16. That's what I'm seeing too akd. Machine Gun Battalion, Infantry Division, 1944 (niehorster.org) Updated ToE for 1944. The Battalion was now distinctly organic to the Division it was attached to (I think previously they were an independent formation?) and resembles something more like a reinforced Heavy Weapons Company. A number of the machine guns were traded in for 4.2in heavy mortars, while the usual rearmament trends in the British Army meant things like more Brens, PIATs, and Universal Carriers all around. The way the 1944 formation is organized seems distinctly like a support-gr
  17. It's hard to tell how those huge MG Battalions were used, and i've heard enough arguments both ways to say that there was no specific manner in which they used. Sometimes the guns and crews would be parceled out among infantry formations, sometimes they'd be used as you use them in "battery" all massed on a specific objective. Here's a TOE Infantry (Machine Gun) Battalion, 06.04.1938 (niehorster.org) Motorized too, trucks directly attached to the formation, also note large distribution of Boys Rifles for self-protection from armor. They seem to have been a holdover of the
  18. You will have to work at night for safety. The Juvenile Centurion does not have IR capability. The adults on the other hand....
  19. You mean you haven't already covered the entire surface area of your house with Kontakt 5????
  20. It could be outside your window Erwin. Right now.
  21. Protect yourself How to Protect Your Computer from Getting Shot by an MBT - YouTube
  22. I think it's usually worth a disclaimer or a point in the briefing, but I don't think it's necessarily a problem to have sections of the deploy area exposed to fire. One must remember after all, that it can go both ways...
  • Create New...