Jump to content

SimpleSimon

Members
  • Content Count

    407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Freyberg in Still loving Commonwealth forces   
    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 fire too. 
  2. Upvote
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Bufo in High casualty rates in CM games   
    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. 
  3. Like
    SimpleSimon reacted to MOS:96B2P in High casualty rates in CM games   
    This is why I like the idea of allowing the player to play for extra time at the cost of VPs.  The briefing must be clear that the player has a decision.  Hit cease fire at the recommended 2 hour mark or play past 2 hours the cost of 300 VPs (or whatever VP amount is appropriate).  This also keeps a scenario from abruptly ending on a player who is having fun and wants to see his plans finish playing out. 
    For replays of the same scenario It may be useful to identify what AI plan the player is fighting against.  For this purpose I sometimes use the following method in testing a scenario (when not on scenario author test mode) .  If the scenario has three AI plans: 
    Three small modular buildings with no windows or doors are placed on the players side of the map.  There are at least three action squares (24 meters) between each building.  The buildings are landmarked (the red on map lettering) with PLAN ONE,  PLAN TWO and PLAN THREE.  When the player hits the red button to start the game an OpFor AI unit spawns inside the building with the AI plan that loaded.  A OpFor tentative contact icon will appear in that building.  Or if the player doesn't want to know he doesn't place a unit next to the row of buildings during setup.  So, if the player chooses, he now knows  what AI plan he is up against and if he has already played it before.
    Granted, if he wants a different AI plan he now must exit the game and reload.  But for a player who's not comfortable opening the editor and turning plans on and off it might be something.  It's easy enough for the designer to set up.   
    Hmm, I think there is another thread about replaying scenarios.  I might repost part of this reply in that thread if I find it.              
  4. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Freyberg in Still loving Commonwealth forces   
    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-group thing to be detached to Rifle Regiments as needed. 
  5. Like
    SimpleSimon reacted to akd in Still loving Commonwealth forces   
    From 1943 on sub-units of MGs and mortars were generally parceled out to brigades as “brigade support groups,” e.g.:
    https://www.saskatoonlightinfantry.org/during-the-war.html
  6. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Freyberg in Still loving Commonwealth forces   
    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 First World War Machine Gun Corp in which many Armies still used MG formations like artillery groups. The Red Army maintained Machine Gun Companies for the war too, but as I heard they were almost never used en masse but usually parceled out to locations not in the Russian's main path of maneuver in order to prevent or attrition movement as economy-of-force. ie: The Russians using the cheapest reasonable means for an objective such as flank screening. 
    The Italian Army also had Machine Gun Companies but I don't have any specific on how they were used. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they were frequently withheld by Division HQ to protect Division HQ while the infantry could just screw off with their awful Breda MGs. 
  7. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in Know the facts   
    You will have to work at night for safety. The Juvenile Centurion does not have IR capability. 
    The adults on the other hand....
  8. Like
    SimpleSimon reacted to Erwin in Know the facts   
    Thank you!  Finally there is a defense.
     
    Also:  "Are you tired of your chess opponents threatening thermonuclear war? This tutorial on the Tennison Gambit in chess will explain how to counter your opponent by effectively using intercontinental ballistic missiles in your chess game to trick your opponent. The strategy is viable for players of all levels including beginners and will work on chess players of all ELO ratings."
     
  9. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Falaise in What's your favorite unit to use? What's your most feared unit to face?   
    I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
    I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 
  10. Upvote
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from AtheistDane in High casualty rates in CM games   
    Many of the scenarios are designed around puzzle solving and play out almost every time like a siege. There are many symptoms of these conditions, but one of the most prominent is of closely matched headcounts or map populations between defender and attacker and this invariably promotes high lethality within a given slice of map. Force-to-space ratios with a high density of units promote extremely meticulous play and are often excessively relied upon to make up for a perceived passivity of the AI on defense. 
    As long as you're making reasonable decisions you have a right to expect reasonable results, and the game should score you fairly for that. Unfortunately, I think the way that we score the player's conduct in most of the scenarios is sort of poor and in a minority of cases, egregiously unfair or abusive. 
     
  11. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Freyberg in What's your favorite unit to use? What's your most feared unit to face?   
    I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
    I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 
  12. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Anonymous_Jonze in What's your favorite unit to use? What's your most feared unit to face?   
    I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
    I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 
  13. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in What's your favorite unit to use? What's your most feared unit to face?   
    I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
    I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 
  14. Upvote
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from MOS:96B2P in What's your favorite unit to use? What's your most feared unit to face?   
    As far as soft units go, I feel pretty unprepared when I don't have a company of Combat Engineers around ready. Lots of scenarios may never call for them at all but it sucks when you roll up on the local hamlet/town and don't have them. 
  15. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from DerKommissar in What's your favorite unit to use? What's your most feared unit to face?   
    I value the Stuart tank immensely whenever I have it, and greatly appreciate its ability to just shut down snipers, MGs, etc with total impunity. It's height means it's good at spotting and its light weight and small size make it handy for sticking close to the infantry. It laughs off mortar fire and the cannister shot is a sight to behold. In a pinch, if the planets align, it can even kill a Panzer. 
    I fear no man, but that thing...it scares me. 
  16. Like
    SimpleSimon reacted to danfrodo in Fire and Rubble Update   
    Thanks everyone.
    Please don't fall prey to the "simple solution" bull****, like it's all some easy fix -- that's just propaganda so that folks don't have to face the really difficult reality.  Like the lies told last year ("they won't release water from the resorvoirs" - lie; "they sent all the water to the ocean"-- lie).  Classic blame the victims stuff.
     Western US had a dry & hot summer following a relatively dry winter.  And recently had very hot w abnormally low humidity, so perfect for fires.  Once fires got going we had many days of crazy strong east winds, driving the fire  -- we almost never get east winds this time of year, especially ones that strong.  Plus lots of lightning.  This is not due to negligence or some lack of effort, it's a natural disaster that came from a perfect storm of conditions.  CA already has a plan w forest service to clear dead wood out of 1 million acres a year (hundred of millions of dollars per year) -- except that there's 20 million acres to clear, at least -- so many years and many BILLIONS of dollars (and that's just CA).  100 years of fire suppression, plus millions of dead trees (much of this due to warmer climate that has caused bug infestations), plus ridiculous weather, and we get catastrophic fires.  We always have summer fires, we don't always have this kind of catastrophe.
    Commanderski:  orange skies in NH?  welcome to the club!  that is crazy you have smoke ~2000+ miles away.
    And combat mission is indeed the only bright spot these days -- oh, that and football.
  17. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from CaptainTheDark in Breach & Clear   
    Engineers and specialized assault troops are the only troops in the game that can use explosive charges to "breach and clear". Rifle infantry generally do not have this capability. You can split teams or use the Assault movement order to compartmentalize losses but the reality is you should never send a single man anywhere you haven't already sent many bullets.  
    Urban fighting or MOUT in American parlance is an ugly, complicated affair under all circumstances. Real life Commanders avoid engaging in city fighting as much as possible for many, many good reasons. Not the least of which is the potential for catastrophe such as the one you experienced, an example which stacks up rather well with real life examples such as Operation Gothic Serpent. 
  18. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Beware the Hunt Command   
    I'm still holding out for a Move command that defaults to cover/prone when being shot at than "try harder to get shot" 
  19. Like
    SimpleSimon reacted to Erwin in Napoleon was undone by faulty strategy. Debate.   
    What was faulty was assigning to the Russians the same socio-psychological behavior of European nations.  Wars were common in Europe and were usually resolved so that the prevailing royal power and status quo of these nation-states was maintained.  Basically: When one captured one's enemy's capital (or enuff vital territory) they surrendered and that was that - until the losing nation recovered and started a new war to recover what they lost ad infinitum.  But, the European Royal families were all related and having a jolly time slaughtering their subjects who were easily expendable assets.
    The Russian psyche, as Hitler also discovered, is/was different.  They would fight on regardless of losses.  This would be an alien method of war to Nappy - as it was to Hitler.  These invaders simply did not comprehend this psychology or predict it.
  20. Upvote
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Breach & Clear   
    Engineers and specialized assault troops are the only troops in the game that can use explosive charges to "breach and clear". Rifle infantry generally do not have this capability. You can split teams or use the Assault movement order to compartmentalize losses but the reality is you should never send a single man anywhere you haven't already sent many bullets.  
    Urban fighting or MOUT in American parlance is an ugly, complicated affair under all circumstances. Real life Commanders avoid engaging in city fighting as much as possible for many, many good reasons. Not the least of which is the potential for catastrophe such as the one you experienced, an example which stacks up rather well with real life examples such as Operation Gothic Serpent. 
  21. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from John1966 in Artillery, FO?   
    Artillery doc is hard to parse and often the differences are overstated, especially between the Allied Armies. In general though the Royal Artillery was known for its rapid response to Request Fires. This is a trait they picked up in World War 1, where it was important to move the guns right in trail of the infantry and be ready to fight off an immediate counter attack that could emerge from seemingly any direction. Destruction-by-fire proved elusive on the Western Front and the British began to prefer Suppression-by-Fire. All of this thinking was completely captured by the 25pdr field piece, one of the war's most superb Guns and so successful it is still in use by some Armies today. 
    The 25 pounder's caliber and explosive load are too light to ensure destruction of anything tougher than basic entrenchments, that's not what makes the gun so valuable though. What made the 25 pounder valuable was its light weight, fully swiveling trunnion (allowing the gun a literally unlimited range of azimuth once deployed), and two piece shell and basic brass cartridge.* All of this translates into a gun with enormous operational flexibility and a constant state of readiness to commence fires on a ridiculous number of targets planned and unplanned. The light and uncomplicated ammunition it used was easier to transport and stock than fragile powder bags and heavier 105mm rounds in standard use by most Armies. The full 360 base mount meant the gun was also more stable than the average Field Gun, but the British didn't place as much premium on accuracy as they did on speed. 
    British Forward Observers were attached to their Battery, but highly independent and mobile. FOs were given a truck (which could carry a better radio than a Jeep) and a map showing great detail in 1km sectors, they were additionally trained to make use of pre-planned or canned mathematic "rule-of-thumb" calculations^. The idea was to dispense with as much complication and thinking as necessary and to respond rapidly to attacks or targets of opportunity. Times from first call to first shot were still highly dependent on a host of factors but I don't think the average for the British Army often exceeded 10 minutes. I've heard of times as low as 2 minutes. 
    Combat Mission is not an artillery sim, it's a tactical simulator. The nuance of the Field Artillery isn't distinctly visible in the game but it can be abstracted in many ways, through TRPs, FO counts and quality, and gun availability. If you know what you're doing you can actually abstract even fairly complicated stuff like the creeping barrage or zone-and-sweep. 
    *Earlier in the war the 25 pounder's favorable weight and ease of use meant it frequently found itself pressed into anti-tank gun duty. The British were dependent on the insufficient QF 2pdr and the 6pdr was in short supply for this job, and the 25pdr had AP rounds issued to it (although I suspect these rounds were originally envisioned with bunker-busting in mind) that happened to be ideal for stopping tanks. Problem was this exposed the guns to loss, and worse deprived British infantry of fire support leading to "holes" in the crucial fire umbrella that the British picture their troops operating under as much as possible. 
    ^For comparison the Americans dispensed with canned calcs and math formula fearing poor accuracy might endanger friendly troops. Instead a full time planning staff was retained at a Battery's Brigade HQ who would plan out firing solutions from potential sites and then feed that information down to Battalion HQ who would disseminate it to Battery commanders etc. The Americans wanted Battery and Battalion commanders to concentrate on their own movements and safety than to spend inordinate time planning fires. The Germans, due to a lack of radios, often made their poor overworked Forward Observers have to do all this planning. German FO's were highly trained to account for a ridiculous number of variables (including density altitude!) which ensured great accuracy but slow first-shot arrival. 
    muh prose strikes again coffee time 
  22. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from John1966 in Artillery, FO?   
    A lot of the time scenarios seem too light on TRPs I think. Especially if fighting in the area had been an ongoing or routine event generally the battery commanders would keep data on previous fires. I also think TRPs are a good abstraction for the quality reconnaissance flights you can achieve with air supremacy. Every US Army Infantry Division had a component of around 10 or so Piper Cubs-organic to their formation, not USAAF aircraft-who's job was aerial spotting for the Division's artillery. 
    At this time most designers seem to emphasize TRPs in defensive situations and discourage them in offensive situations and they've got it backwards. Attackers have the benefit of initiative and planning, they are initiating which means the T junction at the back of the map was planned as a point of advance for your assault a week ago and yes there's a TRP for the player to use in his assault. Conversely, unless the Defender has had time to entrench and plan, he really shouldn't have TRPs as often as he does since attacks generally come as a surprise. For the Germans especially there was a tendency to husband guns and keep as much firepower in reserve as possible for the inevitable counter-attack to seize lost ground or more usually because of insufficient ammunition reserves. 
  23. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from John1966 in Fighting in woods   
    I despise even seeing forest objectives because the context for them is always poor. Who cares about 100m square capture in the middle of a forest? The enemy can have it and when they emerge from the forest in a few weeks from depletion of rations and ammunition or just fear of what the Partisans will do to them then you can capture the wood. Otherwise what sensible Commander would send men into such a place? To capture the enemy's supply of birch trees??? 
  24. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Fighting in woods   
    I despise even seeing forest objectives because the context for them is always poor. Who cares about 100m square capture in the middle of a forest? The enemy can have it and when they emerge from the forest in a few weeks from depletion of rations and ammunition or just fear of what the Partisans will do to them then you can capture the wood. Otherwise what sensible Commander would send men into such a place? To capture the enemy's supply of birch trees??? 
  25. Like
    SimpleSimon got a reaction from Freyberg in Fighting in woods   
    I despise even seeing forest objectives because the context for them is always poor. Who cares about 100m square capture in the middle of a forest? The enemy can have it and when they emerge from the forest in a few weeks from depletion of rations and ammunition or just fear of what the Partisans will do to them then you can capture the wood. Otherwise what sensible Commander would send men into such a place? To capture the enemy's supply of birch trees??? 
×
×
  • Create New...