Swervin11b
-
Posts
53 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Swervin11b
-
-
On 12/9/2018 at 6:52 PM, user1000 said:
I won a total victory at the end but still lost on just the last map of the campaign, Assenois. The last one just killed the whole campaign experience. The time limit is horrible for all the maps needs more time for all campaign battles in Courage Conquers. I don't think this last battle was made historically accurate.. Good job on the google earth part of map making. Maybe someone will make the battles that happened after Bastogne and the 101st were reached, into a campaign.
Don’t feel too bad. I haven’t made it past the first one yet. The 1:1 ratio is killing me when you also have to save ammo
-
It’d be cool to have recovery assets, or even allow for self-recovery. Even if it was imperfect and difficult, it’d be an accurate interpretation.
For every problem, a potential solution. Wire/mine obstacles can be breached with engineers, for example.
Some may say that such a feauture may not be an accurate reflection of front line operations, but reading through AARs one sees that they absolutely had to do it under fire sometimes, even if their efforts were greatly frustrated. (Ex: The recovery vehicle in a cav squadron had an 81mm mortar to shoot its own smoke screen).
I can easily see why it’s not in the game, though. It falls into the same category of something like medics. The developers have to ask themselves how many players would find it entertaining to run ammo around the map, dispatch litter bearers, or tow vehicles.
-
10 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
Thank you for your service. I bet you have a lot of interesting stories from back in the day. The good news is, the Brad never went to immobilized. It un-bogged and drove off to complete its mission. I think the small stream of feces running down the center is what made it bog.
Thanks. Yes, quite a few stories. You could say it was an interesting time. Had to watch out for power lines in those alleys and streets, a real hazard at night too.
That’s the infamous and ubiquitous grey sludge of the alleyways. Even the dust in those smelled funky.
Kudos to the designer, though. That’s an exact resemblance of Anystreet, Iraq Town.
-
22 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!! Bogged!!! Apparently talking about it in the forums does increase the chances of a bogged vehicle
.
Having commanded a Bradley on plenty of streets and alleys exactly like that, I’m not sure that would be likely. Those alleys were hard packed dirt that was actually perfect for tracks.
-
I can confirm this. Concertina wire wrapped up in tracks is a huge mess. I had to clear it out a couple of times and it took a long, long time and could easily injure the soldiers clearing it. (Can confirm that too unfortunately)
If the construction material of a wall can be crushed, though, it’s less of a concern. Cinderblocks weren’t really a hindrance. Still, if at all possible you could use weapons systems to breach walls as opposed to busting through.
As far as the game goes, the terrain I’ve encountered that’s most apt to throw track are tree lines and woods, oddly. Reading through here has given me a fair understanding of their vulnerability, though, I’ll take better care to avoid anything but open ground if I can.
-
Is there a greater morale impact for losing commanders?
Just my observation...a platoon lost its LT and entire HQ team in a mortar strike that also killed a few soldiers in each squad. The LMG team is the only one who’s still rattled. As a two man team, 50% of his unit got wasted. The other squads are actually back to nervous and cautious already. They haven’t been under fire since that mortar. I think their remaining leaders are +1 and +2.
It seems like it’s a percentage overall that affects the permanent morale level
They lost CnC altogether but the company and battalion commanders were approaching them when I saved it. Maybe that’ll do then some good.
This last quick battle I’ve got going in a mess. These casualties (were my fault), immobilized tracks. Had to change plans a couple times.
The airstrike I’ve been saving is coming soon
-
Thanks! Figured it might have been discussed before. (I’ll try to search better next time.)
Having it random is realistic. Pivoting on soft ground was terrible for throwing track. Good to know that overuse of the ground can make it soft. I wouldn’t have thought the game engine would account for that.
I doubt the crew is very good infantry, so I’ll probably just leave them in safety
-
Quite a few times I’ve had tracked vehicles go down to immobilization, sometimes at critical junctures. I’m assuming they’ve thrown track since they’re not under fire.
Is there anyway to avoid it? As in, is this a kind of random occurrence programmed in or is it due to terrain? Bogging down in wet terrain is common sense, but the woods generally look the same unless I’m missing something.
Is a particular movement type through rough terrain avoid it?
Is there anything you can do once it’s immobilized?
I try to keep my vehicles in open terrain as much possible but sometimes you have to go through rough stuff. It can lose a battle so I figured I’d learn about how the game deals with the matter.
One would hope that Pvt Joe Snuffy didn’t just forget to measure track tension and add grease to the track tensioner during his PMCS
-
I mentioned in another thread that I love the authenticity of the TOE. The triangular setup with US WWII units is great. I got a kick out of seeing the cannon companies under the infantry tab on unit purchase, as it is a not so readily apparent historical detail.
Ive been a military history nerd for a long time and it’s good to see this game. Really new to it but love it.
I play RTS and also love the pause button *swoon*
Finally, I was pleasantly surprised by the authenticity of uniforms and equipment for WWII as well. The officers have musette bags and the GIs have haversacks, correctly set up at that.
-
7 hours ago, ebphoto said:
Thanks for the info. Wow there's a lot of different ways of doing this but I understand now to get the guys out of the AFV's asap. I think my problem comes with the Big open desert maps in SF2. What order do you use to march your infantry forward? If you use Quick they'll tire out quickly, same with Hunt. Move they'll get creamed if attacked from what I understand. I tried moving guys up using quick, leap frogging them and they got tired pretty fast. I guess I could split them up into smaller teams, use Move and then if they get attacked I wont loose so many but still sucks loosing them that way.
Thanks,
Eric
You can split up different types of movement with waypoints too. (Pardon if you already know this. I played a while without knowing). For example, you can have them “move” until they’re within enemy weapons’ range, then “hunt,” then even sprint the last leg if you have to.
Alternatively, if it’s a vast distance you could also roll them up a ways still mounted and then dismount out of range of AT weapons. That’s the key though, out of AT range.
+1 to what Mikey D said about moving them in safely.
-
Thanks. One of the chief merits of this game - and it’s a big one - is that you don’t have to learn how to “beat the game” to do pretty well. I’ve been dorking our on military history for a long time on top of serving, so that knowledge has served me well. For the most part you can apply real-life tactical and organizational doctrine with good results.
I’m a huge fan of the historical accuracy of the TO&E. I create something along the lines of a task force, albeit on a smaller scale. I could probably get away with allowing the company commander to have control of the unit as a whole and will try it soon
-
9 minutes ago, IanL said:
You have your answer from @MOS:96B2P which is excellent as usual but how about going a different direction: delete those units. If you purchase a battalion and strip out all but a company then you can delete the batalion command elements. Then you have some extra points to pick and choose some additional support. My I suggest a top notch sniper
I will do this if I keep solely a company. If I’m attacking I usually keep the engineer platoon and use the anti-tank platoon slot for my armor/mech support, switching out the AT guns for Shermans, Stuart’s, or TDs. If defending I keep both as is.
I guess I could rearrange that and farm out the armor to each infantry platoon or use the weapons platoon slot for them.
I haven’t used snipers yet...I have run into enemy snipers before in a campaign and they were a world of pain. It’s indicative of their utility I guess haha
-
There is not really an easy answer to this, as it depends on the individual situation.
A good rule of thumb is that if you’re expecting contact you should dismount.
I know it sounds counterintuitive - in the situation you described it’d be best to dismount them and have the vehicles offer support by fire. Theoretically their chances are better on the ground. Your infantry will be smaller targets if they come under fire. They can also take advantage of small depressions in the terrain that an IFV couldn’t, and can bound toward the objective as well. There are also more eyes and weapons on the ground overall. The vehicle itself is a big, fat target.
It’s somewhat counterintuitive. It was not an easy thing to have to get used to in a mechanized infantry unit. It boils down to the fact that grunts are cheaper than IFVs. We were taught that the IFVs were essentially a mobile support by fire element. They were a ride to the contact area (from potentially dozens of miles away) and not really a ride within that area.
The real advantages of the mobility aren’t necessarily in small tactical situations. Instead, it’s in moving long distances (dozens of miles) quickly. In the case of Strykers that’s really, really fast.
An exception would be, say, one platoon plus its vehicles providing a base of fire while another still mounted platoon moved by covered/concealed route to the flanks.
You can google “bounding overwatch mechanized infantry” and check out some battle drills. There is definitely no easy answer, but having to dismount guys under fire is usually the wrong one. It’s not quite flipping a coin but there are a lot of factors to consider.
Good luck! It’s the biggest tactical problem with mounted infantry
-
Yeah man. The sound mod for CMFB is outstanding - right down to the M1 ping
-
Thanks for the informative reply. I didn’t know about the field phone abstraction and that will certainly be valuable.
Because, of course, knowing is half the battle. (The other half is violence).
Thanks man. Great ideas
-
Been playing a lot of QB and usually do a reinforced US infantry company, meaning I get Battalion S3, HQ support team, battalion xo, etc.
Besides keeping up comms with on-map support like mortars, how else do you use these guys? XO and S-3 usually doesn’t have radios, so I’m tempted to use them as an extra fire team but am cognizant of the potential morale blow to getting officers wasted. Just curious as to how other players deploy these top-heavy fellows
I don’t want them chilling in the rear, scarfing down the best rations and dreaming up work details and uniform SOPs for Joes
-
Highly recommend checking out the FAQ pinned post, too. It’s really eye-opening and informative. There is also a link to a YouTube tutorial in it.
-
On 12/5/2018 at 1:59 AM, sburke said:
I am not sure I buy into the "Americans were afraid of casualties argument".
1 - Eisenhower expected catastrophic casualty levels for the airborne drops in Normandy, but stuck with the plan.
2- American Generals seemed to care little about the bloodbath in the Huertgen.
3 - American casualties in the island hopping campaign were horrendous on a number of occasions.
I don't believe I have heard of US Combat Commands notoriously leaving trails of knocked out Shermans. On the contrary, in the pursuit across France US (and Allied) armor was hard pressed to find German forces that were running back to the Reich as fast as they could. The bigger problem was fuel, not wrecked tanks. The closest reference to trails of armor might be the British armor trying to force a way past Caen.
References to North Africa are interesting but also represent America's first introduction to modern combat, yes there was a learning curve but all combatants faced that to some degree or another throughout the war. Hell look at the behavior of Germany's Panzer Brigades in Lorraine. Now there you definitely find trails of armor. They just happen to be German.
Frankly at almost no point in the war did Germany ever seriously threaten the US with the loss of a division- the exception being the 104th during the opening days of the Bulge. Put the shoe on the other foot though and German losses of full divisions was a fairly regular occurrence from 1943 on.
This is a very interesting slice of history to examine
Points to consider outside of casualties being politically acceptable or not:
No one wanted anymore casualties than absolutely necessary. They were prepared to take them, but other factors came into play. It took a lot of time to train men, and a lot more time to have them work together long enough to be really good, experienced soldiers. It was both tactically and strategically unsound to take a massive amount of casualties. Normally, instead of sending human waves, they’d send waves of heavy bombers, pile on the artillery, then push hard with infantry and armor. Even Germans commented on how the US would hang back and blast the hell out of them with artillery. An arty shell is cheaper than a GI’s life insurance policy.
The US certainly pushed hard through a lot of battles, like the Hurtgen where the effects of the firepower were mitigated by terrain and climate, but it wasn’t without consequence. No one got relieved but it was still viewed as a debacle not to be repeated.
Politics still mattered, of course, The Rapido River crossing by 36th Infantry Division is a good example. It was a disaster, and there was a congressional inquiry after the war. People within the Army were steamed.
It could be debated a long time, but I think the preponderance of commanders weren’t keen on obliterating their units by hurrying them up. In isolated cases it may have been necessary, but I don’t think it was the norm.
But, then again, there’s this quote:
“[Dead GIs] are nothing more than tools to be used in the accomplishment of the mission. War has neither the time nor heart to concern itself with the individual and the dignity of man. I’ve spent thirty years preparing a frame of mind for accepting such a thing”
Omar Bradley
-
Just wanted to thank the makers of some of these awesome mods. I put a WWII sound effect miod in CMFB and it is fantastic! The Garands sound like a hefty rifle, and you get the ping as well. Every sound improved; 155mm arty was deep, .50 cal had a dropped a couple of bass layers too. Wow!!
Well done. I did the tracer round as well. Also did one of the terrain mods . The cumulative effect is such that really changes how the game feels.
A round of applause to the creators of these mods, and thanks for their time
(sorry for the double post. You can delete the first one)
-
Just wanted to thank the makers of some of these awesome mods. I put a WWII sound effect miod in CMFB and it is fantastic! The Garands sound like a hefty rifle, and you get the ping as well. Every sound improved; 155mm arty was deep, .50 cal had a dropped a couple of bass layers too. Wow!!
Well done. I did the tracer round as well. Also did one of the terrain mods . The cumulative effect is such that really changes how the game .
A round of applause to therein creators of the aforementioned, well received mods
-
Domfluff, these are extremely helpful posts. I agree that it’s a sophisticated model, as are the tests that revealed the information.
One can easily see that maintaining C2 links is can be a deciding factor.
It looks as though the suppression bars aren’t quite as important as the overall morale of the unit being suppressed, except in terms of their being “softened up” by suppressive fire. So the longer those bars remain, the worse their morale will be. It’s kind of common sense but really good to see proven by testing
-
Thanks for answering this. I was curious. Really good to know about the artillery panic too.
Maybe the 50 cal having an effect on the target’s morale even while not actively pinging the suppression indicator. I think the suppression indicator is what keeps them from firing though, at least until they reach a certain point on morale.
Kind of a related question, when I modify the leadership level during unit purchase, say +1, does this affect the average leadership level of subordinate leaders within the larger formation? There were quite a few -2 squad leaders out there. One platoon leader was a 0 and all his squad leaders were 0 or -2. I’m assuming there would be less of those were it +2.
Very, very glad to hear that there is no national modifier, though. Thanks
-
I’m pretty new to the game, so I play mainly Quick Battles so I can get the hang of it before moving on to the more challenging scenarios. I tried a few out and knew I needed to really know the game well to be able to succeed.
I go with Basic Training difficulty level. I usually set the Germans (regular Wehrmacht) at “regular,” “fit,” “normal” motivation, and 0 leadership. For Allied I’ll go “veteran,” “fit,” “high” motivation, and +1 leadership. Again, just to learn. I’m not giving my guys much of an edge, and I ensure the Germans are well armed. I usually do companies opposing one another with supporting arms.
My observation thus far is that the Germans are some crack troops, and the Americans can be really skittish.
It’s proven very difficult to get the Germans suppressed, for instance. I had a game earlier where a .50 cal belted suppressing fire on a Sturm squad for a good five minutes - accurate enough to inflict one casualty - but the unit was still not suppressed. Just an example. I’m not a great player yet, but when firing at a squad from two directions well within effective range, they should keep their heads down.
Conversely, the Americans tend to freak out when they take popshots and panic immediately when taking indirect fire, so much so that I can almost write them off once the first enemy spotting round comes close.
Are the Germans designed to be really tough? did play against SS once, who were insane, but Wehrmacht seems to be pretty elite, too. Are the Americans inherently weaker?
I’d be interested to hear the insights of more seasoned players.
Anyway...I’ve been looking for a game like this since I was a kid spending Saturday mornings with Close Combat IV. Thanks! Keep up the good work. I got CMFB and CMBN so far, and will no doubt end up with other titles
-
Pretty new to it as well. Using the fire command is best to determine LOS. Also, zoom in completely on the unit you’re using and look around from its perspective, that way you have a good idea of their field of vision.
Watching guys do tutorials on YouTube gave me a really good primer on the UI and such. There are plenty out there, some better than others. (It’s how I learned, for instance, that you could order an MG team to deploy their weapon once they reached their destination. Also, you could have them “move” to one waypoint, then “slow,” or crawl to the next. Really comes in handy.)
Force size - you can up the percentage too.
Enjoy!
. 
How I view most scenarios and the designers...
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Swervin11b
I dug into it a bit, and he apparently said that while touring a battlefield during the war. (Didn’t say which one.) Someone asked him of sending men to their deaths was difficult. He delivered that line, and added that it was probably harder for more junior officers. Pretty sure it was a reporter.
It was in The Guns of Last Light and I looked it up again in a Washington Post story (a bit of an obituary).
Someone else that understood that casualties were inevitable and inescapable were the soldiers themselves. They weren’t getting out until they were killed, wounded, or won the war. There is a lot of documentation pointing to that fatalistic attitude; it colored a great deal of the culture of US combat troops.