Simcoe
-
Posts
555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Simcoe
-
-
10 hours ago, Brille said:
Well most of the time my pbem end with a cease fire. When I'm on the loosing side I let my opponent know that I'm ready to negotiate but he is free to go for his desired objectives as long as he wants.
Even when I'm on the winning side I sometimes offer my opponent a cease fire if he hasn't done so before me. If I see that I'll be the clear winner of that match I see no point in annihilate him to the last pixel trooper.
But what I don't do (or at least very rarely) is surrender, since it distort the outcome of the game entirely.
And by the way the game can sometimes turn very easily by some simple mistakes.
I appreciate that we have both options. As long as both players are in the same page I would rather let my opponent surrender if they are tired of the game. 10 turns can be a week or more if you're busy and it's probably more fun to move on to the next game instead.
-
2 hours ago, IanL said:
Agreed it depends on context. Some tournaments frown on cease firing other opponents it's pretty normal. Personally, when I'm playing some one new or have not really discussed things with a recurring opponent, once I get to the place where I'm toast I set the cease fire and tell them I have done so and let them know they can end the game when every the feel like they have accomplished enough.
That's a good idea. Have you ever been stuck with another 30 turns waiting for your opponent to finish the job?
-
Agreed on both counts. I prefer larger scenarios and some of those go for 3 hours. Most of the time the game is pretty well decided after an hour in.
-
Me and the person I play PBEM's generally end the game once victory us practically assured for one side or the other. This can make it feel like a buzz kill for the winning side but also gets us to the next game faster.
What's the etiquette for you? Play to the last man? Or somewhere in between?
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Sorry for coming down a bit harsh on you. I was on the road and had limited time to respond. I'll try and make up for that now.
For sure your post was badly timed. We all have limited bandwidth and everybody struggles to keep up with this thread even if checking in daily. The track record here is that pretty much nothing covered in regular media is missed by this group, either as a quick mention or as a topic of conversation. As a practical matter it isn't possible to continually revisit things that have already been covered unless there's something new to enter into the conversation.
Bringing up a topic from over a month ago is problematic. Especially when there's an easy way to search if it's been discussed (e.g. "Hersh" as the search term). If you had done that you would have seen a pretty lively debate about the topic and read through it. That would likely have been sufficient to hold you over until some new information came about, which I have no doubts would revive the conversation.
Skepticism is a good thing, but remember that sources that create/spread disinformation prey on people's skepticism as a primary means of perpetuating that disinformation. I can't do anything about Seymour Hersh, but I can try and limit the damage that's done by a journalist that has forgotten that the more explosive a story is the more it needs verification before it is fit to publish.
Steve
No worries. Thank you for following up. I'll use the search button next time.
-
I think Red Thunder is the best WW2 module.
Both factions play wildly different.
Artillery: Soviets have long call in times and few observers so they focus on pre planned bombardments. This necessitates carefully orchestrated maneuvers. Germans have radios everywhere and focus on observed fires.
Tanks: Soviets have good firepower and armor but bad optics. Focus on massed maneuver to get in close. Germans focus on good optics to snipe tanks from a distance.
Infantry: Soviets have either expendable rifle infantry or smaller groups of smg teams that are peerless in close quarters. Germans are focused around the MG42 so they excel in longer ranged engagements.
I think this makes for more fun than US vs German who both play pretty similar.
-
5 minutes ago, billbindc said:
It's not that simple as explained here: https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/gas-contracts-central-to-nord-stream-pipeline-mystery/
In any case, the motivation to do it would have been complex. In part the above but also to forestall regime elements looking at maneuvering to have talks with the West against Putin (8 major Russian oil executives have died under suspicious circumstances in the the last 13 months). In part to show willingness to kill an economic hostage to communicate political will toward Germany especially. In part to demonstrate the ability to hit other similar targets key to European energy and communications. And lastly of course to create the political furor in which Hersh so willingly allowed himself to be a tool.
None of those goals is in any way alien to previously observed goals/actions of the Putin regime. Nobody else was that motivated, in that way.
didnt think about that one. So hard line figures would want to permanently break Russian influence in the West.
I'm still skeptical but I think that's a valid theory.
-
9 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
I think you just had bad timing as a certain person really irritated The Boss (and many of us) by posting a long-debunked trope and then continually doubling down on it. We don't know who did the pipeline thing, we all have our suspects. But what Hersh wrote was basically the equivalent of something he heard from a drunk in a bar, it was completely irresponsible.
Ya I understand. It's hard to separate people that have genuine skepticism of certain points like the pipeline and pro Russian trolls. Probably better to stay out.
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
There is a Search feature in this Forum and it works really well. Punch in Hersh and you will see it's been covered before. Which shouldn't be a surprise since very little that goes on with this war that hasn't been covered here multiple times already at the time it was relevant. As in almost two months ago. Some advice... if you are going to try and derail this thread to further your pro-Russian/anti-West agenda (yeah, your pattern is pretty well established), at least make try to make it relevant to what is being currently discussed.
Steve
Kind of sad that being even slightly skeptical of the mainstream narrative brands me as pro Russian. I won't bother the "discussion" any further.
-
13 hours ago, billbindc said:
1. There's zero evidence of any sort that the US did it. Hersh's claims didn't stand up to the lightest scrutiny (i.e. boats were not in service he claimed were involved) and the logic of destroying the pipelines that the US had already caused to be cut off doesn't hold up.
2. It turned out that the "Ukrainians did it" came from intercepts of Russian comms. Since Russia has had enormous evidence in the last year or so that their comms are compromised, it's not unlikely an attempt to muddy the waters. In addition, it was an oddly professional job yet the folks who supposedly did it then left explosives traces all over the boat they used to do it.
In the end the motives, means and bad judgement all at this point all look like Moscow or a proxy thereof until we get some legit evidence otherwise.
Let's say you're right. Why would the Russians blow up their own pipeline? Can't they just fake technical difficulties and cut off supply instead?
-
I apologize if this has been brought up already but I can never find the time to keep up with this thread.
What does everyone think about the destroyed Nordstream pipeline? Originally, I figured the US did it because they have the motive and the means to do it but several people disagreed. Now the story has changed to "The Ukrainians did it" after Seymour Hersh laid out a case for the US blowing the pipeline.
Has anyone's opinions changed? Does it make that much of a difference?
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/2/15/nord_stream_sy_hersh
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html
-
I apologize if this has already been discussed but the more videos I see from Ukraine the more I wonder how much of a difference western tanks and IFV'S will make for the counter offensive.
The videos I see are platoon up to companies of tanks and IFV'S advancing, observed by drones and getting shelled to bits or hitting mines.
You also see tanks driving up from the rear and blasting an enemy position for a few minutes and retreating. This is either drone observed or direct fire.
Let's say the Ukrainians aren't able to shoot down all the drones and destroy all the artillery. Does a Panther or Bradley really do these jobs better? Will they just shrug off mines and artillery?
What's everyone's opinion?
-
5 hours ago, Sublime said:
OK guys.. Hear me out
dates May 45-May 47 or something
Almost EVERY WEAPON thatd be used, by both sides, is already in CMx2, in end of war fashion. They COULD add a few noice things like IS3, but this is hardly a necessity.
You could even throw in some weird mix ex werhmacht units for 'if it went bad' scenarios to make the wehraboos happy
Why not ? More options, more use of RT maps which frankly IMO are the most underused... things like that.. More money for BF
While Im at it - CM needs a new engine. Look I love CMx2. And Ive been around this forums since early 99. But if CM doesnt get a new engine, this game is gonna die.
Hell ya! I'm all for hordes of T-34 with tank riders against Shermans and Pershing.
-
3 hours ago, domfluff said:
Soviet tactics were never about running into a killzone, at least not with your main body, or when there is any other choice.
Recce elements, maybe, but then the point of those lead elements would be to set the conditions for the force behind them, which would typically flank in a position like this.For sure. This is in response to the common western view of Soviet doctrine and the death before dismount focus. The example shows how Soviet equipment and infantry can be used in creative ways outflank a NATO defense.
-
15 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
You lose the next war by using the tactics of the last war. That is where war gaming comes in by experimenting. D-Day landing craft closing in on a fortified and dug in enemy positions. Is that much different than an M113 or BTR closing in as quick as possible on dug in enemy positions? Need to maintain fire and suppression while closing in. Not always possibly during WW2. Russians still use Cold War doctrine against modern AT weapons. We can experiment behind the PC with a glass of Scotch. In RL they don't have that luxury.
You have a good point. I think the most interesting part of Cold War is playing out battles that never occurred and seeing how the doctrine differs.
For example, in the second mission of the Soviet campaign you need to take a town at the far end of the map. There is a valley in between with a large hill on the left and a small town/forest on the right.
If you follow Soviet doctrine and run straight through the valley you will get blown to pieces. Instead, take the hill on the left with infantry and flank the rest of your force behind it. You barely take losses this way.
Has anyone else found success with Soviets using modified tactics?
-
47 minutes ago, domfluff said:
In both cases, this is using the M113 in a very aggressive manner, potentially exposing it to a significant amount of return fire. This is in stark contrast to BAOR practice with the ostensibly similar FV432, which would de-bus troops and withdraw to a predetermined muster point.
Again, whether the manuals were being optimistic is a good question here, and one you really have to work out for yourself. The .50 cal is a powerful and versatile tool... whether it's enough to make up for everything else is the question.Thank you for the response. What about the Soviets? I thought they dismount anywhere from on the objective to 300m out.
-
4 hours ago, domfluff said:
Yup, stay mounted whenever you can.
Dismount distance is "when forced to by circumstance", and depends mostly on the enemy AT assets.
Effective range of unguided AT is about 300m, so that's your dismount distance from contested terrain. In the Cold War period, heavy AT would force dismounting up to 1km away from the target. Since maintaining tempo is critical, the further away you dismount, the less likely the attack would be to succeed. This doesn't mean it's not a good idea - it may be a poor choice, but still the best one available.As always, it's worth re-iterating at this stage that the US equipment, in any time period represented in CM isn't "normal" or "default", it's often represented some of the very best kit that can be purchased. Dragon has a number of flaws, but a squad-level ATGM is a highly unusual asset for the time period.
Interestingly, "dismounting on the objective" wasn't something the Soviets tended to do. It was, however, something that was emphasised in US doctrine - dismounting directly on or behind the objective from an M113 were both encouraged (in addition to dismounting in cover in front of the objective). Whether or not you think that's a good idea is something that can be played with in CM in general.Would you mind on elaborating on the last point? Is the objective a trench line etc? Where would they dismount otherwise?
-
1 hour ago, sburke said:
not sure what your point is. Does/has the US done some fk'd up stuff? Yep, lots of it. Does that make it okay, nope. Waterboarding, deliberately targeting civilians, etc. In the course of our history, we've probably violated every international norm as has most everyone. There is however an effort to change that, for everyone. Progress is slow but it is there and with the advent of mass social media it is easier to show violations.
You're right about everything except for the improving part. There are no good guys here. The US is the hegemonic empire and will do what it needs to maintain that power, we're just conditioned to think otherwise.
Americans should know the amount of bloodshed required to maintain our standard of living.
-
29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I never heard of HIMARs as “ersatz AirPower before this war”. I also know an entire military service that would have fought that idea tooth and nail - in fact they still are. Which of course gets into another factor of innovation stifling - service equities. I do think we sure as hell would have figured it out though.
The trade off of the Western system is economy, speed and lethality. We prioritize lower casualties and quick deadly wars, while Russia comes from the old school of blood-volumes. Even the Soviet manoeuvre doctrine was built on savage attritional echelons. We simply do not think that way anymore - the fact that we never stockpile enough ammo is a pretty clear indicator.
The issue is that we have streamlined ourselves to fight our wars. We are not anymore set up for robustness than Russia was for the information environment it found itself within. This is not something we could glue together quickly in a conflict and hopefully capacity-matters is one lesson we come away from this war.
I think you bring up an interesting point. It seems like the American military is built for Desert Storm. Gain air superiority, use air power to destroy C2, use combined arms to destroy the hapless remains.
What happens if we can't fulfill that checklist? The Russian/Soviet doctrine is bloody because they can't assume those first two criteria are met. Their aircraft can be shot down and missiles don't always hit their target.
In a conflict with China we can't assume air superiority and the destruction of C2. Without those, things start to look like Ukraine.
-
12 hours ago, mazex said:
Well - graphics that looks 10-15 year old and still run very slow on modern hardware does not help the sales - and more sales brings more features and modules to the ones that have no problem with the 2006 looks. And with a modern graphics engine you can spend your CPU cycles on spotting etc, with super optimized capabilities built into the engine. But more importantly focusing your time on logic that is not built into UE like unit behavior's under fire. And what to do if you spotted something... Or the tank nearby did with a bad radio. Some small caliber munition ricochets off your turret. Close the hatch or not?
So, for a small team you can focus on what sets you aside from the competition instead of the work needed to do a game engine. And the Battlefront games are truly unique in their value delivery as a tactical battlefield simulation. Even really big studios have stopped building their own game engines as the time spent to build your own is not worth it.
Just imagine something that looks and works like WARNO - but plays like CM2...
My concern with graphics is the increased development time they require. I would rather have more content over a photo realistic panzer IV.
-
16 minutes ago, Sequoia said:
His beloved Philadelphia Eagles are in the American Football Championship, the Superbowl today. If you don't want to see his full ire, don't make him come here today to have to moderate a thread.
BFC Elvis is a wrathful god.
-
19 hours ago, Halmbarte said:
Four T62s attacking over open ground. One of them spots a M150 after it launches a TOW at a different T62.
The T62 fires as the TOW is in flight.
And the APFSDS hits the M150 before the TOW can hit, causing the misses to go out of control.
I've known that it was theoretically possible to leverage the superior speed of tank main gun rounds to kill a ATGM before it can hit, but this is the first time I've actually seen it happen.
H
Saw this a bunch in my last game. Even had one where My TOW was hit while missile was in the air but it still hit its target.
-
Just now, domfluff said:
You will have superior optics, but a worse fire control system - you'll usually spot first, but the T-64 will tend to *hit* first, and the T-64's armour is a significant advantage.
That definitely tracks with my experience. I'm situated behind a rise and popping up for a couple shots then backing out. My tanks always seem to miss the first shot but T-64's don't.
-
24 minutes ago, mazex said:
How about Unreal Engine 5? Matching version number even though I can live with UE 5.1
Someone has probably already made this lame joke earlier in the thread...
If they did unreal 5 I wouldn't want better graphics. Just make it as fast as possible. I wonder how hard it would be to do all the calculations for spotting etc.
Someone has probably already made this lame joke earlier in the thread...
Frustration with CMCW - Russian side
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
All the advice in this thread has been good. You need as many AFV's pointing at the enemy as possible.
There are some problem children on the Soviet side, T-62's especially. I have them unbuttoned as much as possible and sometimes they can't see enemy tanks 300 meters away. It's like the tank commander is crewed by Ray Charles. BMP-2's have this issue two but they get a pass since they only have gunner and driver most of the time.
I would stick to the year 1980 when playing CMCW.