Guest Big Time Software Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 Actually, we don't want to. All nationalies, including Germans, use the same conventions so as to not create confusion. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 Yes LtCanada Falaise was an intersting battle and I think the Poles were in there as well with the Canadians. Dano6 I think your assessment of the battle and Monty are a little simplistic. There is plenty of debate among historians about the relative merits of the decisions made and the tardiness in "closing the pocket" but it wasn't all up to Monty, other allied commanders (Bradley for one) weren't exactly eager either. Anyway if you want to have a discussion about it I am sure that their are plenty of people around here happy to oblige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 LT I in no way meant that the canadians faced an inferior force or that they performed poorly. What I meant is that they faced a tough assignment in trying to get to Falaise. My main complaint is the political postering that went on during this time. Just as your talk of the US taking the glory by going to Paris. What should have been done was closing the gap as soon as possible. Monty under no circumstances was going to allow anybody other than his forces close the gap no matter how long it took and how many German forces escaped. Bradley knew this and did not allow Patton to push past Argentan to Falaise. Patton could have easily closed to Falaise and probably farther north on August 13-14, 1944. What I see here is the useless loss of allied life due to the arrogance of a commander. The Canandians and Polish pushed against the Germans at Caen and paid a heavy price. An alternate plan could have been formed with the break through of the US 5th armored to Argentan. Monty could have swallowed his pride and allowed a link up of forces farther north. This would have cost less lives in mine and many others opinions. LT CANADA I in no way feel the Canadians and for that matter the Polish failed in any way what-so-ever, their commander failed to see an alternative that cost many lives and a complete victory. I know you have your historical view of the conflict and feel the US had it easy. Remember the useless loss of life for no real purpose is just murder. Monty either refused to see an alternative or he refused to swallow his pride and accept an alternative solution to a set plan. This in my opinion is terrible judgement and not worth any type of excuse. You might feel that Monty was a great leader, but you cannot change my opinion of this leader. He was a big part of one of the biggest blunders of WW2 due to what I see a pure pride. Remember that Pattons 5th armored was within 6 miles of Falaise on the 13th of August and could have kept driving to close the gap north past Falaise. Isn't fighting to win the war just that, not fighting to say my country did better than yours. dano6 No offense meant, just my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 Actually Simon my views are not "simplistic" but my short explanation is. What you are referring to as to Bradley not wanting to close the gap along with Eisenhower is a political decision that has to do with Patton winning the war. At that time Patton was under a press blackout and his sudden pressence closing the Falaise pocket would have enraged the British and had the Americans in an uproar. This is again political posturing at the strategic level. If Monty had agreed to allow Patton to move farther north to Falaise past Carentan, I'm sure that Bradley would have agreed. Patton even asked Monty(his aide actually) for permission to push to Falaise. Monty denied this request and took another 5 days to close the gap. If Monty had swallowed his pride then that might have went down in history as one of the best decisions of WW2. Instead his decision allowed many thousands of German troops to escape ruining what could have been a crushing victory. As for my simplistic view of things, I don't believe that they are. I have a very good grasp on what was not done at Falaise and the reasons why. I would love to have a discusion of this battle. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 Hey, this discussion is dull. Let's spice it up a bit: Mark Clark was one of the best Allied generals of the war. Discuss amongst yourselves Steve P.S. I am kidding!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 Last year I watched a show on The History Chanel called, I think, 'Up the Deadly Boot' which was about the Italian campaign. I believe it was a two-part show. Good show. It gave me new respect for the difficulties Clark faced. Steve, thanks for the info on the sturmgruppe and escort companies. I wasn't quite expecting a complete TO&E. Also, thanks for the screenshot of the Commonwealth company. I gather that red is for HQ, but why is the mortar team in yellow? Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 Mark Clark huh? Don't even get me going. Talk about murdering his own men for glory!! I guess it has gotten dull, sorry for the rant. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mark Clark huh? Don't even get me going. Talk about murdering his own men for glory!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For some reason whenever I ponder the skills of Clark,MacArthur also springs to mind-wonder why that is? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT CANADA Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 First of all I agree with Dano about Clark he was a glory seeker. But during Falaise it was also Bradleys opinion that Patton could not hold falaise and Trun. The Germans would have bashed through his roadblock and coused the deaths of lots of Americans. Monty decided that it would be better for a strong mobile corps to close the gap than a dangerously overstretched armoured battlegroup! Monty was also slow becouse the politics affected him to. Britain,Canada and Poland had very little replacements left after the Normandy campaign. Monty's job was to get that gap closed in the quickest possible time with the least amount of casualties. Anyway thats my opinion, I did however forget to mention the 1st Polish armoured division that was in the 2nd Canadian corps, the 1st Polish division took many casualties in getting that gap closed. I felt I had to address that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted October 5, 1999 Share Posted October 5, 1999 One last post on the subject: On August 13, the 5th US armored and the 2nd French armored division reached Carentan and went beyond to within six miles of Falaise. They met very light resistance nearing Falaise. They could have easily went into Falaise and closed the trap. With the 5th and 2nd on the south jaw of the trap. Meyers Hitler youth would have to let up on the Canadians to protect their rear. Monty could have taken advantage and moved all of his forces forward blocking any escape. With the trap shut all German forces would flee into a huge amount of armored forces. Remember at the southern jaw of the trap, only the FR 2nd armored and 80th and 90th infantry held at Carentan on the 17th and 18th of August while the Germans attacked to keep the escape route open. With the 5th and 2nd armored in Falaise and the 3rd to the south, holding would have been much easier, especially with the canadians, poles and english all attacking against fleeing units on the 13th or 14th of August. Also remember that that moron Hitler did not authorize a pull out until the 17th. With the 5th, 3rd and 2nd also in the picture instead Pattons 3rd corps racing toward the Orleans I think the trap would have remained shut and captured more of the German army. Remember once the trap was shut all hell would have broke loose in the German units trying to escape. Everyone would have been trying to get out at the same time. Would have been interesting to see what would have been the outcome if political pressures and posturing would have been left at the dinner table and true tactics would have taken over. Bradley felt the US had done their jobs by getting to Argentan, Monty wanted the glory for closing the gap for the British. Eisenhower let Bradley talk him into not closing the gap. And Monty pissed both off both Bradley and Eisenhower by suggesting an offensive to Germany with the British in the lead even before he closed the Falaise Gap. Both felt that Monty hadn't done his job. If all of these egos could have worked together and seen the possibilities at Falaise then the war might have ended earlier or at least Falaise might have been the ultimate victory due to a little help from Hitler himself. These are just my opinions and no offense is meant by them dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 6, 1999 Share Posted October 6, 1999 Jason, you got full TO&E's because I had them in a text file within easy reach. The Brit stuff isn't in front of me, so a game shot proved to kill two questions with one stone Major unit types are color coded in the editor so you can better see what is what. Artillery is yellow for example. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted October 6, 1999 Share Posted October 6, 1999 "Artillery is yellow for example" Does this mean that the 2" mortar is classified as artillery? Can it shoot indirectly in the game? Thanks, Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim crowley Posted October 6, 1999 Share Posted October 6, 1999 Just a small point of detail, but I believe that the make-up of a standard British section (squad) was: Section Leader; 1 Sten Rifle Group; 6x Rifle Bren Group; 1 Bren, 2x rifle. Cheers Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 6, 1999 Share Posted October 6, 1999 Jim, this is the "official" TO&E. However, the British made 2million Sten guns. Someone had to use 'em In practice there were as many as 4 per squad, but we standardized on an "average" of 2. Rob, the grouping is solely for visual purposes in the editor. For example, all tanks and AFVs are colored the same. Has no impact of bearing on the game itself. Off map mortars can fire indirectly, on map ones can not. The difference is that on map mortars are considdered to be their own spotters, while off map stuff has a FO team. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted October 6, 1999 Share Posted October 6, 1999 Can on map mortars fire blind? The accuracy might be horrid, but I assume they could at least lob shells in the right general direction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted October 6, 1999 Share Posted October 6, 1999 "on map ones <mortars> can not" Thank you. As it should be for the 2". Then again you guys seem to have your sh*t wired tight so this comes as no suprise. Is this wise, though, for larger calibres of mortars, 3", 81mm, etc which I asume can be represented as on board assets. Will the "mortar platoons" (ie battalion level mortars) will be represented by an off board asset? (I'm talking 3" and 81mm here not 4.2" or 120mm, etc) Thanks Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 7, 1999 Share Posted October 7, 1999 Rob, we do have lots of wire, don't we? As for firing blind and spotting, on map stuff can fire blind (I think they can ). I don't do this sort of thing much because ammo is limited so I would rather use it when I know I can hit something. Plus, the size of a 60mm round isn't something that is good for blind firing. The chance of an accidental hit is not very good. The biggest on map mortar is the 81, but it is optional. US 60mm, UK 2", and Ger 50mm (obsolete, but in service) are all on map only. The largest on map stuff is generally in the form of SP artillery, but up to a German IG 150mm can be found on map. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 8, 1999 Share Posted October 8, 1999 OK, how does this look? Note there is a small texture mapping problem on the indside thigh that we will fix. Also, these boys need some jump boots! Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-08-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted October 8, 1999 Share Posted October 8, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Note there is a small texture mapping problem on the indside thigh that we will fix. Also, these boys need some jump boots!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, combat low quarters were dropped in the Feb 41 version of AR 670-1. And those boots should be brown. I just noticed, perhaps because this is the closest shot I've seen of the Infantry, that those weapons look really good. BTW, shouldn't this have gone in the new screenshots thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted October 9, 1999 Share Posted October 9, 1999 Things are looking in the appearance of the troopers. Their faces don't look quite so pink and freshly polished. They do seem to have somewhat receeding chin lines. Only improvement in general that I could recommend is that their helmets look more like bowls. They more resemble the Soviet job than the US helmet. It does look like the heads are more in porportion to the body rather than too large as they seemed to me previously. Hope this is not due to the close up view but something more fundimental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 9, 1999 Share Posted October 9, 1999 Correct! Wrong thread! Ooops I'll leave it here though just because. Yup, brown boots. Got a pair of them myself. Size 7 doesn't fit on a size 10 foot very well though! Yeah, the weapons do look cool. A long time ago they were just colored polygons. I said "hey Charles, how about putting in some textures instead". He said, "cooooool, let's do it". Thankfully we both like guns so we had plenty of materials to draw from I see the jaw problem. Easy fix. Helmets are going to stay the way they are. To make them look better would require too many polygons. Next version Also, keep in mind that normally you don't get this up and personal with your men. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted October 9, 1999 Share Posted October 9, 1999 Steve, you did not make any comment on the head porportion observation. In all other shots the heads seemed to me to be too large and contributed to a doll like appearance. Am I wrong in thinking that there has been an adjustment there? You also did not take up the thing about their face color. Here I see 5 o'clock shadow as you would expect of men living in the field, (unless they are Patton's troops). I had always before noted the guys looked too clean faced. Is this improvement just a matter of seeing them from up close or is it an actual improvement? Ain't it a wonderful thing to be picking on such nit details rather than having spotting or something else fundimental screwed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rook Posted October 9, 1999 Share Posted October 9, 1999 Couldn't agree more. I'd rather complain about adherance to dress code than whether or not it is realistic for a shot up infantry squad to take out a Panzer in an open field just because the computer damage model says it's possible (civ players should remember things like this happening) Not that I would really complain too loudly about such niggling little details when the computerized lead starts flying Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 9, 1999 Share Posted October 9, 1999 The old faces had 5 o'clock shadow too but we didn't get up close and personal with them much previously. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 9, 1999 Share Posted October 9, 1999 Bobb, this is a completely new face/head texture. As Fionn said, the other one did have a 5 o'clock shadow, but it really didn't show up too well. As for the head thing... dunno, but we made no code changes so far as I know. Angle and closeness have a lot to do with perceptions of proportions in 3D games, as with real life. I think you just notice it much more in the game since your eyes are looking for flaws. I mean everybody's eyes, even mine. When you are presented with a simulation of reality, in whatever form, your brain works overtime to pick it apart to prove that it is not reality. That is just how our brains work A simulation of reality (painting, game, whatever) is just a trick to fool your brain into recognizing things as identifiable reality. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts