Los Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 Haven't been reading this for a while since anything worthwhile was stated long ago (no reason to change that opinion from what I've read lately) but just couldn't help peeking in: "There was a film released a few years ago called Rukajärven Tie." I know this is off topic but having seen "Winter War" (arguably the best war movie EVER made) I'm dying to see more Finnish war movies. Any suggestions? "During my 11 month service in the Finnish army I learned common sense and the military have little in common." No arguaing that normal garrison army-life in every country is strife with "chiken****" however when it comes to tactical employment of troops in combat, common sense is virtually a Newtonian physical law, with death being the reward for failure to adhere. Please don't confuse tohe two. And finally Henri's post do make for continued amusement. (In a slapstick kinda way like when a guy drops a paintcan on his own head) Being unable or unwilling to see the difference between LRDG type operations and tactical battlefield reconnasaince is fairly profound, or pointing out operational manuevers such as Rommel performed out in the desert where dozen's of miles may seperate enemy battle positions is pretty funny. (Or is it the fact that he refuses to see the difference between the two?) Los "Don't wrestle in the mud with a pig, because you both get dirty and the pig likes it!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 Henri, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some people HAVE suggested doing the latter, although Steve seems to be saying that they will correct ONLY to make the speeds realistic (i.e. to correct a "bug"). I don't have a problem with that and as far as I know no one else does, so I don't know why it is brought up all the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, you have been arguing pretty consistantly against the speed change, in this thread and I think another one, in spite of the fact that there was a rather frank and detailed discussion a few pages back about realistic offroad speeds. This was the point when you brought in some out of context quotes to argue against reducing the speed. So I am not sure how it is you could have missed a discussion that you were in fact participating in. So if your opinion has now changed to understand that the speeds in CM right now are unrealistic, then we are finally on the same page When we looked at the Gamey Recon we asked ourselves, "why does it work in CM when it wouldn't work in real life". I even posted a more detailed checklist we go through earlier in this thread, so you can check that out if you want to know more about this process. But the upshot is that we identified two flaws in CM: 1. Offroad speeds for light wheeled vehicles was too high. 2. Light wheeled vehicles, traveling "Fast", were not having their ability to spot hindered as much as it should be (i.e. hindered to the point of being blind). And that is how we arrived at the need to make code changes, not some arbitrary "we don't like this tactic, let us make up some stuff to prevent it from working, even if it is totally unrealistic". What has been frustrating about this converstaion is that you have consistantly argued against our points as if this is what we were doing. To underscore this, I am saying NOTHING different than I did about 300 posts ago... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for Steve's statement that he "suspects" that Popsky's jeeps were only used in stationary ambushes, I don't have any documentation, so I can't really say since I don't have any documentation on the question, but I suspect the opposite...Popsky's tactics must be documented somewhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Stationary" meaning they would drive to a spot, stop, fire for a minute or so, then bugger out. But while they were ambushing I doubt VERY much that they were traveling at anything greater than walking speed, unless they suddenly found themselves in a situation that did not allow for a planned attack. Since it is next to impossible to hit something with an MG as you are bouncing along, it is the only viable tactic that I can think of. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 Lieutenant Colonel "Popsky" Peniakoff and his troops also dressed as the enemy or faked themselves as POWs. I wonder if CM should model this as well... Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los: I know this is off topic but having seen "Winter War" (arguably the best war movie EVER made) I'm dying to see more Finnish war movies. Any suggestions? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, let's just sidetrack for a moment, since this thread is clearly not even close to being long enough. "Tuntematon Sotilas" or "The unknown soldier". It's the number 1. Finnish war movie. It's been filmatized twice, the old B&W version is the good one. The film gets extra points for using live AT mines for pyrotechnics. I haven't watched "Rukajärven tie", it's supposedly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Well, you have been arguing pretty consistantly against the speed change, in this thread and I think another one, in spite of the fact that there was a rather frank and detailed discussion a few pages back about realistic offroad speeds. This was the point when you brought in some out of context quotes to argue against reducing the speed. So I am not sure how it is you could have missed a discussion that you were in fact participating in. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have REPEATEDLY said that I don't object to programming changes to make the game more realistic, but that I do object to "house rules".Show me a simple statement by me where I said the contrary. Cripes, how many times do I have to repeat it? So please stop whipping a dead cat and attributing to me positions that I do not defend.How many times have I repeated "The game is what it is"? If we do have some differences, it relies on what is or is not possible in the real world and on whether or not "house rules" need to be followed BY ALL players (broken record)! This reminds me of the story on how to train a bull: first you hit him between the eyes with a 10-pound hammer -that is to get his attention. Do I have your attention? I DO NOT OBJECT TO PROGRAMMING CHANGES TO MAKE THE GAME MORE REALISTIC! Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted October 3, 2000 Share Posted October 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: I have REPEATEDLY said that I don't object to programming changes to make the game more realistic, but that I do object to "house rules".Show me a simple statement by me where I said the contrary. Cripes, how many times do I have to repeat it? So please stop whipping a dead cat and attributing to me positions that I do not defend.How many times have I repeated "The game is what it is"? If we do have some differences, it relies on what is or is not possible in the real world and on whether or not "house rules" need to be followed BY ALL players (broken record)! Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fine... You support BTS making changes to fix errors in the code. That's a dead issue.... If you don't want to agree to not use gamey recon, or whatever the house rule is, then don't play that person. I don't see what the argument is anymore. You can't force anyone to play without using house rules, just as no one can force you to play with house rules. I just don't get what is the problem anymore. [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 10-02-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted October 3, 2000 Share Posted October 3, 2000 in the next patch when the wheeled vehicles are slowed down off-road, white scout should be faster than the jeep. andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted October 3, 2000 Share Posted October 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto: in the next patch when the wheeled vehicles are slowed down off-road, white scout should be faster than the jeep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 3, 2000 Share Posted October 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto: in the next patch when the wheeled vehicles are slowed down off-road, white scout should be faster than the jeep. andy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do you mean by "white scout"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted October 3, 2000 Share Posted October 3, 2000 I'm assuming he meant the Allied "White Scout Car". ------------------ "Gun damaged are rare on Shermans because they die like red shirts on Star Trek" - Slapdragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 3, 2000 Share Posted October 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: I'm assuming he meant the Allied "White Scout Car". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Just thouhgt I would add this comment about the M8 Recon vehicle to this Thread: "The M8 could not be described as a great vehicle, but was a great improvement over what was on hand. Before the M8 was committed to combat in any numbers, FM 2-20, the Reconnaissance Squadron Field Manual, warned that the “armor of the vehicle provides a fair degree of protection against small arms, while the 37-mm antitank gun permits mobile defense against lightly armored vehicles, {however} the vehicle is not designed for offensive combat. The car has only fair mobility across country. Mobility is limited in heavily wooded areas and on broken terrain. The larger turning radius and limited mobility across country make the car susceptible to ambush on roads and in defiles.” Fielded to the Cavalry in late 1943 and the spring of 1944, the vehicle became the mainstay of the reconnaissance troops throughout the war. It was usually employed with the recon jeeps in an “over-watch” role. The jeeps ranged ahead while the M8 was ready to provide covering fire with its 37 mm cannon, .30 caliber coax, and .50 caliber anti-aircraft machine-guns. More important than its weapons, the M8 mounted two radios, a short range FM SRC510 for internal platoon communications, and a longer range SRC506 AM radio to communicate from platoon to troop, and from troop to squadron. The M8s were the key to the Cavalry’s ability to communicate and thus operate dispersed over large areas, and provide information rapidly to the commander. Although its fire power was not effective in any situation which involved enemy armor, the 37mm cannon and machine-guns still packed significant punch when up against infantry, horse drawn artillery units, or trucks. The vehicle was also very fast on roads where it could maintain speeds over 50 mph. During the pursuit phase of operations many retreating German units were decimated by the fast moving and hard hitting M8s which could show up miles behind the former front lines." from this web page: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/9517/page25.html -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Its seems that some time ago in this thread we talked a GREAT deal about this very tactic... Apparently in the Real War this is actually how it worked.... "It was usually employed with the recon jeeps in an “over-watch” role. The jeeps ranged ahead while the M8 was ready to provide covering fire with its 37 mm cannon, .30 caliber coax, and .50 caliber anti-aircraft machine-guns." I hope the new proposed change in spotting for the upcoming patch does not reduce spotting for jeeps that are just moving and not going "fast". Jeeps moving at just the pace of "move" should be just as effective as ever for spotting puposes. It seems there is good evidence to suggest jeeps were used in recon roles in combination with the M8 in and overwatch capcity, mostly, I presume to watch what is shooting at the Jeep. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Its seems that some time ago in this thread we talked a GREAT deal about this very tactic... Apparently in the Real War this is actually how it worked.... "It was usually employed with the recon jeeps in an “over-watch” role. The jeeps ranged ahead while the M8 was ready to provide covering fire with its 37 mm cannon, .30 caliber coax, and .50 caliber anti-aircraft machine-guns." I hope the new proposed change in spotting for the upcoming patch does not reduce spotting for jeeps that are just moving and not going "fast". Jeeps moving at just the pace of "move" should be just as effective as ever for spotting puposes. It seems there is good evidence to suggest jeeps were used in recon roles in combination with the M8 in and overwatch capcity, mostly, I presume to watch what is shooting at the Jeep. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think anyone opposed using jeeps as a recon vehicle only using them as a "recon" vehicle because of the game engine. The M8s are there to provide fire support so if the jeeps get into trouble the M8s can lay down suppresive fire and/or eleminate the threat. Cav ------------------ Deutsch sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln. "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "Wehrmact penis envy."--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Tom wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hope the new proposed change in spotting for the upcoming patch does not reduce spotting for jeeps that are just moving and not going "fast".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We have been crystal clear about what changes we are going to make and exactly why we are going to make them. Nowhere, at any time, did we ever say we were going to make light wheeled vehicles have reduced spotting abilities while doing anything but moving Fast. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 I came into this discussion late... I'm not planning on jumping into a flame fest or re-igniting it now it seems to be dying out! BTW, I support the proposed changes. I view this wargame, nay any wargame, as in effect a game of chess. Each side has his pieces, and by moving these peices within the constraints of the rules, he/she is attempting to outwit and outsmart his opponent. I never view any wargame as more than an approximation of what would happen. (I'm a miniatures gamer by preference, by the way). Also, as a cavalryman, we basically viewed one of our roles as recon by death. In AML-60s, what do you expect?! This is reflected by the unofficial cavalry motto we had: "The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!" Just going back to this quote from page 4 or something though... "How, for the sake of argument, will CM2 model the Soviet tactics of marching entire battalions on mine fields to clear them ?" I presume he is referring to Zhukov's orders that upon encountering a minefield, to attack through it as though it wasn't there? Patton had the same standing orders. It was actually safer for the troops. Minefields would be used by the Germans to channel enemy attacks into heavily defended passages. Going around the minefield into these points would be going into a meatgrinder. Similarly, if they waited to clear the minefield properly, the Germans would bring in reinforcements and shell the point of crossing, thus also increasing the death toll. Actually, I don't think anything needs to be changed from CM to cover this scenario. NTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Poor Steve. This thread is so dull. It's just a boring peng thread wannabe without all the fun and games, infact, no games just whinning about games. if someone uses gamey recon on ya, get up and flame their stinky ass like any decent human being, sheesh. PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAKER Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 I agree with PeterNZ. Im generally am quite used to this going down in PBM with certain individuals, so i prefer to flame them in game so to speak than on the board. There recons die so fast they dont know what hit em. Reconing to me is ok like that if a person has artillery support and gun, tanks support watching over em. As long as they go straight back fine. If they try to take on the whole army ( ie coming up the lelft siide then heading into the middle of the rear area with no one to support/cove rthem )they are lame, so dont play with them again. As unrealistic as this recon tactic is the game itself has some unrealistic flaws. U cant expect too much here though. The thing is people are using what they can to achive what they want. Lives arnt an issue as it is in real life. So as a defender to recons make more AT guns present.!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 just back to the top for new folks so it is easy to find -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted March 13, 2001 Share Posted March 13, 2001 Blast from the past. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."-George Santayana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Vance Astrovich Posted March 14, 2001 Share Posted March 14, 2001 Sorry, but although this would be frustrating for an opponent who really belives this tactic to be gamey, I think it is a very legit tactic. Jeeps are fast and we (Combat Mission Commanders) should be able to use the jeeps unique ability to it's best effect; as a little recon speedster with the best chance of eluding enemy fire. The need to know where your enemy is is worth endangering units. The casualties you may suffer here are small compared with what you may suffer with lousy recon. Capt. Vance Astrovich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted March 14, 2001 Share Posted March 14, 2001 NOTE TO ALL This is an old and large thread. That means it's about as stable as the stitching holding together Croda's underpants. PLEASE DON'T POST HERE I suggest starting a new thread for further discussion on this topic (is there anything more that could be said?!) Please don't reply to me either. ta PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts