Jump to content

Tac AI makes player assets total idiots


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

Well Mrspkr, first of all you must have me confused with the "other" Harrison on this board I hardly ever post and resent your "holier than thou" attitude, maybe you need to do some research yourself before running you mouth.

Nope, just followed Dorosh's posts from earlier in this thread.

And I don't claim to be 'holier than thou', I just offer a suggestion for a more positive reaction in the future.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LOL his post and yours were in the same vien, caustic, I have been playing these games for years online, flight sims, etc... and there are always a few "flamers" to protect the company.

I guess thats your role here??? BTW I don't need to hide behind the internet and you can e-mail me anytime you wish for directions to my home in Michigan (jharrison43@ameritech.net) just you understand that I am in no way "cowed" by your silly attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

LOL his post and yours were in the same vien, caustic, I have been playing these games for years online, flight sims, etc... and there are always a few "flamers" to protect the company.

I guess thats your role here??? BTW I don't need to hide behind the internet and you can e-mail me anytime you wish for directions to my home in Michigan (jharrison43@ameritech.net) just you understand that I am in no way "cowed" by your silly attacks.

Not attacking, not trying to cow. Don't be so defensive.

BTW, both of your last two responses to my post are exemplars of what I mean by "obnoxious".

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, time to retreat to your mutual corners and cool off a bit. I won't allow thinly veiled nit picking at one anothers character any more than I will allow an all out flame war.

Legitimate qustions were asked and Steve has replied answers, thats how things work around here.

There is lot to talk about in CMAK and people are going to have vastly different opinions, those that are expressed with maturity and basic civility will be replied to in kind, as best we can. Those that are not, well they can help themselves to a nice warm glass of "Shut the hell up!". Understood?

Madmatt

[ November 20, 2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

I have no problems with "green" troop wishing to leave the battle, it is the manner in which they leave that is suspect to me.

It wouldn't surprise me to see trained troops forget their training the first few times they were shot at, shelled and had the guy next to them die suddenly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

LOL his post and yours were in the same vien, caustic, I have been playing these games for years online, flight sims, etc.

Any actual military service under your belt?

As for your definition of green meaning trained but not experienced - this varies wildly too.

First Canadian Brigade went to France in 1940 as trained troops. Know what they trained in? They went to Salisbury Plain and did trench routines right out of the 1914-18 manuals. Would have been worthless if they actually met the Germans.

What were the US troops in North Africa "trained" in?

I should suspect relevant training is a consideration rather than just "training". GIs who know how to tie their gaiters up and make their bed are a bit different than those troops who have practiced with all the small arms, run obstacle courses and done battle drill training, learned hand and arm signals, and learned to do the tactical job of their superiors (ie corporals able to take over squads where needed).

If you have some examples of the training regimen that US troops in Britain and Ireland and the US used before deployment to Torch, we'd love to see them.

As for flamers; I posted links to your past "discussions" as I feel that appellation applies very nicely to you. But we could call each other names til the cows come home.

Now dazzle us with the research you did to come to your conclusions and all will be forgiven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hi Jim,

The only thing that matters is how we define it.

Steve

Oh my aching side!!!! This has got to be the best argument clincher I have ever seen!!!
But it's true; and it is what Jim was saying, really - that scenario designers need to understand how the game system works. Steve's definition of "Green" is the only one that matters, if a scenario designer wants to make troops react in certain ways, he needs to understand how the game system works.

That Jim somehow possesses this knowledge while 99% of the other scenario designers don't is something I doubt.

But either way, if people are having fun with the "unrealistic" scenarios out there, that is for them to decide. Launching an internet crusade to proclaim yourself the King of the Designers is folly. I don't like huge scenarios with gobs of armour, for example, but I am probably in the minority. Pisses me off no end to see some of the scenarios that get rated highly at the Depot because they don't match my idea of fun. Is there anything I can do about it? No, of course not; the beauty of CM is that it appeals to a wide array of playing styles and abilities.

And if I get "suckered" into playing a big scenario that is rated highly but doesn't match my idea of a fun scenario, well, I appreciate the challenge and do my best to outplay my opponent given what I've got. A bad game of CM is still more fun than a good day of work.

[ November 20, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the recommendation that people read Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn". Green troops under fire often do silly things, and when one man/unit goes, often they seem to spook those remaining.

That's not to say that the current CM situation is perfect, but to expect untried troops to remain true to their training in combat is not reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heheh I will put my DD214 up against yours anytime Mr Dorsh. I guess that's about all I have to say to you, I am going quit posting here since obviously not many want to hear my opinions so I will just keep them to myself from now on and keep watching you "experts" handle things. BTW this is my 57th post since I joined the board over a year ago. I notice that both you and Mrspkr are in the thousands (grin)

[ November 20, 2003, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

Heheh I will put my DD214 up against yours anytime Mr Dorsh. I guess that's about all I have to say to you, I am going quit posting here since obviously not many want to hear my opinions so I will just keep them to myself from now on and keep watching you "experts" handle things

So you have all this gaming AND military experience, and the second anyone asks you to post actual evidence, you are all of a sudden too good to participate in the conversation.

What a surprise.

Hopefully you will rethink your position; if you know half as much as you claim to, I am sure many here - developers included - would be happy to discuss it with you. I would certainly be interested in reading that training regimen info re: US troops in 1942.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Mike not sure what you guys get in Canada, but even in the U S Air Force we got some training in the handling of firearms, the confidence course (where they fired live ammo over our heads), drilling etc etc... I will have to see if I can dig out my fathers old hand book from the Marines (as mentioned earlier he was IN WWII) and see what that covers for the period. I can do all the research you want but I think Steve answered my questions regarding "green troops" in that it is the way they program it that counts, I can accept that and as has been said here I will use the editor to make and play the senario's I like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To see how badly trained our Army really was, here is a description from someone who went through it.

http://mrs.umn.edu/~okeefets/training.html

Another note, the entorei US Army had 440 tanks in 1940. These include some ancient types.

Oh, and the bazooka training? None, An Army at Dawn mentions how the weapons were put in a a hold to be given to the combat troops once they arrived in Africa. They had ZERO training.

Rune

[ November 20, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It's kinda like being in woods and having artillery come in. The instinctive move is to throw oneself to the ground. The correct move is to stand next to a thick tree trunk.

Steve

Standing is never advisable under any artillery or mortar fire. A better drill is to get get next to a tree trunk at its base and 'ball-up' so that you are as small a target as possible. Height, even under airbursts is never a good thing.

I would like to see squads partially react by self-splitting so that a half squad could be broken/routed etc and the other half pinned but in good order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

Well Mike not sure what you guys get in Canada, but even in the U S Air Force we got some training in the handling of firearms, the confidence course (where they fired live ammo over our heads), drilling etc etc... I will have to see if I can dig out my fathers old hand book from the Marines (as mentioned earlier he was IN WWII) and see what that covers for the period.

Manuals are worthless, as you well know from your own experience. Rune's answer - and the Army at Dawn reference that has been noted by at least two posters in this thread - are better evidence. Very interesting that no bazooka training was received, for example. Rather what I thought. In 1940 Canada was in her first year of war - by 1944 things were different vis a vis training. The same would hold true, I can only assume, for the US in 1942 (her first year of war).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim -

I sense that this discussion is mostly over, I would like to add my opinion that it's important to be careful about assuming too much about pre-WWII US Army training based on personal experiences or knowledge about post-WWII training. In fact, the overall structure of modern US Army basic training was really developed during WWII.

I would also not make the assumption that USMC and US Army training in WWII were similar in all, or even most aspects. From what I have read, at least on the small tactical level, USMC training was much better from the get-go. This isn't really a slight against the Army - the USMC'a mission was, and still is, more focused on small-unit engagements. It's therefore not surprising that their training focuses more on the small unit tactics.

The quality and length of training the US Army units received before seeing first combat in WWII varied considerably over the course of the war, and even from division to division (this is especially true when comparing the training received by Regular army vs. National Guard vs. Draft Divisons). I think any close reading of the historical record leads to the conclusion that GIs seeing combat for the first time in 1944-1945 were, on average, MUCH better prepared than GIs first seeing combat in 1942 and 1943. There are always, of course, local exceptions.

For me (and probably BFC as well), this means that GIs hitting the beach in Morocco in 1942 are best represented by mostly Green units in CM. You are certainly entitled to see things differently and assign these units "Regular" experience level. What makes this a bit hard to swallow for me is that if 1942 US Army units are mostly "Regular", in order to keep things comparatively realistic it would seem to me that better-trained late war US units would be arriving in-theatre with a fairly high proportion of "Veteran" status units in CM terms.

To each their own though. Happy CMing.

Cheers,

YD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...