undead reindeer cavalry Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 any plans for changing the random maps, so that they would be by default deep, not wide? any plans for doing something to fix the issue of flanking by map borders? for example, make it so that the attacker can't place his troops on the map edges at the sides (with some marginal), so that unrealistic concenration of troops by map edges at sides would not be so profitable tactic? perhaps make the setup zone V shaped? any plans of doing something to prevent the defender from setting up his AT-guns (and similar systems) horizontally (sidewise, rotated 90 degrees), instead of vertically facing towards the attacker? such a setup is a bit (not totally) unrealistic. perhaps fix it so that these kind of units can be rotated only by some 60 degrees or so. of course all this can be done by the players, by both/each agreeing to not use such tactics. but still. in most cases flanking, horizontal placing of AT-units etc would not really take place on the CM scale to the extent they do currently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Good points...I'd like to see more detail put in the creation of random maps. Preventing unrealistic edge attacks by limiting setup zone is a good start, although not a gamey tactics stopper by itself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Oh, and make the random maps more natural and varied like they were in CMBO, instead of homogenous like in CMBB. Please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Giving players the option to choose the width and depth of maps could be an easy way to improve random map sizes. As for the flanking... maybe we will see something like a "shadow zone" at the flanks, were terrain is visible, but impenetrable, and where (only)the defender may set up additional stationary units that may get activated when the attacker moves into range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 A lot of what is being suggested here sounds to my ear as artificial and gamey as the problem it's supposed to cure. That might be inevitable, but can't we do better? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Who can say with Syria, but I kinda doubt we'll be seeing a lot of AT guns. ATGM are more likely. Of course there won't be too many of those in CMBOx2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 Syria's not that large. Perhaps in combination with Google Earth, all maps could be *real* maps, and the only randomness would lie in *where* the battle was fought. Well, it's a thought. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Yeah, I don't see a problem with defining the map dimensions better. As for dealing with "edges" the best thing to do is conduct a Search of this Forum, or perhaps the CMAK one. We had a rather lengthy "oh no, not again" discussion of this stuff fairly recently. The short of it... we're not going to change anything because there is nothing we can do about edges that even comes within a mile of being realistic. Do the search to see more. I'm sick of the topic Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazex Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Originally posted by Andrew H.: Syria's not that large. Perhaps in combination with Google Earth, all maps could be *real* maps, and the only randomness would lie in *where* the battle was fought. Well, it's a thought. He he, so you've also been scouting Syria maps using Google Earth Been all over the place... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Yeah, I don't see a problem with defining the map dimensions better. As for dealing with "edges" the best thing to do is conduct a Search of this Forum, or perhaps the CMAK one. We had a rather lengthy "oh no, not again" discussion of this stuff fairly recently. The short of it... we're not going to change anything because there is nothing we can do about edges that even comes within a mile of being realistic. Do the search to see more. I'm sick of the topic Steve I was the guilty party who started the last round on this topic. Do a search for threads started by me, you should find it pretty quickly. And yes, IIRC, we did a pretty good job of beating the subject into the ground. While I still don't see eye-to-eye with Steve on this topic, I really don't see much point in rehashing this one. Steve has made his opinion very clear, and unless you've got enough money to bankroll your own version of CMX2, it ain't gonna happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassh Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 edit - typo Originally Posted By undead reindeer cavalry any plans of doing something to prevent the defender from setting up his AT-guns (and similar systems) horizontally (sidewise, rotated 90 degrees), instead of vertically facing towards the attacker? such a setup is a bit (not totally) unrealistic. perhaps fix it so that these kind of units can be rotated only by some 60 degrees or so. Hmmm, What would you want to try and achieve in a depth anti-tank defence - frontal armour shots or flanking/rear shots. The best anti-tank defences channel the enemy AFVs into kill zones of their choosing not of the attacker's. To force a player or real-life commander to setup a defence that is less effective or bone is both unrealistic and counter-productive to a historical sim/tactical game. As for CMSF if my ATGM, RPG or LAW teams are not allowed to setup so that their arcs are designed to cover approach marches on the rear or flank I will be very pissed off as this goes against any logic of modern tactics techniques and procedures:- FIELD MANUAL NO. 3-21.91 TACTICAL EMPLOYMENT OF ANTIARMOR PLATOONS AND COMPANIES CHAPTER 5 DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS 5.9 The goal of effective weapons positioning is to enable the antiarmor company (or platoon) to mass direct fires at critical points on the battlefield and to enhance its survivability. To do this, the commander (or platoon leader) must maximize the strengths of his weapons systems (TOW, M2, and MK19) while minimizing the company's exposure to enemy observation and fires. The following paragraphs focus on tactical considerations for weapons positioning. b.Flank Positions. Flank positions enable a defending force to bring fires to bear on an attacking force moving parallel to the defender's forces. An effective flank position provides the defender with a larger and more vulnerable target while leaving the attacker unsure of the location of the defense. Major considerations for successful employment of a flank position are the defender's ability to secure the flank and his ability to achieve surprise by remaining undetected. Effective fire control (refer to Appendix C) and fratricide avoidance measures (refer to Appendix are critical considerations in the employment of flank positions. and FM 23-25 LIGHT ANTIARMOR WEAPONS 6-3. ARMORED VEHICLE WEAKNESSES Armored vehicles usually have their heaviest armor in front, because they are designed mainly for offensive operations against other armored vehicles (Figure 6-2). All vehicles are vulnerable to repeated hits on their flanks and rear, though the flank offers the largest possible target. Firers should always aim center of mass to increase the probability of a hit. The older the vehicle model, the less protection it has against antiarmor weapons. Consequently, newer versions may use bolt-on (applique) armor to improve their survivability. Some vehicles are equipped with reactive armor, which consists of metal plates and plastic explosives. Reactive armor usually covers the forward-facing portions and sides of the vehicle and can defeat shaped-charge weapons such as the LAW and AT4. When reactive armor detonates, it disperses metal fragments to 200 meters. The M72-series LAW and the M136 AT4 cause only a small entry hole in an armored vehicle target, though some fragmentation or spall may occur. Figure 6-2. Armored vehicle weak points. a. Natural or man-made obstacles can be used to force the armored vehicle to slow, stop, or change direction. This pause enables the firer to achieve a first-round hit. If he does not achieve a catastrophic kill on the first round, he or another firer must be ready to engage the target vehicle immediately with another round. b. An armored vehicle without close protection (dismounted infantry) in woods, MOUT, or other restrictive terrain is vulnerable to close attack. This type of attack is most likely to originate from well-armed infantry-type teams organized into armor-killer teams. (Noninfantry units may also be required to perform this mission.) Skilled firers from these teams should engage the suspension or engine compartment of vehicles that have applique or reactive armor. When an armored vehicle is buttoned up--all hatches are closed and personnel are inside the vehicle--the crew cannot see well enough to protect itself from close attacks or attacks from the flanks or rear. The personnel inside cannot see anything within 10 meters of the vehicle, and they cannot shoot at anything (using their main guns) within 20 meters. The white area in Figure 6-3 shows the most favorable direction of attack when the turret is facing to the front; the gray area shows the vehicle's principal direction of fire and observation when the turret is facing to the front. Clearly if flank/rear defence and ambush is standard doctrine of one of the combatants in CMSF, then to outlaw it in the game is a mistake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Oh, and make the random maps more natural and varied like they were in CMBO, instead of homogenous like in CMBB. Please. Were they brilliantly gay maps in CMBB? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 sorry, wasn't aware of previous discussion. need to search more before posting. cassh, flanking positions as such are of course totally realistic, but IMO not on the CMx2 scope & scale in standard battles. in order to secure such a flanking position you would need almost the whole forcepool you have for an individual CMx2 battle (if i have understood the CMx2 scale right). perhaps CMx2 will feature "ambush" battle type, where you can have flanking positions, but otherwise under "normal" conditions, the defender should have positions that are defendable. you won't send your valuable AT assets sit unsecured at some treeline hundreds of meters in front of your rifle positions. they would just get annihilated because of things like recon. mobile AT-assets used for that special purpose are outside the CMx2 scope. being able to rotate AT-guns (or whatever) by some degrees should be fine for normal emplacement of AT-guns at the flanks of defender's positions. if you think a defender would move his AT assets to flanking positions when the enemy attack is underway, you could still do it. i just want to limit the initial setup positions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.