 |
|
Raw meat and computers... - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Raw meat and computers... (/showthread.php?tid=55424) |
Raw meat and computers... - Larry Reese - 04-20-2010 Okay guys, I've fixed my computer (almost) and should be back in action over the next few days (I can't play ten plus games straight and keep my marriage alive). Thanks for being patient. Now, the meat to toss into the dog pile: I would really like to see some changes to the CS gaming system. They are listed below. Discuss. 1. I think engineers should NOT be able to deploy smoke (or only selected high-value engineers). I have found allowing infantry to do this (as opposed to artillery) on the scale of this game and in view of the tactics in use at the time, to be totally unwarranted. I think it is ridiculous that a 40 man platoon is assumed to carry enough smoke grenades to cover a 250-300 meter linear with smoke for two hours or more. It's also unbalancing from a tactical / simulation prospective. I've come to this conclusion after extensive historical study including the experiences of my grandfather (who was combat engineer and reported MIA during the Bulge). I think the system would be better without this. 2. Disrupted units should not be able to spot. They are under heavy fire or otherwise pinned / broken to the extent that they cannot report what they are witnessing (other than adjacent hexes). From a mechanics standpoint I think this should be easy to accomplish if a way can be found to easily apply the "truck" spotting rules to disrupted units. 3. While I'd like to see a wholesale revamp of the indirect fire rules in CS, in the short term I believe a form of "persistant" artillery fire should be available. The particulars could be worked out in detail later, but maybe something like tube artillery over a certain size (or with a certain rate of fire) should have the option of firing regularly at full strength or 1/2ing or 3/4ing their fire value and firing persistantly. Persistantly would be artillery barrage that continues to fall in the target hex (or deviated hex) for the entire turn, including the enemy's movement turn. This way actual interdiction and rolling barrages are possible. Enemy units would have to move into the barrage to pass through it, and one's own artillery if poorly timed or deviated could become a hazard to one's own movement. When the unit is plotted a dialog box could open with persistent and regular fire radio buttons. Or, every other tube artillery fired into a given hex could automatically be considered to be persistent. Though I like the process outlined above, this might be easier to implement from a mechanics perspective. Or, persistance could automatically take over once a certain number of rounds have been fired into the same target hex. For example, the after the first X 82mm (or smaller rounds) or Y 82mm (or above rounds) all subsequent artillery fire into that hex becomes persistant automatically. Anyway, lots of different options. Feel free to rip them up, but I really feel these would add a lot of playability/realism to the game. EDIT: Or even give engineers a single smoke they can use (like the single bridges they can build). Or more, if that is possible (say two or three times, max, per platoon). LR RE: Raw meat and computers... - Larry Reese - 04-20-2010 Wow. No comments at all?! I thought someone would attack vociferously! LR RE: Raw meat and computers... - Jim von Krieg - 04-21-2010 Brother, I like your comments... especially the IDF rework... I'll comment when I have a little bit more time... like this weekend... Jim RE: Raw meat and computers... - Crossroads - 04-21-2010 (04-20-2010, 02:38 AM)Larry Reese Wrote: I would really like to see some changes to the CS gaming system. They are listed below. Discuss. While I haven't had time nor energy to start my soon-to-be famous thread called "The indirect fire implementation is spot-on" thread (pun intended :P ) I like your idea a lot! As the two moves - one by each party - that make the one turn of six minutes of simultaneous time works well in many cases, the artillery barrage is a feature that could be perhaps modeled better. As it is possible to sneak in and around a barrage during the friendly movement... What you are describing is that a hex marked for persistent fire should behave like a... mine field :eek1: in many ways? Would make sense should it be able to model the attack factor of the said barrage instead? Regardless of caliber? A barrage is a barrage...? Would be easy to implement as well? (04-20-2010, 02:38 AM)Larry Reese Wrote: 2. Disrupted units should not be able to spot. They are under heavy fire or otherwise pinned / broken to the extent that they cannot report what they are witnessing (other than adjacent hexes). From a mechanics standpoint I think this should be easy to accomplish if a way can be found to easily apply the "truck" spotting rules to disrupted units. Hmmm... :chin: Depends how you define "to spot"? To actively recon and observe their surroundings? I would agree that it does not sound like something a pinned unit could do. To call artillery to pre-plotted co-ordinates? I believe that is something they would very actively call for? :kill: (04-20-2010, 02:38 AM)Larry Reese Wrote: 1. I think engineers should NOT be able to deploy smoke (or only selected high-value engineers). Well, since you did ask for it, and I seem to be into my second large glass of red wine, heck with it, into a third one now, I will throw my 0.02 for this as well :smoke: I would tend to agree... Either strip the engineer units of this capability, or allow it to all / most of infantry units? Why would it be something an engineer unit could only do? Come to think of it, 250x250 meters quite an area. Then again, a platoon of men is quite a lot as well, isn't it. Should be able to keep an area under a smoke screen for some time ie. several turns? At least when on defensive? Although I do not seem to remember the size and capability of smoke cartridges from my days at service. But certainly, if a platoon would be handed an amount of cartridges then they should be able to cover their positions? Not something that would require an engineer training? RE: Raw meat and computers... - Montana Grizz - 04-21-2010 I like the suggested changes, but am concerned about how they might effect existing scenarios. Example: There is a scenario "A Small Bridge" that requires the Allies to cross a single bridge to have any chance of winning. How would this scenario be effected if one could lay down a continuing barrrage? There are many other scenarios with "choke points" where a continuing barrage might in itself turn the tide in favor of one side. Just an observation. Pat RE: Raw meat and computers... - K K Rossokolski - 04-21-2010 Comments on the points made by Larry. 1. Agree with caveats: a. as long as the supply of smoke remains limited by the designer. We don't want Pte Jones carrying 200 smoke grenades. Where would he put the sarges' dirty picture books?; and b. provided the historical accuracy of easily portable smoke grenades pre Vietnam* can be established. And their availabliity/distribution...Ethiopian feudal levies, for example...I think not. 2. Fully agree 3. I think this carries the implication of unlimited ammo,which is totally unrealistic. This is not a fantasy game, but a historical simulation. That said, it is worthwhile in the context of an overall discussion on arty, which remains a contentious subject, I think. There is a body of opinion believing there should be two ammo levels, arty and other. The effectiveness of arty remains ...what....controversial? On engineers, while the new capabilities are terrific, what possible justification is there, both in logic and in military history, for mine laying engineers taking their bat and going home after one field per scenario???. Bullsh*t!! Mines are merely another type of ammo, carted around boxed in trucks (rag top or open). As long as the minelaying element is in supply, and undisrupted, and starts the new field at 100AP it should be able to dig and layaway forever. The present limitation is bizarre..unless it is some computer stuff. Thanks for the post Larry. We need stuff like this. I don't know about raw meat, but it does seem like you are into the tofu (see thread below). * we had plenty then but when did the grenades come on the scene?. I did like goofy grape and lucky lime; mellow yellow was OK too, andthere was blue, red, orange(?) Further to point 3. It may not carry the implication of unlimited ammo supply. I may have misread Larry's point, and overreacted as usual!!. I do think a wider duscussion on arty is desirable...probably necessary |
){kind=link}