Josey Wales CM Vids

One thing I always enjoy with your videos is to hear your thoughts about the challenge ahead, the lay of the land, and then how it all turns out in the end.

For example, in this video, you talk about the ravines, so I'm looking forward to see how you use them, and if you are able to use them to your advantage. If you end up just noticing the ravines during setup but then later decide not to use them, I think it's better to not direct attention to them in the beginning.

In movie theory, this is called "setup and payoff". If the movie shows somebody keeping a gun under their pillow at night in the beginning of the movie, that gun should play a part later on.
 
The ditches don't feature all that much in this scenario other than to provide a covered avenue of approach.

The main reason I mention terrain features such as the ditches are so that the viewer is aware that they are present on the map and roughly where they are so that the scenes make sense.

If I did just say the terrain is farmland then show scenes of tanks crossing ditches and troops moving through woodland I feel that would potentially cause confusion.

The other reason I mention the ditches is that they form part of the OCOKA assessment that I do for the 'Terrain' part of the METT-T analysis. I did have concerns about the tanks crossing the ditch at the beginning and went on to show that this wasn't a problem.

In previous vids I have presented a piece of terrain which does then go on to be pivotal in the outcome, however that case doesn't really apply in this particular game.
 
Josey Wales said:
The ditches don't feature all that much in this scenario other than to provide a covered avenue of approach.

The main reason I mention terrain features such as the ditches are so that the viewer is aware that they are present on the map and roughly where they are so that the scenes make sense.

If I did just say the terrain is farmland then show scenes of tanks crossing ditches and troops moving through woodland I feel that would potentially cause confusion.

The other reason I mention the ditches is that they form part of the OCOKA assessment that I do for the 'Terrain' part of the METT-T analysis. I did have concerns about the tanks crossing the ditch at the beginning and went on to show that this wasn't a problem.

In previous vids I have presented a piece of terrain which does then go on to be pivotal in the outcome, however that case doesn't really apply in this particular game.
Click to expand...

True, but I think it comes down to how it's narrated ..

If you start by showing the ditches to make the viewer aware of the general terrain, and then say "they provide great cover and concealment for infantry", then the viewer will expect to see infantry moving through the ditch later.

But if you show the ditches and say "These ditches might be a problem for tanks", then the viewer is primed for the later scene when the tank crosses the ditch.

I'm really nitpicking here; it was just something that crossed my mind yesterday.
 
Bulletpoint said:
the viewer will expect to see infantry moving through the ditch later.
Click to expand...

At 6:56 they do and there are a few scenes showing the infantry move through the nearby ditch and then a tank crossing it. It's not really emphasised too much as it's not really a major part of the engagement. The limits to the engine show the troops moving beside the ditch (because they spread out) but the actual movements paths are plotted along the ditch . At the 9:00 minute mark I indicate the change to the original movement plan showing the troops move towards and then along the ditch but again I don't really draw too much attention to it as it's not a major part of the picture, but do state that the movement has been slower but more concealed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what your saying is this' "If a given terrain feature doesn't really impact on the gameplay then it would be clearer to leave it out of the analysis as it can come across as misleading if it is left in."
 
Last edited:
Josey Wales said:
At 6:56 they do and there are a few scenes showing the infantry move through the nearby ditch and then a tank crossing it. It's not really emphasised too much as it's not really a major part of the engagement. The limits to the engine show the troops moving beside the ditch (because they spread out) but the actual movements paths are plotted along the ditch . At the 9:00 minute mark I indicate the change to the original movement plan showing the troops move towards and then along the ditch but again I don't really draw too much attention to it as it's not a major part of the picture, but do state that the movement has been slower but more concealed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what your saying is this' "If a given terrain feature doesn't really impact on the gameplay then it would be clearer to leave it out of the analysis as it can come across as misleading if it is left in."
Click to expand...

I really liked the video regardless of how much you used the ravines

My only complaint is where is part 2!?!?
 
Always a pleasure @Josey Wales to get a cinematic dose of CM. Do you record on a widescreen monitor or is it added while editing? First one for RT, is it my imagination or do you have a bit choppier frame rate in that game? No biggie of course.
One feature I like more and more in your videos is that you let action run without commenting on everything. Letting the action speak for itself is a powerful narrative tool.
 
@rocketman it's just a standard image like you''ll see when you play, I've just blacked out the top and the bottom using my video editor which gives the appearance of widescreen.

Yes I have noticed a choppier frame than what I've seemed to have with previous vids. In part 2 I'm dropping the capture settings on my recorder to 50%. That will help with the frame rate but will also reduce resolution somewhat. I don't yet know if this will be noticeable once it's been uploaded but I am hoping that the video still appears the same quality without the stuttering.

Thanks for the high praise, I've structured my voice narration in a similar way to how RedBravo65 structured his text narration in his CM vids. Glad you like it.
 
Josey Wales said:
@rocketman it's just a standard image like you''ll see when you play, I've just blacked out the top and the bottom using my video editor which gives the appearance of widescreen.

Yes I have noticed a choppier frame than what I've seemed to have with previous vids. In part 2 I'm dropping the capture settings on my recorder to 50%. That will help with the frame rate but will also reduce resolution somewhat. I don't yet know if this will be noticeable once it's been uploaded but I am hoping that the video still appears the same quality without the stuttering.

Thanks for the high praise, I've structured my voice narration in a similar way to how RedBravo65 structured his text narration in his CM vids. Glad you like it.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any of his videos - have to check him out. Thanks!
 
I know I praised the AI plan in the video comments; that praise notwithstanding, I do think the enemy's aggression is unwarranted even though it's yielded seemingly good results at the end of this video. The Panthers driving forward was ugly; yes, no denying that. The fact they've practically made a platoon CI and knocked out several Tanks and Assault guns is also ugly. However, as you said yourself, they're roaring into a knife fight and that injects uncertainty. That benefits you more than them: being the human player, in game terms, and being a total ceding of their platform's advantages in tactical terms. Had they stayed in the reverse slope you would've had a proper devil of a time.

Ultimately as well losing a platoon as the Soviets is no more or less devastating as losing a squad. Realistically, that platoon was not going to push much further past the KT it seized, if at all, without taking heavy casualties anyways. This isn't some hot take about their abilities or anything like that, it's just how the WWII Soviet Rifle Battalion has its C2 set up, throwing platoons around like they're independent causes their nerves to fray much faster as they're out of contact with their Coy leader more often.
 
@Rinaldi yes the Panthers have wrong footed me but a human player would have used them more effectively and placed them in covering positions in Ugly and just waited for the Soviets to wander into their firing arcs. I do have more to say on this but don't want to spoil part 2.
 
Just finished watching while I worked; well done as always. The engagement with the Panthers ended as I suspected it would. I think you did well to consolidate your forces and push onto the main objective after such a frustrating counter-offensive.

I think you are too self-critical in your debrief. The movements onto the first objective were exactly what I would have done given the infantry-centric nature of your force. Infiltration is their main weapon. Also, 45 minutes would have been more than enough, I think, to really push onto Ugly had you been able to establish a firm base of fire and observation in Chernevka without molestation; which is unfortunately the opposite of what happened. That forced you to pinch pennies with your remaining armour as a result and put much more a burden on the assault companies, who were depleted. After all, no one wants to take heavy losses on a preliminary objective, but I imagine you would've been much more willing to accept such losses attacking Ugly had you had more armour to spare, right?

What happened with the counterattack was ultimately beyond your control and makes getting onto the final objective in such numbers all the more impressive. I don't think a direct attack would've been any less costly in the grand scheme of things. I suppose, what I'm saying is, even if you were on Chernervka with an hour and fifteen minutes left, but with a third of your companies depleted, would the situation have functionally changed? Just thinking aloud.
 
Last edited:
@Rinaldi a very well thought out assessment of the battle, the Panther attack did effectively stall me for about 15mins. I was down to 3 armoured vehicles at the end from a total of 10, a result of losses from the Stugs (2), AT guns (1) and Panthers (4). So by that point I was being very careful with them because I couldn't tell if the guns in Ugly had been destroyed. However you are right to assume that if I had more armour at that time, then I would have taken a bigger risk with them. I likely would have had a go at the PAK 40 on the right.

I think the credit goes to the scenario designer for this one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom