Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Erwin

  1. 4 hours ago, landser said:

    You can, however, freely expend your artillery.

    Good to know.  That is not made clear in the briefing.


    4 hours ago, landser said:

    I like to use this formation to always have two barrels on the same line, one behind the other, so if the front tank could see a target, the tank behind can also see it and establish a fire superiority at the outset of any engagement.

    This has been the default game formation since CM1 days.  However, in CM2 that also means that an enemy hit on the lead tank can easily take out both tanks (plus any other vehicles situated along that line).




    After the T34 platoon on the left flank is killed, the path to the river on that flank is pretty open.  However, the road thru the trees next to the RR track is a bear.  Despite having a couple of tanks, 2 Stummels and two HT's pouring area fire at the foxholes, it takes time to winkle the enemy out.  (I hour 20 minutes for this scenario goes too fast.)  When you do, the enemy run back to the west (the river) and their friendly lines. 

    In this action, have suffered half a dozen inf casualties - half via friendly fire.  :(   The 75mm HE expl)osions caused by the Stummels seem to have a bad effect a dozen or more meters away on my own guys (who I thought I had placed safely far away from the line of fire).  Am at the 50 minute to go mark and I will send the left flank company of tanks and company of inf to force a river crossing with arty support while one platoon of tanks and inf plus recon grind away at the road and foxholes. One may have overwhelming force available but getting it deployed where it's needed is a challenge.  

    I coulda, shoulda, woulda placed a TRP on that area of the woods road.  But, placing TRP's is always a challenge as I hate placing em and then never having to use em.  So, I put all 5 around the town and river for the inevitable crossing.

  2. 2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

    Plus the damage is accumulative, do it too many times and you're liable to find yourself immobilized.

    My point was that many times one MUST do the above, and it's a waste of time to carefully plot SLOW waypoints in an effort to reduce damage.  One may as well plot FAST regardless of terrain that the unit has to cross (assuming there is no way around the obstacle).

  3. Ok good.  It saves a LOT of time not having to make so many extra waypoints just to change the speed of vehicles that demolish fences, walls and hedges or when going over soft ground.  :)

    What about when one accidentally has one track on the road and the other goes over soft ground?  Have experienced much bogging in that situation.  Maybe in that situation the AI does not adapt and slow.  :unsure:

  4. Informative and entertaining.

    Eg:  Lesson 10: Consider any type of signature that you produce as a reconnaissance unit. Perhaps leaving the vehicles in hide sites versus actually deploying them as gathering assets is the appropriate course of action in the same scenarios.

    We have the option of HIDE for our vehicles but how many of us ever use that?  Do we even know what effect HIDE has - will it prevent enemy from detecting us.  Is it only really useful in the modern titles what with drones and EW issues?

  5. 2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

    Use FAST all the time, unless you need to HUNT.

    This is one of the evergreen myths of Combat Mission. A bit like that the idea that the world is flat, some people keep believing it no matter how much evidence is presented against it :)

    So full speed ahead.

    Ok, which is the myth?  :unsure:

    1)  That one may as well drive FAST everywhere cos it won't affect probability of damage or bogging? 

    2)  Or, that one should drive "more carefully" thru obstacles and over soft ground?

  6. 9 hours ago, landser said:

    I took screens of each debrief, so yes I can help with that when you need them Erwin. Good luck in the campaign. I'd be interested in any reports you'd care to share.

    In Mission 1 the large map is xnt and am enjoying having 2 Cos of armored inf plus 2 Cos of armor plus platoons of supporting elements.  

    The reinforcements included recon units (odd they weren't on the map first).  They have been sent up the road (beside the RR).  Also odd is that there is no extra 7.62K ammo for the Stg44's and a low availability of Fausts.  But, I guess one has enuff tanks and Stummels.  






    Looking at the map and orders it seemed that it was a red herring to attack the village to the RHS (N?) of the map.  There are no good river crossings usable by vehicles other than the town bridges, and the hill to the NW can see everything up to the RR.  The RR does a good job of blocking LOS across it, so have decided to send everything to the left (S?) of the RR, and advance up on that flank, ignoring the red herring village and that entire side of the map.   I am sure it would be fun to attack and clear the village, and one seems to have enuff force.  But, it seems tactically pointless since all the Points Objectives are on the other side of the river in town.

    While the forces set up to attack the village are being redirected to the other side of the map, I sent out 4 x two man scouts from the starting forces on the left and they got to spot some enemy tanks after about 15 minutes.  I always recon carefully and feel like I could easily run out of time (only 1h 20m allowed for Mission 1).  But, there are some nasty ambushes that one really doesn't want to run into.  Wasn't sure how to kill the first T34/76 platoon but fortunately they came out of their good defensive positions and attacked - that made it much easier.  But, they are tough bastids.  One T-34 took about 5 penetrating hits and still KO'd a Mk IV before dying(!).  If they stayed in their positions it would have been a lot harder to get by that ambush.

    I like to use the minimum force to accomplish sub-objectives/missions.  So far have only committed two inf platoons and 2 tank platoons with some recon and a couple of Stummels.  I want to use the Stummel ammo on suitable targets first (and save the Mk IV ammo) as it's easy to get Stummels killed if one isn't careful and there is no ammo resupply until Mission 5 (IIRC). 

    55 minutes to go and am about to fight another ambush blocking the road through the woods.  Am only now now starting to move up the main force to mount an attack on the river in the next 15-20 minutes (Inshallah).  Have to make better use of the artillery and smoke than I usually do.  So far, lost one MkIV and a 251 carrying a 81mm mortar got immobilised for some reason.  One of the recon inf lightly wounded.  Am enjoying the force and ammo preservation requirements.


  7. I recall discussion that it does not matter what speed one orders vehicles to move - they will automatically slow down to move at an "appropriate speed" - ie like when crossing fences etc.  It sounds like that one could simply order vehicles to move FAST at all times since they will slow down automatically as needed.   That was good to know as I was wasting much time putting in waypoints with SLOW moves every time a vehicles would have to cross a fence or bush, or even RR tracks.

    However, there has also been discussion that one should drive SLOW over some terrain -  like marshy ground to reduce % of bogging/immobilizing.  Any clarification on "safe" vehicular movement orders would be welcomed.


  8. Thanks to this thread I overcame by CM burnout and am very much enjoying the first mission (halfway point).  :)

    My only remark is that the reinforcements came a bit too quickly/early imo as I generally use only a few units to recon for the first 10-15 minutes and that led to a traffic jam when the reinforcements turn up on top of the at start units in the first 5-10 minutes.  That's only an issue for me as I like to keep company formations together and I found I was sending platoons from different companies out mixed up which upsets my anal-obsessive sense of order (heh).  It would be nice to have a better idea of what units are coming as reinforcements and where they will turn up.  But, that's a very minor issue compared to the excellence of the overall map, situation and scenario.

    I don't want any spoilers or advice (currently) but am curious at the casualties other players reported at the end of each mission so there is something to compare my progress with.  Anyone recall their mission results?

  9. In RL one would need vehicles to transport leg units for miles.  In the CM games, maps are relatively small - it's rare to see a map that it over a mile or so in length or width.  In the game, one can usually have inf dismounted and moved by foot where you want them to go and use the vehicles on overwatch/support.  

    The armored transports are useful to protect inf when enemy arty is falling, (or if you need to run a gauntlet of small arms fire).  Players like to keep armored vehicles within one WEGO FAST move distance of their inf.  But, generally that's only good if one is sure there are no enemy weapons that can hit the vehicles.

    Generally, in the game it's best to use dismounted inf split into scouts to recon the area first to ensure no enemy heavy weapons can be brought to bear, and to destroy by artillery any enemy heavy weapons that are spotted.  Only then should one move IFV's and APC's into that area (with or without mounted troops).  

  10. 44 minutes ago, landser said:

     Maps are around 3k x 3k and most missions are around battalion in size. The final one is even larger. I mentioned it before, but these battles have an operational feel to them, the way they flow, the coordination required. I don't know if you've played games like Grigsby's War in the East, and especially as the Russians. The way you are playing two games in one. There's the front, where the combat is, but there's also the whole matter of getting the arriving units forward where you need them.

    Yes, yes, yes and yes...  Love all these aspects.  And agree, when CM is large enuff to feel almost operational that is great.  Having to deal with force and ammo conservation decisions is a great plus.  It's enjoyable to start with what seems like a huge force, maybe too much.  But, then the challenge is to conserve what you have as if you lose too much the later battles can become impossible.

    There are few other CM2 campaigns that are like this - IIRC "Road To Dinas" (made for CMSF1) was memorable in this regard.  

    Few campaigns are no being made with that sophistication as it must be much harder to design.  Recently most campaigns seems to allow you to start a mission with a full force and full ammo with no/few consequences carrying over from previous battles.  

  11. 21 hours ago, domfluff said:

    the second-order consequence of fatigue is that you won't be able to move Quick or Fast when you really need to

    Couldn't agree more.  Am always surprised that many seem to FAST move most of the time.  It seems to work for them(?)  If not under fire, I use MOVE mostly.  Then QUICK... with FAST reserved for emergency situations or when crossing a dangerous area of ground when you definitely do not want troops to stop and fire at targets.  

    The wonderful thing about QUICK for AT teams, is that if close enuff to enemy armor they will often stop and fire and kill a tank at short range b4 continuing to the final waypoint.

    HUNT has become the least used or useful (for larger formations) as many times you do not want troops to stop when fired upon.  I find that HUNT is mostly useful for recon teams since you usually want them to stop and HIDE if fired upon.

    Uh oh...  Just realized... this topic is about fire suppression not movement issues.  Apologies for being off-topic.

  • Create New...