Jump to content

Fetchez la Vache

Members
  • Posts

    502
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fetchez la Vache

  1. Fairy snuff, I didn't think that tactic was taken to extremes. To be honest I can't think of any other particularly gamey uses of unmanning guns off the top of my head. Hmmm. Except maybe the crew popping up 50 yards away, blowing a raspberry or flashing a moon, causing suitably enraged tank to charge down, only to scurry back to their AT gun and proceed to perforate said tank? Not sure the game could model that though.
  2. I think the gamey aspect might be because unmanning a gun might break direct targeting? Also I could foresee some extreme 'temporary' (say moving crew 200m away) unmanning at the start of a turn to avoid preparatory artillery barrages? Basically the unrealistic stuff.
  3. I think what we need are heavy weapon foxholes. I haven't done tests, but I am under the impression from playing that foxholes don't seem to give adequate cover for field guns. That and a Armour Cover Arc would make AT guns a much more terrifying foe. At the moment I can just let an AT gun open up on PBI and then simply whack it with mortars until it goes quiet. Too easy I think. I don't have a problem with crews leaving their tanks. I've read a few accounts of them doing exactly that in order to do a quick scout to check on LOS and visual recon just ahead of the AFV.
  4. And the Comet, which bridged the gap between the Cromwell and the Centurion. I like the Cromwell. Partly because it's slightly crap compared to the Sherman (but British goddammit!) and mainly because it's a great tank to model. Love those bolts. Sherman models ain't half as fun (although I'm enjoying my latest Tasca NA Sherman II).
  5. Well, the multi-part Liberty engine literally used to come apart when driven fast across the rocky desert terrain. Sand in the cooling system would erode the water pump and cause cooling problems. These tanks had fundamental reliability issues in the desert. Also they were infamous for brewing up. Normally I suffer from a slight, natural, national bias which lends me to typical try to see the upside of British tanks in WW2. However I simply can't defend the early Crusaders at all. For me, they (and the Covenanter) are pretty much the archetypal poor British tank that was an embarrassment to the legacy squandered after WW1. I have only ever read accounts which describe the Crusader I and II as being overall inferior to the PzIII and PzIV in North Africa. I firmly believe that this in one of those cases when comparing armour/guns of opposing tanks does not permit an accurate comparison of their performance in battle. Their may have been a moment in mid-late 1941 when the Crusader II (but not I) was on paper slightly better to the PzIIIG (prior to H and J) fielded against it, but I can't accept that it was an overall superior MBT, for reliability reasons alone.
  6. However the PzIII and PzIV had 3-man turrets and routinely equipped with radios, which gave a tactical advantage that one could argue negates the armour issue in France? Desert a bit different. However the 2-pdr couldn't chuck a HE shell which meant that the Brit Matlidas needed decent support to back them up. Again I think one could argue that these things balance out armour differences. The Crusader II is widely regarded as a poor tank, especially it's reliability in the sand. The only place it had 49mm was on the turret front - the front hull was more like 35mm and the rest of the armour was approx. 20-30mm. The Brits reported that their 2-pdr was effective only under 500m, whereas the German 50mm could penetrate their Crusaders at 1000m. On the other hand the Crusader could be fitted with a canvas screen that made it look like a truck from a distance... :-)
  7. Well, you'll still get plenty of thanks from all the people who didn't know about it - not everyone is a CMSF master. And well done done for spotting this (and taking the time to post about it) yourself. Cheers.
  8. I blame CDV for demonstrating all those years ago why independent developers have to rely on their own centralized shipping arrangements. :-/
  9. FOR i = 1 to 365 days IF date_Module1_release > date_CMBN_release + i THEN "When it's ready" IF date_Module1_release = date_CMBN_release + i - 1 THEN "Tomorrow" IF date_Module1_release = date_CMBN_release + i THEN "Today" IF date_Module1_release < date_CMBN_release + i THEN "When is the Bulge Module coming out?" NEXT i
  10. I really like that fact your troops will stop and give 1st aid. Never mind the little campaign advantage you might get - it's simply the realistic thing to do. So yeah, if it means I have to delay the next hedgerow jump for 2 minutes while I sort out my wounded, then so be it! Cool feature.
  11. How on earth can they compute £37.79? 20% VAT on $60 is £7.30. So are they trying to charge you an extra £30 for handling fees? According to their website they should only be charging a maximum of £13.50, although more likely it should be the standard £8. Something doesn't add up. However, nowadays it's near-impossible to talk to real people with companies like this. I bet Parcelforce are overcharging, but it'll take you days of effort to sort it out. Sorry. :-(
  12. Same as Gunnergoz. I try to keep things 'realistic'. I find it more of a challenge this way. However it can be rather a ball-n-chain when playing Humans . Although I must admit I haven't tried CMBN MP yet - still on the upward (re)learning curve! So I use Scout teams but try to keep them within C2 sight or at least minimize their new 'orders' when they are. So practically they can be used to check out the next hedgerow or section of woods, but not as some sort of LRDG. I am continuing to split teams up very often, mainly to provide scouts and to separate the AT chaps to stop them using their 60mm rockets as indirect-fire! I was initially doubtful about splitting US teams up too much until a poster pointed out (and I confirmed through some reading) that US squads were trained in using the rule-of-3 for fire and maneuver. However I am still restricting my use of splitting when I have anything worse than "Regular" troops.
  13. Excellent. Should be an official CMBN video. Wilmot!
  14. HMRC are probably monitoring this site to get an idea of how much they can get away with charging... and giggling manically. It's the sheer apparent randomness of this that bugs me (he says sitting in a different country). I mean, for heavens sake, if you're going to screw people at least have the common bloody decency to do it properly. Bunch of amateurs.
  15. Interesting to see what other people do. For long open fields I usually push my scouts forward using a combination of Hunt and Quick, in about a 1H:4Q distance ratio. Reason being that if I rush my men up to a defended hedgerow then they'll get wiped out. Better to be fired on or spot early and hunker down. Then again, I might be wasting my time. :-)
  16. Thank you for this clarification Steve! I was about to start a thread asking about time-spotting. Basically I wanted to know if leaving my scouts 'spotting' for an extra turn could make any difference in trying to spot enemy lurking (unmoving) on the other of the hedgerow. It seems the answer is "yes". Super stuff!
  17. Just spent 20mins blowing up bits of bocage on Les Licornets (not Deville, I got mixed up). I can definitely blows AFV holes with one charge. The size of the hole doesn't appear to be random since you can save-load and repeat a blast path the with same result each time (well up to times 10, which is when I got bored). But the exact angle of the blast path does seem to affect the size, but not in any way I can easily predict since some bits of bocage seem to blow in different ways. When my patience levels are back up I might conduct a more complete test with a combination of different paths and action points. Or I might not. Playing is more fun. :-)
  18. Not sure reversing through bocage would have been recommended in combat. :-) Thanks for the info. This certainly chimes with what I'm seeing in the current game I'm playing (Deville). But sometimes I have definitely seen "big holes" blasted in one go, in both large and small bocage - maybe I was widening an existing hole without realizing it? I think some further Blast practice is required...
  19. Can someone explain to me the mechanics behind blasting "little holes" (infantry only) and "big holes" (AVF and PBI)? From my games I'm under the impression (wrongly or rightly) that it's either random or else there's a dependency on placement of the blast command and angle of 'attack'. Either way I end up getting a bit frustrated trying to consistently blast AFV-sized holes in WeGo mode. I admit that I often simply do a "save game" and keeping trying different blast combos until I get the result I want - that's not going to work in PBEM though. :-) Any suggestions gratefully received. Thanks!
  20. If anyone fancies doing a PhD on the (in)efficiency of the modern post-web international postal system then I'm sure they would do well by starting with a statistical analysis of the well-known "Steel Box Conundrum".
  21. Arrived in the Middle East today without issue (or customs duty). \o/
×
×
  • Create New...