Jump to content

blue division

Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About blue division

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 08/01/1973

Converted

  • Location
    france
  • Occupation
    it
  1. You have got to be patient with your tanks, particularly if you are moving forward. You HAVE to identify what is ahead of you, before it gets the first shot off at your tank. Don't be surprised if you get bogged down into a slogging match, use the full time length of the game. You are basically trying to knock the opponent off balance, whilst keeping your own. He will then be unable to respond effectively to your moves. Always keep the initiative, as well as trying to reduce the opponents units that you are probing. Keep HMG's and guns in positions that will prevent the opponent having the full freedom to move and reinforce the part of his line that you are probing. This is done by steadily working some infantry forward, using run and hide. This should force the opponent to respond. If he still doesn't reveal his anti tank units, try rushing a low value armoured unit such as a half track or a T70/ PzIII (if you can afford it) forward to support the infantry. This will definetely force the opponent to respond. You can then use artillery to deal with AT guns or SP artillery. Hopefully eventually you will force the opponent to move his tanks to counter attack - you can then shoot at the exposed tank side. Of course, none of this is guaranteed to work - even veteran tanks can take a lucky hit, and veteran infantry can take a direct hit of 105mm artillery that breaks it at a critical moment. But that's what makes the game...
  2. Approach using cover. Folds in the ground are best, or trees if there are any (I'm not familiar with this scenario by the way). Anything that protects you from direct fire weapons is needed. If you can try and remain unobserved on your approach. Attack in 'bounds', with enough firepower staying static to keep the trenches under fire. Then use 'advance' with 'rested' or 'ready' troops. Be patient - it is going to take a while - don't try a human wave - all units in Combat Mission have automatic squad weapons and you will be stopped and slaughtered. If advancing across open ground in view of the enemy, you may have to use a smoke screen. Although these obviously don't stop bullets, they will at least allow your troops to advance without being picked off immediately.
  3. I still think against a dug in experienced player he will chew you up if you are advancing in open terrain. If there are depressions to hide in, great. But then he trains his 81mm mortars / FAO artillery on you and disrupts your attack. Your infantry doesn't rest, and the follow on waves have either to be halted or they continue to bunch up in the same hollow, increasing the stress on your troops. This method will work only if the terrain and your opponent allow it. By this I mean the map does not allow a proper defence or their is not the right defence balance of infantry/HMG's / 81 mm mortars. And even if you get within striking distance with your infantry, the good player will have left a strong infantry force concealed in an enfilade position. You advance past them, and they open up into your flank - and your attack is finished. Your troops start breaking and you find out that frontal assaults are to be avoided. The best method for a frontal assault is to avoid it and use the flanks or natural cover.
  4. And those Tigers seem to all be bogged by mud or undergoing repairs to their drivetrain. Which is exactly my point. So let us recap your point. The terrain was not muddy, allowing tanks to travers, but the Germans rather than bypassing this strong point decided to waste time and resources directly assaulting it. This must rate as one of the greatest mistakes of the war. By your reckoning, the German panzers could make straight for the beachhead, rather than bothering trying to capture road junctions. What an extraordinary battle! Funny old world we live in....
  5. You mentioned earlier that the veteran 'you know' was on one of the 17lb'ers. How would he know about the organisation of the FAO's fire plan? Yuo still haven't mentioned how well an incredibly valuable 60 ton Tiger tank (millions of Reichsmarks and man hours to build) would be told to drive across a muddy field under direct fire from the enemy, and the officers being confident it would not get bogged? I think your distinction between 'soggy sandy soil' and 'muddy' is throwing a bit of sophistry in (or muddying the waters).
  6. Yes, but the criticism that the scenario is unbalanced still stands. In particular, I think your evidence of the ban on DF for the Brits at Aprilia is irrelevant. As the bridgehead as a whole was so precarious, and in particular the position at Aprilia, the fire order would have been given priority. As for pre-registered fire being discovered, you have a single point (Aprilia) around which the FAO would be adjusting his fire continually. The whole map would have been registered in effect (for area fire) as the Brits are defending a single point. The way to model this would be extensive use of pre-registered targets in the game. If you insist on making it historical, you should give the Allies two more 17lber batteries. This will make the German advance much more cautiously, and will help the balance. As for the roads, I am pointing out that the ability of the Germans to manoeuver tanks over the terrain upsets the game balance. Just because you suggest the player should stick to the roads changes nothing. The player will try it, find his tanks don't bog and the gameplay will have been unbalanced. The fact that some players have managed to get some result out of playing the Brits does not alter this fact. It is my understanding that there was mud at Anzio, (it being winter in Italy). Certainly not the sort of terrain (wet farmland) you would try and drive a 60 ton tiger tank over (they were considered secret weapons and it was forbidden to abandon them to the enemy). In fact, to show how prone to bogging the ground was in the area you can see that the town of Aprilia itself is built on a slight rise. [ July 11, 2005, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]
  7. The battle went on for days historically. It wasn't raining all the time, and air support was available during the course of this long battle. To not allow it is to unbalance the scenario. Why? Because the Germans are allowed too much leeway to form up for their attack, with no effective response from the Allies (due to the lack of prompt artillery fire). So my point is not that airstrikes weren't available during rain, it is that this scenario needs allied airstrikes to even the odds out by making life more difficult for the Germans. Either that, or you provide pre-registration markers for the artillery. Or you get rid of the rain (looks nice, but it spoils this scenario) and make the terrain muddy. In short - more mud, less rain. Your choice. Also, tanks were bogging down all over the place in the actual battle. None of this happens in the scenario and this has a profound effect on the gameplay. The whole reason for the battle and the Germans determination to take Aprilia is because it was at a road junction. Without access to roads, they could not counter attack effectively because their heavy weapons could not be brought up. So you say that the roads weren't important and that the tanks could traverse the mud??????? Why did the Germans make such a big effort for this group of buildings then? You haven't mentioned my comments about artillery - I take it this has been noted. Anzio was notable for the extensive use of artillery by both sides (of all calibres). [ July 11, 2005, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]
  8. I agree with the poster that this is a failed scenario. I suspect it wasn't tested by the developer from the German point of view. There are no Allied air attacks (in 1944!) which is a huge omission. The presence of wet terrain doesn't affect the Germans ability to manoeuver. The Allies are given divisional artillery, that is not quick enough to respond (5 minutes!). Historically, the artillery would have EVERYWHERE pre-registered to be fired at. This is a glaring omission, one that cannot be excused. There should be 5-6 artillery registered target markers for the allies. Could have been good, but not enough care put in.
  9. Advancing across open ground with infantry? The best advice is - don't. Especially if the enemy are in rubble, craters or otherwise dug in in foxholes. They will take a lot of effort to shift. In the context of the standard CMAK/CMBB battle, your attack will stall as you don't have 2nd / 3rd wave infantry normally to keep the momentum going once your force wave has been stopped. Depends on the opposition of course, but as every standard infantry squad starts off with a Light machine gun - you are going to get chewed up. Unless the opposition are only equipped with rifles - even then they will slow down an 'advancing' unit (forcing it to go to ground). If you are lucky - the opposition will run out of ammo. But even then, a good player will channel-in fresh troops to keep the defensive fire coming. Even if you have supporting tanks / SP's, you will have a LOT of difficulty shifting dug in infantry with gun calibers of 76mm or less. Infantry attacks tend to stall a lot more in CMBB than CMAK by the way. Very difficult to pull off against a decent player.
  10. Forget what people above have said - this is the deal: Using only infantry: Bazookas aren't very effective at destroying bunkers. I suspect they don't have the blast effect neccessary. If you have to use them, place them at less than 15 metres and greater than 25 metres BEHIND the bunker. After 1+ turn they will start firing automatically - don't instruct them to fire at the bunker manually. You hopefully should get a rear door hit - and there is a small chance of knocking out the bunker. Generally, the standard US bazooka is not effective as an anti-bunker weapon in CMAK. A MUCH better way is using infantry that is equipped with grenades. Place them out of the firing line of the bunker, again more than 15 metres and less than 25 metres. After 1+ turns they will start slinging grenades. Again don't use manual targetting. After 1-3 turns the bunker will surrender. Believe me, this is tried and tested! VERY IMPORTANT : do NOT have any of your units within 15 metres of the bunker while attempting any of this - it will hamper the assault and your units will hold fire until they move out of the way. As for using armour - well, anything will do to knock it out as long as it mounts a cannon - so 20mm upwards - the bunker is toast (as long as it is not mounting a gun to fire back with!). [ June 14, 2005, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]
  11. One thing a lot of people don't realize about smoke is that you can see someone coming through it before they can see you. In the standard white smoke you will see the dark outline of troops or vehicles coming about to emerge from the screen. Of course it has to be a sunny day but it can give you a split second advantage. Meanwhile, those coming through the smoke are blind. If conditions are right it can give you a lot of the same benefits as a reverse slope defense. </font>
  12. Please read my first response and apply it to yourself. If you want to debate guns - go to a guns forum. And my post is correct - so please know what you are talking about before insulting me. This forum is not the place to troll or insult people - if you think it is, go elsewhere. I notice that you have posted thousands of times - I hope that they have not been as denigrating and badly informed as this last one.
  13. Please read the post, otherwise this gets pointless. It is the experience of someone I know during their National Serivec in the UK. The target was OBVIOUSLY placed close to the firer - how close I don't know. The situation was they were being trained in firing the weapon - specifically how to hold the weapon and fire a short controlled burst. The idea was to get all the bullets going through a single hole - a simple challenge for the conscript. As for your weapons experience, I don't know or care. Doubtless you fire weapons every day as a hobby - I can't say this is particularly interesting for me. Are there not some guns forums out there to debate this?
  14. LOL. Engaging in a bit of hyperbole, are we? I take it you refer to a fairly large hole at fairly close range. The Bren was indeed accurate...for a machine gun. But if you mean to say that each bullet passes through the same bullet hole at say, 100 meters, I feel obliged to point out that such a feat would be difficult even using a match rifle. Michael </font>
  15. Spoke to someone who did their National Service and trained on the BREN - the idea was it was to be used to assault strong points. For defence, you relied on the Vickers when you could. The BREN was renowned for its accuracy - very easy to fire 3-round bursts with a high degree of accuracy (it was common for the 3 rounds to go through the same hole in the target). As I said, ideal for assaulting bunkers, MG nests. The BREN was born out of the experiences of the British Army in World War I, just as the 2" mortar was - the infantry needed weapons that could keep up with them to provide some form of support whether it was an accurate automatic rifle or a portable mortar that was capable of laying a small smoke screen to support the infantry when they were under fire. [ May 04, 2005, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: blue division ]
×
×
  • Create New...