Jump to content

Freyberg

Members
  • Content Count

    592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Freyberg

  1. I've certainly had a lot of fun with CMSF2, mainly because of all the different forces - NATO, British & Marines. The range of forces is marvellous, as well as a lot of different maps and scenarios. In terms of amount and variety of content, it's one of the top 3, along with CMBN and CMFI. You also have a good range of Red forces to play with. High quality Syrian forces can put up a fairly good fight, and there are all kinds of unconventional troops as well. I have CMBS, which I quite like,but I like CMSF2 more...
  2. They were veteran teams firing at a stationary target, so a 50% hit rate within two shots doesn't seem unreasonable.
  3. I usually keep bazookas and PIATs to 100m, or less if I think I'll only get one shot - I've never had much luck at longer ranges. But I often get hit by Shreks at up to 150m+, occasionally 200m, but usually only if I'm playing against the SS or something. With infantry around, or high quality tanks crews, AT weapons only sometimes get a second shot.
  4. Thanks - I'll keep an eye out for them. I enjoyed Correlli Barnett's book on the the generals of the Desert War.
  5. That's a really interesting observation which I've never heard made before.
  6. Armour without good infantry support is extremely vulnerable in built up areas or any terrain with excellent cover for infantry. This is historically true, which is why you shouldn't use armour that way. Combat Mission handles close assault pretty well, given the potential complexity of the variables involved.
  7. That's a lot better than I usually get with the typical Sherman and a regular crew. Having said that, I recently had a Firefly get a spot and then a kill shot on a tank that he only saw for about 10 seconds at around 1500m. There does seem to be a lot of random variability in the game, which is usually kind of fun.
  8. Interesting - I've seldom had that with any Allied armour. They typically have considerable difficulty spotting in a timely manner. I usually have to unbutton them, with all the risks that entails, so they can get spotting info from the infantry around them.
  9. That might be a German army thing. I generally play the 'good guys' and I seldom boost more than a handful of units above what the force selector gives me, and I have to rely on infantry to do my spotting - the tanks are very poor at it. Even my Allied infantry don't usually see quality German troops outside 100m until they move or open fire... Presumably, the Jerries had better optics, better troop quality, more binoculars, what have you...
  10. That was a great movie! And it had a happy ending ❤️
  11. The first 20 min have been excellent - I'll finish it later for sure.
  12. I know very little of modern French military equipment, but as a long-time Francophile, I would love to see a French module in Black Sea. I have been very much enjoying the Free French army in CMRV. I'm sure after playing it for a few months, I would know a lot about the modern French military!
  13. As I understand it from older discussions (this came up years ago), for philosophical reasons and I think also for brand image, BF has chosen not to include non-coms similarly to the way they have no 'blood & guts' when troops are killed - that to make this 'part of the fun' would be in bad taste and goes against their ethos. Perhaps I have misstated it, but that was how I understood it.
  14. CMAK was a great game. I won't say it was my favourite of the old series, because I loved all three; but I have to admit that when playing AK I enjoyed Italy much more as a setting than the desert. The early war armour was interesting, but often one side would be hopelessly under-powered (those Crusaders, for example, with their gossamer armour and pop guns) and I ultimately found the desert battles less fun to play than Italy. Having said that - if Battlefront were to make it, I would buy it. My preference would be earlier Western or Eastern Front, though.
  15. Awesome To make the file downloadable, you have to change "dl=0" in the link to "dl=1"
  16. It looks like he was in near panic - the AI gets pretty random in that situation...
  17. Direct hits are hard to get in the WWII games, but I've seen KOs, serious damage and immobilisations lots of times with heavy artillery hits and near misses in the WWII titles (the near misses have to be pretty near though, which seems right); and in the modern titles, against the AI, killing tanks with point-strike artillery is almost too easy (by which I mean, not unrealistic, just not challenging).
  18. In terms of streets and pavement, I figure the game assumes the possibility of some sort of cover in the street, as there often is, which the game can't specifically model, such as the Syrian street below...
  19. In circumstances - such as smoke or heavy cover - where it ought to be possible to successfully conduct a close assault on a tank, it isn't all that difficult, although the infantry will usually take heavy losses. The actual mechanics are a little unrealistic, which is hardly surprising given how very difficult it would be to model realistically (a little like hand-to-hand combat), but the outcome makes sense. I'm satisfied...
  20. A lot of interesting stuff there. It would be nice to have other forms of communication explicitly represented, as long as it didn't get complicated to play.
  21. Those troop-carrier HTs also have a lot of suppressing fire potential. If you flank the village at just under bazooka maximum range, you can put down enough MG fire at enough angles to suppress most possible ambush sites.
  22. In a game I'm playing now, the Jerries had an ATG in a trench right in the middle of their line. It was exposed to mortar fire, an artillery barrage, numerous MGs, close indirect fire from tanks, and infantry in small arms range - the little b#st#rd kept on popping back up. It wasn't until I had a tank get a direct, aimed shot from close range that I killed the little blighter. It varies, obviously, and I'm assuming the crew were high experience, high morale - but trenches offer excellent cover in the right circumstances.
  23. I get your point and I think there's a lot of truth in what you say - particularly, as you note, in the early war setting or for green troops. But even in the First World War, those attacked by tanks were not passive victims - many of them fought back, often very effectively. In the Second World War, soldiers soon realised that unsupported tanks were not invulnerable - and attempts to use them that way generally failed. In CM, it's surprisingly hard to conduct a close assault on a tank - infantry need good cover for one thing, and the close-range spotting penalty given to tanks is not especially long. But if that Stug is bogged in a vineyard* with no infantry to protect it, it deserves to be a sitting duck... (*or Brad Pitt's tank immobilised in the dark) The human factor in such things must be extremely hard to model. I think CM has the balance about right.
×
×
  • Create New...