Jump to content

Freyberg

Members
  • Posts

    1,047
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Freyberg

  1. That's exactly where the AI places barbed wire in QBs.
  2. You guys are doing great work. In the last few years, the modules and updates are getting bigger and better - compare the CMRV module to, say, the Marines module back in CMSF1. I have no doubt that CMFR will be equally impressive
  3. I get that some people, a small vocal group of people, are disappointed. I just wish they'd have the humility not to constantly flood the forum with petty bitching
  4. I think these complaints are coming from people who insist on only playing Eastern Front, because I don't consider a really good release approximately once a year to be agonisingly slow. I think it's actually pretty good going, considering how much fun I get out of the games. SF2 and R2V have kept me happily occupied all this year - still going strong. I'll get around to playing CMBS sometime....
  5. I don't really get your point. But I do find that there's a small gaggle of really vocal weirdos on this site who work hard to create the impression that the customers are dissatisfied. Having played the game since the last Millennium, bought every game and module except Afghanistan, played them incessantly and enjoyed them all, I feel some loyalty to the BF team and would like to play my part in dispelling the impression that the average, normal buyer is unhappy. They're a small development team. The product is amazing. I don't care how many delivery dates they overshoot, I just hope they keep going.
  6. I'm a 20-year veteran and I agree with you. All these months later I'm still vastly enjoying R2V - I've barely touched CMFB & CMBS since I bought them - these products are amazing and full of detail. I have no doubt they're a lot of work to produce.
  7. Another force I love is the Free French. I was disappointed the Chasseurs regiments were removed with the recent patch, but the Spahis are a really interesting force to play. They use all American equipment, but it's a real education in how different organisation can completely change a unit. They're extremely light and somewhat undergunned (it's forced to me practice area fire with .20 cal armed Scout Cars when fighting light armour), but they're a mobile, interesting unit. Their infantry are WWI vintage - all bolt-action rifles and a scarcity of automatic weapons. It's amazing that they performed such feats in the Italian campaign - it's just a shame that the face graphics don't reflect the North African origin of many of the troops.
  8. @John1966 Further to our discussion on the mortar thread, here is visual proof the humble 2" can do the job Ooops... grammar errors
  9. One of the 'real world' tactics I like and often use is what I think of as WWI Stormtrooper tactics: infiltrating forward, sort of 'stealthy recon in force', taking out weaker targets but bypassing strong-points, which are then dealt with by the next wave, in true British fashion, slowly, carefully and with artillery support. That way, by the time the assault on a particular strong-point is underway, I will often have good intelligence on the other strong-points supporting it. It's especially satisfying if I can actually surround a strong-point before it is reduced. It doesn't make much difference in the game, but I feel like I've achieved something.
  10. One quality that makes some nations underdogs is actual troop quality. In '43-'44 for example, if I choose 'good' or even 'excellent' for Commonwealth forces, and 'typical' for a German unit, the Germans will almost certainly have better experience and command - although not necessarily morale. This a good feature , of course, as it well represents the character of the forces. And if you go up against the SS in good cover, it's just incredible how much resistance a small unit can put up. And in armour it makes a huge difference, when your 76mm crews are Green, -1, and the enemy is Crack, +2. I admit, I like creating a few 'hero' squads and teams, but I generally leave most units at their automatic settings. As much as anything, this gives a true feel for the historical contest.
  11. I know I harp on about this topic a lot, and I kind of managed to hijack the thread on using mortars, for which I apologise, so I thought I'd invite those who wanted to to continue the discussion here. I've had a lot of fun over the years playing 'underdog' nations. I'm still massively enjoying playing CMFI - it's been non-stop since R2V came out. My favourite nations in that game are Commonwealth (including, but not limited to British), and the Free French. 1) The First World War One thing that's very interesting about these nations is that to a certain extent, their armies still had one foot in the lessons and technology of the First World War, which is a conflict I am also interested in. Minus the PIAT and Tommy Gun (and a lot of my squads end up minus their Tommy Gun before long), the British platoon was not particularly different from its counterpart in 1918. And the tactics you have to use are somewhat 1918, methodical, cautious, slow, with all arms acting together. 2) The Brits In contrast to their basic platoon, the Brits overall are a treasure trove of units and equipment - they have genuine, slow-moving, old-school heavy tanks, firing large caliber shells; they have flamethrower tanks and carriers; they have the most varied unit structures of any nationality, each specialised for a different purpose; and they have a plethora of dinky little light vehicles. 2) The Commonwealth - NZ As a Kiwi, I love playing the NZ Army, an army characterised by its limitations more than its strengths. But all the Commonwealth countries are fun - and each one has a slightly different company and battalion organisation, slightly different vehicles and so on. One of my favourites is the NZ Motorised Infantry, because it is much weaker than the British equivalent (only two squads per Motorised platoon, for example), but Freyberg (the real one), in the face of mounting losses, tried really hard to bring the tiny NZ army in line with the more capable formations it was fighting alongside and against, and some of the NZ units seem somewhat thrown together in haste (which they were) - I love the historicity of this game, and 'making do' as they had to, and trying to succeed with a less formidable force, without taking unnecessary casualties (as they did), is one of the things I find most fun. 3) Others The Free French are a great side to play - they almost feel like a Napoleonic army of light infantry and light cavalry (they're a lightweight force overall). Likewise, the Indians are fun, and the Sikhs look great. I haven't played the Italians for a while (I don't really enjoy playing against the 'good guys'), but they have a strangely interesting mix of units, with some severe limitations, but some interesting strengths including some very good armoured cars. I'm not going to argue that the Commonwealth and other minor nationalities are 'better' than than the US army - the US forces have tremendous company-level firepower - and certainly not than the Wehrmacht (although I seldom play the Germans even in CMRT), just that I find the 'underdog' nations more fun. And it makes you respect them. I only one or two obscure relatives in the war, no direct ancestors, but they did what they did with what they had, it wasn't easy but they ultimately succeeded, and trying to simulate that is immensely enjoyable.
  12. I like the British squad, but it is just one part of a larger integrated unit. The Enfield is an accurate rifle, so it has a longer effective range - the Bren is a good LMG; but you also need your scouts, who are well-armed (3 Thomsons & 3 Brens per section), your mortars, your nimble little carriers, your Vickers MGs, which can keep up sustained fire as long as they have ammo and are excellent at longer ranges, point-for-point an easy match for the MG42 (at range), and of course your mortars. Commonwealth infantry (especially Motorised Infantry) are a really fun force to play - I love trying to bring all the elements together, and together they can be very effective.
  13. The US 60mm mortar is a fine weapon, and often deadly accurate - I especially like the little teams in recon units with their own jeep. But the best small mortar in the game I reckon is the Soviet one - it may just be my perception, but I've found it the most accurate of all the sub-81mm mortars
  14. I'm very biased towards the Commonwealth forces, being a Commonwealthian, but I like the 2" mortar, and often purchase more of them in QBs. Their range is limited, as is their HE load, but they are very light and fast, run without tiring too soon, and set up quicker than any other support weapon. They are a smoke mortar with plenty of smoke shells, and a company's worth can lay down a very good smoke screen in seconds - many of my Commonwealth tank crews owe their lives to them. I always make sure I pick up all the loose 2" HE lying around in various vehicles (none in ammo trucks, unfortunately) - the mortars are quite accurate at infantry platoon range and while unlikely to KO an MG or ATG on their own, they add that little extra power to the other platoon and company weapons, especially the ability to get that last couple of crewmen in good cover. Commonwealth forces have less firepower than US forces, because of their inferior rifles, but they are very integrated units, and I have had a lot of fun learning (over many years!) to use all the components effectively together to get the most out of them
  15. Mortars can spot from just below the top of a slope, and hit just beyond the ridge of a hill or rise. It takes a bit practice to choose the right spot (part of the fun of the game), and there's no guarantee a sharp-eyed high-quality unit won't spot you - a human opponent is sure to work out where you are before long, so you have to be stealthy, displace before too long, choose your targets and so on; but two or three medium mortars or so can zero in on a juicy soft target very quickly and make a much more deadly mess than most artillery. Not much good against buildings though.
  16. On-map medium mortars are wasted if they are used for indirect fire - I usually try and sneak them to within 750-1000m of the target, where they are accurate. 2" belong up there with the platoon (in QBs, I make sure I pick up some vehicles with extra ammo, so they have more HE rounds). 60mm mortars work well in both roles, but they are light and quick to set up, and more accurate the closer you get (up to about 300m), so the best place for them is with the HMGs, just behind the front-line infantry.
  17. All this stuff about economics and industrial processes is interesting, but I don't think it contributes to how unit points are calculated in CM. Here's a better question. In a tank-only ME QB, on a large map with typical tank combat ranges (500-1500m), playing against an opponent as good as yourself, with six Pz IVs, how many vanilla 75mm M4s would you feel you need for the game to be properly balanced...? The game points assume eight M4s, actually not quite. Seems right.
  18. The Commonwealth mortar carriers often have the mortar team as vehicle crew. I used to go meticulously through every game at setup, switching them round so the ammo bearer was the driver - and then I just couldn't be bothered, because it honestly doesn't make that much difference.
  19. You need to delete movement orders, click 'dismount' and they will dismount at the start of the turn. Any movement orders you apply after clicking dismount will apply to the dismounted crew. You won't be able to click 'setup' until the next turn.
  20. For what it's worth, all other factors being equal, I've found it rare for one 75mm M4 to win a shootout with one PzIV at typical combat ranges. Up close (which is abnormal for tank combat), the Sherman has an edge, but at normal range >500m, the PzIV spots first, shoots first and hits first, and usually kills - and even if the hits don't always kill at long range, they will mess up the M4 so badly it's out of the fight. At long range, an M4 with a 'typical' crew will take multiple ranging shots before it can hit anything. Only an Allied 76mm (or a well up-armoured Sherman) is really an equal match for the PzIV at normal range for tank combat.
  21. I've had the most fun with CMFI bundle and SF2 bundle... EDIT: who am I kidding...? They're all wonderful. I've played CMFB and CFBS less than the others (due to lack of Commonwealth forces and sheer difficulty, respectively), but I've had hours of fun with all of them.
  22. 30 cal. HMGs (i.e. the watercooled ones) in the WWII games can put out very good suppressing fire against buildings, and there are various light vehicles that have .50 cal HMGs (and lots of ammo), that are not good for much else than long range fire against infantry in hard cover - you're probably better off to keep them further back than 300m in WWII titles though. It's actually not that hard to eliminate an infantry squad in a building with a vehicle .50 cal in the WWII games (what matters a lot is the amount of ammo you have), even in CMFI where buildings are almost all made of stone.
  23. One thing I've found is that on a CM scale, you'll be scouting and advancing from different directions, you'll meet resistance in one point, but not in another, so you'll be tempted to avoid the point of resistance and push forward where there is no resistance. So one does this, and then you find where there is no resistance, you've actually walked into the toughest part of the enemy line, it's interconnected and to deal with it, you're going to have to take out the strongpoint you originally tried to avoid. You end up wasting time and walking into killing zones. So when I meet enemy resistance, my response now is that 'this is something that needs to be dealt with, not avoided'. It doesn't mean throwing everything at the enemy where they are strongest, or attacking head-on - of course, you use stealth and finesse, you flank a point or attack it from defilade or whatever - but the idea of 'attacking the enemy where he is weak', at the CM scale, on the battlefield as a whole, doesn't really work. You will probably need to deal with enemy strongpoints as you discover them - there will be more of them and they will be interconnected; so while of course you continue your recon, you simultaneously begin planning how you are best going to attack the enemy you have encountered.
  24. The accuracy of the gun makes a huge difference, especially at realistic ranges, but I think you have a point. For example, the Sd.Kfz. 233 with the short 75mm (128pt/143pt) costs less than a Hellcat (141pt/156pt) - but they're both lightly armoured, fast, open-topped vehicles that can kill each other. That makes the Hellcat (with the more accurate gun) about 10% more expensive than the 75mm AC, whereas the Pz IV is 30% more expensive than the Sherman. So, a valid question...
×
×
  • Create New...