Jump to content

Kaunitz

Members
  • Content Count

    408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Kaunitz last won the day on November 10 2018

Kaunitz had the most liked content!

About Kaunitz

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,398 profile views
  1. Last game a trooper of mine fired 4 RPG7-shots into a tree right in front of him. The tank was 20-25m away... I'm also a bit disappointed about how easily tanks seem to be allowed to manoeuver (and turn their turret/gun) in woods. It would be great if more map designers made use of small patches of heavy wood (impassable to tanks, afaik?) to make tank movement more complicated and less predictable in woods. Tank manoeuverablity in dense forest is one of my main gripes. As LongLeftFlank also mentioned, very few CM map feature the thickets at the edges of woods (a gently rising canopy, so to speak), which would cut LOS into the wood. Of course this would also depend on the type of wood - there are many woods without that typical thicket. Most woods on quick battle maps are way too small. As a result, these woods can be traversed very fast, they can be easily saturated by artillery fire, and defending them doesn't take a lot of troops.
  2. Interesting stuff, holoween! Indeed in larger battles I think that some fortifications can be more worthwhile in terms of cost/effectivenes due the relation between point budget/mapsize. May I ask how the battle went/why it did take longer for your opponent to clear the position? Was the opponent unable to hit or were his hits less effective in taking your pixeltruppen out? I wonder if part of the perceived protection might have been due to the very flat terrain (hitting close to the target requires more accuracy in this case)? Did he have no artillery? You say it was more difficult to scout out? Aren't foxholes spotted very easily?
  3. Hm. Never thought of it this way. I find it a bit strange if "more tolerance for casualties" benefits the defender rather than the attacker. So a better name for the assault missions should be "search and destroy". In my opinion assault missions should feature a big separate point budget for the defender to buy field fortifications. Unless you put them into a separate budget, noone is ever going to buy them because they're ridicolously overprized. Would you rather buy 2 squares of barbed wire or a full squad? Field fortifications are supposed to funnel the enemy into killzones, not to be more expensive than the troops that constitute your killzones! Also, field fortifications are still underpowered (CM:BS doesn't even feature "bunkers" - so you get no overhead protection whatsoever for infantry positions in the title which has plenty of airburst HE ammo....for me this is a major issue that totally messes up the balance. No wonder everyone is astonished by the "lethality" of the modern titles...)
  4. What often drives me nuts is that you cannot area-target reverse slope spots (exception: mortars). This basically means that your line of sight (onto the ground!) is identical with your line of fire, which sometimes leads to rather ridicolous problems: For example, I cannot order my heavy MG to spray some bushes. I can only order the MG to target the ground in front of the bushes, but I cannot fire at the bushes themselves. For this reason alone, vehicle-mounted MGs are often more usefull as they are better at "spotting the ground" because of the elevated position of the MG. But then again, the fire from mounted MGs is often not as effective (depending on the distance, the angle between the ground and the trajectory of the shots is bigger, so the bullets don't graze that well/travel that far - the effect of the fire is extremely limited to a very tight spot). Generally speaking, I think that MGs have a lot of problems in the current engine. Effective fire is very hard to achieve because of the LOS=LOF issue described above, because of map design (very steep elevations, lots of cover --> very few opportunities for effective long range and/or grazing fire), because players have no influence on the spread (only 1 spot targeted per round/minute) and on the rate of fire (which depends entirely on the range) and because combat mission pixeltruppen tend to be rather unimpressed by fire (unless it kills). To a lesser degree though, these problems affect all small calibre fire. It's very hard to direct fire in a way in which it is effective (sweeping/covering ground effectively). It would also be nice if MGs were more trigger happy. If they see a single enemy soldier who drops to the ground, they should continue to fire at the spot where he went down and the surroundings. Exclusively firing on sight defeats the purpose. PS. Example of grazing fire in CM: https://youtu.be/KrY135AV6tg
  5. Okay so it seems that point 1 is not true for most QB maps. For probes/attacks/assaults, the location of objectives and the deployment zones are identical. So the only difference between the battle types is the difference in the point budget and the allocation of victory points to terrain objectives and casualties, as described in the v.4 manual, pp. 27, 119. To me it seems as if the more you go towards assault, the easier it will be for the attacker. The attacker gets more points and more tolerance for losses (and some info on enemy positions). The defender gets ... nothing? Players could agree on using progressively shorter time limits for attacks and assaults though.
  6. That only works in PBEM if both players have a gentlemens' agreement and trust each other.
  7. Infantry guns are almost useless in Combat Mission because most of maps are too small/too hilly and crowded with terrain. For Normandy, that's okay, but for the other titles, I think it's a big problem. You rarely get LOS beyond ca. 250m. This is too close for comfort even for heavy MGs, let alone an infantry gun. Most reasonable "support positions" would be somewhere behind the attacker's deployment zone off map on a hill/ridge (which would also allow some spotting and help get rid of the CM scouting claustrophobia).
  8. In case you didn't know: John Tiller's Panzer Campaigns Series inclues a "Sealion" game. These are usually very well researched games that come with designer notes if you're interested in the conflict. Oddly, this one seems to be missing the "planning map" (a huge hex-map file): http://www.johntillersoftware.com/PanzerCampaigns/Sealion40.html
  9. Thanks a lot, that's very usefull! The follow-up question we could try to answer concern the differences between the different types of quickbattles, apart from the point budgets. I will try to investigate the differences, but maybe someone already knows more than I? As far as I know, the more you lean towards "assault", the deeper in the defender's deployment zone the terrain objectives ought to be / the further the defender's deployment zone reaches? the less weight casualties should have compared to the terrain objectives for determining victory (in an assault only, the attacker gets some information/contact markers on the defenders' positions)
  10. This. I think one of the more interesting points in the "tanks op?" thread was the question whether the coordination between tanks and infantry is too easy in CM. And I'm still of the opinion that it is. Mind you, this is not neccessarily about borg-spotting (letting tanks area-fire at targets that they can't even know about), but also about reaction by movement. If I spot a Panzershreck team with my infantry over there, I can let my tanks stop/reverse very quickly. Tanks can react to things they shouldn't be aware of. An interesting but purely hypothetical "solution" would be to increase reaction intervals for tanks, so that - for example - you could only give new orders to a tank every 3 minutes, not every single minute. Also, I still think that the lack of proper defensive works in Combat Mission increases the tanks' power against infantry. On the other hand, quickbattle-map-design tends to make tanks more vulnerable to infantry (and also to other tanks). Most quickbattle-maps are extremely compartmentalized, which means that tanks are too close for comfort most of the time. (It also means that heavy MGs aren't even remotely as usefull as they should be, but that's another issue)
  11. Most Combat Mission scenarios are pitched assaults (without any recon info for the attacker...*sigh*) on maps with relatively short lines of sight. Also, both sides usually have at least some (anti) tank capabilities. These are big handicaps for Stummels (and other non-armored infantry support assets). I suppose that Stummels would be much more usefull in those types of engagements that cannot be translated into Combat Mission scenarios that well/easily: asymmetrical delaying/rearguard actions. E.g. the enemy - let's suppose it's an infantry battalion - is on the retreat because tank formations have broken through his main line of resistance in some other sector of the front. In order to secure his retreat, he leaves behind small detachments (most likely MG nests) in strongpoints/villages along his path of retreat. It's rather unlikely that anti tank guns are part of such detachments. Now, your task is just to "work" your way through the enemy delaying efforts: push through minefields and road blocks, clear the villages. This is WWII day to day business. Such scenarios would be rather frustrating and dull to play. Most of the time, the enemy would just fire from a distance, forcing you to deploy from marching column to battle formation (which takes time) and once you enter the village, the enemy is already gone. I suppose that Stummels would be quite usefull in these situations (knocking out enemy nests of resistance "on the fly").
  12. I'd like to volunteer as the stay behind man, yes, please! Interesting video! Thanks for sharing.
  13. BTW If you're looking for Red Army maps: http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/images/splash.htm?scope=images/VAC9619 (you can activate a "interactive view" to zoom in, but there doesn't seem to be an option to download...) --> index map available here: https://iu.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=098c42997ca441029b69f0597ff92ea6 - here you can also download the maps in high resolution Some interesting situational maps: http://armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/
  14. These are all very interesting points. I share the observation that in some situations the suppression bar takes quite a while to fill up if no casualties are inflicted. I think our last PBEM was a great example for that, when my 2-3 heavy MGs were firing at your platoon that was advancing over open but sloped (bad for MG, no grazing) ground and quite miserably failed to pin you down or cause any casualties at all. Now, in this case, the distance was very far (500-600m?) and the fire not too accurate, so I guess it was okay that my MGs did not stop the advance. However, I also wondered whether the fact that your soldiers were spread out quite a lot played a role here. I guess that the suppressive effect is smaller when the bullets hit close to only one soldier, with the rest of the squad being farther away? Generally speaking, it seems as if very accurate and high volumes of fire are required to prevent enemy movements in Combat Mission. I wonder whether troops should go prone immediately whenever bullets impact the ground anywhere close, except if they have an active "fast" order (and are thus highly unlikely to spot the source of the incoming fire). With a gradual build-up of suppression and the standard reaction to incoming fire ("quick") units are often able to make a lot of ground even if under fire and they have a good chance to spot the source of the incoming fire (in quick move, they're still upright, standing). It seems more plausible to me that you would hit the ground immediately (and then of course have troubles to figure out where the fire was coming from, with their eyes on the ground level...).
×
×
  • Create New...