PatAWilson
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by PatAWilson
-
-
Red Baron 3d with the mods available from the folks that post on Delphi. That game has been a regular feature for me since I bought it 1 day after it was in the stores.
Loved Baldurs Gate and looking forward to the sequel.
I tried several times but I could never get into EAW because the campaign just seemed too repetitive.
Hidden and Dangerous made for a nice diversion.
I bought Terminus but haven't gotten into it yet (it had the bad fortune of coming out around the same time as CM <g>).
I bought Panzer Elite but it seems more of a "Wing Commander" type RPG than a real simulation of WWII combat.
-
There seem to be a lot of empty spots on the CM tile pallet. Anybody have a clue as to how these tiles work? My thinking is that some of these slots can be used to designate some new "large heavy buildings" that look like factories instead of apartment buildings.
-
36 - for 3 more weeks.
-
Much of the Tigers rep is based on taking out Sherman 75s and Cromwells, which were the most common type available to the Allies. Against these types the Tiger is one hell of a tough nut to crack. OTOH if you are paying a scenario that has a bunch of Fireflys or even 76s Tigers can be killed. Even against these types the Tiger can be very effective, just keep the range as long as possible.
-
PCelt: Thanks for the clarification.
-
LOL - I always liked the corporal with the Russian equipment. When asked why he didn't bathe his response was "I found out at Stalingrad that dirt combned with body oils makes you waterproof"
-
Perfectly reasonable idea.
For myself I always choose combined arms, especially in PBEMs. The only other variation that I would use is infantry only. Can't imagine doing tanks only as this takes the fun out of CM for me, but that's just MHO.
The thing that I absolutely love about this game is the effectiveness and importance of infantry. For the first time in my computer wargaming memory infantry is queen of the battlefield and all else, armor included, is merely support. IMHO as it should be.
-
Just my $.02 on the Panther. This tank was not at all rare in 44-45 with about 6000 being built in the war. I think around 13000 75/42 and 75/48 gunned Mk IVs were built. Only about 1100 Tiger Is and 450 Tiger IIs were built.
So ... while an arguement can be made for rare Tigers IMHO the same cannot be said of Panthers. By mid 1944 most Panzer divisions had nearly as many Panthers as Mk IVs.
Some more opinions: the Panther is superior but not invincible. Offer up its flank for even a moment and it's toast. The Tiger I can be penetrated from any aspect by a Sherman 76 from 500 yards. Since this is Europe getting to within 500 yards is usually not that hard.
-
Great info. My understanding is that the superior manueverability and off road performance of the Tiger and Panther came from the wider tracks. The German tanks had slower turret traversal but any half competent German tanker would also be rotating the hull to meet the threat. I don't have empirical evidence but it seems reasonable to me that the superior pivoting ability would, to some extent, compensate for the inferior turret traversal.
How is HVAP modeled in CM? Are the number of rounds limited to just a few or are all AP rounds assumed to be HVAP?
-
Two days here. I was quite impressed.
-
Both sides. German mother and American father, so I do WWII both ways <g>. I generally prefer German for a variety of reasons and usually play German in single player mode, but so far all of my PBEM games have been as American. Too much fun to be had on all sides not to explore all of the options.
-
Thanks for the response. I have to say again what a fantastic piece of software this is. This is the only combat sim that I have ever played where combined arms tactics are not only useful but necessary.
-
Apologies if this has already been discussed but I can't find any threads on the subject.
First, before I continue with something that sounds like a complaint please insert the usual disclaimers about what a great game this is here <g>.
What is the consensus on the casualty rates in CM? My gut feeling is that they are pretty high as I routinely see squads with 50 - 80% casualties still putting up a fight. I realize that in a small scale tactical environment almost anything is possible but it seems to me that most units would pack it in for the day after receiving 50% casualties.
Any comments/suggestions?
My best suggestion would be that most units would never return to an "OK" state after receiving a certain number of casualties. They might not break but possibly would never get past a "Cautious" or "Pinned" state for the rest of the scenario.
-
How to model Rangers?
IMHO I go along with the bump up the experience level by a notch or two suggestion. The justification? Rangers were a highly motivated volunteer force that generally received better training than regular infantry. The more intensive training combined with the elite status would result in Rangers being more effective and less likely to break despite never having seen combat. Personally I would rate the average Ranger as "Veteran".
Now, it would be nice to have Rangers and Commandos modeled directly but the fact of the matter is that they are not there. Given the options IMHO bumping up the experience level is the best way to go.
BTW: is there any good info available on Ranger operations in France/Germany after Normandy? Almost everything that I hear about the Rangers in WWII is centered around June 6.
-
Hello all:
First time poster here. I've had first the demo and then the game for awhile - truly great stuff.
Anyway, I wanted to throw in my .02 for the lowly Stug. It's a great weapon for less than 100 points. As has been stated many times if used to ambush tanks it will be quite sucessful. If it's used to go head to head it probably will not be. I usually like to spot the enemy tank first with infantry and then sneak the Stug up over a rise and pop off a few rounds.
As for lack of HE I tend to agree. If I have the option I will usually boost the HE at the expense of smoke and some AP. I usually find that I never need that many AP rounds. Either I will kill the enemy tanks with about half my load or I will get killed myself. In either case usually about half of my AP load is still on the rack (or cooking off).
Infantry+tank support vs Tanks+infantry support
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
Each has to protect the other. You need tanks to take out hard points and to stop enemy armor from slaughtering your grunts at range. You need infantry to take and hold positions and to keep enemy infantry away from the tanks.
In general, each can be used to help the other. Using tanks to suppress infantry is obvious, but the reverse works too. Opening up on enemy tanks with infantry to get them buttoned before attacking them with your armor will greatly improve your armor's chances of winning.
In general I must admit that I think about my infantry first and view tanks as support. Probably the only exception to this is when I have a really top notch AT asset (Panther, Firefly, etc.), then my thinking changes as I view these vehicles as having a slightly different primary purpose than the standard Sherman/Cromwell/PzKw IV/Stug.