Jump to content

Cybeq

Members
  • Posts

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Cybeq

  1. It seems like the popular answer has been to use "minor" vehicles as recon scouts. I don't think that is always the best answer. A fast moving jeep or armored car can't spot hidden infantry, guns, MG's, or mortars. In fact, they don't spot very well at all. Most of the time your only clue about enemy positions will be when your recon vehicle blows up from an unseen AA gun or infantry AT unit. Then you'll be left guessing what killed it and where it came from. Infantry make better scouts. Armored cars and other light vehicles excel at guarding your flanks and racing up the enemy's flank. They excel at distracting the enemy's armor and at supporting your infantry.
  2. My least favorite WWII tank is the Lynx or Luchs or whatever it's called. Is this thing even a tank? What kind of gun does it have? It's 20mm and it fires like an AA gun. It makes multiple booms for one shot like an AA gun. That's why it confuses me. I know the Ostwind and Wirblewind are not tanks but I'm not so sure about the Lynx. If it is a tank (which it does look like) then it really sucks. Shouldn't a tank be able to kill another tank? What can this thing kill? Does it do anything that somthing else couldn't do better? What is your incentive to buy one? To me, the only incentive is looks. It is one smooth looking piece of crap. Just look at that shiny turd.
  3. My favorite WWII tank would have to be the humble little Stuart. If your tactics call for a fast-moving, fast firing, little ball 'o fire then this is your tank. It's cheap and its just custom made for running and gunning. Send this little dynamo scootin' up the enemy's flank and watch while it's three machine guns fire wildly at cowering troops and it whips it's turret from target to target popping enerything that moves. Man, I love these guys. In the time it takes most Axis armor to draw a bead and fire off a single round the Stuart will have already fired three times with as many hits. Add to all this an ammo supply that never seems to end and you have the best tank in the game. Period. Just don't get within LOS of any AA guns.
  4. To me, a heavy tank would include anything you can purchase in the "armor" category. Your friend is a cheating weasel. Having said that I would definately play this person again. He sounds very predicatable. I just got done playing a guy who likes to buy heavies. Personally, I liked seeing that big 'ol Jadgpanther come over the hill. It means thats all he has for armor. I concentrated everything I had on it. A Jackson, a Stuart, and a 57mm AT gun all opened fire. Over the next two turns I got multiple hits. Every single shot ricocheted but I immobilized him and damaged the gun. Then the crew abandoned it. Use his predictability against him.
  5. What laxx said is mostly true but I don't agree with his statement: "- Off-board Artillery bombardment or On board Motars with Fire Officer (FO). If the town is big, i will use target wide (I) commad." The reason is because buildings offer good protection from artillery. If you don't have 155mm or heavier then I wouldn't waste it on a town. My advice: If you don't have to enter (i.e. no flags in the town) then don't. If you find yourself in a position where entry into an enemy occupied town is required then you are in for a real chore. Finding out which buildings are occupied is very important. Send infantry into the outer-most buildings while being overwatched by sp arty with LOS to the inner buildings. When you come under fire, destroy the building with your Priest, Sexton, Wespe, or whatever. Digging infantry out of towns is tough but it can be done. Flame-throwing vehicles can help with this too.
  6. My least favorite tank is the Lynx. How this anemic little wind-up toy can even call itself a tank I'll never know. I like the way it looks though.
  7. You definately need the 1.12 patch. You can't play by e-mail until you do. I don't have any real tips on TCPIP or PBEM play except to look for opponents here. Also, I would highly suggest modding all the graphics. It'll take time but it's so worth it. I find the stock graphics unplayable.
  8. I prefer to play as the Americans because they seem very well balanced. I also feel more comfortable playing as them. It feels like I'm the "good guys".
  9. A few little tips I can think of: 1. Use a sharpshooter to button the enemy tanks. 2. Never put on-board mortars within LOS of the enemy. Always use a hq unit to spot for them and keep that hq unit hidden. 3. Try to never use the "ambush" command. Instead hide the unit you wish to ambush with. It functions similar to ambush but it's more flexible. 4. Keep all armor at least 100 meters away from suspected or known enemy infantry locations. 5. (under most circumstances) end all AFV move commands so they stop behind cover. 6. ALWAYS keep each squad in your platoon in C&C with their HQ. That's all I can think of right now. I know they probably seem really basic and common sense so forgive me if you already knew all of this.
  10. Thanks for all the prompt replies. Yes, I KNOW I will get CMBB. I mean, c'mon, it's the best combat sim out there. I didn't know about the CMBO scenerios redone in CMBB. That sounds great! Can't wait CMAK either!
  11. I know I'm slow but I just got a new computer and was afraid my old one wouldn't cut it. I've been experiencing the combat simulation known as CMBO since it debuted. It is my favorite computer activity. ********* DEMO SPOILER *********** My first impression of CMBB was of the graphics. Way better than CMBO. The sound effects are nicer but the gun sounds and explosions seem quieter for some reason. I love the sound of bullets impacting the ground and metal though. After I got over the eye candy I was able to play the sample scenerios and was left with a question. CMBO tactics don't seem to be as effective in this game. As I played the tutorial scenerio I used tactics that would have worked in CMBO but I got smacked down pretty good in CMBB. I deployed my Maxim's and 50mm mortar as far back as possible but with LOS to the VL. I moved my platoon into the trees in front of the VL to get ready to assault. Then I split a squad and sent them ahead to get the enemy to reveal themselves. I spotted a light gun and opened up with both Maxim's and the 50mm mortar while my tanks hunted forward. In CMBO the gun would have been suppressed, the tanks would have moved forward and engaged the gun at which point the gun would have ceased to exist. But the gun was able to fire on my tanks even while machine gun fire poured in and 50mm HE rained down on it. That little gun took out both tanks! So what gives? Is this game more realistic? Could a dug-in light gun really withstand direct fire from two machine guns and indirect HE (as well as the one or two shots my tanks got off) long enough to K.O. the tanks? I played all the scenerios as the Russians and performed poorly in each one using tactics that proved effective in CMBO. Does that mean that CMBO wasn't a very accurate simulation after all?
  12. I too, have noticed this AT team phenomenon in CMBO. But these kind of John Wayne tactics only seem to work for the AI. Whenever I try it my AT team dies before getting a shot. And if they do get a shot they will miss.
  13. Hmmm, choices, choices.... I guess my favorite vehicle is the German 37mm flak halftrack. I know it's use in PBEM is considered gamey and it's even been banned by some but I still like it. My favorite tank is probably the Stuart. It's been mentioned before but this baby has three machine guns, is fast, and has a main gun that can take out most Axis armor from the rear or side. And it has a large ammo loadout. I can always find a use for one or two when I'm buying my units.
  14. Although I would hardly consider myself a "pro" at this game I have used the tactic you describe with some degree of success. There are several factors that come into play when using this peek-a-boo tactic. The first is LOS to your intended target. If your tank doesn't have LOS when it crests the hill then it will never be able to acquire the target (this seems pretty obvious). The second factor is whether or not the tank is buttoned (always have it unbuttoned), and the final factor is the quality of the crew (the higher the better). So, a green sherman with a dead tank commander is not the ideal choice to try this tactic with. The way I do it is to issue a fast move over the top of the hill so that the tank will fully crest it. I also issue a reverse command back down the same line. This should give it enough time to acquire a target and get off one shot providing it is unbuttoned and has a "regular" or above crew. This tactic will help keep your tanks alive but it won't do much to help you destroy the enemy. You usually need several shots from a stationary tank before you get a hit so I use this tactic to harrass the enemy and to distract them. Every now and then I'll get a hit using this tactic but not very often.
  15. I certainly won't argue that a rifle squad can't destroy a halftrack. I never noticed the problem you describe though. I'll have to try it.
  16. An excellent question concerning an all too common reality of meeting engagements. What you essentially have are two equal forces contesting a small victory location on a much larger playing field. Typically this results in the two forces hunkering down in cover on opposite sides of the VL and exchanging fire. It's easy to conclude that the side that has better cover and more firepower has a better chance of winning. So what to do? Well, the advice above is certainly worth heeding. Mass of forces. Good. What do you do when your mass equals his mass? One platoon vs. one platoon. After all, isn't that what a meeting engagement is? Equal mass vs. equal mass? Strictly speaking if you have a platoon of inf. in scattered trees and the enemy has a platoon of inf. in scattered trees you can't press your attack. You're stuck, he's stuck. But, what if you had your squads split? Half in the scattered trees engaging the enemy at 12:00 and half in the woods engaging at 3:00? Incoming fire from two angles. Same mass. More targets for the enemy to engage. I'm not saying this tactic will work but it's somthing to think about. Angles count in this game. Bottom line: You have to have firepower superiority at the point of attack. If you don't have it, don't attack. You're better staying put or manuvering for a better position.
  17. I still haven't downloaded the demo for CMBB yet. I'm too scared it won't run good on my computer. Hopefully I'll get a new computer soon and get to see what all the fuss is about. In the meantime CMBO remains my favorite game.
  18. I've never had a problem getting rifle squads to fire at halftracks. What you describe puzzles me.
  19. I deeply regret the downward spiralling diatribe my previous thread degenerated into. I did not mean for it to turn into that. What I meant by "obsolete" was that as I look over the improved features of CMBB (specifically the new machine gun stuff) I see a game that once played will make it hard to go back to CMBO. Do you see what I mean? Once I am able to give a machine gun an arc to cover and use the "assault" move command and all the other improvements I'll go back to CMBO and want to do the same things but will be unable to. It will be at that time that I will have a decision to make. Keep CMBO or press on with CMBB. I'll wait to decide I guess. My wish above all wishes is for un upgrade patch to be released for CMBO. Then I could have my cake and eat it too. Alas, I realize it is just a pipe dream. Keep up the good work BTS! CMBO still kicks tail!
  20. Pardon me if this has been debated before but I'm a lazy sluggard and didn't bother to do a search. Given that CMBB will rock and CMBO has been frozen in an unperfected state why play CMBO after the release of CMBB? Speaking for myself, I'll probably uninstall CMBO once I get CMBB. Anyone else?
  21. The "gamey" debate will never be resolved. Here's why: Although everyone can agree that the use of unrealistic, ahistorical tactics is gamey we cannot agree as to what those tactics actually are. The reason is that we all have varying levels of education/experience/understanding of real WWII weapons and tactics. We all have different expectations going into a PBEM and we all play for different reasons. Many people play to win. They will always be accused of being gamey. Those who play to experience the game as a simulation of WWII tactics had best play opponents with an understanding of WWII and CMBO on par with their own. The resolution to the issue of gaminess is found in the selection of your human opponent.
  22. I don't know about this "super fog of war" you speak of. Are you speaking of relative spotting? I beleive relative spotting is simply this: when you select a unit you will only be able to see enemy units which are in the LOS of the currently selected unit or somfink like this. I think that playability has to be balanced with the ultimate in fog of war realism such as you describe. Imagine sending a scout unit out of your A0's LOS and then losing the ability to control that unit because you lost sight of it! That would seriously suck and I wouldn't play a game that imposed such limitations on the player. I'm all for realism but not at the cost of playability.
  23. I wish to stand up and be counted among those who are satisfied.
  24. Thanks slapdragon. I was one of the ones who vowed to steer clear of any material published by the real Dunphie. It's nice to know it was an imposter.
  25. Your recoilless rifle should've opened up at much longer range. As has already been pointed out the shaped charge's effectiveness is unaffected by range and it would have rendered the scout car's machine gun less effective when it fired at your gun. 45 meters is PIAT/zook/schreck range.
×
×
  • Create New...