Macisle

Thanks for the pic! On the pro side, that little rise in the ground between the ATG team and the street looks to perhaps offer a small bit of protection/concealment vs a taller tank on the street. Also, staying there avoids your guys lining up along a wall in the alley, which generally seems to narrow an ATG crew's view and actually put them at a disadvantage versus an AFV's spotting speed (one with 4-5 men, anyway). On the con side, they probably won't be able to react and turn quickly enough to counter any threats from the right or rear. Frontally, that close range is dicey for an ATG. A passing tank may be too fast for the ATG to spot and get a shot off. On the other hand, if the enemy has any hidden eyes on the ATG, he could pre-turn a tank's turret with a covered arc, dash in and start pummelling the ATG's position with area fire before it can react. I use that technique a lot when kicking the tires on my urban map. I'm not saying there are any better alternatives...just analyzing. Pondering my ATG testing on my urban map, I generally like to have a minimum of 5-6 action squares of distance to the expected point of contact to give the ATG time to spot and get a shot. In my experience, ATGs tend to lose point blank encounters. Jest pondering. I guess the most important thing at this point is to get them set up and ready. Any chance of having some infantry out of sight in the alley at grenade range in case he tries a rush attack like I mentioned above?

Oof. Carnage. Hang in there! -Hope there is no waypoint wonkiness with your ATG teams. Sometimes, they go a-wonderin'... Where exactly are you planning to position them? I'm sweating it for them.

Thanks again for the detailed updates. Lots of us out here enjoying them. The greater amount of activity in the Soviet thread is probably due to him being perceived as the underdog in this fight. Old hands know that meeting engagements are often largely decided by who takes certain key ground the fastest. Your identifying and taking it early put you in the frontrunner spot. So, I think folks who know the ME dynamic naturally put their attention more on the underdog side. Had it been the reverse, your thread would very likely have been the more active one. Just a thought.

Yeah, we all do it sometimes. Just human nature, I guess.

As soon as I read that you were going to try that, I said, "Nooooooooooo!" T-34/76s don't usually win spotting competitions -- especially ones as lop-sided as this. On using Soviet crews as foot soldiers, IIRC, some AG crews were expected to join in if they ran out of ordnance, or their vehicle got disabled. There are a couple of vehicles in the game that give the crew some SMG firepower and a lot of extra ammo in the vehicle. They can't acquire it, but if you can, say, park the vehicle behind their building the crew can make for a nice little corner defense team. They draw off the extra ammo as needed if the vehicle is close enough.

Door-to-door deadly.

That overwatch PIV would almost certainly win the duel if the OT-34 peeks around the corner. Now, if it got swarmed by infantry first to make it turn its turret, combined with a carefully timed OT-34 advance with a covered armored arc on the PIV (with a timed additional move + face to take off the arc after the likely armor engagement time)... But, you're low on infantry there at the moment and that OT-34 is a key asset. So, not sure on taking the risk. Like you said, maybe think a bit and see if you can make the overall situation more fluid. Don't you have more infantry on the way? More bodies to swarm the tank?

Okay, then: Truppen-Grillen -- a dish best served... HOT.

Yep, I love me some OT-34 truppen-grillen. Among the best muscle there is for urban. Here's hoping he gets lots more customers.

Does the situation allow for you to drop your forward SMG units just behind the building line out of current enemy LOS without being interdicted from somewhere else? If so, what about dropping your front line just behind the building line and distributing them to point blank engage any infantry trying to enter their buildings, while having grenade teams stationed at tank entry points ready to knock out any tanks that pull through the alleys (out of LOS course, so that they get the first attack as the tank passes through at a right angle to them). Your second line (where the sapper came from) could provide additional overwatch for any enemy infantry coming through. Assuming the overall situation allows for it, it might be worth a shot. You'd be letting the enemy in the door, but for the purpose of knocking him out at PB range with your SMG advantage and ability to use grenades against his tanks. Just a thought. However, maybe those independent buildings and rubble make it too risky due to pathfinding. It might work a treat with modular buildings and clear front and rear exits, though.

Overrun imminent.

Right. Independent buildings offer damage decal states that come between undamaged and knocked-out wall. Visually, modular buildings go from undamaged to knocked-out wall. So, there is nothing new here. Man, I'd sure love some in-between states on modular...

I know it's AT rifle meat, but this is such a cool-looking vehicle. Lovely modelling and the crew looks great, too. Now, KILL IT!

Such a cool looking halftrack. Lovely model, too! It's great when the lesser units/oddballs make their presence felt on the battlefield. How many rounds do those babies have?

Aside from smoke, in urban, medium mortars can be very useful for taking out infantry-crewed guns, point building suppression, knocking holes in outdoor walls for tactical maneuver, and with some luck, top-hitting enemy armor. Even if you don't hit the armor, you might get the enemy tank to bugger off for the duration of the arty. 122mm is fairly effective and the extra rounds make it sometimes preferable to 150mm. 105mm is better than medium mortars, but fairly underwhelming. From my urban map-making experience, CMx2 can do pretty realistic urban (when suicide rout doesn't pop up), but a different design approach is required. Basically, the stock map-making design approach limits things. However, the stock approach provides the higher speed of play and lower player workload that pleases the broadest swath of players -- which is why it is what it is. So, Ben's excellent work captures the density and layout of the urban environment very well. However, the stock design approach means that there are a lot of independent buildings and single-width modular lines of buildings with fairly open lines of sight around them. Therefore, while the bird's eye view tells you that the density is right, the stock approach means that the buildings and general environment don't offer the protection and concealment that you would associate with a high level of simulation. So, the Engine offers the tools to "thicken up" the buildings with multi-AS-width modular construction and tucking some kind of concealment terrain everywhere reasonable (low bocage, hedge, etc.), but doing so is going to dramatically slow down play and increase player workload. Also, ordnance levels become a much more important issue. T-34/76s rock, but many other vehicles (especially German ones) will find themselves running out of ammo before they can achieve much. Yes, I'm very hopeful that some of the rough edges of infantry play have been smoothed out and that direct and indirect HE effects vs. infantry displacement are what I am hoping for.

Great stuff! Yeah, flame tanks on urban are like a Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch that keeps on giving. You can use area fire to deal death to places you couldn't reach with anything else due to the penetration and spread. Speaking of which, the penetration of flame throwers means that an infantry FT team can shoot into an adjacent empty building location and penetrate into the next enemy-occupied location in a straight line beyond it. So, you can effectively attack a location two action spots away through walls from a position of complete safety from the unit you are attacking. I call it "Two and torch."

Okay, thanks. I was thinking more of 105mm and up. Medium mortars are pretty low effect vs. dense modular buildings. Of course, they are more effective vs. non-church independent. Anyhoo, we'll see, I guess. Thanks again for the info and the AAR in general. I'm very much enjoying it!

Thanks for the info, Ithikial. Things are sounding good. I have a question about indirect vs. direct HE and infantry displacement behavior, though. Yes, if an infantry unit in a building starts taking direct HE fire, the best choice is to displace asap (out of LOS of course, not into the enemy unit's LOS via front door, etc). However, the opposite is true for indirect HE if that means running out of the building. I sure hope that's been taken into account and factored in. I've done a lot of testing on my urban map and infantry hiding on bottom floors can weather a substantial amount of powerful arty with minimal to moderate casualties. But, if they run out of the building, they're toast. Just recently, I was testing some QB setups and noticed large swaths of AI infantry who didn't set up hidden driven out of very protective buildings to their deaths by arty. It was night and day vs. some earlier non-QB testing where they stayed hidden in place.

Nice! Extra vodka rations to your AT rifle teams. ...if they make it back to the chow wagon at sundown.

I hope he means direct fire HE and not flushing troops out of buildings with indirect HE.

They do a pretty good job of that -- or at least can convince them to go away for awhile. In my experience, against infantry, a grouped AT rifle platoon can lay down decent suppression fire on a single building location at distance. Can be very handy sometimes.

Nice stuff! Get 'em!

It's only natural.

+1

Just yesterday I was running some SU-85s on defense against incoming Stug IIIs on a large, fairly open map. Engaging unbuttoned from stationary, partial or fully hulldown positions at 5 to 700 meters, my SU-85s did not do well against the moving, buttoned-up (I hit them with mortars for that purpose) Stugs. The problem was both spotting and accuracy of shot. Despite the favorable setup, the Stugs were outspotting and landing hits faster than my SU-85s -- even with infantry placed beside them to help.