Jump to content

Slappy

Members
  • Posts

    463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Slappy

  1. I would actually suggest that this sort of damage management is marginally gamey. It takes undue advantage of the 'all or nothing' model of building damage which is a poor representation of reality. I agree that it can be useful (particularly v. the AI which abandons or crews buildings much more predictably than humans), but I would consider it bad form if done obviously and repeatedly.

  2. Well, saying you can't flank them makes it almost impossible to answer. In reality, you either have to bring up something with enough front armor to pound it out or (as you mentioned) smoke them. The other, generally better, answer is to flank them, making it uncomfortable to stay in the keyhole position. In reality, if you could do neither, you would probably pull back and wait for more firepower or attack somewhere else and flank the whole position. Most commanders would not send the whole armored company to its doom. Of course, at the tactical CM level, that may just mean you're out of luck. At the same time, what about infantry? Can you work squads up on the flanks into positions the armor can't reach?

  3. I kept one for a while, but it was a hassle and I never looked at it so I gave up. There are some long PBEM series that no one can remember the score on anymore. I'd like to know for those purposes, but not much else. I'm not sure I even have all of the appropriate versions of CM to even open most of the files anymore (BO 1.05, BB 1.01).

  4. I've used them (trenches) extremely successfully to beef up inexperienced units. On the defence, if you don't need to move them, green units in a trench have the staying power of regulars or veterans in foxholes in many situations. It is far cheaper to spend 10pts on the trenches than to buy up experience.

  5. Canister is the same round by the same name used since the 18th century or earlier. It consists of a variety of small objects packed into a canister designed to spread out upon firing and cause massive damage to soft (i.e. human) targets at relatively short range. It is similar to what would be called grapeshot in the british navy (iron balls the size of grapes packed into the shell), and is the tank equivalent of a shotgun shell.

  6. Bottom line:

    There is a wealth of evidence that AT weapons were used in a variety of non-AT roles by all forces. I would support shooting at just about anything with them including but not limited to tanks, buildings, bunkers, bridges, infantry, guns, trees, cows, (sorry I got a little carried away).

    There is very little evidence that they were used for scouting by themselves. They are also, in game terms, too expensive to make that a very fruitful use of these weapons.

    Blast away, but leave them behind the scouts.

  7. One nit on the fence. Generally, the fences in the USSR would be constructed almost entirely of wood (as is shown in the picture) with a frame of larger pieces supporting the slats. Using wire to hold the slats together (as I think your mod shows) would be rare. Wire costs money where wood tends not to and is less common in the generally rural and poor USSR of the 1940s. At the same time, wood is fairly scarce some parts of the South, so the tradeoff may go the other way in some parts of the country.

  8. Wow, far be it from me to argue with Moon, but I feel I have to. I agree with everything but the answer on bazookas.

    I've been playing this game a long time, and I've never seen a bazooka fire in a direction is wasn't facing. Bazookas are not considered 'secondary weapons' with a squad, they are primary crew served weapons like MGs and AT guns and tend to behave as such with respect to firing and facing. Your bazooka must rotate to face the target in order to fire.

    Panzerfausts will fire at any facting as they are senondary carried squad weapons.

×
×
  • Create New...