JoePrivate

Perhaps I have been unlucky, but bogging and immobilzation are alive and well with snow conditions in 1.12.

I don't know Pillar, BH asked a question of you awhile back that went unanswered and may help clarify things.

Lol, yeah that's funny alright. To answer your question, it's because CM is a platoon/company simulator not a soldier simulator. The AT teams only carry a shreck, piat or bazooka, their only role is an AT one.

Getting back to the platoon in combat, I just watched a show for the first time called "Battle Stripes", a documentary about the training of Platoon Leaders and Sargeants for the British Army(?). It was very enlightening I thought. Three concepts I recall the instructors kept on hammering into the trainees was leadership, work as a team to kill the enemy and keep your men alive. Most interesting was the post-exercise analysis, the reason for trainee failures: "he knows his theory but unable to use it/doesn't use it in practice".

There's an excerpt from 'Steel Inferno' on the first clash(Jun7) between the 12thSS and the Sherbrooke Fusiliers. The Fusiliers lost 21 tanks with 7 damaged in the six hour battle, the 12thSS reported expending only 40 rounds of AT ammunition. The short engagement ranges are deadly and CM reflects that to a large degree. Try extending the range and you may come back here wondering the opposite.

I guess I was curious about your distinction here by looking for specific examples from you. A split squad is not as 'robust' as a full one in a firefight, that's even more pronounced when they are Regular. If out of C&C then a split squad will be even more fragile and its added delay in carrying out orders makes for less flexibility, not more, allowing your opponent to get inside your 'tempo'. There's a distinct correlation between firepower/range/cover, a split British Rifle squad for example is pretty anemic, not very good at much of anything on its own. That's fine, I think it's a given that a squad or team that walks into an ambush blind will be chewed up pretty good. If I *sensed* an area may contain the enemy then for sure it will be targetted with indirect or mortar fire, or smoked. That's not really what I was trying to get at. I was thinking more along the lines of your spread out platoon split into maneuver/support elements dealing with a more concentrated enemy upon contact. Again I was looking more for a specific example of how you would use your support/maneuver elements to either engage or bypass. How that technique would be more effective than a traditionally more concentrated platoon upon contacting the enemy initially. Keeping in mind that if some of your elements are out of C&C, they cannot react as well in a fluid situation and we are just talking platoon vs platoon here. Sure it's easy to say then just bring up some firesupport to suppress the enemy but I'm curious simply about the platoons actions in an isolated case. Bypass means to me going around not withdrawing, lol, you agree that split squads have limitations in combat effectiveness and/or reaction times when out of C&C? Doesn't this give an advantage to the defender to get 'inside' your plans? I agree there are situations where simply maneuvering a force can threaten the enemy and cause him to move and/or react. Hmm, I agree with Bullethead in that I don't see this 'versus' distinction at all, as opposed to simply playing CM well, which means at some point you will have to engage the enemy. [This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-18-2001).]

A few questions from a CM player's perspective re your Infantry Platoon on Attack technique. 1. What factors and/or situations are conducive to splitting squads into support and maneuver elements? Always? When wouldn't you? 2. What influence does platoon experience, C&C, HQ abilities and platoon type have on your technique? Do you use Regulars? Or higher experience? How come? Do you keep your platoon in C&C? Would you use, for example, a British or German Rifle platoon in this manner? If no or depends, then what type do you favour? 3. At what range do you think you will make contact against the defending platoon with your maneuver element(s)? What do you think is the likely outcome for said maneuver element(s)? 4. Upon contact what influences your next decision whether to engage or bypass? How would you best accomplish that with your support/maneuver elements being 'down' some already? Again we're talking platoon vs platoon only. If bypass, then what do you think are the likely actions of the defending platoon you aren't engaging? How would you deal with that? Looking forward to your response.

I was curious also so setup 10 islands with 60m of open tiles surrounded by rough tiles. One .50cal MG, one HQ(+2Morale&Command) and one US Rifle squad w/grenades only versus one 251/1 HT, all Regulars. At start, average range for HMG was 63m, for the Rifle squad about 16m. I ran it 5 times. .50cal - 47 kills Rifle Squad - 1 kill HQ - 1 kill 251/1 survived once Six times the engagement lasted longer than one minute, but never longer than two minutes(except for the lone 251/1 victor). Usually it was all over in less than 30s. More samples would be needed I think especially in light of your case which appears exceptional. [This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-16-2001).]

Well perhaps nothing was changed intentionally but something has changed. A test case with a HT in a 20m island surrounded by rough tiles and a platoon of infantry w/grenades only. Engagement range of 13m or less before HT moves, then 15 to 22m, run 5 times. Version 1.05 M3HT lasted 14s, 10s, 8s, 9s, and 9s before KO'd 251/1HT lasted 9s, 11s, 11s, 9s, and 10s before KO'd Version 1.12 M3HT lasted 105s, 125s, 221s, 131s, and 123s before KO'd 251/1HT lasted 93s, 138s, 58s, 118s, and 84s before KO'd Maybe the results from 1.05 are unrealistic and the 1.12 results are more 'in-line', I don't know, but the difference is there.

Treeburst155 has something here. When the StuH42 is right next to the bocage its LOS is blocked at around 30m to one side but on the other side there are 'spots' where its LOS extends up 100m. Yet when the StuH42 is moved a little back from the bocage then its LOS only extends to around 30m on both sides. The only thing I'm not sure of is if you can actually drive an AFV up to the bocage that close in a game, as displayed in the first image, without it backing off.

JgPvIV and PvIV/70 Role Tank Hunter/Infantry Support Pros They have a good price/performance ratio versus most other German AFVs, especially the JgPzIV. Their hard hitting guns and sloped armour/low silhouette make them very deadly on the battlefield. The JgPzIV has low ground pressure and a good ammo loadout, much better in both counts than the StugIII. Cons They are both turretless and only have one MG with low ammo. The PzIV/70 is slow and has a high ground pressure. Use As others have said the obvious choice is to use them as a mobile AT weapon in defense/ambush. When HD they can usually only be defeated by tungsten from the front. I regularly use them in the infantry support role when needed. As well, when attacking or in a meeting engagement, I will use a JgPzIV and MkIV combo, with the JgPzIVs leading the MkIVs. Even when not HD most Allied guns will not penetrate the sloped armour of the JgPzIV, having them out front means they will be engaged first, allowing the MkIVs time and freedom to effectively engage themselves without getting KO'd early.

I'm reading Steel Inferno also, the author states the the 12SS specifically trained for night attacks, infiltration, camouflage etc. Now that probably was a result of total Allied air superiority in Normandy and perhaps also lessons learned from Russia. The author also states the Commonwealth troops, at least in the opening weeks of the campaign, did not conduct night operations, in fact seemed ill-prepared for any sort of night activity at all. I'm not overly familiar with the Russian campaign, but from CM:BO BTS doesn't factor those 'general characteristics', leaving us instead with the experience/fanatical/HQ modifiers.

I think Steve was simply mistaken in his initial post because the 250/9 and 234/1 both can fire at FBs with 1.12. It is only the Lynx that can't, which is in line with the information presented here. Are you saying the Lynx should be able to fire on FBs as well?

I ran your test scenario 10 times under 1.12, and resolved one minute of action with the following results: The squads with rifle grenades and fausts destroyed the HTs immediately, no suprise there I guess. The squads with demo charges destroyed the Sherman 7 times, immobilized it twice and no damage once; destroyed the MkIV 4 times, immobilized it twice, damaged the gun once and no damage 3 times. The squads with grenades destroyed the US HT 3 times, immobilized it once, no damage 6 times; destroyed the German HT once, no damage 9 times.

That's too funny. Having noticed the thread languishing with no response, I attempted a *humourous* post to bump it and get people's attention. It even had a smiley to indicate it's non-seriousness, followed by a suggestion to help a guy out. I guess that flew over some heads, whatever...

Another counter question: Is there a *game* with unlimited artillery?

I don't understand this. If you allow the computer to pick for you it's because you want the unexpected and a new challenge isn't it? If you have a pre-determined force make-up in mind already then why didn't you just manually choose it yourself?, instead of picking unrestricted computer selection and then complaining about what you received!

Don't want to rain on anyone's parade here but this has been discussed a lot before. BTS has commented that it's something that they will be looking at for CM2. Here's a relevant url http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014942.html [This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-09-2001).]

I agree with Tanaka, it is very easy to win on defense now, especially with the reduced fortification costs. The attacker doesn't have the overwhelming numbers to take losses and keep on coming like before the change, which was winnable as the defender even then. The terrain can favour either side, that's just the way it goes, but the attack/defend ratio doesn't need to be tweaked from my experience.

Just left-click on the waypoint and press the key for the desired command.

No, just using Babelfish to translate, the quotes from DesertFox talk about PzGrs in SPWs, in conjunction with armour, fighting from their vehicles in the main battle area against improved positions, foxholes, nests of resistance etc. Doesn't sound like 'only in the rear area' but I will stand to be corrected.

Perhaps your 10 - 20% estimate is a bit high and unsupported by the facts, ie no responses to this thread. Do you have any evidence you're not alone? Maximus has a new 'mud' mod, may be worth trying when it's available. Good luck.

Would the sight of the crew bailing out confirm matters?

1 1)2 2)6 3)5 4)0 5)0 6)0

A general rule of thumb is about half the range of the panzerfaust type to get a good shot in. Also if possible fire from the sides or rear, the squads seem more likely to fire then.