Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

ParaBellum

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,061

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by ParaBellum

    AI buttons up tanks

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    As we all know, tha AI never opens a tank's hatches once they're closed during a battle.

    Order a sharpshooter to fire at the enemy vehicles and the game gets much easier when playing against the AI.

    The reaction time of buttoned up tanks increase, giving you a higher chance of killing them before they even notice you, other vehicles won't shoot at all while buttoned, so the AI is even more at a disadvantage when battling those gamey humans.

    Now my question: are there plans for CMBB to change the way the AI NEVER unbuttons vehicles? Maybe a routine like: no enemy at less than 100m, no incoming fire=> unbutton?

    Just my 0.2$

    [ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]</p>

    0

    CMBB Matchup - PzKpfw III Ausf. J versus T-34-76 Model 1941

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

    Not only was the T-34 numerous, but in 1940 it was also the best tank design in the world. If the Panzer V is arguably the best medium tank of the war, the T-34 should share in the honors. Many of the great features of the Panther were ispired by the T-34. Some of the stregths of the T-34 go as follows....

    1) Incredible power to weight ratio for it's time. It carried a 500hp engine while other AFV's averged in around 100-200hp engines.

    2) Awesome mobility over nearly any type of terrain. This was due thanks in part to wide tracks, the christie suspension, with a powerful engine; most other afv's of the time had narrow tracks. During the winter battles of 1941 where the T-34 gave the germans a nasty wake up call, the german infantry called the T-34 the "Snow King" because of the tanks abillity to operate in all weather conditions.

    3) Great armor protection and armor design. The T-34 had sloping armor long before any other countries tank designers began to incorporate it, wich also allowed the tank to save some weight.

    4) Great armament. At the time of it's debut on the battlefield, most other AFV's were equipped with 37mm and 50mm main guns. The T-34 was armed with a good medium velocity 76.2mm gun.

    The early T-34 was not without it's problems though. Thw crew compartment was cramped.

    Communications proved to be a big problem as the T-34 was competly inferior to the systems used by the german AFV's.(the germans defeated Soviet amored units despite the fact that they were often horrnedously outnumbers due to superior communications hand in hand with superior tactics.)

    The transmission of these ealry model T-34's was also a problem as it was prone to breakdowns. The 2 man turret lowered the combat effectiveness of the vehicle due to slowing down it's rate of fire. The German PanzerIII and IV had a 3 man turret and a higher rate of fire.

    Despite all of this, the early T-34 was almost and utterly too much for the germans to handle. In the first year of fighting on the eastern front the biggest threats to theb T-34's (in order of severity) go as follows....

    1) Air attack( aka Ju-87 attacks)

    2) Direct fire from the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36.

    3) Heavy artillery. (immobolizing the T-34 made it much less of a threat.)

    4) A close range hit from a PanzerIII or anit tank gun to the rear or side armor.

    5.) Close assualt by german infantry. ( learning to kill the T-34 without anti-tank guns was where the german infantry honed thier skills and became the best tank killers of the war.)<hr></blockquote>

    I see you also own Panzer Commander and its manual... ;)

    [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]</p>

    0

    Captured equipment

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    OK. First, abandonned usually means the vehicle/gun has suffered enough damage for the crew to think it's better to leave it. So in order to use it again, you first had to repair it. I doubt that the usual US army repair facility had lots of spare parts for a Tiger... And the crews of guns were instructed to make the gun unusuable if they have to abandon it.

    I've seen some photos of Shermans with german markings but i don't know if they were actually used in combat or only for testing.

    I've read accounts that the US 83rd infantry division used several Tiger tanks, a few Mercedes cars, buses and even a Me 109, but I guess this was far from usual...

    0

    Commanding styles?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I think it's interesting how many (less experienced) players are concentrated on the VLs. I've seen it many times in TCP/IP games when there were three VLs and my opponent moved one platoon of infantry to each VL.

    I really like it when my opponents makes a dash for the VLs within the first few turns. That usually gives me just the information I need.

    I can then move my infantry in position, shell his positions with arty and then wipe them out with concentrated infantry attacks. Especially in smaller QBs with about 1000 points it's quite easy to destroy one enemy platoon after the other if they are spread apart holding VLs.

    I usually try to ignore the VLs unless they're in favourable terrain. Against experienced players capturing the VLs early means inviting his arty to decimate your troops.

    [ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]</p>

    0

    the missions ? ...

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    The scenarious are not sorted by date or something else. Since CM doesm't offer a campaing, you can play them as you like.

    You can look for the dates and try to play them in historical order but I'd recommend to start with the small (tiny) ones and then when you're more familiar with the game try some of the bigger ones.

    cheers

    [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]</p>

    0

    Another MG question

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    You cannot use the tripod optic to fire against air targets. The MG42 got a special sight for engaging air targets.

    And the main reason why the firepower of the "HMG" version is higher than the "LMG" version is that with a tripod you can fire much longer bursts an keep the rounds on target.

    When we were trained on the MG3 which is a slightly modified version of the MG42 (mainly slower ROF) we were taught to fire 3-5 round burst with the "LMG" and 20-50 rounds with the tripod version.

    [ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]</p>

    0

    Hummel Question

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Yep, the Hummel was definately used for indirect fire. As self-propelled-arty you would find them mostly in Panzer divisions where they could keep up with the fast-moving panzer formations.

    In normal situations self-propelled arty would ALWAYS try to fire indirect fire since their low armour isn't very effective to enemy fire.

    You can simulate the use of Hummels firing indirect fire by using 150mm offboard arty.

    0

    Am I bad?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I really liked the PG series "back then". Played it for hours together with many other wargames.

    Then came Combat Mission. And wargaming changed forever for me...

    At lot of good games gather dust on the bookshelf since then. They're still nice, it's just... well.. they're not like CM. They don't give me the satisfaction of getting a weak spot penetration on KT. Or let me feel the pain when my assault force gets caught in an arty barrage. Or make me go mad when my support tanks get stuck on a muddy field.

    And yes, you're bad.

    ;)

    0

    Move it or lose it

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Affentitten:

    ...They should at least be capable of operating as pillboxes if the need arises...<hr></blockquote>

    "Sir, our tank threw a track and is lying helpless 50m next to the road."

    "Ok, get back to your tank in case enemy armour turns up."

    "Sir???"

    "Yeah, I'm gonna use you as a pillbox."

    "SIR?????"

    "Don't worry, Chuck will support you with his Sherm. He lost his main gun but don't worry."

    0

    Grenade Range

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Hehe, reminds me of my first hand grenade experience.

    We were getting town/house fighting training at Hammelburg when we threw the first grenades. There was a target house constructed from old tires and we would stand next to the door and throw the grenades through the door around the corner.

    The security officer was our company commander, a men hated by everybody because of his incompetence. We threw the grenades without the "fragmentation" layer, just the explosive package. When I threw the grenade I used a little bit too much force and didn't get the dam thing round the corner. It went through the door, hit the wall (rubber), came back and LANDED RIGHT BETWEEN MY CO'S FEET!!!!

    :eek:

    Never before have I seen someone moving so fast!

    Kind of Jedi power...

    He was quite angry but it was actually his fault since he was standing around where he wasn't supposed to be.

    The next days all the NCOs gave me a hard time... Not because I made a mistake, but because I messed up the chance for a change in company command, as they put it... ;)

    0
×
×
  • Create New...