BlackVoid
-
Posts
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BlackVoid
-
-
Just trying to keep the topic alive.
-
Marlow I would be glad to play with you, however I only play TCP/IP. PBEM is not my cup of tea. If you do not have much time at any one time, we can play the game through several occasions, a few turns every time.
Email me at blackvoid@jahoopa.com.
Rain and snow is a really a good idea against heavy tanks! And I came up with another one. If you know your opponent likes heavies, play on gentle slopes with moderate trees and buy plenty of AT mines. Then place your infantry out of LOS from the other side of the map.
-
I think some people misunderstood me.
Actually, I like heavy tanks and I am not afraid of them either.
Let me put my problems straight again in a few points.
1. Heavy tanks are expensive and you can buy only a few. This especially true for the axis player with the new (and in my opinion unfair) point distribution system.
2. Against heavies like the Churchill, Jumbo and the King Tiger you do not have much chance unless you buy similarly strong equipment. It is true that you can go for At-guns, but then again your only choices are the big ones like the 17pounder or the german 88.
3. Because you have less, but better equipment in a typical battle of around 1000-1500 pts, luck often becomes a decisive factor instead of tactics. An unlucky arty hit may take out your prized few AT assets and then you are toast.
4. Using infantry to kill heavy tanks is only possible if your opponent makes a stupid mistake.
5. Using light tanks to kill heavy armor from the flank is a risky undertaking. If your opponent is smart and not a newbie, he is protecting his tank with infantry and/or light vehicles. This tacic does not work against the fast turreted and heavily armored Churchill either.
6. The use of heavy arty, although I like using it; is also unbalancing and kills tactics.
7. Of course I will suggest all my opponents to play by Fionn's rule or maybe with the computer purchasing.
8. I like playing ladder games because of the added tension, not because I want to reach the top at all costs. Playing just for fun against a complete stranger is not that much fun.
9. I included the Hetzer on the ubertank lists, because they are very hard to kill without heavy stuff. They suck as inf support weapons, but who cares? I really think they should cost more (but only if axis gets back the points!).
I challenge anyone who thinks that he can beat me without heavy equipment for a fight. Try to beat me with Stugs or infantry when i have Churchills. You will loose... Badly. Or try to beat me with Shermans when i have Tigers.
The conclusion is that the exclusive use of heavy equipment puts the emphasis on luck and gamey tactics. Playing by Fionn's rule is highly enjoyable and less frustrating. Despite all this I will not refuse to play anyone just because its a heavy tank battle. Simply put, I want to play more battles where I loose because I made a tactical mistake or because my opponent outsmarted me and not because his heavy arty took out my forces then he annihilated me with Churchills or King Tigers.
Just an example: in a recent game, on a map with very restricted LOS I was defending as the Germans. Because I knew that the map was going to be like this and I expected my enemy to bring Chuchills (which he did), I bought 3 Puppchens, a 75mm AT gun and a Tiger. The latter was a big mistake. I thought the Tiger was capable of taking out the Churchill frontally but it proved to be not the case. Because of the nature of the map I had to concentrate my forces in a small area. First he sent suicide half-squads as recon. These were decimated soon, but he got to know my position. A heavy arty barrage soon followed which took out three of my AT guns and a third of my infantry. Then he proceeded with two Churchills and a Centaur from a keyhole position at the side of the map. At this point I should have attacked with my Tiger head on, because that was my only chance to win. A very slim choice, because three tanks against one in a prolonged duel is not good. Even if they cannot kill the Tiger, they have a good chance to take out the gun or immobilize it. I was also afraid of Piat teams in the woods. He proceeded with the 3 tanks and methodically started to demolish EVERY building in the village. I withdrew out of their LOS of course, but at the price of additional infantry casualties. At this point I was waiting with the Tiger for him to move the tanks to target the remaining houses in the village. This was a mistake, because a sneaky Piat team killed it. Regardless of this mistake I never had a chance to fight back in this game and it was very frustrating. Of course next time I will bring a Panther and annihilate those Churchills, but it is not the point of the example. My opponent won by superior firepower without giving me even a slim chance to fight back.
Next time we play, we are going to play the same stuff with switched sides, because I want to have him eat his own medicine.
I like Napoleon44's idea of setting up a database of quick battles. Napoleon email me: blackvoid@jahoopa.com or look for me on ICQ: 100082586.
-
The trouble is, computer picked forces are sometimes way too imbalanced. One side gets a tank and a few armored cars, the other only inf and halftracks.
Or is it balanced after 1.1?
What are your experiences with computer picked forces?
And yes, I also buy heavies most of the time. Otherwise how would I kill those Churchills or King Tigers?
-
Almost every game I play, especially ladder games, end up as a duel between ubertanks. I never seem to meet anything else just Hetzers, King Tigers, Sherman Jumbos and Churchills. Not only it is not correct historically, it is also boring and annoying. A large number of these battles are decided on luck instead of tactics.
Is anyone feeling the same way?
It would be nice of BTS to put in an option that excludes these heavies from play because I think they ruin the game balance.
Fionn's rules are great but not many players know them.
Check them out at: www.rugged-defense.nl
-
Hi Everyone,
To raise public awareness and help BTS,
vote for Combat Mission in the game of the year polls on the major gaming sites!!!
This is the TRUE game of the year!
Black Void
-
Try to ping the IP address you are trying to connect to. If it does not work, the problem is not with CM.
I know this sounds stupid, but I had this problem several times. Resetting both host and client helped the problem.
-
Just realized Eric before me wrote about our battle. It happened exactly like that.
If you are lucky you even get tungsten rounds with those Hellcats and achieve the brief victory I achieved.
It was a memorable battle Eric. Your Stug however was killed by a 75mm hollow charge infantry gun round.
This is another weapon I heartily recommend to everyone: German 75 mm inf gun.
-
Interesting responses.
There are two counters for Tigers in my opinion.
1. Hellcats. As an allied player I usually buy Hellcats (Wolverines for British). These are very agile tank destroyers. Rush the Tigers with these in goups, but use at least four. You will loose some of them but they will kill the tiger.
2. Use infantry.
Always have a bazooka team attached to infantry platoons and try to ambush the Tiger. EG: Show your tanks to the enemy, then disappear. If he gives in to temptation he will pursue you and go past your bazooka team.
Hope this helps.
-
I have to say Atomic deserved their fate. They cannot even write a freakin' path-finding algorithm. Their games were consecutively getting worse and worse. Gamers prayed for a Pacific setting or a Vietnam setting to no avail.
And who cares anyway? We have Combat Mission which is a zillion times better.
Some unbalanced armor costs
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
There are a few things in point costs that I think cause imbalance in the game.
1. I'll start with my biggest problem:
Churchill VII-VIII
These things have 150mm armor and can only be taken out by the long 75 and long 88 mm guns beyond 100m. This means only a few german tanks are capable of killing it.
All are more expensive than the Churchill.
The Tiger I which is more expensive, cannot take out this beast, neither can the german At guns. The german player does not have good enough mobile assets to attack the Churchill from the flank. Especially because the Churchill's turret is faster than any german tank's or armored car's.
I think the cost for the Churchill should be raised.
2. Tiger
Historically the Tiger was a great tank even in 44-45. Villers-Bocage anyone?
In CM it suffers. 76 mm guns and 17 pounders usually take it out on the first shot that hits. In the relatively short ranges of CM the Tiger is not worth buying as it is really not much better than a regular PzIV.
It's high cost means that in an average QB the axis player can only buy 1. I think 1 tank is no tank.
Suggestion: lower the cost of the Tiger, so in a regular battle around 1000pts, the axis player can buy 2 of them. 140 pts for a regular?
3. Sherman
Unless playing by special rules, the normal 75mm Sherman is not worth it. No wonder I have not seen any in the 40+ quick battles I played. It is really a lot worse than an M10 or a Hellcat. It's a better at infantry support, but much worse against armor.
Suggestion: the normal Sherman's cost should be lowered to around 100pts for a regular.
4. Hetzer
These things are ridiculously cheap. Their armor is better than a Tiger's and their gun is only a little worse. They suck as infantry support but they are very good against armor. Unless the opposition has Churchills.
Suggestion: After the point distribution is restored to normal - and only then -, the Hetzer's cost should be raised a little.
5. Panther
This is really the best tank the german player has. Too bad that in most battles the german player can buy only one. As I said before one tank is no tank. For a lower cost the allied player can buy two Hellcats. If used correctly the Panther does not have a chance against them.
Suggestion: Lower the price of the Panther so at least the axis player can buy a Panther and a PzIV for 300 pts.
Of course to change all this would require more thought, this is just my opinion about some of the armor that is in the game. My 1st point I think is the most valid one. Playing Churchills as allied I always won so far and playing against Churchills I always lost. They are a very big unbalancing factor.
I wonder what you think about it?