Blackcat
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blackcat
-
-
This is an issue that cropped up on another thread but rather than confuse the discussion there I thought I'd start a new one.
Whilst playing my way through the campaigns I have repeatedly found that the AI surrenders when it still has the capacity to inflict serious damage on my forces, usually with infantry forces and AT assets that I have yet to spot.
On a couple of occasions the, apparently premature, surrender has given me a total victory when, due to time constraints, there would have been no way I could have achieved the objectives set down in the briefing.
Can anyone who has more experience with the game explain what is going on and why the AI thows its hand in so easily?
-
"For example when I was doing some sniper training with Royal Marine snipers, we found out that they rarely train to shoot past 600 yard whereas Marine snipers routinely practice out to 1000."
Imperial Grunt,
Just out of interest, in which year were you training with the RM Snipers?
-
There has been at least one airmobile assualt in Afghanistan at a place called Aghlegh undertaken by elements of the Royla Anglians made on 11 July 2007. This was an attempt to capture some Taliban bomb making teamsthought to be in the village. The LZ was within a couple of hundred meters of the compound, probably because little opposition was expected and perhaps becuae the best landing site was there, As events turned out there was no opposition. See Attack State Red p248 - 265.
That mission also featured in Apache Dawn where it was written up from the perspective of the Apache pilots providing CAS. Interesting to compare the two accounts of the same events.
-
I'm playing TF Thunder too. My first attempt at it. My first battle was 1 KIA versus 350 odd KIA and injured, plus numerous tanks which was my best ever result in any scenario! Mission 2 was more difficult, although I gained a tactical victory with 11 KIA and 14 injured. Third mission to date, and it is really tough! The long and narrow map with loads of ATGM everywhere from what I can make out. Not entirely sure how to deal with this. Can't even see them. I can't get a Hummer into position long enough without him getting taken out. My scouts can't see for toffee. Bit stuck.
I agree with you with regards to the lack of suitable equipment in my Brit campaign. Without those Javelins I got kicked bad, and indeed if memory serves I believe that is where my campaign finished? But the thing was, if we are indeed talking about the same mission ( I can never remember the names!!) I did not lose all my javelins from the mission prior - although I might well have expended most of the ammunition for them. I did lose a couple of men (perhaps a full crew) from a Javelin unit for sure, as they were hit by artillery whilst they were spotting on a hillside. But there was definitely men still available. I thought it was odd that I did not have any AT assets available to me apart from this solitary Challenger 2.
350:1, that is a very good ratio indeed, I don't think I have ever come close to that.
I played the third mission in TF Thunder last night, it is a bit tricky but I managed to force a Syian surrender with five minutes to go. I was horrified to find how much the AI had left on the board which I had never even spotted, God knows why it surrendered I couln't have won if it hadn't. The Hummers in that mission (as in most) are useless, I just parked them in the compound by the setup position on turn one. The big hill on the right was my route forward and I led with the infantry. It took a long time clearing the first enemy line and it wasn't easy getting the overwatch positions for the vehicles where they wouldn't get smacked but could support the infantry. Trying to clear trench lines without artillery or mortars is hard.
I have just finished the fourth mission which was ridiculously easy by comparison, got a total victory in 42 game minutes without taking a single casualty or losing a single vehicle. I was given three howitzer batteries and one of 81mm mortars all with lots and lots of ammunition. I had more firepower than I knew what to do with.
-
I played this mission again during a fresh campaign and I had no Javelin support! Now that was murder. My Challenger 2 took out a number of tanks and 1 BMP before he was toast but my infantry had to huddle in the trees on the far right flank - it was a slaughter on a massive scale. Then my AFVs got hit one by one by fast firing canon from the BMPs. I had no answer to it. My infantry could not get close enough and were next to useless without Javelin support. I got a single tank reinforcement which I promptly lost within the same turn. I'e never been beaten so badly! I was shocked.
I can only presume I didn't have Javelin or further armoured support because I had faired so badly throughout the campaign.
The abscence of Javelins and dearth of tanks is almost certainly the result of earlier loses in the campaign. Without them I believe this mission in unwinnable and so for you the campaign is over. I had a similar thing happen to me in my attempt at the Marines Campaign, and it is a bugger.
I am not sure if I like the carry-over rules in the campaign game. On the plus side they do force me to fight conservatively (lots of area fire and very considered bounding overwatch being the rule) and be very protective of my pixeltruppen. Without a doubt this adds another level of challenge to the game.
On the other hand, it can be very frustrating. Some casualties are inevitable, I can keep them to a minimum but cannot avoid them altogether. For example, in the Marines campaign there is a mission in which one has to advance across a two kilometre map against dug in and hidden ATGM's, infantry etc., unless one constantly saves and reloads (which in my view is not on) some vehicles and people are gong to get hit. The constant dribble of casualties builds up and by the time I had reached the ninth mission my recce squads were too depleted to do the job. Eight missions each of which took a minimum of two hours and some much longer ("Pooh" took me nearly eight hours playing time) is a big investment and, whilst each gave their measure of enjoyment and satisfaction, to ultimately lose whilst having won every battle with few loses was very frustrating.
So I am not sure. I am currently playing the Task Force Thunder Campaign so I suppose I can't actually complain.
-
"Now, detecting the enemy isn't easy (on purpose)."
I dream that one day I will be rich enough to buy Moon and the whole Battlefront team (and I include the good scenario designers who do so much for the CM games for the fun of it) so much good Champagne that they can't see straight, because they have gven me so much pleasure since CMBO first came out.
Then, in my dream, I beat them to death with an enormous haddock in revenge for all the hours of frustration they have caused me with their fiendish scenarios and, with CMSF, the damned campaigns.
-
Tyrspawn,
If you are going to replay this mission you might want to have a look at a thread on the Tactics forum entitled "Stuck on Brit Campain" (or something very similar) from a few weeks ago. I was in the same position as you and sought help, which I got.
-
There may well be other solutions but what I did was use all three start points (so I could cover the ground in the time available) and make sure my units were not detected.
It seems that in this mission once you get into a fire-fight you have lost.
-
One more thing on the campaigns issue. I have abandoned my attempt at the Marines campaign.
I thought I was doing pretty well, very few casualties and total victories upto and including the infamous Pooh battle. In the next battle some of the squads of, what appear to be my core team, got a bit beaten up and one tank took damage and ran out of main gun ammo, still got a total victory.
Then came the 2km long map with ATGMs everywhere. Not only did I not get any replacements I didn't get any sort of ammo re-supply. So I had a tank with no ammo as well as a couple of HUMVEEs also without any (really would any one be commited to an attack without ammunition?) and very, very limited artillery shells. Anyway, I got through that, just, with very low casulties and a tactical victory, though I didn't take any of the objectives.
In the next battle I have two squads, one with four men and one with two and two depleted HQ units all from my recce/CAAT elements, 2 50 cal armed Humvees and one of the small LAVs. I am up for a challenge but that force couldn't hold.
The point re how campaigns work is that I had kept my recce units out of the fight since the Pooh battle. They still hadn't been re-supplied or received any replacements.
Knowing what I now know I could go back and fight the Marine Campaign again and this time make sure the guys who turn up in the trucks take on more of the fighting and keep my recce elements safe and be more sparing with the use of artillery. However, that strikes me as "gamey" and I still don't know if it would do much good and, anyway, I can't be bothered to play the whole thing again, yet.
-
I hope someone answers your question about how campaigns work regarding artillery, I'd like to know too.
Re getting a major defeat in your seconf attempt at the Bitish campaign, what were the circumstances of it ending? This happened to me when I smashed the Syrians in every mission except the Police Station and then lost the bigger Syrian Attack Mission (I can't remember the name, but I posted on here for asking for hints). Once I replayed that one mission and got victory I was avle to go on an win a total victory in the campaign.
On the other gand if you got to the final mission, won it and still got an overall major defeat I can't help. The manpower kill ratios look a little low, but not such that should justify a malor defeat in my view. 121 KIA definately looks a bit high though.
-
One thing for new players who don't have a military background may want to keep in mind is th effective range of weapons systems.
Scimitars and the like just don't need to get in close to do their job. The 7.62 GPMG is perfectly good for keeping heads down at 600 yards. Indeed when I trained on it, many years ago, we were taught to be accurate for supressing fire (getting all rounds from a burst on a target the width of three men) at a thousand yards and that was with iron sights. The Rarden Cannon is effective at much longer distances against infantry, its main draw back is the limited ammo carried.
PRG's aren't the most accurate of weapons and, especially the early ones, are not that much of a threat above 300 yards.
So, to support you infantry the scimitars, FV432, Spartans etc. should be as far back as possible whilst still haviing a view of the target area and, if possible, hull down.
-
I do so wish that WEGO makes it back for TCPIP in the Normandy game.
I am with Roadiemullet on the pure excitment of making the plan and then seeing if it worked. WEGO was a big selling point for CMBO (as I am sure the Battlefront team will remember given the amount of time and effort they spent plugging it). I realise that many here have said that they now prefer real-time, I just wish I knew how they can cope with a large battle.
As one advances in years the click fest of real-time just becomes too much for enjoyment and on larger battles is impossible. My wargaming partner of many, many years and I spend lots of happy days, and nights (when one of the wives were away), TCPIPing CMBO, CMBB and CMAK . I'd love to have taken him on with CMSF now that we have both rediscovered and fallen in love with it (be honest, the original release was rubbish) but I know that is not to be. I'd hate to think that progress in games means losing what was good; so I add my voice to a plea for WEGO TCPIP gaming in CM Normandy.
-
Yes, the campaign is semi-dynamic. I am still a new player and don't understand much more than I have read in the manual and from my experience of playing the British Campaign this one time. I expect some of the grown ups here can explain better than I could.
In the specific, though, with that defensive battle any sort of loss brought my campaign to an end with a major defeat, game over. After winning on that one I was presented with another mission, which pretty is easy if you have read Chainsaw's(?) "how to pop up, fire and duck down again" hints in this forum, and that was the end of the Campaign. I finished with an over-all major victory. I am going to go back now and play the Northern option.
-
Well, I did as Pvt Ryan suggested. In the setup phase I loaded everyone up that I could from the left-flank objective and ran away to the back of the map. The same with the warriors from the left and centre. I took the two Javelin teams from the centre and on turn one sent them, in the Warrior that contains two Javelin reloads, over to the house on the right near the back of the board. Once there they took up positions with very short target arcs. Another warrior and the FOO subsequently made their way into the wood to on the other side of the road from that building and which commands a view over the ground the enemy flank attack has to cross.
Then my single Challenger went to work supported by the other two Javelin teams. Between them the smashed the enemy front attack on my right. In the meantime the enemy rolled into the empty left-flank objective and stayed there. They did not try and exploit their success! When the right flank attack came the two javelin teams took out the two tanks and four BMPs. The warriors finished off the others and, with mortar support, destroyed the infantry component.
When my reinforcements arrived they quickly smashed the enemy tanks and BMPs around the left-flank objective and then the AI surrendered giving me a total victory.
My thanks to Pvt Ryan for getting me through this very frustrating battle and enabling me to continue the campaign.
I have to say I take no pleasure from this mission because the method I used would not have worked against a human opponent. From the time the AI took the left-flank objective it had at least ten minutes before the reinforcements came on and three T72s a T62 and a whole pack of infantry-carrying BMP to use. Against that I had one Challenger and maybe four uncommitted warriors one seven man section and two HQ units, to hold the centre objective. A human player would have exploited the first success taken the second objective and then been in a position to hit my reinforcements from two sides. Additionally on reviewing the Map the AI had a whole load of other stuff that had taken Objective Baldrick and stopped there, Had they rolled on they could have tipped the scales on my right flank.
All in all I think this mission is below the quality of the others in this campaign. It is too hard and yet also too easy to win. The AI in CMSF certainly appears much better than in previous CM games, but it still doesn't seem to be able to handle an attack too well.
-
Private Ryan,
Thanks for taking the time to help me out. Given the restrictions on set-up zones, it isn't really possible to deploy well back, and the infantry units seem to be locked in their own zone depite the three objectives sharing a zone colour. However, I guess I can use the first turn to runaway, at least in part. I'll give it a go.
Thanks again
-
I have been enjoying the British Campaign with all its challenges but I am now stuck and seek help. The tenth(?) mission, Ash Shaykn Miskin, the one where one has to defend three sets of buildings seems impossible. Others posting here have succeeded and I wonder how.
Spoilers follow:
I start with a re-enforced platoon, 4 two man Javelin Teams (two missiles each and a total of four reloads available), 2 sniper teams and an artillery spotter (who can call on a very limited amount of 81mm mortar fire) plus the company, platoon and AT section HQ units. One infantry section in located in the left-hand objective with an AT team, One infantry section in the centre with two AT teams and the remaining two sections are in the right-hand objective with the last AT team. Backing this lost up are a couple of Spartan death-traps, half a dozen Warriors and a single Challenger.
Re-enforcements are due in 30 minutes, but after 20 I am basically well beaten. In my last attempt I killed 14 tanks and a whole shed load of BMPs, the left hand objective was just holding out with two men left but I thought I wasn't doing too badly. Then a fresh enemy force with tank support appeared on my right flank. It took down my solitary tank and finished off the last of the warriors. With no javelins left I was doomed again.
I cannot see a way that a re-enforced platoon can hold back what appears to be an armoured battalion for long enough to get the reserves into action. Can someone please give me some pointers as to how to win this mission?
-
From where we sit now I don't think many would disagree that Montgomery was not as good a general as he thought he was and as he was made out to be at the time. He had one piece of luck, to be appointed to North Africa at a time where Auchinleck's planning was going to pay off (remember Auchinleck was sacked because he refused to attack until he was ready and Montgomery kept to The Auk's timetable).
However, he was popular with his troops, who, after El Alamein, trusted him to lead them to victory and they believed he was, as far as possible, careful with their lives. Public relations spin it might have been but one should not underestimate the value to morale of trusting one's leader.
-
From what I have picked up fro various posters the Bocage was more of a problem that it could/should have been because everyone's attention was on the invasion with insufficent thought given to what would happen if it succeeded. It would certainly seem that no detailed planning and training was carried out for the post invasion period, but there was a lot of optimism about the other side packing up early.
Why does that sound familiar? At least in those days the British government did not refuse to purchase the equipment their troops needed and didn't lie about the reasons for invading.
-
"Sorry for my poor English", he says. No worries, Alex. Especially when the majority of native English speakers (and I must include the Americans in this), including myself, would struggle to put together two coherent sentences in another language, let alone write a comprehensible, reasoned argument for the introduction of starshell and illuminating flares.
Anyway, I do recall many discussions here of old about the introduction of flares etc.. I am fairly certain the subject was mentioned again when Battlefront announced that CMX2 would have variable lighting. It is a shame for all the reasons stated that, for whatever reason, they didn't make it into he game.
Probably, it is too late now for CMSF, but hopefully illumination rounds and flares will be inluded in Normandy. The complexity of coding the effects of their use should not be underestimated, though.
-
"It was perfect defensive terrain, the americans had to develop new tactics and specialized equipment to fight effectively in Bocage."
What I have never understood is how this situation came about. Did nobody look at a map or some ariel photo's before the invasion? The bocage had been there for hundreds of years, so surely it should not have come as a surprise.
-
Tux,
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. The British Army was based on a collection of regiments, normaly founded and recruited by some member of the aristocracy, each with their own title, some Regiments got the royal "seal of approval" and some didn't. There never was a national army as such, not in the same way as there was a national navy.
The regimental sysem has been the strength (and in some respects the curse) of the British army since the Restoration. Modern politicians, of course, don't understand it which is why so much has been done to wreck it since the 60's.
-
I was an early CMBO fan and an avid reader of, though infrequent contributor to, these forums for some years through CMBB and CMAK. Then along came CMSF.
I tried the demo, didn't like it. I couldn't get into the game, both the period and the bugs put me off. I bought it nonetheless, but never really played it. A few weeks ago I stopped by the forum to see how the Napoleonic Game was getting on and saw that a new CMSF demo had been released. I downloaded it, tried it, loved it, bought the game again (my son had long since mislaid the original disc) and the modules. I am having a great time and my wife, just as she did years ago, is again moaning about me spending too long on "that stupid game".
So, at last, to get to the point. Battlefront, there is at least one person who is saying take your time with Normandy there is no need to rush.
-
Good post by Jenrick above.
As an aside, I was struck by a tiny moment (about 2 mins 5 seconds in) in the video of the Brits. In the midst of a battle a bootneck wants to get past the camera man and says, very politely, "Excuse me". Glad to see good manners still exist in the Royal Marines.
-
Kadak,
I have similar problems. It is, I think, a function of the we go system. There is no simple way of ordering "ride in the carrier until it gets to point x then do y and z" and it all happening as you want in the one minute time frame. i have found that uing the pause button can help, as suggested above, but not reliably so. I have always had this problem going back to the original CMBO demo.
So I wouldn't bother about reloading the game if I were you.
Generation Kill
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
"US Defence Budget: $664 billion; Ranked 1st in the World
UK Defence Budget: $64 billion; Ranked 3rd in the World (behind US and China"
I think there are some dangers in doing a direct comparison in such terms. Firstly the UK defence budget is currently about £35bn, so the exchange rate needs to be taken into account. Then there is the issue of what is actually included in the figures (e.g. in the UK the cost of war fighting al la Afghanistan is taken from Treasury reserves and not from the defence budget).
A more useful comparison is, perhaps, the percentage of national wealth that each country spends on defence. Even then one might not get a true picture. For example, India spends less than the UK in absolute terms but has much larger armed forces; whether those forces as capable is a moot point (but then quantity has a quality all of its own).