Sarge Saunders

I'd say try cover arcs with your overwatch units. They may tend to open fire earlier I've found....especially at longer ranges.

Molotovs are a huge pain in the arse. Mainly because they are so ineffective and the AI seems to use them before grenades. I've killed Tigers with grenades. I've killed Stugs with grenades. Usually they abandon after immobilization and a few more grenade hits. My experience so far has been that HQs are slightly better at close tank assault with grenades. Not sure if this is actually modelled but has been true for me. If you are going to go after a tank with regular infantry squads use ones with only grenades. You'll have better luck than with molotovs. Now I just took out an opponent's KV-2 in 1941 with one of those Panzerwurfenminenkillemtanken armed tank hunters. Those can pack a serious punch!! -Sarge

Ugh - city battles aren't handled too well in my opinion. All the buildings would be flat within an hour or two... Cassino sucks as a battle for the same reason. </font>

My recent experience with trenches as the defender was generally good. I used them in conjunction with a line of wire, AP mines and TRPs in front of the trenches in scattered trees and tall pines. It worked out well overall: 6 squads, 1 HMG, 1 LMG all with bravery HQ bonuses held off 1 full soviet infantry battalion pluss assault guns. This was not all due to trenches- the TRPs where used to provide 105mm FO, 120mm FO, 150 IG, and 88mm FLAK support to the trench line. My general observations: - Trench infantry are supressed (to panic) by small arms fire just as easily as in foxholes...not sure if I expected that. - Trench infantry take plenty of casualties to treebursts (as expected). - Trenches seemed to be easier to spot at ~200 yards than foxholes. - Trench infantry really hold strong against close assaults. They do well at breaking and killing the enemy infantry in the last 50 meters. Some squads seemed to be able to recover from "pinned" status at the last moment to fire bursts into close assaulting enemy. All in all, I'll buy trenches again. Very useful... -Sarge

Ditto that idea. An extension of this that I did with a long-time PBEM opponent was for both of us to use special passwords for a game. Then when it was all done, we would exchange those passwords. Having kept all the turn files, we could then watch movies from the other side. VERY useful in seeing how certain tactics worked, spotting, and of course getting the answer to that all important question: How many enemy did my big arty barrage on turn XYZ kill!! -Sarge

Thanks laxx, that plain text file does the job nicely for me to print. And thanks to Grisha for the original post!!!! -Sarge

Thats just strange. Especially out of LOS. Seems to me that adjusting anywhere out of LOS would give a whole new countdown and fire mission...unaffected by the previous fire order. But then, the problem that has been complained about is IN LOS fire missions....and I think Redwolf is correct in his observations. -Sarge

Not that I have ever seen. Hiding or not makes no difference.

Optics.....Panther wins.

No target line is needed. Once your tank stops, it will pick a target....use an armor cover arc if you are only interesting shooting tank targets. The upside of this command, as opposed to the hunt-reverse combination, is that your tank will always scoot after its one shot. If no targets are immediately available the tank only pauses about 5 seconds or so then does the scoot. A very safe armored manuever really. The only dangerous way to use it is to have the scoot be 90 degrees from the tanks facing. Then there is time sitting still and turning....that'll get ya killed in a high threat environment. Why I use it as a shoot and scoot(reverse) command. -Sarge

I like to use shoot and scoot to fast move up a few meters then reverse after one shot. The "scoot" part of the order will do a reverse automatically if the facing of the tank calls for it... It is a very useful manuever. Allows a tank to engage in a turn and be sure that at the end of that turn it will be in cover again (unless dead).... -Sarge

HA! My wife took a quick glance at the screen once and asked if I was playing Computer Golf! Hehe, me nephew asked me If I was going to buy and X-Box and I said there is room for only one computer game in my life: Combat Mission. He seemed pretty impressed as I told him how I played against people from all over the world by e-mail. He then asked me if I won alot....before I even got an answer out of my mouth my wife chimed in: Sure he wins....until he started playing people smarter than he is!!!! :eek: :mad: -Sarge

Me likey! Lets say dedicate some points like a platoon. But they could be killed or even captured and in turn give the enemy his own recon information through interrogation (without spending any points), The double-edged effect would make it a risk so as to counteract overuse of recon. If only.... -Sarge

You are correct in your assumptions. Everything (except large heavy buildings and churches) are abstracted and can be entered from any side. Adjacent, or touching, large heavy buildings can only be entered from the street. This is true even when the adjacent bulding is turned to rubble, if you know what I mean. Some interesting new twists with CMBB though. - sewer movement can allow units to move from one large heavy building to the next without going into the street. Takes a few minutes though... - Factories have adjacent tiles and it becomes like one very large structure where units can move freely inside. Cheers, Sarge

That is an excellent tactic for any tank type. But there is a risk. With some luck the enemy can hit one and with the "ranging in" modelling has a higher initial chance to hit the second parked very close to the first. Still, I'd use your tactic and take my chances. Cheers, Sarge

Rough crowd in here! Carry on men.... -Sarge

Found this from a while back. The ramblings of a drunken CMer and funnier than hell, but it defines the extreme view of "fun" versus "realistic". http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=017641#000000 Enjoy! -Sarge

I can only say that these are well considered and balanced forces IMHO. I call you both a "fun" and "realistic" player. (Because fighting against a balanced force like this would be challenging: ergo "fun"). -Sarge

That thread is just a little before my time. But as you can see this has been discussed before. I dunno how I feel about it now and that is what a good discussion can do. I guess it does not need to come down to one's definition of what an ME actually is. For me, it comes down to the possibility of having an a-historical balance that is heavy on field guns. But my thoughts are now slightly more mixed on the subject than they were. Either way, I've never insisted on this towed gun rule to any of my opponents. But I have had opponents insist on it and thus I mentioned it in the context of this discussion. -Sarge [ March 26, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

Let's keep the discussion up. I may change my mind. If so, opponents beware my guns! -Sarge

By the way, my towed gun rule hinges less on whether guns are available and prepared at the start of a meeting engagement and more on the unbalancing cost issue. More than a few QB ME maps would have sight lines from one setup zone to the other. A majority of them have LOS lines from each setup zone to the VLs. Without paying for any transport, it would be tempting to buy hordes (say more than 10) of cheap guns (150mm, 75/76.2mm IG, Flak, etc.) that could have an effect disproportional to their cost. This is especially true for 2000 to 3000 points QBs. Just more to think about... -Sarge

Exactly! As I said before, I have some games with a "no holds barred" approach. But when approaching a new game with an experienced player, I usually follow the towed gun rule just to be safe. -Sarge

This is, pardon me, just silly. Who's to say the transports haven't simply already unloaded the guns and skedaddled? </font>

Right. And this thinking led me to pay much more attention to the HQ bonuses I have and to plan accordingly. Important thing is to experiment with this suggestion and play how you have the most success either way. :cool: -Sarge

Sounds reasonable and definately NOT gamey. :cool: On a side note, I used to use my weaker troops (green or regular without good HQ bonuses) to screen and as cannon fodder. Then I'd always have my best unit (maybe vet or regular with +2 bravery/+2 combat) as a reserve to commit when things got dicey somewhere in my screen. But with experience I found that leading (cautiously) with better troops meant things did not get as dicey (as often) with forward elements and I could commit a reserve against unforseen enemy movements instead of rushing to help out crappy troops that are not up to the fight. Know what I mean? -Sarge [ March 24, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]