Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Sarge Saunders

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    337

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Sarge Saunders

    Best way to take prisoners?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    I've had squads surrender very early in the game without any morale issues or pounding. Worked like this: Squads run orders took it through a previously unseen barbed wire emplacement. Then they came under fire suddenly from an MG. 2 Guys died and the rest immediately surrendered. All this within the span of one 60-second turn.

    Once entangled in the barbed wire, even the retreat option was no good. The TacAI must've figured they'd be dead either way forward or backward so they simply surrendered.

    - Sarge

    0

    Question on "gamey" game play

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by nevermind:

    Sarge Saunders,

    I dont understand number 2.Are you trying to tell me that different division types never ever fought together in the same battle,ever?I have no knowledge of this,but i find it very hard to believe,especially for the germans toward the end of the war.

    Well, in a historical sense, almost anything could have happened in this regard. I guess I am thinking at the CM level, battalion(s) and below, this was not very common. My point is that people mixing force type are not really trying to play a "what if?" so much as a pick-and-choose. Sure German Fallschirmjaeger did fight along side panzers at times. But the "pick-and-choose" types will play this way always because Fallschirmjaeger sqauds are awesome! and you can't be without armor. My example was people mixing soviet airborne SMG (ultra-high firepower) with Guards infantry (more ammo) with infantry pioneer (cheap) instead of just playing all Guards or something.

    disclaimer: I don't want to come of as a CM snob or anything. I have long-time opponents who I play an "anything goes" style with and it is fun. But I also have played opponents using the more or less "historical" OOB approach.

    -Sarge

    0

    Question on "gamey" game play

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by moneymaxx:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

    Just a couple things may seem "gamey" or otherwise detract from realistic play IMHO.

    1. bringing towed guns (without transport) to a meeting engagement. (some may also argue that attackers should bring guns embarked to a battle)

    -Sarge

    That is the first time that I hear somebody calling this gamey, an opponent who chooses to buy guns without transport depends a lot on his luck to find initial setup positions. So he trades mobility for the possibility of an ambush position.

    Since I use this tactic I would like to know how many transport units I should buy to not be considered gamey, e.g. one per gun or one for every two guns etc.. Are Stugs considered to be transport units? I think in CMBB they can tow guns but in CMBO they can't. On the subject of bringing guns embarked into battle, does this refer only to attackers?

    I hope somebody can clarify this for me, because I don't want to be gamey at all :( (I normally buy some transport units, more or less 1 transport unit for 3 guns plus Stugs). </font>

    0

    Question on "gamey" game play

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Those wishing to fully understand "gameyness" need to make distinctions, where possible, between gamey, unrealistic, and un-historical practices. IMO these things are intertwined but I honestly don't think there are any tactics that give an advantage to one player over the other. But there are tactics that give an advantage to one nationality over the other and this is normal.

    Just a couple things may seem "gamey" or otherwise detract from realistic play IMHO.

    1. bringing towed guns (without transport) to a meeting engagement. (some may also argue that attackers should bring guns embarked to a battle)

    2. using "unrestricted" division type in an effort to maximize points/firepower. An example of this is purchasing Guards/Airborne SMG/Infantry pioneer at the same time in companies or less).

    3. using flamethrowers to burn buildings before enemy infantry can arrive and thus limit approaches to a defensive position. (this one is also iffy since now it seems in CMBB that infantry can_enter_burning_buildings) Not sure about it but BFC may have allowed this to prevent gamey tactics but in the end it seems unrealistic for infantry to fight from or pass through burning structures.

    All this being said the following practices can be followed: Always use rarity. Always use EFOW. Always use units from a single division type. No more than 1 coy per battalion of SMG troops.

    -Sarge

    0

    Questions and comments from a dedicated player

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by dougman4:

    1. Is it just me that is annoyed that there is a “snap to” feature when targeting (e.g. mortar fire). You can’t target the ground beneath a unit that is in plain line-of-sight even though the unit may not be target-able. It seems ridiculous that you can’t target 1/3 of a tank because 2/3rd of it are hidden, or even the ground beneath it.

    It annoys me also with non-vehicle enemy units. With vehicles you can toggle them off and target right underneath (with HE only of course).

    Originally posted by dougman4:

    3. There should be an ability to toggle on a line-of-sight ring around any (friendly) unit selected. This ring of maximum visibility would preclude the tedious need of having to continually draw blue lines to points of interest.

    This is a brilliant idea IMO. For me it would enhance the game immensely. I'd even be willing to pay extra $$for a feature like that! :cool:

    Originally posted by dougman4:

    4. It seems haphazard that some fresh troops readily panic/broken/surrender while other troops hang on indefinitely under extreme fire from many directions.

    Must be fanatisicm. But that would only be in scenarios/ops. QBs don't have fanatic units that I know of....

    Originally posted by dougman4:

    6. How close do you have to be to throw grenades and satchel bombs or Molotov cocktails? Is there a way to specifically throw grenades and satchel bombs or Molotov cocktails versus attacking with other weapons?

    I think around 30 meters. But you can manually target other squad weapons (eg. satchel charges, grenade bundles) to a point up to 30 meters away.

    Originally posted by dougman4:

    7. How many people can be in a building? Why not list a building occupancy limit number when you pass a cursor over the building to alleviate guesswork?

    Well it can be learned with practice. Here are a couple of examples: Heavy Small Building holds 2 infantry units of any kind. But they must be at opposite corners. Large Heavy Building can easily hold one platoon plus and AT team on each floor. But you have to keep your spacing right about 10-15 meters apart.

    Originally posted by dougman4:

    9. Advancing/assaulting infantry units are easily suppressible to the point of artificially limiting their role in CMBB.

    This is realistic IMO. Advancing units may pin when under fire but it is more rare for them to go straight to panic like running units. However, Assaulting units do get a bravery bonus I think. Also, be sure to use your bravery command bonus HQs to command assaulting units. Do that and you (and your opponents) will be amazed at how your untis continue to advance under MG fire!

    Originally posted by dougman4:

    14. Do foxholes’ defensive bonuses cumulate with the underlying terrain? For example, do I get an extra defensive bonus for digging a foxhole in woods or do I just get either the foxhole or the woods bonus (if so, which would it be)?

    I don't think so and I wish the defensive bonus where cumulative. This is probably a limitation of the current game "engine".

    Originally posted by dougman4:

    15. Do foxholes give defensive bonuses to all units including AT guns and armored units?

    Yes for AT guns. Tanks that "dig in" are permanently hull-down.

    Originally posted by dougman4:

    24. How many rounds of different types does it take to bring down different types and sizes of buildings?

    This varies widely and is somewhat random (even more so it seems in CMBB than BO). For example a 75mm HE gun slamming into a small heavy building may take up to 10 rounds to take it down. But I have seen "lucky" hits blow up a building (once it was weakened by 2 or 3 rounds) without a long time pounding.

    -Sarge

    [ February 18, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

    0

    Recommended sound mod(s)?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

    I recommend the various infantry firearm mods made by Ohjusmies. Pack a fiendish punch! :D

    Ditto that. I D/Led his MG42, SMGs, and rifle sounds.

    BTW, Does anyone know of a Maxim MG mod? The default sound has the typical "TAT, TAT, TAT...TAT, TAT, TAT, TAT, " but I wanted something again with more punch or crispness. When a Maxium is shooting at me, I want to KNOW IT! :cool:

    -Sarge

    0

    CMBB axis superiority disproven.

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Hi Warphead, I definately don't want to come off as rude since I value the time it takes to create a scenario. The problem I had was partly due to the CMBB scoring system and engine (I played PBEM). My infantry held the town and all flags. I had even ambushed the first german hafltracks successfully. I did NOT attempt to take on the Tiger directly. My T34s made a dash for the town when it became clear they were needed there. I left T34s in overwatch to distract the Tiger while the rest fast-moved using very carefully planned courses....staying on the road for maximum speed. Once the lead tank is hit, all the following tanks do that crazy dance of TacAI by reversing 8 meters, forward 10, reverse 5, forward 6, oh no the Tiger is targetting me I better reverse again. Naturally my order and intent was to get some T34s to town no matter what but once TacAI overrides orders to avoid a burning tank then it is easy for them to be overidden by the TacAI again to do the "run and hide from the Tiger" thing.

    What unbalances it (IMHO) is that once enough T34s are KOed then the axis player has enough victory points to win without even attacking the town. In other words, the allied victory points from casualties outweighed any victory points that could be scored from holding flags. This took all the fun out of it for me and my opponent and we ended early.

    IMHO, making the King Tiger crack gives a very good chance that what you described historically would happen. However, if that should happen to lend historical feel then something needs to be in place to offset it and give the soviet player something more to fight for.....like more flags or something.

    Cheers,

    Sarge

    [ January 14, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

    0

    CMBB axis superiority disproven.

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Lindan:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

    The description of a crack KT vs. T34/85s made me think of Marxdorf which is not one of yours. Mad Bull and I played that a while back and it left a bad taste for me....

    Marxdorf was done by my pal Warphead. When it comes to these things he is as pedantic as one can be. The forces included are there for a reason, and judging from the amount of material that he researched for this area of operations, they are as historic as can be.</font>
    0

    CMBB axis superiority disproven.

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by rune:

    Historical forces = actual forces involved. Like it or not, they had them.

    Sources: Thomas Jentz, Nafziger, Russian Battlefield, History of the 501st Panzer. Etc Etc Etc.

    Sorry all these sources got it wrong. Oh yeah, the battle happened in 1944 not 1945, was at a railhead where the units were being resupplied, and the zillion tanks/halftracks is a whopping 13 HTs and no trucks. Also the report of 6 HTs being destroyed in AARs from the battle has to be wrong. Not to mention the Russian tanks are a mix from Veteran to conscript. Try playing the scenario before bashing it.

    Rune

    **SPOILER***

    Hi Rune, Sorry about the confusion but speaking for myself, I was not thinking of one of your scenarios. The description of a crack KT vs. T34/85s made me think of Marxdorf which is not one of yours. Mad Bull and I played that a while back and it left a bad taste for me....

    What is the name of the one you wrote with a KT? I'll be sure and play the german side when it comes up! :D

    Cheers,

    Sarge

    0

    CMBB axis superiority disproven.

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Kirill S.:

    The axis superiority is displayed with the scenarios which are bundled with cmbb. Some designers are dumb enough to add a crack KT and 5 green T-34s in an open field and call the scenario historical.

    I know the bundled scenario in question here and people who may be confused should realize this is a KING Tiger. It is (nearly) impossible to KO the Crack King Tiger with the forces given if the axis player has even a clue. Also, I might add, this scenario sports about 30 bazillion axis halftracks and trucks in April 1945. Uhmmmm, regardless of anything else that is not very historical IMHO.
    0
×
×
  • Create New...