SteveP
-
Posts
427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SteveP
-
-
By the way, for anyone who is still interested in this question of facing and map orientation, I've recently discovered that a misalignment is not all that uncommon -- even on scenarios included with the game CDs!
Now, does it matter?? I think it depends on the type of scenario and whether you are playing the AI or not. Also, it is not a factor in QBs at all, since a misalignment can't happen in a QB. But one aspect of this misalignment has gotten me very intrigued: could this explain at least some of the instances in which units sneak or rout toward the enemy. This has been commented upon as a stupid AI trick in the past, but without any real insight (I think) into the reasons or whether it makes sense. However, it becomes clearer if you realize that, at least in some scenarios, they are routing toward what they think is their own rear!
Personally, I am convinced this is an explanation in at least some instances when it happens, based on playing some other scenarios with this misalignment problem. But I don't know if it could be a major explanation (and, again, it doesn't apply in QBs). I don't mean with this posting to digress from the main subject of this thread (I will happily start a new thread if anyone wants to explore this theory further). So, to refocus back on the subject of this thread:
I had noted when playing 110 as originally designed, that pinned Russians squads would often try to sneak toward the shell holes near the MG, once they got to the fence line. In fact, Jason suggests that players look for this to happen and take advantage of it. Since I corrected the alignment of the scenario, I have seen no instance of a Russian sneaking or routing toward the MG (at least for no more than a few meters toward obviously strong cover). Again, I'm only suggesting something of possible interest because I haven't figured out any good way of testing this.
-
Originally posted by Rake:
Rake, like you I am someone who has played CM for a long time without being an active contributor to the forum. Also, like you, I have immense respect for what Jason has contributed to this forum, and for his efforts in creating this training program. I've learned a lot from it. But I do think it could be improved upon.Anyway, if you want to absolutely confirm what is happening in this scenario -- as originally designed -- try playing it against the AI (not hot seat) with FOW turned OFF. In that mode you can see everything. You will, for example, be able to see that the MG is turned in the wrong direction at the beginning of play. Now, of course, if you keep the clock running, the MG will turn toward your troops because he can spot them when FOW is turned off. However, I think you can extrapolate what is really happening from what you see when the game starts to run. The only caveat I would make is that in an earlier post, I asserted that the MG will turn back toward the west when your guys get in cover. For reasons I will go into if anyone is interested, I not entirely sure about that (and haven't taken the time to test it).
My analysis is that Jason is asking/expecting green troops with a vanilla green commander to advance for 70-90m (from the last cover to spotting range) in completely open terrain, within 200m of an HMG, without the platoon returning fire (which it could only do with area fire, and which for that matter it doesn't have enough FP to matter) or without any overwatch fire available to attempt suppressing the MG. When I think about this, my conclusion is that BFC modeled this correctly -- no green platoon is going to do this.
Again, pace Jason, I understand you are convinced otherwise. I am just offering my opinion from a lot of time experimenting and analyzing.
-
Originally posted by Interlocutor:
Strongly suggest giving yourself more time, if you haven't done so already (I think 30 turns minimum, probably more). This is partly because it is going to take longer to approach from the setup zone (because squads will take fire at times and you will have to wait for rally).I've given myself as much as 60 turns without being able to do it -- my intention then, however,was to see if I could "eat ammo" long enough to put the MG in a low ammo situation. Never happened.
-
Juan, you are confusing setup positioning (i.e., place on the map) with directional facing once the game actually starts. Unless you edit the scenario or play it hot seat solitaire, the MG will ALWAYS be facing to the west, away from the Russians, when the scenario starts. This is true of all three scenarios.Originally posted by juan_gigante:In regards to the 110 series, I played them (as I have all the scenarios so far) with computer free set-up. That meant that when I beat 110, 111, 112, the MG was facing whatever direction the AI pleased - towards my guys, I'm sure.
By the way, I do not have trouble beating 110 when playing it as originally designed (once I fully appreciated Jason's point about using FP as cover). However, once I discovered that the scenario was basically about advancing in the rear of an enemy position, I became more interested in practicing and analyzing this mission with the MG facing me from the start -- and therefore able to spot me and fire on me from the first turn.
As another aside, I think that leaving the computer free to place units in 110 is a good idea for practice -- so that all you know at the beginning is that you are facing an MG located somewhere in the area of the flag. I became really intrigued with figuring out how to locate it based on triangulating on it from the positions my units were in when they took fire during the approach from the setup zone. Using Jason's trick with the rotate command was a key element to doing this. Also, I think it's something a real platoon would have done in that situation.
-
Actually, I wanted to believe that, which is why I spent a lot of time on it -- particularly the stage where one has to push past the last house line into the open (again, for those keeping score, I have only been playing it with the orientation corrected, so that I really was trying to advance this platoon under fire for the entire distance. To me, that was a better test of whether I had learned how to do it.)Originally posted by JasonC:"I believe it can't be done"
Exactly, and you are dead wrong, and have missed the entire point. No it won't break the whole platoon, unless you make specific errors like bunching up too much, letting one shot pin a single squad and prevent rally on others at the same time. I've done it and the like over a hundred times, in tests and in real games. On the training scenarios, of course I playtested all of them hotseat, and no I didn't beat them only by area firing on turn one to exploit some obscure facing bug. It fires first, I win. If you haven't done the like then perhaps you should be listening.
My own experience is that the MG picks them off very quickly as they emerge from the cover. If they all come out at the same time, it may take a little more than a minute to put them all in a cover panic. The bunching up is a problem, I agree, especially if they all try to go for the same cover. Haven't quite figured out a way to prevent that. Also, they won't rally quickly enough, so that it doesn't work for me to keep offering the MG a different target.
With a plus one morale boost (i.e., the same morale as a regular squad), it is possible to keep them out there while they rally. As it is, they will dive for cover every time. If one or two of them break, then you've got rattled troops and that makes the morale problem even more difficult. (It's worth noting that it's very possible to get a broken squad during the advance to that last house line, even if you give yourself the benefit of knowing exactly where the MG is. There is no route I've found that keeps you in cover the whole time, and the MG can break one of these squads at 400+meters).
I'm not trying to prove that it can't be done (can't prove a negative, anyway!). And I understand that you are going to tell me I'm wrong about all of this, which is OK. You want to convince people they can advance for 400m in relatively open terrain under HMG fire with these green troops. If others chime in with reports that they are able to complete the mission playing hot seat or after correcting the orientation, then that would be great. I guess then I'd be the one asking them how they did it.
I frankly think it would be great if others did try it that way, because I think people would learn more from really having to advance under fire for 400 meters rather than having to worry about only the last 150 meters.By the way, just to add to the aggravation, scenarios 111 and 112 also play very differently if the orientation is corrected. For example, I don't think it's possible to ignore that second MG in 111, since it's going to open up on you at 400m as well. I was able to complete both of these, however, though with a little different strategy than what I think has been recommended. Just thought I'd throw that in for what it's worth.
-
Am I the "someone" referred to.Originally posted by JasonC:The lesson is emphatically not about facing issues or anything remotely like it. That is a red herring by someone who apparently has not yet succeeded at the actual task. It is entirely possible to advance a green platoon over open ground and approach cover, at an active and firing HMG, absorb its fire (painfully), get to cover, fire back, and make it duck.
If so, I'm not sure what you mean by red herring. My only point has been that the scenario plays very differently if the MG starts out facing the Russians. If you play it that way, you certainly will get to find out if you can advance your platoon over open ground and approach cover, etc., etc. I believe it can't be done, for many reasons (including the fact that the MG can pin/panic your whole platoon in a minute's worth of fire at a range of under 200m), but I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise by an AAR. At least from the testing I have done, I think you need at a minimum to have a platoon leader with a plus one on morale and a plus one on combat to succeed. That gets you something like a middle ground between an all green platoon and a regular platoon.Or are you saying that the fact the MG is facing the other direction is somehow not relevant to the play of the scenario? If so, that is certainly an easy thing to test. Simply play it hot seat and don't give any orders to the MG.
-
I've spent a lot of time with 110, mostly doing various tests and experiments, so I'll offer my advice, which I think is mostly consistent with Jason's.Originally posted by Pirx:Okay, sorry to bring it up 110 again but I still haven't passed.
I am trying to follow the forum advice to 1) advance to the houses, then the wood fence, then the craters, then grenade range, 2) keep in command but spread out (for me this means 15-20 m apart in a line roughly parallel to trench), 3) advance in short 30-40m hops, 4) keep unhidden with cover arcs over enemy trench to get a full spot.
First, you have to get all four squads past the house line (the house behind the fence and the one across the road). You want them all within about 150-180m distance from the trench (you'll notice that you can't even spot the trench until you push past the house line to within a distance of 200m from the trench). It is critical that your units be unspotted at this point. This can be done because the MG is facing the other direction, but it takes some finesse. Don't advance all your units at the same time. Use short advances. In other words, don't attract attention. If you are having trouble doing this, then keep trying with different techniques until you do -- because if you get spotted at that range you're cooked. Jason may not agree with that last statement, but it's certainly my experience.
At that point, if you want an easy victory, simply area fire on the trench. You will panic the MG (because the fire is coming from behind him) and will eventually break him, especially if you do some advancing. However, that approach detracts from the purpose of the scenario.
Assuming you don't do the area fire option, the next step involves getting a spot on the MG itself, which means that one or two of your units has to advance to about 130-135m from the trench. In doing that the unit(s) will get spotted and fired on, but this is also the unit or units that has to do the initial spotting. I recommend timing the advance so that the spot comes right near the end of the turn.
Once you get the spot, fire everybody at the MG. The squad that advanced and got hit will probably still be pinned, but three squads firing at that range are enough to cause the MG to dive for cover. That allows time for your pinned squad to recover. Once you have four squads shooting, the MG is in trouble and you can start to advance on him.
For me, the tricky part is that advance to the 130-135m range. If you advance only one squad, the other three are primed to open fire immediately since none of them are moving. On the other hand, if that squad gets pinned without spotting the MG, you are in a pickle. You can try advancing a second squad, but then you are down to two squads ready to open fire -- and the ability of two squads to effectively neutralize the MG is marginal at that range.
If you send two squads, you increase the chances of getting a spot, but reduce the immediate firepower (because the movement is effecting fire performance). All in all that is still probably the best choice, but it's a close call I think.
Two other points:
1. Area fire on the trench, or even directly on the MG's location, coming after the MG has spotted you, is worthless with these green squads at that range. It only works when the MG is still facing the other direction.
2. You can't rely on covered arcs to get your green squads up and firing when they're out in the open. It's better to work on timing your moves, so that you can give them fire orders before it's too late.
Hope this helps.
-
I know that the Brits had a model of tank called the cruiser, but cruiser also designates a type of tank, in contrast to light tank or medium tank, for example. What distinguishes a cruiser tank? Speed? Type of enemy it targets? Terrain preferences?
-
You are correct (no surprise). I did a test in open terrain against an MG and discovered that I was operating under a misconception about the radius of the circle affected by small arms fire. 25m is the minimum, 26m is obviously better. Glad to have the misconception corrected!Originally posted by JasonC:To SteveP on intervals -
the 26m rule is to avoid any effect from infantry type fire aimed at a different unit of the formation.
It is true that intervals in the 14m range are sufficient once in cover, for avoiding more than minor fire effects. You will rarely lose a man or become pinned. When cover is scarce and I am in a firefight, I will let the men bunch up to 14m intervals inside the good cover, sometimes. But I still prefer 26m even then, and for approaching attackers I consider it essential.
-
Jason, may I comment or at least ask a question about this interval recommendation, which you've made a number of times. Although it's a small point, it does matter in situations where you have low quality troops and therefore more of a challenge keeping them in command radius when under fire.Originally posted by JasonC:Most platoons use "blob" formation, meaning 2 by 2, occasionally 3 deep with trailing teams. Intervals are typically 26 to 30m.
My understanding is that the reason for these intervals is to minimize the problem of neighboring squads being effected by what is essentially area fire when one of them gets hit. Or, it's to protect all the squads from being hit by area fire which is aimed into the middle of the platoon rather than at one of squads. If the first of these is the main one, then I think the intervals are greater than they need to be -- 13-15m would be enough. After all the unit being hit is in the middle of the circle of area fire effects, not on the edge.
If it is the second, then I think one could reasonably consider that this is a much lesser risk. For one thing, the AI never area fires. Also, I think most human players don't area fire into the middle of an advancing platoon (though maybe they should).
There is, of course, another factor, which is the desire to be spread out in case of an artillery attack. However, I don't think there's a universally desirable spacing to protect oneself -- just some "happy medium" between getting some spacing and trying to keep everyone in command at all times.
Is there another consideration that I'm missing?
Anyway, just grist for the mill ...
-
The physical relationship of the HQ to the other units doesn't matter, as long as the other units are within command radius. One thing I've learned is that it may be critical to keep low quality units in command radius during the move itself as well as at the end of the move, if the HQ has bonuses (especially morale and possibly stealth and/or combat). For example, a HQ with one level morale bonus means that the green squad within its command has the same morale as a regular squad. But at any time it moves out of range, it reverts to green morale (which, of course, is just when the MG opens up on it.Originally posted by Tiredboots:John kettler, I might be wrong, but I think that putting your HQ in as a forward position as possible tend to galvanize & focus the rest of the troops. won total victory in 110 putting my HQ level with the front half squads & had no control problems.
)In 110, the HQ doesn't have any bonuses, so this is not a consideration. If anyone wants to try playing this scenario with the map orientation corrected (so that the MG is facing the advancing Russians from the beginning), I recommend giving the HQ a bonus for morale and combat. In that case, planning how to keep all four squads within command radius at all times becomes an important skill to learn, and makes an impossible mission merely very difficult.
-
I wondered about this myself. Turns out there have been some threads on this subject and I did some of my own testing to see what I could figure out.Originally posted by John_d:Why do my overwatch units never respond fast enough? I have this problem all the time in CMBB, although not in CMBO. Units will happily sit and watch the rest of their platoon get shot to pieces, despite being able to see the shooter. Why?
The answer seems to be that the TacAI will inhibit units from firing even if they have a spot, if there's a question about whether the fire will be effective and also (I think) where the enemy being fired upon is dangerous to your unit (in a situation where firing would give away your unit's location). In this evaluation, the TacAI doesn't consider the combined effect of all your units firing, it just makes a decision unit by unit.
For that reason, it is important to give each unit in your overwatch a covered arc over where you expect the enemy to be. The arc doesn't guarantee that the unit will fire, but it does tip the balance in that direction, if the situation is a close call for the TacAI. As near as I can tell, that's the only thing you can do to help get your overwatch up and shooting as soon as they spot a target.
-
Actually, what I thought was a minor stupid AI trick, could really be more of a major one. I was testing for something else, and discovered that when playing the AI, you don't even have to be around completely to the flank or the rear to use this tactic. It will work as long as you are past the 45 degree angle roughly. It's as if the StratAI or the OpsAI is giving the unit a kind of covered arc, which is only about 90 degrees in angle, to the front, but which degrades spotting ability rather than limiting where the unit will fire once a spot is actually made.
Of course, you aren't going to know in advance what direction the unit in question is facing, but you can influence that by using a different unit to draw its fire in the desired direction (actually that could work against a human opponent as well!)
-
[ December 10, 2005, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: SteveP ]
-
No I don'tOriginally posted by Sivodsi:"One other consideration worth knowing: this tactic works even better against the AI than it would against a human -- or at least my limited testing suggested this. I think I know why this is, but it's probably not worth explaining unless someone is really curious (it's something of a stupid AI trick, but a minor one)."
Oh come on - you can't do this! If you mention it you gotta explain it!
The minor stupid AI trick has to do with the interaction of the StratAI and the TacAI, when your area firing unit is right around the 90 degree point (i.e., directly on the flank) -- say 85 degrees. If left to its own, the TacAI may well spot your shooter during the first minute of firing and fire back (this would occur if you are playing H2H or Hot Seat solitaire). If you are playing against the AI, then the StratAI intervenes to keep the attention of your units focused forward unless the unit gets a definite spot in a different direction. That is, the StratAI is actually helping you out. Let me emphasize that I don't know to what extent this is really making a difference when you are firing from that particular zone -- I only suspect it based on a few trials.
This particular stupid AI trick, if it exists, does not have anything to do with the broader question of how well the tactic would work against a human defender as compared to the AI. Against the AI it can be devastating. Against a human player, I believe it is fair to say that it will always work for that first minute of fire (which could be decisive if it allows you to cross a lethal fire zone). It may even continue to work reliably for a short time into the second minute, depending upon how badly you've damaged the defender's morale. Past that point, it depends on the competency of the human player to deduce what's going on based on whatever clues he gets (for example, a sound contact). All the human defender has to do is reorient his unit toward the direction from which he thinks the fire is coming, and the advantage you gained from the tactic is lost (unfortunately, the AI does not have that much competency -- at least I think based on my tests that the AI will not reorient based on a sound contact, for example).
-
John Kettler:
Pending Jason getting an opportunity to help, I can give you some quick answers. The 110-112 scenarios have a quirk in their file names (not sure how this works but apparently scenarios can have two names: a title and a file name). I think Jason must have started with a scheme in which these were going to be the 200 series, but then changed his mind. Not really a problem for play, but can be a problem if you make any changes to them in the Scenario Editor. If, for example, you edit 110 and then try to save it, the Editor will save it as RusTrain200. That's why I mention this in a couple of posts in this thread.
If you've modified 110 to fix the orientation problem, or you try playing it Hot Seat solitaire, you would indeed be finding it extremely difficult to play. If you are playing it solitaire and no changes, then you just need to work on your approach technique a little more. You should be able to get up to about 150-180m away from the trench without being spotted (because the MG is facing the other way and, if you're careful, doesn't hear you coming either). What you do at that point is where it gets tricky, especially in the first 90-120 seconds. You are out in the open in a very lethal zone. It can be done, however. One technique is to area fire the trench, which will cause the MG to dive for cover and probably stay there (this won't work by the way if the MG is looking your direction). The other approach involves different variations on the techniques that Jason has described. At least from my experience, It is particularly important to know how close you need to get one of your squads in order to get a spot on the MG when he opens up on you. You also have to have some idea of what you'll do if that first squad gets thoroughly plastered before getting the spot.
-
I've recently discovered a tactic that I do not think has been discussed in the Forum before, and it's so interesting that I thought I would share it and encourage others to try it and see if they get the same results. It may even add a little fuel to the maneuver v. attrition debate, which could be fun.
As preamble, let me say I discovered this by accident playing and analyzing a scenario created by JasonC for his Russian Training Scenarios program (there's a thread in the CMBB forum for anyone not familiar with this package -- I'm referring specifically to scenario 110 in the package).
In that scenario a vanilla platoon of green infantry is tasked with crossing relatively open terrain to take out a regular German HMG in a trench. Needless to say, it's a difficult task for the infantry, but in the process of analyzing this scenario, I realized that if the green platoon got into the rear of the HMG and opened up first on the trench with area fire (the HMG itself hasn't been spotted yet, nor has the HMG spotted the platoon), at a range of 150-200m, the effect would be to stun the HMG enough to give the platoon a good change to advance on it with little or no return fire (following Jason's excellent advice for advancing in the open).
With some experimentation, I've determined that this effect can happen even if only one of the platoons is firing into the trench and even if the area fire is aimed at a point 10-15m away from the actual location of the MG. I haven't played it out very many turns, but as near as I can tell, the MG may never figure out where the fire is coming from and try to return fire. Also, I don't know if the experience level of the MG (regular) or that fact that he's out of command might be a factor in how much FP value you need in the area fire to be effective.
With those caveats in mind, I tried some other experiments to see just how far around to the flank of the MG you could go and have this effect. In fact, it seems to work well until you get around the area of the 90 degree axis. As you get at that point or lower (say 85 degrees from his frontal orientation) you need more initial FP to get him stunned enough not to spot you and fire back.
One other consideration worth knowing: this tactic works even better against the AI than it would against a human -- or at least my limited testing suggested this. I think I know why this is, but it's probably not worth explaining unless someone is really curious (it's something of a stupid AI trick, but a minor one).
There is an obvious corollary here to spotting. The MG is much less likely to spot you coming into his vicinity the more you are around to his flank and rear. The conclusion I reached from all this is that there is indeed an advantage to be gained in maneuvering around to the flank of a fortified position, if it offers the chance of surprise and no other defender in the area likely to make you pay for your infiltration attempt.
Final note: my own thinking is that this isn't gamey, since I think getting a surprise burst of fire from your rear or flank would have some significant impact on your abliity to respond and might very well send you to the bottom of the trench or foxhole until you could figure out what's going on.
-
PC:
Zwolo has this exactly right. And it is a systemic factor of some consequence in the whole play of scenarios 110-112. Despite what it shows in the Scenario Editor, the AI (the Strat AI, if that's what it is called, not the TacAI) will turn the HG immediately around, even before it can spot any Russians in the distance, because it is expecting the Russians to come from the other direction. It will keep it facing the wrong way until it senses the Russians coming up from behind or gets into a fire fight for some other reason. The reason for this is because of the map side ownership set in the Scenario parameters.
An additional point about this that I haven't made yet, is that whenever the HG finally spots your squads and turns around to shoot, the Russians will soon break for cover. As soon as they are in cover, and no longer seen, the HG will turn back around and forget that you were ever behind him. This is because the AI has no memory. This is why players discover that they are able, through trial and error, to get their squads close enough before the MG senses them. The problem, if there is one, is that the player does not know why he is able to do this, and could readily reach wrong conclusions about the resiliency of this platoon closing on a HMG in this relatively open terrain.
If you want to test this out for yourself, without going into the Scenario Editor, simply play yourself using Hot Seat, and watch how differently the MG behaves (don't give it any orders, just let the TacAI control it). The reason for the difference is that the Strat AI is shut off in this mode.
The facing quirk also exists in 100-102, but it isn't as noticeable except in 102, because the Germans are facing 90 degrees away from the Russian's line of approach, rather than 180 degrees, and the placement of the flag causes the German tanks to reorient themselves in the proper direction during the first turn (at least I think that is what happens).
The 200 series also has a bias that is similar to 100-102. I haven't played these much so though I know there's a noticeable impact, I'm not sure how significant it is. This quirk doesn't show up in the 300 and 400 series.
I hope this is starting to become clear to everyone, because I don't want to beat this dead horse any more than necessary for its own good.
-
Jason:
Not sure how much further to take this side discussion -- probably not much since I may be the loner here
But I have to say that I'm still puzzled about the reasons for the design of the 100 series, in having the Germans start out facing the wrong direction.Specifically, in 110 you are giving the Russians virtually a free pass to a point less than 200m from the trench, since the MG is looking entirely the other direction. This is functionally the same as giving them a covered route to a line of scattered trees located about where the house behind the fence is placed. However, the trainee doesn't know that he's getting this benefit -- to say nothing of the problem of preemptive area fire on the trench working when it shouldn't be.
I think it would be better to make it explicit, by giving him the covered approach and the scattered tree line (but also having the MG facing him, of course), so he knows this is part of the context of the lesson. The problem for me is that the lessons I learned from playing the scenario with the original parameter settings were worthless when I found myself faced with the same map and the MG facing my direction, and it took me considerable time and research to understand why that was (which I admit was pretty educational as well, so why should I complain, right ?)
Anyway, since others are apparently content with the designs as they are, 'nuff said.
-
Had yet another epiphany (for anyone who's still with me on this! Could it be that the reason the MG was suppressed by pre-emptive area fire on the trench in 110 is that the fire was coming from behind him? After all, he's still looking the other way, until the Russians either get close enough or open up on his trench with preemptive area fire. Being fired at "from behind" would probably cause a unit to dive for cover and not come up too quickly.
Once he's facing the right way, this area fire on the whole trench line doesn't affect him much. Unfortunately, there's no way to test this, but it does provide a plausible explanation.
-
Quick note: if you do decide to edit these scenarios, pay close attention to the file names that the editor will try to save to. If you are not careful, you will overwrite one of the later scenarios.
If you do this same fix on 111 and 112, there are some significant problems with setup for the Russians. There aren't enough locations for them to setup without getting shot at on the first turn. Don't know if this makes them unplayable or not, but it certainly gives you practice in moving green troops under fire!
-
For anyone who's been reading my posts about the quirks in 110, I think I've discovered why the MG isn't firing at range when you play the AI: it's because the MG is facing the wrong direction! He thinks that the Russians are coming from the west and he's facing that way. He doesn't even spot your guys until they get within 200m.
The fix is to use the scenario editor to change the side ownership so that the MG knows the Russians are coming from the east. Then, of course, if you still want to play this scenario, you have to give the Russians at lot more time. At least 30 turns. Of course, if you give the Russians too much time, they can't lose (assuming that one follows Jason's excellent advice on how to manage your green troops). The only hope the MG has is that the clock runs out before his ammo does.
By the way, I think this side ownership problem is also a factor in the quirks in 102, which causes the StuG to start out facing the wrong direction.
-
Jason: if you get a minute I'd love to get a comment related to my posting about playing 110 in Hot Seat mode. The dilemma I've found is that when the MG is free to open up at any range, one of two things happens:
1. You can get your platoon into the shadow of the house behind the fence in reasonably good order in reasonably good time (assuming your added more time to the scenario), by avoiding his fire zones as much as possible. However, by definition you haven't depleted his ammo load much. At that point it's virtually impossible to push past the house. I've found that you can't even get a spot on the trench from the house -- it's more than 200m away -- much less try area fire on it or anything like that.
2. You can get caught in his fire zones at range and deplete his ammo. This helps because if his ammo load is way down, you can push past the house. But deliberately moving into his fire zones in order to deplete his ammo is a risky strategy to say the least -- he can break a squad at well over 400m -- and one I haven't figured out how to do well.
Is there a third option or approach, or this is scenario largely unwinnable for the Russians if the MG is free to fire at range?
-
junk2drive: If you want to avoid the auto ceasefire on 110 (which is likely to happen if you are hosing the trench and/or the MG for many minutes), change the scenario to an Allied Assault in the scenario editor. I found that it would auto ceasefire even in the Allied Attack setting as well as the Probe setting.
)
Russian Training Scenario 110
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
If you are interested in doing the same thing, let me suggest one technique I've used. Use the scenario editor to start your squads behind one or the other or both of the houses closest to the trench. This saves you the trouble of advancing from the setup zone (which is tedious and time-consuming). That way you can experiment with different tactics for assaulting the MG. Also you can experiment with things like using regulars, or adding bonuses to the HQ.
What I have found from doing many tests is that this green platoon is fundamentally handicapped in several ways, given the distance they have to cross once they leave that final cover:
1. They do not have sufficient morale to stay out in the open under fire, much less continue to advance.
2. They do not have sufficient FP at the 180-200m range to disrupt the MG using area fire (since they are not close enough at that range to get a direct spot).
3. They have to get significantly closer to the MG to get a direct spot (i.e., somewhere in the neighborhood of 135-140m) compared to regulars or veterans.
4. The HQ has a command radius of only 45m, making it harder to keep the squads in command (this is less important than the others, but worth keeping in mind).
In doing your own tests, I recommend playing it Hot Seat solitaire, at least a few times. That allows you to see when and where the MG is getting spots, and also how the MG is reacting to attempts at using area fire, if you try that. Also, when playing Hot Seat, the MG will reliably fire as soon as the Russian squads break cover (which I think is most realistic). For some reason, this does not always happen when the full AI is in control.
As I noted in a couple of posts in the other thread, I did ultimately reach a conclusion about what was minimally required in the way of modification to the HQ in order for this platoon to succeed, but others may reach a different conclusion.