newlife
-
Posts
231 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by newlife
-
-
Normally I agree with the zook not being with ATG team at long ranges. This particular map is a tiny valley where I'm expecting both to engage at the same time. I was limited with options regarding who to give things to and the deployment zone is small enough that I'm not going to get two positions with really wide angles on the same target. I only had only a few foxholes and the deployment zone was obvious enough to warrant a turn 1 bombardment. My opponent choose not to, but I needed folks in foxholes or buildings.
-
Oh, and the Observer took the zook in the FO team.
-
No armor contact yet. I don't know for sure thatI'll get any so I may need to test specifically now that I'm curious about it. The zooks both went to the 3 squad member of the team. The gunner has the big gun, the loader has his shell, and the third guy has the zook. I'll report back when things open up.
-
SPOILERS!!!!! Aventi Scenario
I'm defending on the Aventi scenario and they set you up in the middle with all the specialists and the squads are all on the outer perimeter and can't be moved during setup. The inner deployment zone can be moved and has 4 half-tracks with zooks. I figured on a first turn bombardment and didn't want the zooks brewing up with the half-tracks if I couldn't get them out on time and there was a lucky hit. So I gave em too the ATG teams, the FO, and an HQ unit. Perhaps they should have all gone to the HQ units. The sighting range is relatively short in the valley so it should be interesting to see what happens with the ATG teams when I get my first sighting. The FO is on tiny cover arc on the lower floor of a building. I figure I'll get the barrage off once I know where to target and then head em outside to fight with the rest.
I'm only a few turns in so not much has happened, but its totally reminding me of the last battle in the movie platoon. I just wished I had a full company and the CO had access to a CAS mission. I would probably need mutliple missions to get the boom from the movie. Either that or pretend naval guns were an air mission.
-
So in a current HtH game I have going I had my 57mm ATG gun teams jump in a half track during setup to grab a bazooka. Anybody do this on a regular basis? I assume it's a tad gamey but they were lying around without a standard infantry squad to pick them up so I might as well use them on the defense mission. I'm surrounded so I figure everything goes. The FO also picked one up to increase his productivity after the arty runs dry.
I think I'm outing myself as a gamey b*****d.
-
Sort of like the mortar round that was intended for my parked tank on over watch on the ridge that went horribly off course to hit my Italian Battalion commander who was well behind the hill. Italian squads are hard enough to control WITH leadership...
-
Let me know if you want a second game.
-
45 out of 100. So 20 out of 50. I did the same thing you did the first time I read it.
-
Maybe not very common IRL, but in the game parts of the map on fire works also in defense.
All depends upon which way the wind is blowing...
-
My favorite Flamethrower tactic in CMBO was waiting for the attacker to take the first building in a town and then lighting it on fire. Break the first squad and deny them cover they were counting on all in one quick stroke!
-
Thanks for the help! The mortar team was under a tree. I had turned trees off in a previous scenario with lots of maneuver in an orchard. Normally I just play with trunks only but I was getting annoyed with the constant back and forth to turn a particular tree off.
As for the ATG team they were targeting down their line at a sharp angle to the terrain which may have caused it. I moved them to a place with a more perpendicular shot pattern to the terrain and I haven't seen it again.
For those above wondering, this was with average stat troops not under fire nor had they taken any.
-
So I'm on the road to montebourg campaign and I'm running into some odd behavior on the Turnbull's Stand mission. I set up my ambushes and hit go. A few quiet turns go by and the germans are crossing a nice open field and I decide to call in some direct mortar fire. I select it and one member of the mortar team is off crawling around for no apparent reason and the team wont fire without him. I can't even get the team to respond to a move command.
Oh well, the fighting hadn't really started yet and I just set up the exact same ambushes again not using the new info gained in the previous try.
I set up again and this time 3 members of one of the 57mm ATG teams decide to go crawling off. WHAT is going on here? I setup again in slightly different spots and the ATG team starts the behavior again.
Am I doing something wrong? The teams look okay on setup. Is this a mission bug? Are teams randomly programmed to get curious?
-
I couldn't find the manual either. I also had trouble first finding the PBEM files (they are in a hidden directory located in the user directory, not the CMBN tree) and then found my program was kicking out corrupt PBEM files. Let me know if you have more success than I did.
-
Thanks guys for the hilarious thread, it really made my morning!
Anyway I woulda just read it and moved on but then I saw which scenario is being talked about, and last time I tried asking about it it didn't get any responses so now's my second chance with out having to bump myself 
Anyway that was a really fun scenario but the half tracks brought up an interesting point for me with respect to gaminess. I also used my halftrack to support my attack with MG fire. However I only used them where I had already gained fire superiority, and thus suffered no substantial half track gunner casualties. I had the opposite experience with my half tracks on that scenario, They were kick butt fighting platforms. which brings me to my question. in order to get maximum firepower out of them I would reverse them into firing position with a covered arc towards the enemy, that way they could have all 2 or 3 mg's facing the right way. If it had been a H2H game instead of vs the AI would you have been miffed about the ahistorical backwards use of the halftracks, or would you have just figured it was a natural thing for an enterprising commander to do, to get the most guns on the line. I mean if there is a gunner standing there anyway he might as well be facing towards the enemy right?
If I were the driver of the HT I'd certainly be all for that arrangement!
-
Maybe in real life, but in the game I can load a 12 man american rifle squad plus bazooka team. What more do you need? The german HT appears to have the same capacity (although I haven't tried ALL possible combinations of squads and teams).
Pete
-
Hi,
I'm almost positive this has been discussed before, but after several attempts with the search, I came up blank. If someone finds a prevoius disccusion, please point it out.
That said, why in the world does the 251/1 at 51pts cost 5 pts more than the M3/A1 (which is 46pts)? The only thing I see going for it are a few extra mms or armor on the front. Other than that, the M3/A1 has more firepower with the .50 cal and is significantly faster (very important for lightly armored vehicles) The M3/A1 can shoot all day without running out of ammo, while the 251/1 just doesn't carry all that much (not that either lives long enough to use a full load). The armor on the 251/1 just doesn't make up for the .50 on the M3/A1. The difference is so small that most AT threats will readily punch through either HTs armor.
What gives?
Pete
-
Hey Jake,
Sounds good. I'm really a TCP/IP player as I can't be trusted to get PBEM back at any reasonable rate, so if you're free sometime, lets do it. I'll send you an email.
Jason,
I have to apologize. I find it difficult to try and resist the urge not to try and bait you. I don't really know why I try to bait you, as I don't usually do it to other people. I will continue to disagree with you at times, but only with the best of intentions. I sincerly hope you are having a good day.
Pete
-
-
You also have to remember (or know if you missed the thread) that JasonC is a diehard proponent of Attrition warfare and gave many long emails regarding how all battle reduces to attrition warfare. That said, his devalueing of your idea comes from the idea that they will be used in an attrition warfare style. You're point purchases for your mobile arm will not equal the firepower of a standard company. Well, yes. He's correct and I don't think you'ld disagree with that either. The value of the force comes from maneuver.
I played around with setups on a map you decribed and there was plenty of room for maneuvering on most of the maps. It gets even better with limited visibility at night or with fog as you can go places previously off limits. I really like the one I found with rain at night. The rain helps kill the sound of you HTs making things even better.
That said, Jason should consider playing you with 400pts of yours held out of the game until they end up coming up behind him. You can easily send your mobile units on quite a nice journey behind him that most poeple wouldn't consider their enemy making and prepare for it. Of course if you play him now, he would have to prepare for it, expecting it. That's just as good as it keeps probably roughly 400pts of his troop tied down just the same. (This all assumes appropriate conditions)
As for Jason, he seems to be in a grumpy mood lately. He attacked Berkut when Berkut was simply looking for help and still figuring out what questions to ask. Maybe if he finally decides to play the game he challenged me to, it might lift his spirits. I'll go bump that thread up on the main forum. It's one on Flamethrowers.
<Edited because the thread is call "Is this Gamey or realistic", but it's still about Flamethrowers>
Pete
Originally posted by JAK:JasonC, I understand that you don't believe what I am saying. I have put in more disclaimers in my thread than I think necessary to avoid you trying to ram something I already said isn't true down my throat! I SAID that it doesn't always work. I SAID it isn't for everybody under all circumstances! I SAID that HT's if not kidgloved don't last long! I also SAID that the SPW251/1 is NOT the main fighting unit, it is a SUPPORT tool to get the troops QUICKLY and SAFELY to places that would lead to their complete annihilation if attempted to reach on FOOT! YES there are .5 MG's and there are mortars and zooks, and all these combined are not assaultable head on. That is why I SAID to get there FIRST and pull the H-T's back or Flank after the leg infantry has been sufficently drained! So, in conclusion you don't need to completely try and discredit me, just leave the thread. I will not play with you because I will not try and prove anything to you, it is for people with a open mind that I am talking about a particular tactic about!
Thank you,
Jake
[ March 07, 2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: newlife ]
-
In the interest of finding out how often German HTs bog is moderate snow (yes I had an hour to waste) I did a small, statistically insignificant test. But I'll share the results anyway.
22 German 251/1s were given orders to travel 4km through moderate snow against the opposition of a lone enemy FO hiding in a building with no ammo. The first HT managed to immobilize itself after the first 250 meters. After that not too bad.
# of times a HT bogged: 31 times
That means several HT's bogged multiple times.
# of Immobilizations: 8
Distance traveled before immobilizations:
3860m
3460m
3060m
2900m
2510m
1480m
870m
250m
Yes, one HT immobilized just a few meters from the finish line so that sorta counts as a success.
4 HTs made it through without bogging once.
6 HTs crossed the finish line in the same turn. (significant as 2 HTs bogged, but for such a brief period as to not be greatly significant.
6 more HTs crossed the line a turn later.
The last 2 HTs crossed the line 2 and 3 turns after the leaders did.
In the end, the HTs won as the FO was stupid enough to look out a window and got shot to death by the HTs. Silly FO. So this test conclusively proves that HTs bog in the snow!
-
So,.... back to tactics! You've probably heard enough by now that anymore is probably lost until you try em out. Let us know how the next few battles come out.
Pete
-
Hey Jake,
I don't think anyone doesn't think it can be a great tactic. Most of us are unwilling to take the risk with em and draw a QB map with no good approach lanes. I think I will give it a try. By the way, what size battles do you usually play?
Pete
Originally posted by JAK:Hey guys, I work alot with mounted infantry and I agree wholeheartedly that the battlefield is a very hard place to keep HT's alive. Its kinda my CM specialty and I guess maybe its where I'm lucky
(cause I get thrased every were else:) I just pick routes that have the most cover and I run the HT's right up/into the buildings or forest and it works as a good way for me to fast deploy a heavy infantry stoping force. Maybe I just get lucky but I think theres alittle more to it then just luck. When my CMing is reborn we can give it a go.
Jake
-
I'ld have to agreed with Crap Game. Normal HTs will get smashed in a typical QB. I think the best use of the mobility you describe with the HTs happens at a much larger level than you typically see on CM map. Most CM maps are just too small to make that sort of HT use safe.
SHAMELESS PLUG:
I have designed an incredibly HUGE scenario which can be found at the Scenario Depot called "Mechwar". The basic premise is to give both sides completely Mechanized forces on a map large enough to require the infantry to be in the HTs and on the back of the tanks in order to keep up. I listed it as a PBEM, but now that I think of it, I may want to see if it would be better as a complete Saturday exercise.
Basically, it would be a map that you can try your mobile tactics to your hearts content, just be aware your enemy is probably doing the same thing.
-
A great tactic just occured to me for use against soviet tanks without radios. Smoke missions on top of these tanks at crucial moments could be useful. Of course you give his tanks cover, so you would being doing this to take one group of tanks out of the action versus another sector of the field. Yes, I know you can already do this to any force, but the break down in communications amongst soviet tanks will worsen the problem for them.
Pete
Anyway I woulda just read it and moved on but then I saw which scenario is being talked about, and last time I tried asking about it it didn't get any responses so now's my second chance with out having to bump myself 
Still disliking Artillery
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
I thought artillery leaves craters below ground level. So why not trenches or foxholes?