newlife
-
Posts
231 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by newlife
-
-
Hi,
If it's coming to CQB then it's a number of possibilities. First, you don't have him properly supressed. Generally you want his troops pinned and ready to break when your infantry goes in.
Second, know the optimal ranges for firefights between your troops and his. SMG are great if you're close enough, but only if your troops are the ones holding them. Realize that plain rifle squads will get cut to shreds by some of the "upgunned squads". Attacking at even strength is NOT a good idea. Try to have 2:1 local odds if you can.
Third, try buying less armor and more plts of infantry. When you only have a couple of AFVs you tend to be MUCH more careful with them and protect them more. This is good. You then bring them up to break the morale of his squads. Also be sure to buy thin armored tanks with good HE, especially as the americans. Reason being most of his tanks will be able to kill most of your armor anyway, so why bother with lots of armor. The trick to killing enemy armor is to first remove it's infantry screen, and then kill the tank.
Fourth, don't be afraid to probe and fall back. Sure, some of you're squads will break, but that doesn't mean they become useless. Get an HQ over to them, get their morale back up, and use them in support. I've used many broken squads on the way to victory.
Fifth, don't succumb to defeatism. Even after you take heavy causulties, your opponent is probably hurt more than you realize. Keep the pressure up on him, and he should eventually break.
Sixth, only use 81mm FOs for smoke screens. They are useful for keeping his troops suppressed on the short term, but they'll recover quickly without many casualties. It's far better to buy some bigger Arty which will cause more casualties and break squads. In an ME, the 4.2 inch mortars and 120mm mortars are GREAT. The quicker responce time for mortars are essential. In an attack, you can afford the longer times for the regular artillery. Take something around the 150mm size, or take multiple smaller sizes and overlap their strikes.
Pete
Originally posted by Berkut:I have taken the advice of fionn and challenged a few people to practice my attacks.
I have employed most of the tactics that people have spoken of here, the problem was when it came to the crunch of using infantry to take the objective. It was then that the whole thing fell apart as my troops melted under enemy fire and did not seem able to hold their own.
It was not always due to arty or even flanking fire, but mostly when it came down to CQB with my opponents troops.
I am hoping to pick up a few new tactics that may overcome this. Once again many thanks for all those that posted.
-
Seriously, it's my own belief that the advantage gained by taking SMG squads is minimal except for low visibility scenarios (such as Thick Fog at night or entirely forested maps). Many people have simply lost to them and try to pin their loss on your purchases. Oh well. The behavior of SMGs will be changed slighly for CMBB, correcting some of the larger problems with them. Including making that "gamey" flag rush you tried versus me more painful for you.
But seriously, if we play again, feel free to choose any troops you want. You can even pick the dreaded Flak Wagons.Pete
Originally posted by IronChef4:Recently, I played a series of heavy-forested battles against my friend. In which, I was the axis. I took as many as 7 platoons of Volksgrendadier SMG squads for obvious reasons in each battle. The question is, was this gamey of me??? I know that, at least on the Eastern Front, SMGs were distributed almost exclusively when available in large numbers by the Germans and Russians, especially in sieges/ urban fighting. What about the Western Front? I have tried, recently, to avoid "Gamey-ness" whenever possible, and get angry at those who employ it in an obvious manner to their advantage (although it feels great when I beat them
) Was this hipocritical of me? Let me know what you think. . .Forgot to add that the battles I played took place in March 1945. . .
-
Ahh, you've stumbled upon one of the great debates of our time. Before the BBQ starts up and people start sending you lovely emails pointing out the previous 20 threads on the subject, I just wanted you to know that if you do decide for yourself that they're not gamey, and after all gameyness IS subjective, it's best to buy them by the Company which gives you one squad of regular rifles for every 2 squads of SMG.
It was nice knowing you. I'm glad we got a chance to play. I hope the other forum members don't roast your eSoul too long over the flames...
-
Hi all,
Looking at most of the threads discussing armor tactics, it seems the concensus is to lead with infantry, and keep the armor back.
However, it seems that historical accunts posted on this board tend to tell of the armor leading the way. Why the disconnect?
So question one, what were army SOP on who leads the way? Second, what was the historical reality? Finally, why do we see infantry first being hailed as the best strategy?
Bonus question, what is modern day SOP on this?
And my final ponderance, will the improved MG action in CMBB make infantry first too costly?
-
Hi,
I seem to recal something about Soviet doctrine having a second line of soldiers behind the first wave who would shoot anyone retreating. Is there any truth to this? Secondly, will it be modeled in CM? (Then again, it already is with most players aggresive play
)Pete
-
How gamey can you get?!!! Hitler never ordered troops to retreat, so why should you?
-
I like your post Croda. It also reminded me of something I thought about litle while back, namely recreating Gettysburg with CMBO using WWII equipment. Now THAT'S gamey!
-
-
Fine, Pick a terrain. Just make sure it will be tactically interesting.Originally posted by JasonC:Let me get this straight: the *only* terrain type you will play in is "town"? - lol.
Pete
-
hi Jason,
Just to let you know, I'll be skiing in NY this weekend so I won't be aound to answer email. It will be your choice of month. Do I get a choice of Nationality? Plus, let me know what I'm not allowed to use.
Pete
-
Hi Jason,
I'm mostly having fun because we really shouldn't be that far apart on this issue. Basically my point is fire isn't modeled perfectly, but not so horribly that it should be outlawed by the Gods of Gameyness.
It doesn't matter how the germans started their fires, whether by FT or not. Conditions were very often wet, or damp if not raining and therefor fires outside wouldn't start all that well. Fire in buildings obviously still would. In addition, fires are only useful in specific situations tactically (and as you point out, heavily time dependent). Finally, you need a fighting force whose doctrine includes the use of fire in this way. Otherwise you need a commander willing to go against doctrine.
This all sums up to say that fire wasn't used very often in real life as we are seeing in the game. And the reason may have more to do with the conditions right required for fire, and not necesarily because it is modeled SO badly in CM that is gives an unfair advantage and encourages people to do so.
The game includes Flame Throwers. That means we should be able to set things on fire. To do so in a nonhistorical way doesn't make it wrong (unless you insist on playing historically).
In CMBB we will be seeing improved fire behavior. Guess What? You will still see plenty of buildings going up in smoke. Why? Because fire can be effective. With the wind at your back, why not risking setting that field ablaze?
As for the game. I'll agree to play only if we do so in a friendly manner. Life is to short to be wasted in grudge matches. I regularly offer my opponents unrestricted force selection so I don't see why I shouldn't with you. However, we play in random weather with random time in realistic terrain. (Town, moderate cover and any hilliness). No, I'm not dumb enough to attack an 88 position over 1km of open terrain.
I won't be here this weekend, but I can play on Feb 23 or 24 (I live in Boston). I would prefer TCP/IP as I'm horrible about returning PBEM on a regular basis.
Pete
Originally posted by JasonC:newlife thinks he is having fun with me. He thinks the Germans didn't light fires with cans of gasoline because gasoline was scarce - and he is defending lighting fires with gasoline shot out of flamethrowers. This is called willfully missing the point. If the fire is more useful than the can of gasoline, the fire would be set. Not flamethrower necessary. If the flamethrower can afford the gasoline, then so can the whole German army.
Then he thinks actually they would have used fire all the time just like he does in his gamey CM outings, except it was usually raining. Um, no. And the inside of buildings doesn't get wet when it rains anyway. Dryness is actually needed only to help spread fires over wide areas of forest or wheat or open ground. But fires don't spread in CM, at all. And men would be more reluctant to use fire when it could easily burn down their own position, not less.
Then he thinks his balanced force of all arms could defeat any of my extreme forces of gamey single underpriced and overmodeled forces. He is on. He gets 1000 pts of combined arms Americans, meeting engagement. I get unrestricted German force type to take whatever particular gamey types I want. He won't get out of the starting blocks. We can do several rematches, so he can vary his techniques. But I won't pick the same gamey force twice, I promise. He won't win once.
-
Let's have fun with Jason.Originally posted by JasonC:What most amuses me in this thread are the few people who seem to think a flamethrower is necessary to start fires, because it is in CM. Hello? The flamethrower is only needed to throw... the flame. That is sort of the reason for its name. Flame... Thrower. Thrower. That which throws.
The contraption is used to put the gasoline 40 yards away where the enemy is. If you want to light a house, you do not need to carry around the gasoline in 40-70 lb pressurized tanks with pressure hoses and nozzles and igniters. You just take a can of gas, unscrew the top, pour, apply match.
This does not happen in CM. Only because CM does not encourage reckless firestarting. Incidentally, FTs were not scarce either, the Germans for example fielded tens of thousands of them. Not to mention cans of gasoline.
As for the folks who didn't get wreck's point, you can only burn the cover you are standing in once. Then you have to back up. And if you want to do it again, you then get to burn that cover. The enemy, meanwhile, patiently eats C-rations as you fight the war for them, backing up over and over and destroying everything you possess.
If you ever stop burning things, then they advance through the rubble and ash after it has cooled down, and a CM scenario might even result. Until then, just postpone the CM scenario, give up territory, and wait a few hours.
Nothing about the tactic is realistic. It exploits fixed time limits, fixed flags, only FTs lighting fires, fires not spreading, fire being predictable, fire spreading to a full tile instantly, fire tiles being forbidden, etc. The 37mm AA halftrack is more realistic. Naval gunfire is more realistic.
As for the folks who say, "since it is a game, you can do anything it allows", the game allows all sorts of outright cheating too. Are they allowed? Or how about the truly silly force types, are they perfectly OK too? Have you ever fought a 1000 pt meeting engagement in open-ish terrain against 1 platoon of infantry scouts and 18 flakwagens? How about 260 submachinegunners with 45 panzerfausts (and 3 panzerschrecks) in covered terrain? How about 15 M8HMCs with one platoon of infantry? 12 Hetzers and nothing else?
A defense consisting of 34 dug-in puppchens and infantry guns?
If you like that too, please keep such things to yourself, lol.
First off, the presense of FTs and/or gasoline (which was a very valuable commodity to the Germans) does not in and of itself make for ideal conditions under which to use fire as being discussed. You need proper environmental and tactical conditions as well. So the historical argument that it wasn't used because it wasn't effective is pointless when people play in dry conditions all the time. (And not every blast of the FT lights something up anyway)
As for Wrecks point, I believe the Russians made very good use of that tactic (at least on a strategic level) as they had plenty of land to give away. Under the proper conditions, the tactic works well.
For your points on time. That is a completely separate issue. Most of the games played in CM are unrealistic because of time. How many battles are pushed to an extreme because of players trying to "beat the clock". Fire is not broken because of time.
Your other points, I've seen other things ignite fires, most notable arty and mortar fire (and I've seen woods go up, not just houses). Fixed Flags? See the time limits responce. Yes, Fires are too predictable and don't move, we agree there. Fires unpassable? That's a complaint? How many fires do you walk through?
And force selection. First not to the point, and second most of your examples have plenty of ways to be beaten by a properly mixed force.
Pete
-
I'd challenge this assumptionOriginally posted by Big Time Software:Newlife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, apparently it was doctrine for the different nations to use fire to deny cover in plenty of places.
</font>
-
Steve,
I really suggest that you guys test out a scenario in CMBB with one player having a decent number of FTs and the wind at his back. Fire needs at least some random spreading.
Pete
Originally posted by Big Time Software:The use of fire in war is, obviously, an age old tool of the trade (so to speak). But the kind of tactical use that people use it for, in WWII ETO (not PTO, not thousands of years earlier China) are not realistic. Partly because the engine is not designed to be Combat Mission - Beoyond Kindling
, partly because there are no historically relevant constraints placed on the players.Quick test... grab any account of warfare in the ETO's Western Theater. Find how many refferences are made to purposefully built fires during a heated battle. Now, compare that to how many battle refferences are made to battles which mention fire as a byproduct of combat. And finally, compare each of these numbers to the total number of battles which do not mention fire at all.
My point is that when someone uses fire unrealistically, they tend to do it whenever they get the chance. If this were not gamey, then any book of anybody's shelf would be chock full of descriptions of such actions. They are not, and therefore there must be reasons for that.
Steve
-
I am by no means arguing that fire was used in the western theatre in the ways shown above. I am no historian and cant even begin to argue on those grounds.
However, I did think the basic premise behind CMBO was to provide players as realistic troop configuration and game play as possible so that there would be no need for such things as nationality modifiers. People would NOT be forced into standard doctrine for the different nationalities. Well, apparently it was doctrine for the different nations to use fire to deny cover in plenty of places. Well, it has become the choice of many players to do so.
You ask WHY it wasn't done. My guess is that the germans probably didn't have that many FTs nor the proper conditions. NW Europe was damp or cold for much of the war and therefor it probably wasn't much of an option. The allies were on the defensive much less and would have little reason to use desparate tactics like the ones modelled. So you have few FT, few chances to use it, and probably would need a commander willing to do someting that wasn't set out in Army doctrine. Not likely to happen at all.
Therefor the question only really resolves around whether fire is properly modeled in the game, which most people will say no to. No fault of BTS as they got SOOOO many things right that to model something correctly which was really supposed to be a side-effect is way forgiveable.
I'm also glad wind will spread fire, but that won't solve much if you don't add randomness into the spread of it. Otherwise you will see people using fire MORE in CMBB and not LESS.
I personally have no problem with an opponent using any weapon in the game in any way. I rarely set limits on units and even usually set the combat type to "Unrestricted". I do this because I believe sound tactics will almost always overcome units and tactics like FTs. That's not to say that I'm so good as to never be defeated, that's to say that if I lose I pin it on myself and because my opponent decided to set the world on fire. There's a counter to everything.
Originally posted by Big Time Software:The use of fire in war is, obviously, an age old tool of the trade (so to speak). But the kind of tactical use that people use it for, in WWII ETO (not PTO, not thousands of years earlier China) are not realistic. Partly because the engine is not designed to be Combat Mission - Beoyond Kindling
, partly because there are no historically relevant constraints placed on the players.Quick test... grab any account of warfare in the ETO's Western Theater. Find how many refferences are made to purposefully built fires during a heated battle. Now, compare that to how many battle refferences are made to battles which mention fire as a byproduct of combat. And finally, compare each of these numbers to the total number of battles which do not mention fire at all.
My point is that when someone uses fire unrealistically, they tend to do it whenever they get the chance. If this were not gamey, then any book of anybody's shelf would be chock full of descriptions of such actions. They are not, and therefore there must be reasons for that.
Steve
-
Ah, but you are quoting out of context. As anyone with the book knows, the quote continues:Originally posted by Wreck:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"With all his rifle platoons now abreast, Captain Duckworth attacked toward the city's center [brest]. Hours later the 2d Battalion had advanced far beyond the cemetery and was exerting strong pressure when the Germans brought everything to a standstill by setting fire to buildings that blocked the American advance. "
"The American commander, upon hearing the news of the fires, became irate. `The general demands that we get into town in the next 20 minutes, or we will lose the war!' he screamed at his subordinates on the radio. Knowing the high stakes involved, the Americans threw several companies into the streets around the burning buildings, only to have them mowed down by heavy machinegun and burp gun fire.
And that's why we are all now speaking German. Heil Hitler!"</font>
-
Actually, given that OSX has UNIX based kernal and it is supposedly much easier to port things back and forth (I have not tried yet nor have heard any unbiased trials on that), a LINUX based CMII might actually be plausable. Maybe not likely, but possible. As to why would they? Why does anyone make any game for LINUX? Because they want to.
Pete
-
Sun Tzu gave a whole chapter to the use of fire as a tool in war. Thankfully CMBB will include the spread of fire by wind and therefor Sun Tzu's advicse on fire will be usable (i.e. Don't piss into the wind). I know that what your saying is fire was supposed to be a side product in CM, but a good tactician ues whatever is available.Originally posted by Big Time Software:Fire is not meant to be a tool of war like currently used. It is supposed to be an unintended consequence of a realistic action. Setting fire to an enemy occupied building with a flamethrower MIGHT be realistic (depends on higher level goals). Setting fire to buildings prior to their occupation is not realistic. This was done in war as part of "scorched earth", which was decidedly NOT a frontline action.
Steve
Hey Steve, on calm days will fire spread randomly? Now THAT will be fun. The other related question is will wind change randomly. I can see why that might not be modeled for coding reasons, but you can realistically expect a wind shift at a moments notice. Not likely, but possible, and would give those pyros out there something to think about. Either that or have the random fire spread against the wind as long as the wind isn't very strong.
Pete
-
I'm just taking guesses here, but;
It might have someting to do with a difference in where the mortar explodes. Depending on snow conditions, it may explode higher or lower than where the troops are. A fresh powder won't do much to change things (other than allowing the shell to penetrate deeper relative to the soldiers), but if the snow is deep and wet it may afford a little protection. Plus crust on the snow will also affect things.
I'm sure I've been most unehlpful
Pete
To repeat my question, what about the deep snow made the mortar fire ineffective?</font>Originally posted by CMplayer:'Nobby' Kendall, a German with X-troop attached to the Belgian Commando in Italy writes :
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
... and practised on our skis for two days. Almost none of the men had been on skis before. We then set out for a plateau in the Luperian mountains on our fist -- and last -- ski patrol. The name of the mountains notwithstanding we did not meet with any wolves but approximately at the 3000-foot level came upon a stone hut in which an outpost of the opposing Austrian mountain troops was ensconsed, with a light mortar in position nearby. We were greeted with some fairly accurate mortar fire. Due to the deep snow it proved to be as ineffective as the return fire from out personal arms. I had decided to proceed without a PIAT (which could have breached the walls of the hut) as my novices had difficulty enough to stay on their feet without this unwieldy load. Soon we beat a hasty retreat downhill during which some spectacular tumbles were observed.
-
next time, wait in the second row of buildings with your FT, wait till he occupies the first and set them ablaze then and see if he prefers that tactic. Either that or play a second game with him on defense and allow him to purchase all the FTs he wants to.
Pete
-
</font>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:The last time Steve mentioned it, he said the following (origins of quote lost in time):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Steve Said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Campaign System -> we currently have THREE folks asking to make a huge campaign system of one form or another. All three have made multiple detailed pitches to us. All three have started by saying all they need is the file format. All three have then described a system that requires much more involvement from us than just that to make their system work. We haven't rulled any of the three out (yet), but to be honest... I just don't see how it will be possible to do any of them. We know there is interest (though we don't think it is more than a decent minority of customers), but on balance it isn't as important as the other things we have to do. Remember, any campaign system is only as good as the tactical battles they contain. If we skip something major in order to do the campaign stuff, everybody suffers the loss.{correction. I made this sound worse than it really is. Let's just say that we are skeptical that "just an export file" will be enough. So we porceed with caution, but are still looking at the proposals I mentioned seriously
-
Sorry, read your post a little backwards and just now understood what you're saying. Yeah, I gues it would require a very specific syntax on what units would need to be loaded, especially if people want them named a certain way. The real difficulty would be translating the syntax into something the engine could read and place units. The base requirement would be just having the units present as you get them in a QB. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to actually "place" units in a particular way. Oh well, something for the future.Originally posted by Cameroon:Don't worry newlife, I understand what you're describing. AAR generation that another program could process would be pretty straightforward I would think. Doesn't open any internals either so in that respect it's safe.
The crux of the problem lies in starting. The reason is that one either has to tell people how to write the map-file format (not going to happen) or create a "generation syntax" which also isn't going to happen (lotta work).
If one had the AAR report, however, one could go a long way to simplifying the campaign GM's life (well, with the proper tools processing it anyway). Your upper level tools would have the starting unit list, do their magic with the AAR, and then tell the GM what's what. Then the GM can take that and go edit what needs editing.
-
Thanks FinnN and Cameroon,Originally posted by Cameroon:Don't worry newlife, I understand what you're describing. AAR generation that another program could process would be pretty straightforward I would think. Doesn't open any internals either so in that respect it's safe.
The crux of the problem lies in starting. The reason is that one either has to tell people how to write the map-file format (not going to happen) or create a "generation syntax" which also isn't going to happen (lotta work).
If one had the AAR report, however, one could go a long way to simplifying the campaign GM's life (well, with the proper tools processing it anyway). Your upper level tools would have the starting unit list, do their magic with the AAR, and then tell the GM what's what. Then the GM can take that and go edit what needs editing.
Maybe we can combine your ideas, and leave out the CMBB auto-startup and simply create a seperate way within CMBB to import the data (Load Campaign Battle Setup). Then CMBB will read the other programs data dump and spit out it's own. It wouldn't exactly be seemless, but it would be beter than nothing.
Pete
-
BTS doesn't have to open their system up to allow other computers to communicate. If they want, the other games dumps a text file, CMBB reads it, plays out, and then dumps back a different text file. The file it reads and dumps back could be in plain english if they want it to be.Originally posted by Panzer Leader:Isn't it all about cracking codes? Isn't that why they are so "top-secret" about everything? That's what I always assumed, but I could be wrong. I think of game codes as being likr treasure maps -- if you can get it, you can get the gold!
But seriously, if we play again, feel free to choose any troops you want. You can even pick the dreaded Flak Wagons.
) Was this hipocritical of me? Let me know what you think. . .
Question: How to conduct an attack were the enemy is waiting for you
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Hi again,
If you're having trouble with Jumbos, be sure to read the armor vs armor thread here in the tips section. Second, I might suggest you try a few MEs with an all infantry force to help your tank fighting. How does attacking without tanks help tank combat? It forces you to learn new ways to remove tank threats without the big guns. Play on maps large enough that you can flank. Bring plenty of arty for laying smoke screens (an 81mm FO is fine). Play Brit Paras and maybe buy a jeep with an AT gun as well.
The key to remember with tanks is you don't always have to kill them to remove them from the fight. Sometimes all you need is a short smoke screen to get you by the kill zone. Often, the tank will have to expose a side to get a btter position on your men, making an excelent opportunity to take it out. If the enemy knows you have AT threats then he may not move it at all. The other key to remember about tanks is they need infantry to keep them safe. If you can disconnect the tank from its infantry, you can kill any tank.
Finally, on recon, sometimes it pays to send a single half-squad charging across a field. Sometimes he gets cut donw, but others (maybe even often) he makes it and you find out that the enemy left the cover empty of troops. A defender ALWAYS has fewer units than you do (unless you are buying REALLY expensive things, which is usually a mistake). Realize that he can't cover everything in strength.