Jump to content

Cpt. Cook

Members
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Cpt. Cook

  1. I had a ricochet take out an OT-134. A shot from a 37mm ATG hit an abandoned tank (although I didn't know it yet) and ricocheted, killing the tank beside it.

    No nearby infantry, no aircraft purchased, no other guns with LOS, and I replayed the turn about a dozen times. I posted about it a while back but I don't recall what anyone had to say. With light tanks there is no reason it isn't possible. Just improbable. ;)

  2. Originally posted by Scott B:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt. Cook:

    This is weird. I just can't seem to bring up the site. I get a new window, normal, but an error box appears and says the attempt failed. It is the correct (i.e. new) URL, and I have tried typing it in manually. Same result.

    I'm on an iMAc with recent IE.

    Ugh. Well, that's no good. Would you prefer that I send you the scenarios directly for the time being? This site is a temporary solution anyway (albeit already prettier and more reliable than the old one).

    Scott </font>

  3. I am in a pbem, with a Romanian regular recon squad (1941), full strength, not under command (platoon leader far ahead with the rest of the platoon), not under fire, not close to being under fire, not having been under fire. Given orders to move, run, contact, assault, will not move whatsoever. Units are moving around it, and have already moved. This squad will not move. It is beside a cliff, but I have plotted a number of intricate moves for it, as well as simple straight lines to its objective.

    What gives?

    I also have a BT-7 that is pausing for long periods inexplicably after beginning to carry out movement orders.

    Any answers?

  4. I like mines, AP but esp. AT. I don't swear by them--but I like a roll back defense with a few strategically situated MGs and tank hunters. You can rout platoons with one minefield and an MG. Then you hide em and wait until they flank you, and hit their rear. Your unit will die, but may have caused a significant ratio of damage. Wire seems to be too much of a magnet for armor--they roll in and area target the likely ambush spots. Mines don't nec. require support. Wire doesn't cause any direct casualties either. It should though, imagine: "Verdammen sie es! Ich brach einen Fingernage!"

    AT minefields work beautifully for me, because infantry seem to be so wonderfully effective against immobile AFVs in this game.

    BTW, nice work Kornstalx! smile.gif

  5. I am wondering whether or not "good" orders plotting affects targetting and morale.

    Obviously there is a practical advantage, i.e. changing orders from "hunt" over say 200m to a safe 180m "fast move" and 20m of "seek-hull-down" towards a clear enfilade. This has worked to my advantage as I have learned.

    What I am wondering is whether or not the AI recognizes this difference and adjusts the ability of units to target and identify enemies, or perhaps their morale or some other variable when "better" orders are plotted.

    For example, I lost a T-34 which flanked a Pz-IVg with clear LOS using the hunt command--while the tiger was able to rotate 45 degrees, fire twice and kill my tank without a shot fired in reply. I had the T-34 hunting on flat ground towards the cover of scattered trees. The Pz-IVg was in open ground I believe.

    And yes, I know their is a difference in the optics and profile of both and generally most tanks, and potentially in experience (although I suspect experience was similar--the pbem is in progress). Both were buttoned yet both were within about 300m (easy range IMO). I have never found optics to be much of an effective variable so far but I wonder if what I experienced can be boiled down to this?

    And yes, it is in a pbem I am losing badly. ;)

    Furthermore: I have a distinct problem using heavy armor that has been somewhat resolved using light armor (I can't resist directly supporting infantry with it). Probability cancels out ineffectiveness (i.e. lack of shrugging off hits), so instead I group light armor and use it en masse (playing earlier war scenarios). Is this ahistorical?

    I play smaller scenarios so if I buy heavy armor (or have it given to me) I naturally split it. I find it boring to play with, it always ends up smoking because I want to mess around with it.

  6. Yes there are disadvantages, mostly getting bogged down in infantry, whether deploying vs atrs, defending or attacking against KVs or attacking trenches (i.e. discovering them at the last second).

    Key to the discussion may be what consitutes a good defense versus blitzkrieg tactics or specifically a fast moving mass light armor blanket. Also how to deploy light armor against infantry "harassment". It's like CMBO defence with mostly infantry, deploying screens and false fronts to keep your enemy guessing, and shifting the strength and focus of your line or axis.

    But the fun part are the big pbems in my experience.

    Part of the interest with me is utilizing armor in a completely different function as I said above: recon and flanks.

  7. Here's where you post if you like playing early war. I like it because:

    1) it's more fun to play with lots of crap AFVs you can do more stuff with, like recon and long flanking movements without tearing your hair out if you lose one of say, TWO armor assets. This applies more to lousy tacticians such as myself.

    2) points are almost meaningless even if you play small games. Just rack up the DPs or anti-tank teams if you get bored of buying DOZENS of armored cars. Fun!

    3) artillery is less of a factor (if you stick more or less to rarity) and you are forced to use it precisely. I use onboard mortars like crazy, esp. the little 50mms.

    4) weird stuff. Like tankettes.

    Any other glee--ridden fanboys out there?

    BTW, for newer CMBB players, Boots and Tracks has lots of very good pbem oriented early war scenarios.

  8. Tim,

    B&Ts "Izyium Diet Plan" is set in May of '42 and combines

    ***spoiler***

    KV-1s (2), t-34s (3), t-70s (2) and carriers and the like.

    The historical background seems solid, but I don't know where they got the info for the force makeup.

    My opponent looks to have a similar setup to your opponent's setup, but with some of those crappy short-barrel Stugs also. Can't say as I know for sure yet--we are playing pbem double blind. Obviously I am Soviet.

  9. I have played more than one scenario in which trenches have figured largely in my victory as defender. However it is due I believe to the fact that assaulting tanks did not *necessarily* properly target dug in infantry. I think with the new patch this may figure differently.

    In my opinion it is unrealistic for a commander to attack a seriously entrenched force he cannot outflank, surprise, or bombard to bits. Yeah there's exceptions...those do not often prove the rule wrong however.

    Anyways, have fun outwitting the common-sense, rational, logistical parameters of the game.

  10. Originally posted by Andreas:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tweety:

    What is this anyway?

    A statement of facts. I am sorry you do not like them.

    If you try to understand what I posted (better luck 2nd time) you may realise that I do not offer an opinion on anything. </font>

  11. Hi folks,

    I have been wandering the sites of Scenario Depot as well as Boots and Tracks, but I am at a loss for this particular type of scenario if it exists:

    Large battle (size is not an issue), mostly infantry, or if armor just a little crappy armor, preferably early war, pref. pbem specific, any kind of terrain / climate / nationality / troop type (and I like the unfamiliar ones), but a challenge for the defense. Meaning a not-static set-up and a potentially variable defense. Meaning lots of movement, but not one of those perfectly balanced snipe-fests. I don't mind losing if I lose well, if you get me.

    No slight whatsoever intended against either websites cited above, they are great sources, the both of them, and the fact that I am posting here for this particular type of scenario is very likely due to my short patience or short-sightedness.

    Also it doesn't have to be early war but I have found those to be nice and challenging, The ubertank thing is getting old.

    Thanks for ay suggestions, and additional kudos to the scenario builders and supporting sites.

    [ April 25, 2003, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Cpt. Cook ]

  12. Originally posted by MikeyD:

    I want an SAS 'Rat Patrol' scenario!

    Not the American jeeps with mgs in the old TV show, the real deal - Brits in 4x4 trucks attacking far behind enemy lines. This would involve small unit actions far from armor and artillery. No doubt Crack Brits vs isolated conscript/green second eshilon troops. The scenario designer gives them an objective and you've got to see if you can pull it off.

    One tricky part, how to gets the Brits to behave professionally when being controlled by the AI.

    Great idea.

    My one hope: the battle of Assoro, if it is at all possible.

×
×
  • Create New...