Frunze
-
Posts
230 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Frunze
-
-
OK, guess I was running on hindsight there.
-
Did Finnish political leaders consider whether Finland might have a better chance of a long-term independent existence bordering the USSR than bordering a Greater German Reich stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals?
Is that a possible factor in their decisions?
-
Yeah, I went after the forest first, too. But if there had turned out to be too much infantry there, I could have bypassed it.
A shreck in the village shot at my tanks across the stream, but the range was a bit long, and then it got hammered. Like Mike says, I did lose two of my tanks from the across-the-stream force, to a shreck and AT gun that were right next to where they started out, in the scattered trees.
I don't know if my plan would've worked as perfectly with some other defensive deployments, maybe it just happened to hit the weaknesses in Mike's setup.
-
I went between the stream and the forest. There's plenty of space, shrecks in the forest would be firing beyond their optimum range.
-
Sure, except if you can't stop the Soviets at the bridge behind that village, they can do a left hook all the way across the back of the map. The Germans could hold the forest flag if they commit enough infantry to it, but the other two large flags don't seem defensible.Originally posted by mPisi:See, I ignored that town completely except for a Schreck team to hold the flag if the Russians went elsewhere. In my setup, being a small objective, I didn't think it was worth the cost of trying to hold it with any strength
Y'know, that's what I was expecting to happen, so I wasted my arty firing preplan at empty forest.I had a platoon and HMG in the forest, set up in teams to get fallback positions. I was very surprised to find the Russians right in their face. The Russians rushed the forest so fast that I couldn't get the teams back together, and I lost a squad and was forced eventually to retreat a long way east away from the flag. -
Even more than the small amount of Soviet infantry, the problem is space and time. Walking is just too slow to get you to the objective.Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:I tend to disagree with Frunze on how much of a doddle Koltov was as the attacker. The main disadvantage the attacker has from my POV is the lack of infantry to properly scout out potential ambush spots. You may get lucky by risking a large proportion of your force in rushing through a gap in some woods or a section of town but then again you could also loose big time to ambushing German infantry that were well armed with anti-tank weaponry.
But I figured out where the edge of the defender's setup zone was...actually, that's another thing that should be changed. It shouldn't be a straight line across the map.
And I didn't go through the woods or the town. I stuck to the open as much as possible...and most of the map was open. By going fast through there, I had time to let the inf. go first through the closer terrain.
-
Petroskov is definitely an original. Having the defender exit...a real puzzle, figuring out what you need and what you can spare each step of the way.
Axis probably needs to be weakened a bit, though. Based on the averages, as well as my impression. Anytime things start getting tough, the Axis player can just feed a few reinforcements into the battle instead of taking 'em off-map...then when things are under control again, load 'em back in the trucks, or in different trucks (ya got plenty.)
More defender-exit scenarios could be done, I think. Wouldn't necessarily have to be reinforcements marked to exit, either.
BTW, the Panzergrenadiers aren't padlocked in the halftracks. But I guess there's no way to do that.
The High Road is pretty much impossible to beat if the defender covers all routes, I think. I made some mistakes, for example putting a bunker in the village where JPS could get to it from the side (I thought the cliffs would protect it.) And generally not protecting the front of the village enough. And not putting enough infantry by the bridge - I was going to put the pioneers there, and they never showed up...and I still managed a draw, and kept him from crossing the bridge.
Time is a major problem for the attacker in that one - so far to walk. Maybe if setup options were changed a bit to let the attacker start more troops closer to the objectives?
Koltov I didn't like so much. I have a hard time seeing how a German player could win it, or maybe how a Russian player could lose it, even though I know some did.
I mean, the defender can't even try to hold the line of the stream, because the attacker has the option of starting on the far side of one of the bridges. If the infantry holes up in thick cover - the factories or the woods - the tanks can bypass 'em and take the rest of the map. (Mikey did that, and held the center flag in the town, but that's it.)
Possibly the attacker should not have that setup zone on the far side of the stream, and the defender's briefing should give some warning that an armored attack is expected. These changes might moderate the wide variation, reduce the random element of it, if combined with some similar pro-Allied changes to keep it balanced.
-
Clearly Deadly-88 in Section III. Possibly yours truly in Section II. I'm guessing mPisi in Section I. That one's the closest, and probably the toughest - I know Holien and Juha, who're at the bottom, thrashed me in RoW II. 'Course that was CMBO. I got a draw Juha in a CMBB game once.
Maybe the champions, once the results are announced, could informally play a couple games to check this out?
-
Lebanon and Syria were both French colonies at the time. Don't know if they were administered separately or as a unit, but don't see why it'd matter.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:I am looking off of two sources, one has Beirut as seperate and the other as a part of Syria. Which is correct?
Yeah, Leopold -who, IIRC, was CIC of the army - surrendered to the Germans against the wishes of the elected government. The Congo had been under the control of the monarch. Which, at a wild guess, might imply that it wouldn't have been part of the allied war effort.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Wrong. He remained in Belgium as the "guest" of the Nazis.</font>
That would be the French Congo (Congo-Brazzaville, Republic of Congo), not the Belgian Congo (Zaire, Democratic Republic of Congo, the one that's in the headlines more nowadays.) Part of French Equatorial Africa, colored Vichy on Dorosh's large map.Originally posted by von Lucke:Strangely enough, I happen to be reading Susan Travers' (only woman to serve in the legion etrangere) auto-bio right now, and she has some info on this subject.
She was with the Free French expedition to take Dakar in Sept 1940. After that was repulsed, they (DeGaulle and the FF troops), went to Sierra Leone, French Cammeroon, Gabon, and then the Republic of Congo. She spent about a month in Brazzaville, where she said, the colons were pro-Vichy, but she never mentions the FF troops or their British liasons having any problems. From this, I would assume that Congo was, defacto, on the Allied side from about Oct 1940.
[ November 03, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Frunze ]
-
Only with AP mines, and only when the infantry unit is actually on the tile. AT mines can only be discovered with vehicles. It's in the manual.Originally posted by SuperBadAssSweetDaddyMayhugh:The only way I ever discovered mine (without running over them of course
) was to have an engineer squad approach at "Sneak" Most of the time they will detect them. Then they use their explosives to blow em up. Cool sight to see. Hope this helps. If you suspect mines somewhere and must go through anyway, send a cheap vehicle ahead.
-
Webpage? Well, if someone will host screenshots, I could post 'em here...I took one of the map, so far.
-
OK, the game is underway. The parameters have been renegotiated a bit - it's 400 pts, and my force is infanty-only...I think the attackers are combined-arms. A common matchup, historically.
The map's got plenty of woods, some trees, and some small light buildings. Also plenty of open space, a bit more than you might expect with the "heavy" trees setting. (More open than you'd get in heavy-trees rural, for example.)
The map is fairly flat, with a few minor dips and rises. There's a road running right down the middle, with a few houses on either side close to my end. One large flag and one small one, on either side of the road.
W.N. should have some possibility to use longer-range weapons.
[ November 02, 2003, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Frunze ]
-
I could serve as your opponent if you want to give a demonstration of your methods of taking apart a SMG-based defense, Walpurgis Night. I'm a pretty good player, at least I've done well in RoW III.
Whatever parameters you consider fair would be fine. I'd only ask that it be a small battle. And I usually prefer to play Soviets, if that's OK with you.
Redwolf's suggestion, of terrain too close to allow much HMG dependence, would also be fine with me.
-
Yeah, exactly. Against tanks you usually want a close-range defense - make 'em move to a range where your AT guns have a better chance. The SMG squads counter that.Originally posted by JasonC:The main way they work with tanks is a sort of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma they present to defenders. If small arms, MGs, etc open up at long range they can easily brush the riders off of the tanks. But then the T-34s know where they are, outside of infantry AT range. They stop and shell the living daylights out of everything, with their huge HE loads. If on the other than you hold fire until the tanks are close, to ambush with schrecks etc, or use a reverse slope to avoid all that tank HE, then the SMGers bail only when very close. You may get some of them but those left will eat you alive.
With a less tank-heavy attack, it might be useful to have a SMG reserve to carry through the heaviest assault.
Also useful: cover arcs to keep 'em from using up their ammo too soon. I don't usually use cover arcs on offense, but with SMG squads you gotta have 'em.
-
Sure. But the town setting helps the defender in infantry-only. In trees or trenches, mortars could have suppressed your MGs - or had a better chance anyway. In buildings, it takes armor, with towed guns as a distant second choice. I don't much care for towed guns on offense, personally, because of the weaknesses you've pointed out.Originally posted by JasonC:Towns are good SMG country. Woods are good SMG country. Hills are good SMG country (think "reverse slope, right behind the crest"). Even "small hills" will generally give enough in the way of crests, unless the map is tiny.
The only thing that isn't good SMG country is open ground.
The buildings also reduced the effectiveness of small-cal FOs against your platoons.
I also agree that close terrain is usually better for the attacker. Except that in these scenarios, the defender was in town, with plenty of cover, while the attacker had to cross relatively open terrain to the town.
'Course, you probably won mostly 'cause of your skill, and GF's complete lack of it, rather than either terrain or SMGs...
I don't think there is a really good counter to SMGs in close terrain. A good player will put them somewhere they can't be engaged from long range. So if I knew I was facing SMGs, I'd probably buy close-range firepower mostly - as much infantry as I could, with as many SMGs, and maybe pioneers. Some long-range firepower would be needed to deal with your MGs of course.
The SMG's only weakness is low ammo. Your post about how to confront them with infantry, firing from different angles at midrange, is probably the best way - scouts would be lost discovering them, almost unavoidably.
[ October 27, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Frunze ]
-
Kingfish, I sent you a game result e-mail for Koltov, I guess to the old address, so I'm resending.
[ October 26, 2003, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Frunze ]
-
There doesn't seem to be anything in the manual about skis.
In CMBB, ski troops seem to be able to run across snow without tiring as quickly. That's just an impression, I haven't done a test. Snow depth may be a factor. Troops don't usually tire that much on "move" anyway.
Outgoing firepower and vulnerability to incoming fire are probably the same.
I tend to think that skis are of some use for the initial part of the battle, before contact with the enemy, in moderate to deep snow. When your troops come under fire, the skis will tend to come off anyway. (They have to take 'em off to take cover. Or hide. Or "advance." Or enter a building. And there's no way to put 'em back on.)
Maybe also for moving up additional troops after initial contact. Reserves, etc.
-
Why the half-squads, Dorosh? They tend to be easily suppressed in close fighting. If it's for scouting, why two at once?
Has the field gun been causing you much trouble, or are you just staying out of its field of fire, or what?
-
I'm done with all my games now.
-
Originally posted by Seanachai:
Also, I want a general apology from BFC for never sending me a card, postcard, or letter filled with hatred.
You're doing it again.Originally posted by Seanachai:Emrys! I demand an apology for acing me out of hatred that is rightfully mine!
-
I've forgotten "any harsh words" from you, if there were any...unless you count calling me a lunatic about 2 sentences earlier, but hey, ancient history.Originally posted by Seanachai:Frunze, you are clearly a thinker, and I have misjudged you. Oh, you're a lunatic, of course, but your points above are very cogent, and I've never had that many problems with lunatics.
I salute you, sir. Any harsh words I may have passed upon you in the past are, well, past. They all involved politics, in any case, which is a bloody stupid endeavour for providing the basis for hatred and anger.
-
That's exactly your problem. You want to be hated, and even say so out loud. So if, hypothetically, someone did hate you, they'd be sure not to admit it. Since that'd make you happy, and obviously your enemies, if you had any, wouldn't want to do that.Originally posted by Seanachai:You ask for people's hatred, you invite people to hate you. You spend long hours posting annoying gibberish confident, at least, that Grogs will hate you, and what do you get?
True hatred is something that is attached to you accidentally. It cannot be sought. People will only hate you if you are completely indifferent about whether they hate you or not.
And I oughta know. As, without setting any such goal, I seem to have become one of the more hated posters on the GF. Maybe I oughta follow your example instead, and see if Slappy will stop spamming intense yet vague hostile nonsense in "response" to my posts. Clogs up the threads y'know.
-
Good answer. Thanks.Originally posted by JasonC:They did not just hit C3I and bridges with air, they sent AH-64s, A-10s with Mavericks, and F-16s and Harriers with cluster bombs after every tank, APC and gun they could find.
-
Well, they did have severe quality problems, Tero. Though less in military hardware than in other areas of production.
***ROW III Finals***
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Wait, I tried to put stuff on the islands, but couldn't. I thought they were out of my setup zone.
Well, I did put a TRP on the last one, which paid off big-time...
Combined Arms wrote:
I was afraid my opponent would do something like that in Petroskov...or sit on the hill with the little flag and shoot stuff moving down the road. (I made sure to have both 88s with LOS to my side of that hill.) How close did you have to get to have LOS to the bridge?