Brent Pollock
-
Posts
953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Brent Pollock
-
-
Had a squint at the scores, now it's time to put a dint in the Canadian GDP...
-----------
'South of Vevi'
Strider(58) / Brent Pollock(42)
I liked this one, even though I found there was not much to do as the Allies after set up was over. My main gaff was not noticing that the weather would preclude air support, so I had my 2 x Bofors in AA positions rather than AT positions. Also, I shouldn't have bothered with anything on the right front flag, even though I didn't have much of anything there, just Company A (mortars and carriers and the HQ for spotting). Lost my right-hand AA/AT pair when they were trying to relocate, and that let panzers close in during the end game on the big flag at the back. All other flags had an entrenched, reverse sloped platoon.
'Things go bump in the night'
Brent Pollock (49) Pitt Panther 31 (51)
I liked this one just because of the tension of not knowing when something would loom out of the dark. I agree that the Germans (me) have the edge except for the fact that a large proportion of the SHOULD EXIT FOR POINTS crowd is truck-bound...and I underestimated the amount of time it would take those things to trundle through the rocky stuff. The Allied player doesn't have to worry about this as the carriers have great mobility. In the end, I blew a win by being to slow and not exitting enough. As to the Allies having too small an exit window, that seems like 20/20 hindsight. As the German, the FOW kept me from knowing:
1. where the Allies were starting (other edge...right in my way...in between...);
2. what their force composition was (would I hit a belt of 2 pdrs...after all, I was toting PaK 38s and 105 howitzers...would I get slaughtered by a company of Stuarts...).
If it turns out that they have a lot of infantry waiting to stop me up close, then cross the gully, their exit becomes a lot wider.
'Squeezing the Melon'
Brent Pollock (17) Deadly 88 (83)
This was my least favourite, and not because I did so poorly (which reminds me...what could "Capitano Gino" and "Redwolf" possibly have done to score lower than I as the Axis...my mind boggles...the AI could have defended better than I did...). My only problem with this scenario (other than what looks to be compass errors in the briefing...and "TgBitN" also had this problem) was that I could not believe that the Axis forces would've been disposed the way they were - strong company locked on the far bank, loser platoon on the near side. I especially did not appreciate having to set up my Heavy Weapons core:
75L ATG, 2 x 81 MTR, HMG, 120 MTR FO, Dug In Pz IIIN
...on the far side, when they really should've been on the friendly side giving the ranged fire support they were designed for. As I stated in my AAR, the whole set up reeked of being a "set up" but there was nothing I could do about it.
If I'd been given a freehand during set up, the Conscript bozo platoon would've been on the far bank as an alarm force, and the engineers on the near bank ready to blow the bridge if the Allies were going to sweep it.
Having written all that, I don't feel like I had absolutely no choice in the matter: I did oodles to contribute to the lopsided score, as did my opponent, who put in an attack that was a joy to watch...if you weren't overly attached to the Axis forces. My biggest mistakes were not knowing that my trenches would be spotted waaaaaaaaayyyyyyy before their occupants would've been (result = plastered by OBA before firing a shot...including a KO on the ATG), and being fatally indecisive with my FO's fire missions. Cap that off with a mishandled counterattack and having a Panther fire 7 x AP rounds in one turn and NOT HIT A BLOODY THING...and you've got a right proper disaster on your hands.
I certainly agree with those who praise the map - it was very groovy...especially the depth of the river valley.
'Frontier Firefight '40'
Levitacus [sub'd in] (60) Brent Pollock (40)
I'm guessing from a scan of the scores that my experience was much like the other Allied players, going from,
"this'll be easy...I'll just blow past the listening post with some brief fire support from my light tanks, then take out the guys guarding the oasis after pummelling them with TRP-directed OBA..yeah...that's the ticket...piece of cake.."
...to...
"ohmygod ohmygod ohmygod...how the hell are we going to kick them out of this forward trench system...get out of the wire you stupid buggers...where'd those tankettes come from......isn't there any cover around here more substantial than a rodent-nibbled patch of weeds..."
Still enjoyed the challenge though, and I liked getting snookered by my original opponent, who set up nothing around the flag on my left flank, and all his forward force on my right side...I of course, went down the right side. But that's not the best part; this is the best part - by the time I realised it and had taken the right hand flag, I didn't have enough time to get anyone with ammo over to the undefended flag (my one mobile tank had run out of ammo), so it ended neutral.
'Retreat from Metemma'
Panther Commander (29) Brent Pollock (71)
I didn't feel all that pressed for time in this one and they main reason I didn't do better is I should've:
1. just backed off of the FT tankette once I'd missed my initial chance at grenading it, instead of frittering away the better part of an infantry platoon continuously trying to get it;
2. kept most of my AFVs back until the ATRs had been taken out by the infantry. An overly cautious advance by the engineers on my right flank didn't flush them out fast enough.
It seems to me the main edge in this one is in morale - my khaki-clad boys didn't get phased by much and seemed quite fit, too.
----------
[ June 17, 2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]
-
I'm also confused by the listing, as all of my scores have been sent, but my name doesn't show up anywhere? I'm guessing that the listed match ups are actually the UNCOMPLETED games, and if your name doesn't appear, you're listed as COMPLETED...yes?
Originally posted by Ted:Kingfish
Under the finished games, Frontier Firefight there is no maention of me or anyone of Group 2, Section 4.
Do you need me to send the results again?
-
So, they had the foresight to leave moddable slots open - they continue to astound me...in a good way.
-
Okay - long story short - just perusing CMMODS database and found Daffy's Zrinyi 2 (Late) white wash mod and I noticed that the bmp #s...were not in the CMBB bmp folder. Did I muck up my CMBB BMP folder at some point [and, no, it wasn't my CMBO or CMAK folder]?
I noticed the same deal for the white-washed Finnish Pz IVH.
:confused:
-
If the ASL mod is true to the game, you should have trouble seeing:
1. American, Allied Minor & Axis Minor units against open ground;
2. Commonwealth units in the open desert;
3. Italian units in stone rubble;
4. Russian units in open ground @ levels 1 to 3.
German, Chinese, Finnish & French and Japanese units can be seen against any old background.
[edited for some forgotten Nationalities]Originally posted by GJK:[snipped by Brent] I need to get used to the ASL terrain a bit, but I really like that you can see your units and it does look like an ASL mapboard. [snipped by Brent]
[ June 13, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]
-
Beats the alternative: having my mark divided by 7 :eek:
Originally posted by Holien:You do know even if you send it 7 times I will only mark one of them.
H
-
[edited to note that Joachim posted faster than I could and beat me to the draw]
I'd say you're both correct:
StuG IIIB - built for infantry support
StuG IIIF onward - uparmoured and given the long 75 to deal with the T-34 and KV-1
INCORRECT!!!!!! :mad:Originally posted by Sergei:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:
The reason why T-34s have problems with Stugs is because Stugs were purpose-built to fight T-34s!
Now go to the blackboard and write 200 times "StuG's were designed to support attacking infantry". </font>
-
Probably mine. As I noted in the final attempt, I kept resending because sodding Microsoft Outlook kept giving me a Send error and leaving it firmly in the Outbox. If that error occurs with the next one I send, I'm going to send a separate, AAR-less e-mail asking you if the AAR arrived before attempting a resend. Microsoft...forefathers of the Sirius Cybernetics Corp.
Originally posted by Holien:Update on AAR's
[snip]
Can I reinforce to those who have yet to send in I require just one document per AAR and it must be a seperate document / text file rather than on an e-mail.
Also I really only need one copy of it. Today I have been bombed by 7 copies of the same AAR. As the AAR was over 3Megs my Mailbox nearly choked on them.
I will be away from Sunday in France for a few days and I really don't want to find the mailbox bombed with multiple copies of the same document.
Some great AAR's still coming in and it will be a tough decision for the AAR prize.
Cheers
H
-
...and what were they thinking with that camo scheme?! Is it meant to fool air recon into thinking it's just part of the general criss-cross mish-mash of tank tracks in the snow?
-
Have a gander at this snippet about tank-infantry co-operation on D+1:
"The infantry in two columns moved on the shoulders, in the ditches, or just within the bordering hedgerows. They picked their path to afford maximum shelter and. best footing, but always with a view to mutual support for the tank-infantry combination. They normally remained within the bordering hedgerows. The scheme of maneuver adopted provided for the tanks to cover these bordering hedgerows with fire. All points capable of concealing the enemy were sprayed with machine gun fire. Any particularly dense spots and all roadside buildings were blasted with the tank cannon as well as machine gun bursts. At least two tanks were normally ahead of the infantry to permit this firing."
Now I don't feel so "gamey" whenever I blast the beejeesus out of anything that looks even slightly sinister.
-
Yes, that explains why "Wiltz" didn't score on the search since it doesn't match the misspelling, "Wilitz".
Thanks.
Originally posted by simovitch:The scenario is available on Boots & Tracks excellent website, although the scenario seems to be misspelled:
http://www.bootsandtracks.com/ScenarioDetail.php?ScenarioID=92
-
Yes indeed it does - thanks (again).
Originally posted by Schonhult:Url works again.
-
Does anyone have a copy of this they could send me? I accidentally overwrote it and the "Zip file" link isn't working.
-
At the moment, I chose to believe it's BECAUSE the graphics aren't as good as others' that the game plays so well: shows where they put their main effort - the food, not the table setting.
-
Uhhh....where is CMAK version: can't find it at the Scenario Depot, The Proving Grounds, nor Boots & Tracks :confused:
Originally posted by Slappy:I've had good success leaving the central hill across the road to the germans. I send a platoon to the North hill, one to the area just South of the ATG and one on a far loop through the woods to the South. You'll keep 2/3 flags and the germans won't be able to attack effectively across the road that you can't retreat over. I'll take you on in the CMAK version if you want to experiment.
-
[covers ears and chants,"NAH-NAH-NAH-I-AM-NOT-LISTENING...]
I'll ignore the quoted post as best as possible - I've already procrastinated on my scores/AARs enough as it is and if I go reading that I've got another [no - be strong - don't think about it....must do scores and AARs this weekend...]
Correct </font>Originally posted by Holien:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:
My understanding is deadline for AARs is one week after scores submission deadlines, which would be June 14 + 7 = June 21.
Correct?
-
I pitty da fool that got stomped worse than me in Squeezing the Melon :eek:
Ah, but the question is did the other 35 players who played the same scenario and side score better or worse than you?Originally posted by Kingfish:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PittPanther31:
Let's say hypothetically you got smashed in the majority of your battles.
Would it still be prudent to take the time to write AAR's? I'm not clear if it is a must or not.
As for whether or not to write an AAR, there was a player in the ROW III regular tourney that missed getting into the finals by a fraction of a point, even though he scored consistently higher than the next guy in line. The reason? You guessed it - AARs. The #2 guy wrote all his, and the bonus points he received was *just* enough to get him in. </font>
-
June 6, eh?
We'll have to start calling it Depot-Day.
Well done.
-
Hmmm...I'm certainly not one to take advice from, but since they were pinned, they weren't likely to advance much of anywhere. Two options I can think of:
1. cancel movement and concentrate all fire on the squad;
2. see if you could switch the "advance" square to an "assault" for the morale bonus, possibly put in a pause for 10-30", and concentrate all fire on that pesky squad.
-
I love the "Familientiger = Kin Tiger" bit. Since my German is pathetic, this was the only thing that made it obvious which way the translation was running.
-
Ditto - brewed up a truck on the other side of a church with a canister blast from a T-34.
Hadn't even spotted it and suddenly, there it was, an exploding truck.
Originally posted by Bertram:I have got the feeling the cannister is treated much like a HE explosion in its effect. That is, once the cannister is shot its effect is a "footprint" in which there is a blast effect. In this area the direction from which the cannister comes doesn't matter much for the applying of that effect (other then that "footprint" is probably triangular, and the blast value tapers of from point of origin).
This means that cover is applied only in so far that less exposure lessens the damage done, but any obstacles between the point of origin and the target dont stop the bullets.
Support for this is that I not only have seen men hit out of los (from the firing unit) due to a rise, but also men behind a wall, or behind a house. The men *in* the house seem to get a cover bonus, but the men *behind* the house seem to get hit full force.
(nb>: this is with limited experience, so I could be totally wrong).
Bertram
-
...and now it's actually happened in a CMAK PBEM, too..any ideas...anyone?
-
...and chewing on 'em.
Still have a SL 4-6-7 that my first cat bit on...
What about the family cat knocking over the counters? </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hans:
uh huh, just remind Charles that his previous idea to have large dice rolling across the terrain should NOT be followed
-
...and the problem disappears once I'm out of CMBB.
ROW IV
in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk
Posted
Say what now...you can dig out dug in tanks :confused: I thought that sucker was padlocked in place.
Also, in case I confused anyone with my comment about blowing the bridge with the engineers, I meant that strictly from the angle of "my take on what really would've happened", rather than what could've been done in the game. [stop a few moments to check the briefing]...hmmm...I could've sworn the briefing forbade blowing the bridge, but all it states is "Do not let the Americans take the bridge", which to my mind means I had permission to detonate. The only downside is that I think it might be one of those heavy-duty bridges that is impossible to take out with only a pioneer platoon or so...and the fact that we would've liked to have crossed to the safe side first, which would've been tricky...unless the Pz IIIN and OBA smoke could've covered us...anyone try to blow the bridge?