General Jack Ripper
-
Posts
2,326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by General Jack Ripper
-
-
12 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Problem is, if your guys even see 1 bullet hit close to them while on the MOVE, they will start charging ahead towards next waypoint using FAST, which will get them killed or at least tire them out more than HUNT will.
I think the only people who use MOVE are the veterans of CM1. There's hardly ever any reason to use it in CM2.
If you Move directly into unexpected enemy contact you deserve to get ambushed.
You're not supposed to leave move waypoints going across danger areas. You move to that last safe terrain feature your lead scout already cleared.
The idea is to prevent fatigue while moving long distance, Move is not a general purpose command. There are no general-purpose movement commands.
12 hours ago, Aquila-SmartWargames said:Despite this, why is it something bad if HUNT would see alot of use? If enemy contact is expected - which is most times the situation for a Combat Mission scenario from minute one - a slow advance, ready to hit the deck/engage, and a weapon alert carry is a quiet appropiate approach.
Yes, but you're not expecting contact with all your units at all times. Hunt is for your lead scout, and maybe your leading squad. The complaint registered is that Hunt causes excessive fatigue. My answer to that is the player is using it too much, mostly because it's being used too much.
Turning down the fatigue effect would simply encourage it to be used even more than the too much it's being used already. Hunt exists because it's useful, just like Move, Quick, Fast, and Slow. Every UI command given to the player serves a purpose, the key to becoming skilled at this game is to learn to use the correct command at the correct time, and in the correct situation.
Now I've put on a sixty pound pack, strapped some magazines to my hip, and gone tramping across the countryside on a few occasions, and I think troops in Combat Mission tend to get fatigued quite a bit more quickly than in reality.
I wouldn't change this tough. I understand why it's done this way. It's to force you to plan your movement, and not just quick move across the map.
As this video begins you can see me moving a squad across a field. Note the combination of short Quick moves, Hunt moves, and regular Move moves.
-
You can actually use runners in this game. Detach a team possessing some C2 information you want to pass along, and move it into close proximity to a unit you want to have it, or a unit equipped with a radio. The information will then be shared.
@MOS:96B2P Made a thread about C2 and information sharing some time ago.
-
On 2/5/2020 at 11:31 AM, BluecherForward said:
Is there a way to differentiate between using smoke and white phosphorus on a target area? I would like to use WP when it can also cause casualties.
Generally speaking you either have one or the other available, I can't recall any unit or weapon equipped with both simultaneously aside from the little Brit knee mortar, and it always seems to use WP first, then Smoke.
In the case of tanks, using the Pop Smoke command will throw smoke grenades of some description, while using the Target Smoke command will shoot their WP rounds if they have them. The availability of WP changes depending on the date, for example in early Battle for Normandy it's quite rare, but in Final Blitzkrieg almost every vehicle has some.
On 2/5/2020 at 5:08 PM, DougPhresh said:It would be nice to know what is base ejecting smoke and what is WP but as a general rule of thumb, direct fire is WP.
Not always.
In the user interface they will be listed separately as either [Gun Caliber]WP or [Gun Caliber]Smoke. -
15 hours ago, lsailer said:
I know that engineers can clear mines. But are they better at spotting them. For example, if an infantry squad and an engineer squad Move or even Quick into a mined action spot, does the engineer see them first?
Yes, they are much better at spotting mines, and are also much less susceptible to actually stepping on them too. In fact, you should avoid any suspected minefields unless you have actual engineers along. Don't let your grunts anywhere near those complicated mechanical devices. They'll just hurt themselves.
My preferred method is to use short Move commands into an action spot close to the suspected minefield, then move 1 spot at a time with a ten second pause at each spot. Once you've located a minefield, immediately order halt, then Mark Mines. While your guys are marking the mines, they will often spot any minefields in neighboring squares, allowing you to keep marking mines.
Just remember, a mine can't hurt you if you are nowhere near it. Only clear minefields if you absolutely have to.
-
Personally I think the added fatigue using Hunt is intended to force the player to use it less than they otherwise would, because if it was less fatiguing than everyone would just use Hunt all the time.
On 2/4/2020 at 3:59 PM, Erwin said:I find myself using HUNT less and less as it seems too slow for most game purposes and (as you say) it tires the guys out quickly. I used to use a mixture of QUICK and HUNT waypoints with 10-30 second PAUSES every 10-20 meters. But, that is also very slow for a typical CM2 mission, and it's a PITA with all the clicking and pausing one has to do with the UI. Now, I tend to simply have them QUICK move and then HIDE and then SLOW to a observation position.
That works fine for the lead unit, but all your following units not in contact can simply use Move instead. It saves a lot of time, hassle, and keeps your guys fresh for when they need to dash into action.
I use Hunt on my lead scout, the next fire team uses short Quick moves to keep in contact alternately moving and covering the lead team.
The following squads will just use Move commands into each cleared feature as we advance, either split into teams or the whole squad at once.
If we make contact, the following squad can then either split into teams and Quick to a supporting position, or can Hunt as described in a new direction to bypass resistance. -
According the Eugene Sledge's book With the Old Breed, Marines supplied their troops according to units of fire.
Quote*Determined from experience, a unit of fire was the amount of ammunition that would last, on average, for one day of heavy fighting. A unit of fire for the M1 rifle was 100 rounds; for the carbine, 45 rounds; for the .45 caliber pistol, 14 rounds; for the light machine gun, 1,500 rounds; and for the 60mm mortar, 100 rounds.
Sledge, E.B.. With the Old Breed (p. 104). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
So you could imagine the paratroops jumping into Normandy, being expected to fight for several days without resupply, would carry ammunition commensurate with expected amounts of use. The numbers do seem appropriate.
-
13 hours ago, umlaut said:
I remember that when CMBN first was released there was a lot of complaints that bailed out AFV crews were being unrealistically lethal.
I think that BFC perhaps solved that by taking away some of the crews´ weapons (only speculating)It appears we've come full circle.
-
On 2/7/2020 at 6:30 PM, Pelican Pal said:
Next time please read the thread before joining the conversation.
I did. Maybe you should read and understand my posts before criticizing them.
-
On 1/29/2020 at 3:22 PM, Pelican Pal said:
In the original OP Kaunitz specifically identified player driven borg spotting.
Uh huh.
Quoteborg-spotting/area-fire which helps tanks a lot (the main weakness of tanks was their limited vision; this weakness is inexistent because players can let their tanks area fire at targets the crew has not spotted)
But calling it borg-spotting doesn't mean it's borg spotting. This is not borg spotting. This is gamey behavior by the player, it is not borg spotting.
On 1/29/2020 at 3:22 PM, Pelican Pal said:Not all entrenchments, but the overall lack of good fortification representation severely degrades infantry survivabillity. Allowing armor heavy formations to push entrenched infantry around. This reduces the complexity for the attacker and reduces the defenders capability to take advantage of the complexity.
I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean tanks are overpowered. Like I said, we can have a discussion about the lack of variety of fortifications, but that has nothing to do with tanks.
On 1/29/2020 at 3:22 PM, Pelican Pal said:Overcoming tactical challenges with the tools at hand is the bread and butter of the CM series.
Play and counter-play.
- I place infantry in entrenchments
* You suppress with armor
* You advance with infantry to root them out
- I engage your infantry from a supporting position
etc...
Your "moot point" argument is antithetical to the existence of CM.My "moot point" argument is in relation to the capability of foxholes, not the use of tanks, or the ability of the player to engage in tactical play.
What are you even trying to point out here? Can you get to the point?
-
Here's your briefing for the next scenario.
-
11 hours ago, Bud Backer said:
I hereby approve this image.
I can only imagine the streams of tracers and crescendo of gunfire. The cracking of the cannon and thump of the high explosives.
Isn't it glorious?
-
On 1/20/2020 at 11:56 AM, MOS:96B2P said:
+1 My friend. Thanks for posting that video. I'd seen the mention of this video before but never watched it until you posted it. Interesting stuff. I think I'll look for more videos by this guy.
Here's my favorite:
-
34 minutes ago, Bud Backer said:
2. The lead tiger has a disabled gun. I am using it as a mobile MG bunker. The following tiger is fully operational.
When I played Gog and Magog I did the same thing. Works well.
35 minutes ago, Bud Backer said:Keep the suggestions coming!
Here's one:
Get in there and win this darn thing!
-
On 1/16/2020 at 8:40 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:On 1/18/2020 at 1:49 PM, Heirloom_Tomato said:
Another vote for imgur, just don't get lost looking at all the memes.
Indeed.
-
Man, remember when YouTube had video responses?
That was cool.
-
1 hour ago, domfluff said:
Those AFVs look too close together, and far too close to the town. That's not necessarily a risk, but it's not making the most efficient use of the asset - they could control the same space, and cover each other (you definitely want a pair of them covering the same area), but control far more space with them, and keep them firmly out of bazooka range.
+1
Other than that, I'd say the moment your arty stops falling, send in your infantry. Have you chosen your debarkation point and approach route?
Also, my rule of thumb when using vehicles:
If there's no reason NOT to move fast, then move fast.
Good luck.
-
8 hours ago, Bud Backer said:
He has approx a company of paras, all set with short target arcs, and despite my having many eyes on the town for quite a number of turns (like 20+) very very few reveal themselves.
If it was me, I would have spent those 20 minutes using Target Briefly with two of my King Tigers on random buildings. 20 buildings in town, 20 turns worth of 15 second target briefly commands, probably about 20-30 HE rounds used, would still leave plenty left for the assault. As I recall, a King Tiger carries something like 50+ rounds of ammo?
Lever a round or two of HE into a building, and see what comes out. Next turn, send more HE into another building. Recon by Fire as it were, but if you've already used up twenty minutes, you might as well start rolling in. You're not going to spot enemy infantry in buildings unless you either bait them into opening fire, or you flush them into the open.
How much time is on the clock?
-
Sounds interesting.
I'll try this after update.
-
On 1/17/2020 at 4:59 AM, IMHO said:
I'd argue about incorrect. The area was well reconnoitered - there were no RPG teams. As an added precaution the runs from cover to cover (houses) were short so RPGs wouldn't have had time to aim. Strykers were close to 200m from the enemy squads - first shot P-to-hit is negligible for under-trained Syrian RPG team. So Strykers were used more or less as intended - battle taxis shielding infantry from small arms fire until they are unloaded in a safe place. And after all airguards correctly identified the enemy as MMGs that do not open on Strykers unless someone buttons up. Yet that's exactly what stupid TacAI decided to do.
On 1/17/2020 at 9:16 AM, IMHO said:So what do you do in CM - you dismount infantry at the staging phase and spend another hour moving to contact on foot? In many cases in CMSF there're no terrain features "one feature away", it's an open plain right up to the built-up AO. Just like it was in my particular case. So do you suggest I should walk squads on foot for about a kilometer under heavy enemy fire instead of suppressing first line of buildings from afar and then making a quick dash to cover to this first line of buildings?
Maybe if you posted some screenshots of what you're trying to do we could then see the context. It's hard to talk about tactics with nothing but text on the screen.
Here's an example of a Stryker infantry attack on an enemy occupied village. I used a dismounted platoon to probe towards a defilade terrain feature short of the town, rushed my vehicles into it, dismounted my troops, and launched an all-out assault. This came after about twenty minutes of recon and supporting fires to destroy identified enemy positions and vehicles.
The total amount of distance covered during the assault was only about two hundred meters, but we inflicted so many casualties the enemy simply surrendered in place. We didn't even move particularly quickly either, and a lot of time was spent lying prone while fifty cal worked over trouble spots.
-
On 12/14/2019 at 11:38 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Still not seen this happen.
My Strykers seem absolutely rock fekkin solid TBH:
Same here.
The only major casualties I suffer are when gunners unbutton to reload a weapon, or use a pintle-mounted weapon.
When buttoned up, no infantry attempt to shoot from the air defense hatches.
On 12/21/2019 at 1:51 PM, IMHO said:And I don't remember such a problem in CMSF1 though I'm too lazy to install it for a test by now
CMSF1 had this issue in spades, to the point I eventually stopped transporting infantry by strykers anywhere within 400 meters of enemy positions.
I think the behavior you are seeing is a result of transport far too close to enemy positions, that the infantry riding in the vehicle actually feels the need to poke their heads out and shoot to protect the vehicle. I suppose you could give a Hide command to anyone riding in a vehicle. That might sort you out.
-
18 hours ago, Vinnart said:
No, they seem fine to me.
Maybe I should have just said that.
-
On 1/16/2020 at 9:54 AM, BornGinger said:
It should be possible to make them so that they don't deform the surrounding terrain and don't become that visible. It all depends on the game engine, I think, and should be possible to code in a way so trenches and fox holes weren't that visible when placed on the map.
They did, which is how we got the trenches and foxholes we have right now.
-
23 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:
CM's fortification weakness is tied in quite closely to the effectiveness of any sort of high firepower asset. Be that artillery, machineguns, or tanks. The inherent weakness of fortifications remove some of the key counters infantry have.
So I take it you're one of the people in the "foxholes should make infantry immune to cannon fire" camp.
Feel free to start a thread and hash out the issue, but cherry-picking my statements won't help you. Here's the missing context you decided to leave out:
On 1/12/2020 at 12:35 PM, General Jack Ripper said:Even if foxholes made infantry immune to cannon fire, the tank can still spray bullets and shells at them until the attacking infantry get to hand grenade range.
Moot point.
23 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:There has been a lengthy discussion on player borg spotting and borg control earlier in the thread.
It's still not borg spotting though. It's all down to the player. CMx1 had borg spotting, where if even one unit could see the enemy, then all units magically became aware of their position, and all units with LOS and LOF could engage said unit with zero delay. That's what borg-spotting is.
Players using gamey tactics that infuriate other players is not a bug, it's a feature, and has no bearing on the relative strength or weakness of tanks.
-
3 hours ago, IanL said:
A debate has been ongoing about how effective foxholes are / should be.
The only way that debate will end is if instead of a generic "foxhole" we can pick and choose what type of foxhole is being used.
Any Chance for a New Afrikakorps game?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I couldn't resist.
Sorry.