Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rankorian

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 09/18/1958


  • Location
    Worcester, MA
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

1,294 profile views
  1. I was very impressed with the video, and I was particularly impressed with the spacing and pacing of the squads and tank movements. "Don't just do something, stand there" can be, I think, a good mantra in CM2, as the spotting algorithm operates--and probably was the case at the time. I am the opposite with regards to pace, perhaps to slow. I seldom use scout cars as scouts, because they are so fragile, and large--so they can easily be destroyed without even seeing what his them. At the CM2 scale, if we already sort of know where the enemy is, than I figure their job is done
  2. Looking at the table under the tree, I am having even more thoughts. I was thinking the decision with any of the campaign scenarios was "play or don't play". But is it correct for me to infer from the table that the German forces are largely persistent from one scenario to the next? (I did not think they were, and did not even realize that was possible or done in a campaign) [Rankorian palm-slaps his forehead] Which would mean that if I heavily damaged the enemy forces, and took the loss, I would be in much better shape for the next scenario than if I did not play
  3. "Kobayashi Maru"--given the world wide expanse of the internet and these forums, I thought it was some distant Japanese saying. But, ah, it is a Star Trek reference--unless I am missing something more learned. The problem, I think, is that we cannot, unlike Captain Kirk, alter the underlying (CM2) programming to a win, and the result is a possibly frustrated public. Is it good for the character of the public?--could be a debate. Is it good for Battlefront? With all sympathy to BFC, my opinion is no.
  4. As I read the table, if you "allowed" yourself to lose (in other words, did not keep playing each scenario until you win), you would be "rewarded" by getting easier versions of future scenarios. See, for example, the 3 different versions of "For those about to die"--8,9,61. This is interesting and admirable conceptually. Indeed, it raises the option of looking at a tactical situation in a scenario and taking the rational decision that the best thing to do is not to play it. (introduced, in think, in C and F "Hard Knocks"--yes the first in the series was winnable, but it is skewed
  5. Since to apply, you must have been in existence, and that likely meant you were a vampire--did you mention to the recruiting office that your night-time recon efforts were excellent, and you would not likely be drawing from the usual canteen rations? Seriously, depending on the situation, sometimes the troops that are willing to flee, and fight another day, are more situationally correct. And even if the troops are elite, having a big HE burst in the middle of them...the WW2 uniform was not much better than wearing a t-shirt with regards to shrapnel protection.
  6. Nice blast from the past. It may get me to try Assault again in CMRT. I would like to eventually finish that scenario....and this gives me some ideas.
  7. I am looking forward to see how your attack turns out--forget (almost) win/loss, I will be interested to see your tactical moves. The way you have moved your units thus far has (other than the recon jabs) has almost been poetic.
  8. First, I am not arguing with anyone. I am learning effective game tactics. But let's take this situation: seen in this DAR. Your screening infantry sees a target several hundreds of meters ahead. Your tanks leap forward, shoot the target, and then retreat. Unless I am mistaken (and people will chime in quickly to what extent I am), that C2 did not exist in WW2. If infantry communicated with the tanks, it was generally a very local, almost tactile experience--maybe some hand signals, or a phone on the back of the tank. CM2 has non-Borg spotting, but we, as players, can break
  9. I am sure your opponent is a excellent fighter, so I say everything with the utmost respect. I do not like the use of those Panthers. In overwatch, initially 3 on his left flank (your right), 2 on his right flank--with a screening force in front, and then moving the 2 over when he understands you moves. I think that would have been the baseline/default positioning. Keep them at a distance, clustered, with only front armor to be seen. On the other hand, your handling of the Sherman tanks shows why we should give that fighting vehicle more credit, particularly in the m
  10. Great presentation. It is almost as though it was a story-book for a movie. Overall shots, and then close in ones. Hey, was that Brad Pitt sticking his head out of the Sherman?
  11. The line of trees on the right you used--could not have been better positioned if you had walked out and planted the trees yourself. The Panthers have a justifiably great reputation.....when they can present their front armor from a distance. Not to be too "catty" [to use the slang for such German armor], but your opponent may have been better served by holding his Panthers back from Noville, in overwatch position, and at a distance. Think of how that would have markedly disrupted your right flank move. Moving Panthers into a town, in my opinion, markedly weakens their power
  12. Wow. Given he started with the same point forces you did, where are they? Your spread out right flank, which is something I was worried about, is starting to contract in and become a noose. Could you be missing something off your left flank? Even if you were, there is a lot of killing spot area between Cobru and the left forests to stop movement there. Again, your movements behind Noville is much more risky than I would attempt--you are essentially separating our forces into 2. But....if he punches in one direction, you can forcefully counterpunch the op
  13. The down-side of that (so I have read) is that both sides can sit on their distant flags, and thus be boring. (since, with equal forces, attacking is risky). Given the known artificialness of an ME anyway, I am not against trying to turn it into an interesting cage match--as we are seeing here. I am reading the book "Zones of Control: Perspectives on Wargaming" (a 800 page book on wargaming--what is not to like?). Early on, I think from the designer of PanzerBlitz (I could be wrong about the attribution), there is a quote something like, "The Game is a Game." [CM, by the way, is just m
  14. Unless I am missing something, this is what I see: you have him surrounded, but he has, then, the faster internal movement. Normally, I would favor the faster ability to deploy internally. But, again unless I am missing something, he seems to have a lot of units in a small amount of area. That could prove to be awkward, as moving them could inadvertently expose them to fire from your units, and any fire from your units could potentially cause damage to his nearby units. You also know, sort of, where his units are--"his" town. He knows less about your units, except those he has see on you
  • Create New...