treadgrease
-
Posts
16 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by treadgrease
-
-
Well of course treebursts will be a problem. As with most everything, there are positives and negatives. But in good coverage(woods/pines), more than likely, you won't be attracting any mortar/arty until you start shooting. If you put them in wheatfields or steppe then they will get spotted much easier, compared to woods/pines. Then probably get the attention of mortars and arty before the troops inside fire a single shot. Yes, no treebursts to worry about, but still.Originally posted by MeatEtr:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by no_one:
Trenches in woods and trees are not too good of an idea.Tree burst arty will negate any benefit you would get from having them in the woods/trees.
Trenches can easily be used for ambushes when in the right type of concealment.Summer wheatfields and steppe will make it so that the trenches remain unspotted up to around 250m,and depending on the spotting conditions(i.e. day or night,or bad weather)you may not spot them until you are right on top of them.
I don't buy it either. Something ain't right with your tests. Simply put, no tanks, buttoned or unbuttoned, will spot any gun(non-fired) hiding in good/wood/tallpines coverage. Unless of course maybe the gun is on the very outer edge of the cover tile and the tank is practically on top of it. </font>Originally posted by treadgrease:I'm sorry guys, been doing some testing, and the ai spotting routine is boooooogus
Two buttoned up tanks, at over 800 meters, see an UNFIRED at gun, situated in woods, on a reverse slope.
-
Savegame, screenshot?Originally posted by Redwolf:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by treadgrease:
Two buttoned up tanks, at over 800 meters, see an UNFIRED at gun, situated in woods, on a reverse slope.
I don't believe you, this is nonsense.
Maybe you screwed up and accidentally placed the gun in open ground right next to the woods.
The spotting routines are of course entirely seperate from the graphical representation, this doesn't mean anything. </font>Magnifying to 16x, *I* couldn't see a single pixel of the at gun from either tank.
-
So the gun was also hiding, and the mission was not meeting engagement? (The gun had the camouflage bonus)? </font>Originally posted by Impudent Warwick:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by treadgrease:
Anyway, Michael Dorosh's GD scenario, "Detraining at Lodz"
Two buttoned up tanks, at over 800 meters, see an UNFIRED at gun, situated in woods, on a reverse slope.
-
I'm sorry guys, been doing some testing, and the ai spotting routine is boooooogus
I have two pics to show what I mean (tried posting them here, but always to small of size, hard to see).
Be glad to email them to anyone.
Anyway, Michael Dorosh's GD scenario, "Detraining at Lodz"
Two buttoned up tanks, at over 800 meters, see an UNFIRED at gun, situated in woods, on a reverse slope.
Magnifying to 16x, *I* couldn't see a single pixel of the at gun from either tank.
Man, I love this game, but this really throws a wrench into it for me.
[ November 11, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: treadgrease ]
-
Ok, thanks for the tips guys. But I gotta be honest; a lot of it sounds like ways to beat the game/game flaw, much more than real life tactics.
But I'll give it a go.
-
Hehe, sounds like meOriginally posted by Akula2:Aye.
I made the mistake of Reading Red Storm Rising and Hunt. After that I consumed everything by both Clancy and Bond.
That led me directly to the Harpoon paper and pencil game. I had already been playing Squad Leader since it hit the market.
My interest ebb and flow. I played a number of both Naval and ground games on both the computer and tabletop.
I had my grog phases with both also, exploring the "what ifs" and being enamored with big cats.
ASL was always a staple in my diet as is (now)casual reading. I'm certain CM has taken it's place completely.
I'll be buying Dangerous Waters. I enjoyed it's predecessor very much.
If you haven't yet, give Christopher Reich's books a try; I like them better than Clancy myself.
-
Thanks Robert........you a sub fan too ?Originally posted by Akula2:Ageed, they do spot far too well ... particularly buttoned up.
Have fun and cheers.
-Robert
-
Thanks, gave me some ideas to try here.Originally posted by Akula2:I guess your arc depends what you expect to be facing and what your gun is. It's often best to get a good idea of what armor is out there before letting the gun fire.
In a current AK pbem I'm defending as American against a German assault. I bought 76mm ATGs.
I stifled their fire and it wasn't long before I spied a column of assault guns. (towed guns too)
Anyhow, my guns were good out past 500m. When I determined where he'd prolly pop out of his rabbit hole, I rotated the guns to that spot and set a narrowish arc somewhere over 500m. The terrain dictated it's shape.
My initial stifling arc was 5m.
Had I spied a couple of Tigers instead of StuGs, I'd have had to come up with something more creative. Maybe I'd have had to hope they'd pass within 100m of my guns without spotting the trenches they are in. Not likely, but hey ... what's a guy ta do. For sure, I'd be regretting that I didnt buy 90mm AA guns.
I managed 2 kills against his StuGs with one gun inside one movie. Not bad. I guess it was just under 500m.
My gun is surely gonna perish though. He's too good. Infantry is close and already putting down supressive fire. I'm certain his mortars are on their way up.
Still, a good trade.
88 Pak/Flak is great at great distances against almost any AFV as far as I know. They still bark like a Glock 19 though. Though never buy em, when I'm given them in a scenario I try to use them at the greatest distance possible.
Same tactics apply though. Ambush. Kill quick and move.
Move him if possible after he eliminates a threat. Didnt they do that in real life? If they did they probably did it cause they could measure their life expectency in a matter of minutes.
Smaller guns are easier to move too.
I don't hold with guns as the ideal offensive weapon. They can work and did in real life, but if they worked so well why did they encase them in steel, put em on tracks and rename 'em panzers.
I contend they're ambushers. Even the light skin non-turret Tank Destroyers are ambushers imo.
Oh, and I was actually meaning at guns in the defense. Like you said, they're made for ambushes imo.
Anyway, going back to the scenario I first noticed this at (mainly because its one of the first I've played <g>), I just can't believe a buttoned up tank crew could spot any at gun in woods/trench (added a trench for a test) at half a mile or more.
Hell, irl, it would be hard for an unbuttoned crew, even a tc standing in the turret, unless he happened to be looking at exactly the right spot beforehand, at the above distances, imo, and even then....
But I think I'll mess around a bit. Moving a 75 mm and up at gun will give the boys a good workout anyway <g>
-
k, thanks. Thats the rub though; what good is an at gun that historically was routinely used(i.e., not even thier max range) for much longer range encounters than the arcs suggested ?Originally posted by Akula2:My experience is that smaller calibre guns are harder to spot also. For instance the 88s seem to bark pretty loud and their size is comperable to maybe a small tank or at least a tankette.
Trenches don't seem to help the spotting issue for me either. It seems like the trench at least gets revealed even if the units in it haven't yet.
On the other hand, trenches are excellent cover even if they seem to degrade concealment. (at least thats how it seems to me)
When defending I almost always put my guns in trenches when they're available to me.
I do what these guys are saying. I put a real short covered arc on my guns so they don't fire at the first fleeting target that comes inside their maximum range.
When I have a target I'll set another covered arc (often a blue one) to limit his field of fire. Guns seem to rotate to face the centre of their covered arcs so be careful. I don't hide them without reason though. I do rotate them quite a bit once I get a hint of the enemy. (that fleeting glimpse that I didnt waste a round on) I rotate them to where I think that target will show up and present a good shot for me. This makes for quicker kills and possibly multiple kills vs the Borgs. A premptive narrow-ish arc can be used in this case too.
On the rare occasion, usually when attacking I'll make covered arcs so narrow as to encompass a single defending unit. This way I can conserve some ammo be deselecting him during my orders phase and be ensured that he's still a priority. It's a supressive fire thing that works best with HMGs vs pesky guns in trenches. It keeps their heads down whilst my armor does it's thing.
Of course a HQ with a stealth bonus helps a lot too. The guns experience may or may not help. Doesnt seem so for me though.
If you quickly eliminate your target and are a decent distance off, you may try a new very short covered arc and hiding in the hopes the enemy only got a sound contact. Like Meateatr said though, a human will rarely be fooled by this.
Small guns have their merit when it comes to sound.
This is all just based on my observations from playing. Some or all of it may be totally wrong.
I mean, that was their whole advantage, besides small size; ability to close with the enemy before it was right on top of them.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you; what arc ranges are you thinking of ?
I.e., for a 75 and 88 mm pak.
-
Keep in mind too, when you do decide to actually fire the guns, it will be much harder to keep them hidden after doing so, but it is possible. The AI tanks will expose themselves again. But obviously that ain't gonna work against another human player, he'll just do area fire on the gun.Originally posted by MeatEtr:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by treadgrease:
Haven't tried hiding. Have tried arcs. Guns fired once or twice, then eliminated from 600 - 1000 yds away. Five tests, after first noticing it in Dorosh's GD scenario "Untraining at Ledz" (or something like that)
But sounds like hiding them, unhiding when time to shoot would not make a difference ?
Also, IMHO, another valid flaw in the CM games is the spotting ability of tanks. I think most would agree. It's just way too good, especially for buttoned up tanks. </font>
-
Do you have them hiding? Cover arcs? Did the guns fire at all? My guns can hide pretty much forever as long as there in cover and no infantry is close by.Originally posted by MeatEtr:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by treadgrease:
Did a test against buttoned tanks only, had them in open, in woods, and in woods in trenches. No difference.
A.K.A. Borg spotting. We all hate it and there's not much you can do about it. It's considered a valid flaw in the CM games. </font>Originally posted by treadgrease:..once one ai tank spots them, seems like every tank on the field has an instant radio message about it
-
Newbie to this game, though not to wargaming.
Problem: seems like at guns are basically useless, as they are unrealistically spotted right away, to easily. A problem in most games, to be sure.
Did a test against buttoned tanks only, had them in open, in woods, and in woods in trenches. No difference.
Are my assumptions correct, or what am I missing ?
Just sure seems the ai tanks can spot at guns much to easily, and once one ai tank spots them, seems like every tank on the field has an instant radio message about it <g>
-
Always wanted to try this, but don't have excel.
Figured I'd give the printout sheets a try, but a problem; for some reason, I can't get the gif files to print correctly.
Always end up clipped off, shortened, etc. Viewing and printing in Print Shop Pro.
Ideas ?
-
Hmmm....oh well, cya.
-
Hi, I'm completely new to cmbo.....yeah, I know
What are the absolute *required* mods to bring the game up to snuff ?
Tried the search function for an answer, but no real answer.
Thanks !
AI spotting cheat ?
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted