Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About imported_no_one

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 04/18/1976


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Only problem I have with using LMGs and ATRs as scouts is that that was not their intended use.I have no problem with sharpshooters or tank hunter teams as scouts.However,both the LMG and ATR crews are limited to move,run,or move to contact(except for the Italian ATR team...I think,which can use advance).Therefore,they are very easy to rout and kill,even from distance.
  2. It depends on the situation.How difficult is the setup?If you have tons of trenches and plenty of possible reverse slope positions it should be pretty easy.Just remember that the defender should always take longer on the setup as you really don't get a chance to change much unless the map/situation allows it. Also,are you playing versus the AI or a person?If it's a person,take around a day or so,but not much more.As to "normal turns of average" I am not sure what you mean.If it's number of PBEM turns per day,try and always send atleast one turn per day,maybe more if you have free time.As you
  3. When attacking,I really only place emphasis on overwatch units,making sure that all lines of sight are worked out,so that when something is spotted it is dispatched as quickly as possible.Of course I also find the avenues of advance and setup so as to use them. When defending I spend a lot more time on the setup since you won't get much of a chance to reposition after the battle starts.
  4. More realistically than that,that is for sure. Simply playing an attack/defend scenario makes it tremendously more realistic than a ME(which,IIRC,didn't even occurr all that much IRL). A scenario or operation will give you a much more realistic map,and more importantly,will actually have you fighting for something of importance,not just some flags out in the middle of nowhere. A advance/assualt operation is also more realistic as it requires you to set your own victory locations.It will also make it so that the time alloted is not as much of a determining factor of who wins. Having
  5. You flag chasing,cherry picking,quick battlers are hilarious!Thanks for the screen shots;it always cracks me up seeing how some of you play.The word "Arcade" comes to mind
  6. Depending upon how good you are,and how good your opponent(s)are,it may take a few battles before you can hold your own.But,it will get better.Just don't give up.Always try and challenge yourself as much as possible. Maybe you and Vixen could play.You are really missing out,Vixen
  7. Well,I explained precisely how you setup multiplayer games in this thread,just the other day. And,to find an opponent you can go into the opponent finder forum here.Or,you could try here(this place is great for new scenarios and such also). There is also the Peng and Waffle threads,but you may want to get some playing experience first Multiplayer CM is great.I guarantee that you will enjoy it,as well as,learn a great deal from it Just make sure to play with your growlie face( :mad: ) on
  8. Look through all the archived forum postings dating all the way back to '99.There are tons of good tips and such in those. JasonC has done numerous tutorials around here;you could do a search for some of those. Search the net for actual military doctorine.You will find that their practical application works pretty well. Learn for yourself through experimentation.That is the best way you will learn,and you may even figure out a better way of doing it,instead of learning to imitate someone else. Good luck,have fun!
  9. That's the funny thing about the written word,it is open to interpretation,and unfortunately assumptions. Yes,I am saying that.For every example of your poor fortune I can present examples of my apparent good fortune where I have had squads,hqs,teams completely unharmed by a collapsing building.Rarely,if ever,have I had any full strength unit(other than HQ's)be completely eliminated when a building collapses.In most cases ,if you had a full platoon in a building(on the bottom floor),some of the squads would take maybe 50% casualties,some 25%,and some will take little to no casualties.
  10. It is an operation,not a scenario.I got it from the Scenario Depot,but that is gone now.So,I emailed it to you.I really enjoyed it as a PBEM. Enjoy!
  11. Why is it gamey?I have never seen that the effects of a "collapsing" building is all that great anyhow,unless you had stuff on the top floor.Plus,it will billow up the huge dust cloud which may actually help your opponent gain access to the area. You,or anyone,will have to give more substantial reasons as to why it is gamey;other than the fact that you feel bad about it.
  12. Yes they would. Somewhere in an account about Manstein, I read about "sealing their flank with a wall of fire" - I think that actually refered to open fields. Also, accounts of Festung Breslau, for example. Many buildings there were set on fire or demolitioned to deny the enemy cover, or to clear fields of fire. Not gamey at all. Just applied combat engineering. </font>
  13. What turn? Edit to add: What turn?!?!?!?!?Dear god,man,don't tell me that you fianlly sent a turn and it got lost :eek: :mad: :mad: :mad: [ November 07, 2005, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: no_one ]
  14. If it is gamey,then it is just barely gamey.I have never burnt a structure that had no enemy near it,to prevent a keyholed gun from being flanked(for example). But,your second example is not gamey at all,IMO,except that you are able to determine pretty much exactly how damaged the structure is,and aprox how many more rounds it will take to bring it down;however,the same could be done IRL by simply observing the structure.Also,IRL,I would guess that you typically wouldn't want to destroy buildings as they may be useful to you in the future.Therefore,delaying their destruction would be logic
  • Create New...