Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

imported_no_one

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    521

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by imported_no_one

    Hordes of halfsquads

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    You just soooo dont get the point.When,in any kind of realistic engagement,are "all things equal"?I am not going to setup a defense so that all things can be equal.Nor am I going to attack where all things are equal.Why would I?I want a mutually supporting combined arms force,that is setup/operated in some manner to allow the maximum amount of fire to be brought onto the enemy.If I have to shift my forces to do this,then I will.But I am never going to allow there to be a 2:1 or greater disadvantage in or around my MLR.And I for damn sure always want there to be atleast a 2:1 advantage where I am attacking.

    You also continue to blur the line between the topic of this thread(spliting ones entire infantry force),and me disputing your scenario tests--that are done on the single squad level--and are being used to prove the overall concept gamey.There is no consideration being given to how different HQ bonuses affect this situation.I thought I heard once that a HQ with a plus(or maybe a plus two)to command would make a ATG more likely to switch to new targets during combat.Maybe something similar happens with infantry?I am pretty sure that I have seen squads switch to different targets during a turn,but am not sure if they still had LOS to both targets.So,I do not know.

    I also do not understand why you insist on taking offense(or seem to be)to someone simply debating the "results" of your tests/theories.

    0

    Hordes of halfsquads

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Treeburst155:

    Sanok, you Herder of Halfsquad Hordes

    Wtf is the problem?I mean,I may have missed it,but where was the invitation for you to become champion of this thread?Just because someone disagrees with your ridiculous little scenario editor test,it doesnt make them a "Herder of Halfsquads" and doesnt give you the right to call them that either.

    With that said,I will explain to you why your tests are flawed.Lets look at the following example:

    Lets say I am dumb enough to play a QB PBEM.I am the russians and I have been given a solid combined arms attacking force,but lets focus on the armor.I have been given two plain 'ole t-34's.My defending opponent has a lone tiger,and has the tiger placed on a giant hill at the back of the map and the terrain is flat and open.Thats got to be gamey,or atleast unfair,right?

    However,when I do a scenario edidtor test,I find that it is I who is the gamey one :eek: :confused:

    All you have to do is setup the two t-34's exactly 20m's off each side of the tiger.Have the tiger buttoned up and not paying any attention to the t-34's.Click go.Voila!!I am gamey! :(

    Or,or...I have a veteran smg platoon--that is in great cover,trenches maybe--surrounding two veteran rifle platoons that are in the open ground.I click go and they all die--even though they outnumbered me 2:1--I guess I am gamey again.

    Do you get my point?I want to see some real tests where the half-squads have to advance under fire to within grenade throwing range,instead of magically appearing there--in perfect flanking postions.I want the full squad in more realistic cover,like woods/tall pines,or buildings.And I want them to where they can fire on the approaching half-squads.Based on how I play,I would also like to have atleast one distant HMG.It can even be as far away as 750m(but would then have to have a plus two to fire power HQ),but should more realistically be no more than 450m.What are the results?

    You can make anything look gamey if you put it in the perfect ambush/attacking/flanking position.However,it isnt that easy to get there like that in real combat.

    0

    Halftracks "How to"

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    Originally posted by Raketenpanzerbuchse:

    no_one

    Good idea, but are they not for transporting and protecting infantry on the battlefield? They seem kind of useless to me unless they’re moving something somewhere.

    Of course.When using halftrack borne infantry,you will need to have massive overwatch support and scouts to trip any ambushes,as well as the use of smoke.Though you can accomplish your task with using either,I would use both.

    If you are not going to be using you halftracks for their intended purpose,you can use them to support your infantry in areas where the enemy AT network has been destroyed,and the halftracks can use their MG's with little fear.

    I have also in the past left halftracks out in the open--surrounding some sort of AA asset--to draw fire from any airplanes while my armor was hiding in scattered trees.

    0

    Hordes of halfsquads

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Plus this doesnt factor in the proper use of support weapons.If you had setup a proper defense/perimeter,you should have had support units to aid the lone full squad.

    Irrelevant. At 1:1 odds, the defender should not lose EVERY time.

    Wrong.The game of CM trys to accurately portray combined arms action.If this is true,then support weapons can be,and should always be,factored into the equation.

    I shouldn't have to reinforce a squad that already matches the enemy strength.
    True,but hey,sometimes these things happen--do what you gotta do.If you have a 1:1 platoon of non-split-squads and your platoon is losing its fight--for whatever reason--and you dont reinforce them,I guess thats gamey too?

    BTW, you do not need to split squads to come up with extra foxholes during setup. They gave us a feature for that. Hit Alt-F during setup to place extra holes. The scenario designer may disable this feature. In that case, splitting to gain extra holes is gamey.
    Thanks,but ummm...did you know that not every scenario comes with this feature in use?Hmmm,maybe that is gamey too...

    Aside from that,I think you are pretty well decided on this issue.I dont think there is anythin else that I can say to try and help you see the big picture,sorry.

    0

    Hordes of halfsquads

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Ok,first off let me say that if this is true,then I am very disappointed that the penalties that were said to be in the game,arent there.This means that,atleast on some level,you have found a problem,but I must ask.How do you guys play when you play this game?

    In your test scenario,the reason the full squad lost is not a gamey issue,but rather a failure on your part to dictate fire control of your squad.

    I am curious,what would happen in your test scenario,if you were to let it unfold the way it does with the full squad engaging half squad A at the half way point of the first turn.Half squad B engages the full squad at the same time.In the orders phase for turn two,you switch the full squad to fire at half squad B.In each following orders phase,switch the full squad to the other half squad,or the enemy squad that isnt pinned.What is the result?

    Plus this doesnt factor in the proper use of support weapons.If you had setup a proper defense/perimeter,you should have had support units to aid the lone full squad.

    Lets also look at firepower.FP of 60 will pin/panic/rout and will cause only a couple of casualties.FP of 140 will pin/panic/rout and cause several casualties.

    So,it is my humble opinion that if you used the fire technique above,the full squad should prevail.Well,maybe 7 times out of 10.Plus if the lone squad is hanging in there for 3-5 turns before panicing/routing,they gave you plenty of time to reinforce them.

    The reson that this isnt gamey is because you can create the exact same situation with two platoons of infantry versus one.I mean wtf?!?!? :rolleyes:

    I have only occasionally used split squads,but I have used them--mainly on the defense,and mainly for the extra foxhole thing.So I am not really defending its use,but rather am trying to put the blame where I think it belongs--some ones gameplay ;)

    0

    Hordes of halfsquads

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Glider,

    Ok,I am actually glad that you responded.After my last post I realized what I should have said.This will clear all this up.

    Lets look at an example.

    You are playing a scenario as the germans and you have been given a completely crack german infantry company.Doesnt matter what type or anything,but they consist of some type of rifle squad.They have no support.

    They are up against a battalion of regular and green russian infantry.Doesnt matter what type or anything,but they consist of some type of rifle squad.To make it a little bit more even,you might could say that it is an under-strength battalion.

    First off lets look at experience.Being of higher experience means that you have the ability to put out higher FP rates than that of an identical unit of lesser experience.So,a crack unit will have more FP than a regular unit,even when firing with the exact same parameters.

    So,you compare the german and russian infantry squads.The german squad--because of experience--has more FP by default.Not including what the HQ might provide.

    Now lets look at logistics(and I suck at math,so all this is approx. numbers).Since it is a batalion of infantry versus a company,the russians are going to have an advantage of 3:1!....3:1?That sounds kind of like your situation.

    Now,what happens when you split a infantry squad?Because it is split,the FP of the two individual squads is significantly reduced.It is almost like making them lose a couple levels of experience at FP,maybe even worse.This means that the only way that they can really be effective is to fire for longer periods of time,but from as many angles as possible.

    Do you see where I am going with this?Are you going to tell me that in real life a defender in a similar situation could not prevail?Think about the fact that as a split squad takes casualties its FP cotinues to drop.IMHO,it also seems easier to panic/break/rout a fresh split-squad than a fresh full squad.

    While I was writing this,I actually realized this might be a good tactic to use against an opponent who does the potentially gamey "rush the flag" thing in ME's.Counter-aatack with all your infantry split.

    Does any of this change you stance on the issue?If not then i am sorry that I couldnt help.

    0

    Hordes of halfsquads

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Glider:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by no_one:

    Glider,

    Just wanted to point out that you probably never would have encountered this "gamey"(and by the way,I dont believe that it is gamey or as overly effective as you say it to be)tactic if you had not been in the perfect venue for gameyness--Quick battles.

    So,you asked for it.

    Once again, this topic is not about my game. It is not about my obvious and pathetic attempt to convince myself and others that I am being defeated by a flaw in the game engine and not by a better player.

    It particularly is not about what I deserve or do not deserve, an issue that concerns you not at all.

    It is about the fact that there is a way to make one of the most important factors of the game - infantry - more effective (whether 5% or 20% more effective - that is another issue altogether). And that this way is making the game more tedious and time-consuming, without contributing anything to the quality of gameplay. </font>

    0

    Hordes of halfsquads

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    To answer the second part first, the problem is this - the bad is just a slightly more fragile morale, while the good... advantages are obviously quite numerous.
    This is not entirely true.When you split squads,you take a hit to global morale as well.If he split his entire infantry force,consisting of two companies of smg squads,I would imagine that his globale morale took a pretty big hit.

    Plus if a split squad takes a couple of casualties they are reduced to essentially a tank hunter team,that sometimes has LMG's :D

    As far as my armour is concerned, I managed to set it up so it is keyholed... meaning that my tanks see the flags area and approaches to them but they do not see any part of the enemy starting line (where hidden AT guns are deployed).
    Well that sounds to me like you are half setup to deny an approach and half setup for close combat.

    Still no luck on any screenshots?

    Oh and listen to kingfish,he is wise ;)

    I would try and put the HMGs in command of HQ's with(hopefully)a plus 2 to stealth and a plus two to combat.Engage SMGs from a distance.

    0

    Hordes of halfsquads

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    I dont get what the problem is.If someone tries to attack with half-squads over distance,their individual firepower will be so reduced that it will be ineffective.You might can get many shooters firing from alot of angles(which is a very good thing),but...

    All the while you should be opening up with HMG's,any direct fire HE available,mortars,and arty.The only thing the attacker has going for them is that it is a target rich environment,and one can only shoot so fast.

    If you can not setup to deny an approach,then you had better have prepared for close quarters combat,and against russian infantry,that often equals smg's.

    Here you will have to really be able to concentrate your fire,and your gonna have to be more creative with your armor than just sitting there with a keyhole and nothing in it.If your opponent is already threating your MLR,then it is time to move the armor.He doesnt have to kill your armor to make it ineffective,and that sound like just what he did.

    I dont think that spliting two companies of infantry is gamey,I think you trade good for bad,and bad for good.If a split squad takes some casualties its down to only a few men,then their firepower is even less.

    The only times I really see for spliting squads is:

    1)Low ammo situations.Splitting the squads will double the amount of ammo,but reduce the amount of firepower.

    2)The good 'ole split squads so as to get alot of alternate foxholes.But thats just for the setup phase,they are not fought with that way.

    3)Scouts/observation posts.

    4)At night.Here firepower doesnt matter so much,fire from as many angles as possible,DOES!

    5)I have even used late war german pioneer squads in a split-squad role.It was an urban environment and I was pretty sure I would face SMG squads.I only had to defend for a short time(like 25+ turns)and SMG squads dont have alot of ammo,and tend to use it up very quickly.I used the split squads to slow him down as well as make him use up all his ammo.Thats not gamey,thats trading lives for time.Its just trading them at a slower pace.

    As far as attacking with split-squads,I think it can be very wise in certain situations.If you are up against two or three HMG's defending a wide front,the movement of multiple targets can overload the defenders,making it so that some infantry can advance unhindered.Which sounds alot like what your opponent did.

    Edit to add:

    I forgot,there is another use for attacking split-squads--Deception.You can make two platoons look like a company with support,possibly even more.

    0

    Balancing out commanders and the commanded

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Flenser:

    Steve

    Why did you feel it necessary to drop your intractable problems on us? Have we been bad? Are people not buying enough CMAK? Why lord, why?

    People tend to get hung up on the "simulation" idea. I've always approached games like these, be it tabletop or computer, as... well... games. Games that try to simulate reality to varying degrees, but games nonetheless.

    Unless you want to change the scope of the game, the All Seeing Commander is going to be a necessity, otherwise it won't be interesting and fun. Baring some revolution in AI programming I'm rather against delegating companies and such to the computer.

    I'm all for the multi-multiplayer idea. Back in the good 'ol days, I was a beta tester for Myth, (a medieval/fantasy game where you could order individuals around, for you youngers out there. Bungie's first big hit, before the sold out to M$ and started this Halo nonsense.) and one of its more interesting play modes was a team capture-the-flag style of play where each side had a command who could assign (and more importantly, take away) units to other players on the team, draw battle plans on a map, etc. Great fun.

    In summary... I don't see any reason to radically alter the current system. It works, its fun. Add a multiplayer option here, a borg-spotting fix there, and I'll be a happy gamer.

    My two bits.

    Put this down as my stance as well.Thanks Flenser smile.gif
    0

    Inferior Tanks: Deer in the headlights?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by para:

    pretty much what happens to me Paul :confused:

    although now after several posts on here i'm starting to understand the game more...i have stopped thinking of it as a game and more like a puzzle..i only have the little basic book that came with the game.. but i have ben reading it over and over again..to try and get more of an insight into the intricasies(sp)of cmbb...and the replies to some of my questions by the guys on this forum have been of a huge benfit..

    If you havent already,read through all the old archived forum posts dating back to '99.I spent alot of time reading through all of them,and there is a certain "grand overview" that you get by doing it.

    The '99 stuff goes all the way back to the old days,where the BFC staff did alot more communication with the forum members.Plus there has been extensive testing done on various "popular" questions about the game(i.e. whether to use your PzIV's hull up or hull down)down through the years...

    I guarantee you that if you read through all of them,you will learn something that you didnt know.

    0

    why am i shite at this game

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul AU:

    Well of course, if *I'd* just escaped with my life from a shot-out AFV (or gun), I'd consider myself well-out of it.

    The point is that a gun can be either "knocked out" or "abandoned". In the first case, it's obvious that trying to reman the gun is a wasted effort. But if the gun crew just gets some heebie-jeebies from a near mortar impact and the gun is left intact while they run away, why shouldn't they be able to operate the gun again later? </font>
    0

    Wind/Temperature effects

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Wind,atleast in CMBB,does affect smoke/debris clouds,and strong winds will quickly blow away your smoke screens.I was also under the impression that long range tank fire in strong winds had an effect of making the round slightly less accurate,however,I am not sure about that.

    Weather,even the limited weather in CMBB,can have a much larger impact on the game than you realize.The environmental conditions should always be one of the first things you look at when starting a battle.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...