slysniper
-
Posts
3,916 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by slysniper
-
-
This scenario has the makings of being a outstanding fight, But now I am wondering if I would even rate it very high in a review.
I still am going to replay it, but not looking forward to it as I once was.
-
6 hours ago, MikeyD said:
I started the scenario then immediately quit, then looked at the force numbers. The Red side is --- (mild spoiler alert) --- VERY heavily weighted in favor of Syrian infantry. That's an unusual surprise, not at all typical. You can't possibly root them out using your available dismounts. You need to rely heavily on your vehicle .50 cals, GMGs, 105mms to make the buildings they're holed up in uninhabitable. Its a bit vexing not having precision mortar rounds like in CMBS.
The good news is the 'victory points' are mostly concentrated in unit 'destroy' objectives. Terrain objectives are chump change. So you can win the battle by killing more of his guys than he kills of yours and disregarding the touch objectives.
Yes, from the sound of those winning it, I figured something was up with the scoring.
It sounds like get enough kills and the enemy surrenders, as you said, the objective is nothing more than bait. Not even going to be a factor. This is starting to make me sad. I always hate it when a briefing is very misleading as to what it says the goals are and what the real goals are. As for the troop numbers, that is no surprise, for some to create a good AI for (especially red) that is the only way they can achieve it. So don't mind that.
I am so use to designers that make the red fight til hardly anyone is left, so I was daunted by the task to having to cross that bridge, it was looking to be a very hard challenge. Now I am disappointed to even want to play it again. sounds boring if its going to hand me a win before needing to clear access to the bridge.
7 hours ago, absolutmauser said:I also think if the AI just left its BMPs alone in useful firing positions they would have done me a lot more damage. I killed most of them while they were maneuvering, and they always seemed to wander into my guns. It was the ones that seemed to stay put on the near side of the river that caused the most trouble!
yes, I felt the same way about that from my playing of it. Most of the BMP kills I had were due to their movement which really seemed unnecessary on their part.
I could have used a little of the good fortune you had. I did not do so well against some of the first round shots from the enemy. they found their mark on my units.
-
And in review, my hero's of the battle were the 2nd platoon leaders. (no losses on top of it)
And all my units were moved around often, it was a situation of replacing some so they could resupply, or covering a area another unit had retreated from or withdrew to take cover so units had many different firing positions in the battle.
-
-
Well, finished it tonight. It was at 1:08 mark time left when I went back in. With the two bmp's on the objectives and the units there pretty well resupplied with ammo.
The two bmp's had both lost a crew man, so they had no ability to fire.
My avenue to get to them was safe so I moved in two additional bmp's and two tanks to the strong points.
That was more than enough to fortify the strong points and give them brave souls there a little breather.
You were correct with the battle having a few good surprises left for me. But nothing my units were not prepared for.
basically every road that went through the city was covered and made into a fire lane. So any enemy units trying to move had a difficult time of it.
My two errors in the game were I lost a few too many men. One reason was I dropped my arty danger close to me next to the objective the enemy wanted.
Needless to say, I lost too many men to my own arty.
Second was, I placed my infantry in over watch units on roof tops to protect my armor and try to support the fire lanes on the roadways. This exposed them too often to new enemy threats and I lost some to initial attacks from new enemy positions.
But I will try and post my score. It shows a nice victory and I felt good about my overall play on this one and as mentioned before, enjoyed the challenge.
What I did not enjoy was the battle was over somewhere around 55-50 minutes left in the game. I know you want to give plenty of time for players that need more time to finish the battle. (that just seems way to generous to me -If it was my scenario, I would cut 30 minutes off what I would give for total time - but hey, that's me.
-
12 hours ago, George MC said:
I'd be interested to hear the next bit goes - good luck with getting your armour units to link up, I'm hoping that process should be engaging.
Cheery!
I am taking this to really mean: (George with a evil laugh then saying") " I cant wait to see the evil little tricks of mine he is about to run into, Just want him to curse my name"
-
I never had cmsf1, SO THESE ARE ALL NEW TO ME. So really don't have a interest in how it played before compared to now.
As for playing it again, it likely will not be until I finish up the present one I am doing plus I always have a few h2h's going on.. So it might be late this week before I even come back and give this a second go around.
-
10 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
Assume the enemy isn't a fool and will use everything they have to their best advantage. I've got my head handed to me multiple times trying to push into town from the south road. LOS and LOF along that road is all to your disadvantage. You can't even position an artillery spotter to get LOS on the area. That's the actual enemy in this scenario. The problem of getting good LOF on the area you want to attack without exposing yourself from another direction. You can't take the objective with just infantry and you can't guarantee the safety of your vehicles when exposed. So you need to closely coordinate.
When the little voice in your head tells you 'This is probably a bad idea' its probably a bad idea. If your route of advance towards the bridge could abruptly expose you to risk of short range RPG fire assume there are RPG teams waiting. If driving out into the open could expose you to the prospect of long range fire assume there's a long range threat. I'm playing the scenario right now and just lost 2 vehicles from attacks from unexpected directions while maneuvering to fire on a target.
That pretty much sums up my feelings to the full degree when I played it here for the first time.
I mean it actually means the designer did a great job as to creating a battle that the AI defense has the upper hand. Like you said, line of site and fire is critical and getting enough firepower in place is a challenge.
Thus the reason I really wanted some input before I attempt this one again. I like a good challenge and this sure gives it.
Just want to get input before another effort. If there is a better method I want to hear about it. ( Its just one of those situations where I don't have any answers I like. )
-
Been playing this for the last few days. Great battle so far.
Their is a intensity to the battle that I really enjoy.
The strong holds are a Alamo (A true feel of "can I hold on situation")
30 minutes into it and two bmp's have made it to the forces and provided very needed ammo.
But I am still not comfortable as to getting more units to them. There is a deadly zone between my tank forces and them that still needs addressing
-
Ok, time to stop wishing. lets get out the check books, everyone interested in making a silent bid, send checks cashable to Steve, winner with the highest bid gets their number one on their list next on the present projects to do list.
Now who here has the biggest bank account that has the same wish as me. (pool our money man)
-
Not over the hill, that would not end well.
Last time I used the hill as a screen and cleared a bunch of units away that were across the river. So at first I was left of the hill , then I went right of the hill along the highway to support the attack from the right flank.
That's when I managed to get into trouble.
I figure I will do a similar approach again, but with the infantry platoon with them on that left flank I think I can run my forces down into the town along the highway.
I see this as a better approach than what the two flank attack did. I figure I can control the amount of terrain that I have to engage enemy units from going along this path.
-
The strykers limited ammo does make them a unit not good for clearing out strong points within the game. I think of them as about the same as the AT destroyers of WW2, good for protecting against armor threats as long as no return fire is given. yes I might have let one or 2 fire a little long on a few targets.
Ah, I will bump the thread on Monday and if nothing, I just do my thing.
I think I am going to consolidate my forces and use them all from the left flank.
the terrain from that side allows me to take on only small sectors of the front.
What I felt I lacked the first time was infantry from that flank to take advantage of my successes on that side.
whereas, I never felt good about any aspect of what I was having to do with the infantry from the right flank. (it is a terrible avenue of approach no matter how you look at it.)
Maybe a smoke screen that allowed the units to get to the main edge of the village where there is multiple buildings for cover would work, but I do not recall having enough smoke to do that.
That is what is so good about the games, you can do it more than once and evaluate methods as to what works better.
-
Are you sure this is off the table. " Arab-Israeli Wars "
I do not recall that - now WWII in the pacific, I recall Steve multiple times saying there is no interest for them to go there.
But as anyone knows, Israeli is really the only place to go if you are looking to capture tank warfare that has happened in a historical event. Plus there was plenty of interesting conflicts for that also. And bonus, it could use its units for a cold war what if as another option for a additional game.
Anyway, it would be my choice if they ever move on from what they presently have.
Second option, get Steve to get a little creative and stop restricting his what if's to be realistic. CMBS (Get China in it as a Ally with the Russians - of course Nato units also. But China would be a army non of us have had a chance to play with) how can you not want that - come on Steve - make it happen
-
Nothing in your comments sound enlightening. As you said, the hill crest is off limits, too many enemy eyes can see you there. I also lost a few men just to see if my guys could use the crest though.
the 105 stykers did fine taking out armor across the river and also silencing some of the infantry overwatch on that side of the river. But they basically ran out of rounds or died when I started to get into clearing the town.
As for the infantry on the right flank, did just like you , moving small units one at a time along the buildings on the right. Just kept getting fire from across the river that I was not able to pin or eliminate. mainly from the fact I was not able to get enough firepower in place to see their locations and return fire.
Well, I was hoping for another approach at it than just trying to do the same thing again and take advantage of knowing what to expect now.
maybe someone else out there has not seen my request here yet for this and has a different approach.
Thanks for replying (when I saw my end score I thought maybe I could have hung in and finished the battle to see what the results would be, but as I said, I felt the present approach was not good for what the situation was, so I had enough. ) In otherward, I would never pushed a attack in real life with what I had here against the situation it was giving me.
So still looking for a approach where I can overwhelm the enemy in sectors here. Anyone have one out there
-
Ok, I have been playing SF2 on a pretty steady outing since it has come out.
At least 25 -30 scenarios played.
Its not often that I find one that over challenges me much.
But this battle, not just a challenge, but what the heck ( I actually just stopped it early because my forces were already battered and I had not even cleared the building on the near side of the river playing as the blue forces)
Now I want to play this again, but here is the kicker. I am reviewing my tactics used and what my options might be if I do this again and I don't see where I did anything wrong or do I see another approach that makes more sense.
I was doing a good job of finding, out gunning and killing units.
It just seemed like there was too much and my losses kept adding up and with the force I had, it was not long til I had lost any bite to it to be the aggressor.
So wanting to hear what someone's else's successful approach was to this battle. Because at the moment I do not see me changing my avenues of approach, my fire bases or anything I have done.
I really do not even see another approach that makes sense other than what I did. ( plus I do not feel I had a run of bad luck. The losses I had were pretty typical for what I was doing.
-
farmers in Canada, are you crazy.
What can they grow up there in the two months of the year that the weather is good.
Thus the reason they all play games since they love to be in their cozy warm houses
-
Sounds good but I would not give them a week to play them to score for points. I think 1 to 2 days seems better (limit the amount of replays people might do).
I was suggesting that you only posted one a week at a certain time each week. That would be for your own well being more than anything else.
-
same suggestion. post a new game on Friday night and give them 24 to 36 hours to post back or something like that. (Then make it a once a week activity. ) doing it every day might seem a little much even if it seems very simple.
Also you did not make it clear, which of the 3 battles are you wanting back and why have three battle up on the site if you only wanted one back.
So that leaves not allowing access to a game before the time frame is a key factor to your concept. So two of them battles already have extra time unless you want them all back today.
-
Just wanted to report the results of playing the first battle.
Played Ian, he wanted to check these out so we are.
He was the Germans, I selected the Americans.
My briefing did not give a clear objective as to what I needed to focus on. I had to determine for myself what the key areas were and then I was informed to react to what the enemy was doing. (That is what the challenge was that you gave us) The briefing did a good job of setting that up.
The bridge and crossroads were the obvious key areas in my mind but because I had them right next to me they were not objectives I had to go obtain. So I felt I needed to be aggressive and attack and get other objectives. So that meant I needed to push for other objectives.
But with the M8’s being my only assets with any real fire power, they were too brittle to risk. Losing 1 or 2 of them would for sure be costly to my side in any efforts in the battle.
So it meant any aggressive actions on my part would be a slow action trying to use my infantry. So after moving across the bridge and getting units at the cross roads and coming into contact with German units I began a slow process of moving infantry units forward on my flanks.
Ian was focused on the center of the map objectives, so my flanks were able to get to the next objectives without too much problem
I was surprised by what the German units were, but since I had the m8's in reserve, they were used to react to any areas I felt I was getting out gunned in.
As the battle progressed I could tell Ian was going to stay focused on the crossroads and that I needed to make sure that I had good fire on areas he would likely approach to taking that objective. Having taken the flanks, this became somewhat easy in that I had units holding those objectives but they could also support the center cross road area.
So that was really the cause for the win in that the Germans lost most of their units on that approach which I had prepared for. Holding the flanks also cause Ian to divert some forces to his flanks , so that prevented him from using them in his main attack.
So I hope this gives you some insight without me giving too much away about the scenario for others who have not played it.
-
HE APPEARS TO BE CORRECT.
The 6 pounder on the left does not appear to be at the correct scale. (its off by a good 30-50%)
Its not the first time that a model has been in the game at a incorrect scale.
I recall someone pointing out some British armor cars that were incorrect also.
It is amazing how long some of this stuff is out before it gets noticed.
-
4 hours ago, Thomm said:
Does a sniper actually see the impact of his bullet?!
I would expect the recoil of the weapon to throw off his sight.
But having never fired a weapon in my life, I seriously have no idea.
Best regards,
ThommI can answer this for you, most of the time, no, some times yes.
What happens is just what you thought, the rifle recoil will knock you view off and for a moment because of movement, you really cannot see anything.
now what is interesting is, depending on how well you have the weapon locked into your body and secure. You can have the weapon come right back into a resting position and be right on the original line of site basically.
In this case, it is possible to see impact. rare but possible.
What I remember more than anything was when shooting at very long ranges (800 to 1000 yards) in a hot open environment (desert) and this would happen where the weapon came back to the original sight picture. Not only at times could you see impact, but you actually could see the bullet cutting through the air, the heat waves coming up off the surface is visible in the sight and the bullet is moving the air as it flies and you can see that as it moves to target.
Now as for seeing the results of being a sniper. If you do not know, snipers now work always in teams of 2 or 3 in most armies.
One is designated as a spotter when shots are fired. they normally are viewing the target, many times with even stronger optics than the sniper. so that person has a view of the whole event. so yes they get images that will likely never leave their mind.
For a sniper , the mental challenge is war is a little different than for others in one sense.
Killing impacts most people, it can play on their minds. For a Sniper, they have the situation of normally being able to see the victim and know that as they pull the trigger they are taking that persons life away from them and that its within their control to do it. (its not like its a fair fight. Most of the time that person has no clue you are going to take their life or that they are presently at risk of death) So for many it can become a challenge to be a killer in such a manor.
-
4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
I think the Americans are not all as narrow minded as that. It's an argument that comes up again and again, that Americans would only buy stuff featuring the US, but I think it's not that simple. For mainstream games that need to shift millions of copies, sure. But for niche wargames such as CM, I think many of the people who bought CM Red Thunder are probably Americans..
I can somewhat agree with you on this. Anyone truly into war gaming would not care as to which front or armies are involved.
But I am afraid that the market sales has proven that there is plenty of casual gamers that will buy these games and for that type of buyer, it appears they are only interested if the game covers their countries forces.
What I am surprised about is how many of these type of sales there must be.
We see this forum, you see the type of people who get on it and you get a perception of the type of people that are buying these games.
But I have come to a conclusion that those on the forum are a small portion of those that buy the game and that as a whole we are not a good cross section of the group that purchases these games.
-
I think we are reacting to things we do not truly understand here.
I have also noticed with my co-workers at work the same thing. Four out of 8 of us all have had fraudulent activity on some account in the month of January.
So this breach of information is way bigger than BF data. Because non of my co-workers own CM .
So as Steve pointed out, it is just a result of averages that so many of us have been hit.
What is really mind blowing is the amount of activity that is going on. That is a lot of people doing corrupt activities.
-
I just smile about all the fools that act like the game was broken and they have waited all this time for the patch, like there was no way to play the game in its present state.
So now SF2 is out and we finally see the corrections that will be patched into all the games shortly.
Great, is it better, Yes.
But If I was one of you over picky types, you better watch out. Because that long awaited patch will not make your men act perfect for you all the time still.
I have still noticed things that the infantry does at times that make no sense in any world, how often, not much. but they still do things that I can see you all get worked over about and will cause you to demand it get fixed,.
Some of these actions have been and will likely be within the game forever.
But I am really been grateful no one has started the campaign on the issues still out there, most are still focused on getting the patch to their favorite game.
Daraya Tank Raid SF2
in CM Shock Force 2 Maps and Mods
Posted
Good question.
I recall the last new reinforcement's came on for the AI likely in that 60-55 minute mark.
Of course I don't know that as a player, that it is the last that is going to show up. So with how rapid they had been coming up til that point, it did not take long to figure out it appeared no more was arriving So maybe at the 45 minute mark I figured it was over as to the reds doing anything. (but you never know for sure. Now if I was playing RT, I would cease fire - but in Wego, I can click through a turn in maybe 10 seconds or so. So it only takes a few minutes to run the clock down to just make sure nothing happens. So that is what I did.
As I said, I have been on here long enough to understand how giving plenty of time for players with lesser skills or different approaches is needed.
(I just think there should be a time set even for them that makes them play the game to some extent as intended.) Just my opinion.
First thing I will point out in this battle, no player is likely to do well if they are not actively engaged in doing the mission objective and doing it in a timely manor. that is getting aid to what I call the Alamo.
The first two bmp's I had that made it to those strong point objectives were sent for two reasons. First was my units were about to be overrun because most of the men remaining were running out of ammo, I had a couple of fire teams basically down to a few grenades.
Second, as mentioned, I had already lost the ability to use them as fire platforms since they had only one crew member, so if I lost them in route, it was not a great loss. (So in other wards, I was not sure I had cleared a route that was going to get them there for sure) Just mentioning this to point out how important I felt it was to get to those troops.
So maybe I am wrong, but I have a hard time believing anyone will do well if they don't keep a schedule somewhere near what I did.
And in truth, I did not rush or push my armour units in any manor to get there. They were being used very cautiously and my losses suffered were from those opening twenty minutes as to the loss of 2 tanks and 2 bmp's.
So I see a battle that was designed and played very well for about 40 minutes and then 50 minutes of add on time for the sake of pleasing everyone.
In this situation, what I think is if the player hasn't achieved what he needs to in that first 40 minutes of play, how much time should he get to do the task. I think 20 - 30 minutes is more than enough time for anyone , if they still have a force worth doing anything with at that point anyway. ( As I said just my way of looking at it.)
I think designer should leave times at a logical length and let players who want more time add it themselves. Removing time challenges remove the need for players to improve their skills.
Overall a great battle and a perfect example of how well CM does portray city fighting. I always shake my head at those that complain it does a terrible job at city fighting.
Yes, there is ways it could be better, but in general, I think it does a good job of giving the feel of the challenges one faces in built up areas.
I had a few times , The enemy infiltrated my lines in this battle and we were mixing it up in room to room fighting. That's a perfect way to get a feel for how desperate the situation is.