Nemesis Lead

Guys, I just noticed that the chat functionality on CombatMission.com has been moved the the Proving Grounds: Proving Grounds Chat CombatMission.com used to be a great place to find TCP/IP games. I was hoping to continue this tradition at the Proving Grounds. However, I cannot get the chat functionality at the Proving Grounds to work! I get a message that says it is trying to connect to chat and then it never does. Does anyone know what could be wrong?

If your opponent has multiple flak guns, then your ACs will die. Flak Guns are Rocks and ACs are Scissors (and Rocks crush Scissors). I am not arguing that point. HOWEVER, I have never run into an opponent who had multiple flak guns barring my axis of attack. Even if your opponent has 3 flak guns on a large map (rare), what are the chances that all 3 will confront your axis of advance? They will be lucky to confront you with 2.... Frankly, all this talk of light flak is misguided. The EVEN BIGGER and FAR MORE RELEVANT threat to ACs is enemy armor. But again, if you run into flak or tanks, your ACs just get committed later in the game rather than earlier.....

Agree that I would not buy these in a QB but sometimes you have to use them in a scenario or get them when you buy a large formation. If you have to have them.....best to know how to use them. I would also say that NO unit in CM that is worthless. The scenario designers did a great job pricing the units.

Hey ActionMan, Again I would define precisely what you mean by scouting. There are infantry support weapons that (as a secondary role) are a cheap way of uncovering enemy AT defenses. They should never be "out front" unless you have an all armor force and a big open map. The MMGs are OK, but the Humber III is much better for this purpose. The MMG has an open top and is much more vulnerable as a result. It also has 12mm of armor instead of 15mm. This makes it more vulnerable to HMGs, Light Flak, and ATRs. The MMG has the same ammo level as the Humber III, IIRC. However, the Humber III fires 2 MGs at a time and one is a Besa HMG. I like this better even if you do run out of ammo faster. MMGs might have better mobility. I am not sure, but I seem to remember being very impressed by the speed of these things.

I saw that too PLM2. Note that the vests did NOT have plates in them. This is one reason why "area fire" should be more powerful in CMSF than it was in CM. Pound small arms fire into buildings made of wood with drywall and the guys inside are going to get it! Of course, in Syria the homes may be made of concrete!

Will send you a PM.

I see more and more why you are an average player, JasonC. You speak of theory while I speak of tactics that the best CM players use to win games. I didn't invent these tactics, I learned them from playing the best players and making my own modifications. Send a real tank you say? Then you risk losing 130 points or more. Tanks versus AT Guns are (generally) akin to Rock versus Paper. A lousy trade. You even advocate the mass use of tanks. Now you are risking losing several hundred points (or more). Downright foolish. And BTW....a 20mm cannon is NOT the equivalent of an HMG. It is FAR less survivable. A HMG can soak up huge amounts of firepower and keep fighting. All it needs is 1 man in the MG team to pull the trigger. A 20mm cannon, OTOH, can be knocked out with a single mortar firing for 1 turn. The 20mm cannon may have some other advantages (as you rightly point out), but these are less relevant if the 20mm cannon is not surviveable. The lack of survivability is only 1 reason you see 20 MG42s for every 20mm cannon in CM.... Also...a player does not have to be an "idiot" to engage an AC with a heavy AT Gun. He can be forced into it. If my (numerically superior) infantry fights your infantry AND I am backed by ACs....all else being equal, I will eventually break through and your AT Guns will have to deal with my infantry/AC teams. This happens all the time.... [ November 18, 2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

Mr. Brereton, 1) But we are not playing (or even talking about) CMX2 are we? But to indulge you...maybe in CMX2 area fire will be more effective than it is in CM? Perhaps ACs will be even MORE powerful? 2) I have played about 150 opponents & faced (and beat) just about all the great ones. I encounter 20mm or 37mm cannons in about 1 attack in 4. Even if they are there, I might lose an AC and then they will lose a gun. So what? Even trade. Bring up the next AC. Also--this is only one attack scheme among many. I might come at you infantry heavy, armor heavy, artillery heavy, mortar heavy, gun heavy, with a truly CA force--you name it. In those scenarios, your 20mm or 37mm cannon will do exactly nothing. That is why most people don't take them in the first place. They are AC killers and most people don't use ACs.... Demonstrations can always be arranged for the non-believers. [ November 18, 2006, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

Skippy, Re-read my post. I am 38 wins, 1 loss and 3 ties in ladder play on Band of Brothers and Strategy Zone Online (and I am in first place on both ladders). My advice is backed by real results. JasonC reads a lot of books, but is by no means anything more than an average CM player. He can only parrot back what he has read in his books. Cheap, MG-armed ACs are excellent infantry support weapons (again do not use expensive cannon-armed variants). As a secondary function, they reveal enemy AT defenses cheaply. I agree with Jason C in the sense that they are NOT truly scouts since they are operating behind an infantry screen (infantry half squads always go first). They ARE scouts in the sense that you want the enemy to fire his AT weapons at them first (rather than your expensive tanks which should only be committed when you are confident you have breached the enemy's AT Gun network). And I should have added--you should never expose more than 1 AC at a time. The idea is to lose a 40 point AC (NOT 2) and kill an AT Gun or a horde of infanty in return. Once that AC dies and you kill the AT Gun, send another AC forward. Your opponent will run out of AT Guns before you run out of ACs. If he chooses not to fire at you, you will massacre his infantry. However, there is real risk to this approach. You CANNOT do this if you think the enemy has armor present. If the enemy has armor present, deal with it with your own armor/guns (if you are able) or try to manuever your infantry close to the enemy's tanks by using cover and smoke. In this case, your ACs cannot be committed until later in the game when the enemy armor has been eliminated. Enemy light AT guns are also an issue, but many players don't use these. ATRs and HMGs can be an issue, but your AC should be chosen to prevent this from happening (15mm of armor works best). [ November 18, 2006, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

Birstrike is right. You give your opponent a choice. Either he allows you to mow down his infantry with an AC or he kills your AC and reveals an AT Gun. The AC is FIRST an infantry support vehicle and SECOND a sacrificial lamb to discover the location of enemy AT defenses. The idea is that overwatching mortars then slam the AT Gun and you have just made a trade with your opponent that is favorable to you. Of course, this plan blows up in your face if he kills you with an armored vehicle or he kills you with a really cheap AT Gun (e.g., a 20mm cannon). You have to be especially careful to keep your AC far enough back that your opponent cannot kill you with handheld infantry weapons (to lose an AC like this is inexcusable as you should have an infantry screen out front). Force him to hit you with something heavy. You also have to make sure that the AC you buy cannot be easily killed by HMG or AT rifle fire. This brings us to purchasing.....you are also wise to look at the economics of your purchases. Some ACs are just too expensive to risk to kill a 50 point 50mm PAK. Some cannot stand up to HMG/ATR fire. Stick with the REALLY cheap ones with at least 15mm of armor. The British Humber III with 2 machine guns is probably the ideal AC purchase in CMAK for the purpose described above. Tons of MG ammo, HMG and ATR proof, cheap as a dimestore watch, and kills infantry like there is no tomorrow. A Greyhound or Puma would be way too expensive to risk in the manner described above (in my doctrine, they fill different roles). Most halftracks cannot stand up to HMG and ATR fire and would have to be discarded as well. [ November 17, 2006, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

Slower rounds do less damage, not more. However....one interesting effect is that slower rounds can often penetrate deeper into tissue than faster rounds (penetration and damage are not the same). The reason is......faster rounds will spall and yaw more and then penetrate less as a result. FACT: a 7.62mm X 51mm ball round penetrates more moving at 2400 fps than it does at 2750 fps. Why? At 2400 fps the bullet will not turn over on its side or break apart both of which decreases penetration siginificantly (but also increases tissue trama). Also--5.56mm rounds will penetrate less than 9mm rounds moving at less than half the speed (but the 5.56mm round will cause far more gruesome wounds). Wound ballistics can be very counterintuitive!

In the latest Iraq war.....US troops (particularly in the Army) are using M4 with 14 inch or shorter barrels. M16's were originally designed with 20 inch barrels and the Marines are still using M16s with 20 inch barrels the majority of the time. Why does this matter? While the M4 is more handy now, the shorter barrels have reduced muzzle velocities from 3100 fps to 2600 fps. Short barreled weapons are far less lethal as a result. More specifically, 5.56mm bullets kill primarily by inflicting grievous wounds due to the outrageous spalling of the projectile at high velocities. At 2600 fps there is far less spalling and our troops are again complaining about the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round. My question is....will this be modelled? An M16 with a 20 inch barrel and an ACOG (Marines) on top is VERY different from an M4 with a 14 inch barrel and an Aimpoint on top (Army). The Marines have a rifle that is better at range and more lethal, but less handy. The Army is a weapon that is good in close combat (although many question the M4s lethality). How might these differences be captured?

Battlefront, 1) How will Body Armor on US troops be modeled? I have heard that body armor is estimated to have reduced total casualties by an estimated 50% and have reduced fatalities to 1 in 10 casualties. For example, if men had no armor in an engagment you might have 100 casualties with about 30% (30) of them KIA. If the men were armored in the same engagement, you might have 50 casualties with about 10% (5) of them KIA. 2) Will the effects of body armor depend upon weapons used against troops (body armor might not help if a Stryker was blown up)? 3) Does anyone know if the Syrians use body armor? I have seen some insurgents in Iraq and Afganistan wearing it on rare occasion. Part of what intrigues me about this is that....from reports of US troops in Iraq, they seem to be more aggressive than in wars past. Some of this is surely due to modern CQB technique/training/an all-volunteer military, etc.. But the men seem to clearly have faith in their armor and they have adjusted their tactics to account for this capability. On the downside.....there are reports from Afganistan that our troops are not nearly as mobile as their adversaries because of all the stuff they carry and the armor they wear. Taken together, in CMSF you might also have radically different tactics for armored vs. unarmored men. I did a search and could not find anything on this.

Cobalt, I am not sure if vehicles can be fanatic. However, the way to tell might be to have numerous penetrations and crew casualties and the crew does not leave the tank or get shocked. It would reload and fire normally. Of course, if the tank is "knocked out," there would be no reason for the crew to stay on board..... A fanatic crew would probably not "abandon" a still functioning tank (unless it lost so many crewmen that it could not operate the tank). In CM, I don't think I have seen a crew take MORE than 50% casualties and stay in the tank. Does anyone know for sure about fanatic vehicles (e.g., a CM designer)? Fanatic troops are a great touch in CM. I have had individual squads turn the tide of battalion-sized fights (e.g., a fanatic HMG holds up an infantry advance near the end of a game and time runs out). While this hurts me as much as it helps me, it is always fun to see. [ May 01, 2006, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

I heard the Army suspended the XM8 program. The XM8 was a family of 5.56mm small arms based on the German (HK) G36 series of weapons. One of the XM8 variants was an automatic rifle with heavy barrel and a 100 round drum. I wonder if this would have been a suitable replacement for the SAW..... My guess is that they would have been far more portable than the SAW, but would not have the sustained firepower of the SAW (lighter barrel, smaller ammo capacity). I used the SAW back in the late 1980s/early 1990s. I thought they were great weapons then...I would have thought by now they were nearly perfected. The only problem back then was that the barrels were not easily changed out like on the old M-60s and they did require significant maintanence. Firing from magazines also presented jamming problems and was avoided.

This is a bug in the game that should have been, but was not, fixed. They have a rifle ammo load with an SMG firepower rating. I hate when people bring that particular infantry to games. But then again, if they limit themselves to Italian tanks and AT guns, you should still be OK.

Not if it is a paralax sight. The whole purpose is to shoot with both eyes open. Many people shoot with both eyes open regardless. There are good reasons for doing this.

It is funny how unpredicatable MG42s are vs. HTs. I am currently playing a game against a guy who brought 17 M3 halftracks. I have killed 8 of them with HMG fire. This sounds good, but I have been hammering his HTs for upwards of 20 turns and my HMGs are running out of ammo. In numerous tests, HTs usually survive only one to three rounds vs HMGs at 100 to 400 meters. This guy must have sandbags in his HTs! My only explanation is that my guys are somehow mistaking the HTs for something else (e.g., scout cars). The game is almost over and we shall see!

I hope not. These should probably be one per squad and then drop the 203's. The weight of all those 40mm rounds is going to be awful. When combined with the higher Rate of Fire of the M-32 plus the fact that the M-32 gunner may have to carry an M-16 as well.....the gunner is going to need a lot of help from the rest of the squad to carry his grenades. An M-79 grenadier (single shot grenade launcher) in Vietnam carried about 25 grenades (plus or minus 5) and he generally did not carry an M-16 (he had a pistol). An M-32 grenadier should carry approximately the same number of grenades (and no rifle) and other 40mm grenades should be carried by others in the squad. I cannot believe how much gear our guys are hauling today. A lot of the gear makes perfect sense, but some of it should be dropped. Our infantry is starting to lose its mobility and this has hurt us in Afganistan.

Cuirassier, Here is the link for the Molke bridge scenario. http://www.gregories.net/row/index.php Walpurgis Nacht and his AARs are much saner reading than Fionn's. Killing a Tiger with T-70s? It ain't easy, but you can do it. You have to hit from the flank or rear at close range and even then, you will likely get your kill without a single penetration (spall will often cause the Tiger crew to bail). I play tested 1 Tiger (played by the AI) vs. 6 T-70s (played by me). I killed the Tiger for the loss of two T-70s. I just hit the Tiger repeatedly in the side and rear with Tungsten rounds at close range. The best I got was a partial penetration, but the armor spall freaked the Tiger crewmembers out and they bailed. Against a human (or even the AI if it could have provided flank protection for the Tiger), this would be harder to do. But the point is that there are few weapons in CM that lack value. Some are complete gems (e.g., Stuart tanks, SU-76s, 75mm infantry guns, Humber III Armored Cars, etc.) even though they don't look like much on the surface. If you have a good game when playing with "garbage," you will never be surprised in a scenario-based tourney.

Hi John K., Well...while I am only 17 wins, 0 losses, and 1 draw in ladder (SZO and BoB) play, I still fear no one with force selections like that! Bring Fionn out of retirement! Crack and (especially) elite troops are generally a waste of QB points in CMAK and CMBB for a variety of reasons. This may not be the case for CMBO, but I would not know because I don't own it. To be fair, Fionn seemed to play CMBO in all the AARs that I read. Also--Fionn played on the SZO ladder. He certainly did not win 150 games there. In fact, there are a few posts there that reference him losing. BTW, I think the ROW format is great (especially the scoring). I just always seems to miss the sign up for the tourney.... Will there be another? [ March 14, 2006, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

Fionn's AARs? I have never played him, but I am shocked that he was a good player after reading his AARs. A few things: 1) His QB force selections were usually ridiculous (little infantry, lots of ubertanks, lots of artillery, all units Crack or Elite). Such force selections are newb force selections.... 2) He references "Soviet Doctrine" repeatedly but he actually mixes German and Soviet doctrine up quite a bit. 3) A big part of Fionn's doctrine seems to be "taking risks--doing the bold and unexpected." I think Jason C once commented on this and said the better strategy is to be conventional (and maybe even a bit predictable), but to execute so well that you cannot be stopped (even though you are predictable). I agree with Jason--while the occasional surprise is valuable, you cannot make this the centerpiece of your doctrine. Better to have a sound, conventional strategy and flawless execution. 4) Fionn was so condescending and arrogant in his AARs.....I just wanted to kick his ass. He constanly bragged about his "kill ratios" because he would might achieve a 3 to 1 casualty ratio in his favor. Well...a 3 to 1 casualty ratio is pretty awful when you are attacking a US infantry battalion with platoons of King Tigers and heavy artillery. A King Tiger costs almost as much as an infantry company.... Alas....Fionn is gone now. I would have liked to have handed him his arse.... The bottom line--read the AARs of many people, read real world books on tactics (Combined Arms Warfare in the 20th Century is good), read BFC posts, and above all--play the game against the best human players you can find. There is no substitute for real experience and you will learn more losing to a person in one game than you will in beating the AI 10 times. [ March 13, 2006, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

Lampcord, It is Rock, Paper, Scissors. Armor versus AT Guns usually results in dead armor. You need to bring (on-map) mortars (preferrably 81mm or British 3 inch) to kill the AT Guns. You can also use artillery, but on-map mortars are more responsive and accurate. Use "area fire" to kill the AT Guns. If an AT Gun is in a trench or rough terrain, fire two mortars at the AT Gun. Note that the dust, in very dry conditions, can block the mortar's LOS. This can be frustrating, but stick with it. It's all about combined arms....