John_d

Cheers for the tips ppl! It'll keep me quiet for a while until I get another chance to post angry threads complaining about stuff

Sorry to revive this thread again, but I've just found something else that really pisses me off. Operations that are divided into 15 minutes battles. Firstly, I refuse to believe that any battle is fought in 15 minute segments. Secondly, it ruins the continuity of play. Thirdly, it creates situations where the defender is able to withdraw totally unimpeded. Unrealistic. Fourthly, it means that the attacker can simply overwhelm defences by simply starting next to an objective during the middle of a battle. Fifthly, there is no time for recon. You basically have to charge in and hope for the best. Sixthly, you really can't advance very far under fire in 15 minutes. I have had scenarios like this where a couple of snipers have held an entire battalion off, just b/c they slow the advance down just enough to ensure that they cannot reach the objective in 15 minutes.

Thanks for the advice so far, now I've had some sleep I feel a little more kindly disposed towards tanks. Just as a query- should I be moving my tanks around in a similar way that I move my infantry? I.e. 'bounding' forward as individual squads, using other members of the platoon to cover the advance and (scaling up) platoons covering other platoons and companies covering other companies. I've never tried doing this with armour before and its only just occurred to me that it might work. The only problem I can see is that tanks don't suppress like infantry. Any suggestions? I guess what I'm getting at is is there a good way of moving armour around the battlefield and what size groups should they be moved in? Also, I can never get the Seek command or Shoot and Scoot to work effectively. Whenever I use Seek (Hull Down) my tanks never actaully find a target, they just kinda trundle along then stop for no reason. I encounter similar problems with Shoot and Scoot- the tanks get far too hung up on following the movement order rather than selecting targets and never 'scoot' fast enough. How can I get the best out of these two commands? Btw, my friends and I have started using 'Shoot and Scoot' to refer to a one-night-stand. Thanks BFC! [ January 11, 2006, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: John_d ]

I hate tanks. I can never seem to get anywhere with them. It has got so bad that I hardly ever bother playing scenarios that use lots of tanks, just b/c I can't stand watch them all die. Doesn't matter which side I use or what 'tactics' I use, I always lose them. Normally I use infantry for AT jobs b/c I can never rely on my tanks to do the job effectively. Please help! I've tried following threads about tank tactics, but I never find myself in a situation where I can put them into practice. Or when I do try, something goes really wrong. E.g. just playing a scenario where I have alot of PzIIIs against a load of T-34s. I get that the PzIII has crappy guns and the T-34s have good frontal armour, so I attempt to outflank them. Doesn't work. Half of my tanks get bogged in the process (after I surrendered I discovered that not a single enemy tank had bogged and immobilised, as opposed to 5 of mine). When I finally get into position (actually directly behind the T-34s), each of my tanks fires off one or two shots each, all of which miss or bounce off the turret, then the T-34s wheel around (there are alot more of them than my tanks) and fire a volley that takes out half of my tanks immediately. The rest attempt to return fire over the next turn and attempt to reverse out, but after only 3 minutes of fighting, all of my tanks (about 2 platoons of PzIIIs and a couple of PzIVs) have been destroyed, only taking 3 T-34s with them. Now, I would have put this down to bad luck, except that this kind of thing is by no means unusual when I play. Could someone point me in the right direction please before I give up on tanks (and possibly give up CM in general- I've been playing for years and I've never really got any better. I think my poor handling of tanks is what lets me down tho). Please help!

Try searching the old topics- I'm sure that speed has nothing to do with it, but I could be mistaken. Either way, the largest determining factor is the ground pressure of the vehicle and, of course, the terrain type

Will assault boats be availble for river crossings etc?

This subject has been covered a number of times in other threads. Somebody did some tests and I think that they proved that the speed of the vehicle makes no difference. It has something to do with the amount of time that the vehicle has been moving in terrain in which it might bog, rather than its speed. Incidently, it is possible for vehicles to bog and immobilise in any terrain (including pavement and road). The feature is apparently meant to cover mechanical failure and thrown tracks, as well as actual bogging, which is why vehicles can 'bog' on solid surfaces

Ok, I've just observed the most retarded piece of scenario design ever. So bad in fact that needs to be named and shamed. TFK- Mission 5. Can't remember who its by. Basically, has all the makings of an excellent scenario. Big train station thingy and lots of trenches defending it. Except that the German re-enforcements in the second turn arrive magically INSIDE the Russian defensive ring. Utterly unforgiveable design. Ruined the entire battle and I quit immediately afterwards. A great shame given that the rest of the TFK series have been very enjoyable

In command, regular Russian infantry, no covered arcs, medium to long range. Thinking about it, its probaly the range that is preventing them from firing.

I've been having real difficulties with my overwatch groups. They never seem to fire. All they ever seem to do is to sit and watch their mates get blasted to kingdom come. Is there any way of making them more likely to fire at targets? I've asked this before on the forum, but not ever really got a satisfactory answer

Trucks. Too many trucks in too many scenarios. They have their 5 mins of glory as they move a squad from A to B, then they sit around until a plane or an arty barrage gets them. I only like trucks when they are absolutely necessary. They clog up roads too and I end up being the omnipotent traffic controller again And if your gonna give me infantry- please give me at least a company's worth. Anything less is just an expensive way of decorating the field with corpses (as JasonC's training scenarios demonstrated). And I'd like them all at once too please, unless there's a very good reason for it, rather than arriving platoon by platoon It seems that the issues here seem either to do with historical inaccuracy or playability. Interesting to the the grog/enthusiatic amateur split

Haha, that would rule out him being a prince then!

So which bits are true and which bits aren't? To be honest, I had suspected that it may be untrue, given that my friend also claimed to be the re-incarnation of Jim Morrison

Calling all Finland grogs! I've mentioned this before somewhere on here, but I used to be good friends with a guy who claimed that he was the rightful heir to the throne of the Karelia. At the time, I just wrote it off as an example of drug induced dillusion or merely a tall story intended to impress. His family was of Finnish extraction on his mother's side (I think, judging from his rather odd collection of middle names). His story went something along the lines of his grandmother being the princess of Karelia years ago (Karelia was apparently a principality) before the Second World War. He claimed that his family were forced to flee ahead of the Russian invasion, leaving behind the family wealth and property, which was later confiscated by the Soviets. The family were unable to return to Karelia, as they were regarded as class enemies by the Soviets and a potential rallying point for Karelian nationalism. Instead, they fled to England in poverty where they settled down and married into English families and became, to all extents and purposes, English. However, technically the bloodline still exists, leaving my friend as the heir to the throne (or at least very close to it) I have since lost contact with my friend, but the story has always intrigued me. I have attempted my own research into the subject, but haven't got anywhere. Karelian history seems pretty hard to come by. Furthermore, I can't find any mention of a Karelian royal family, much less a family tree or anything. I was wondering if anyone here might know anything that would help verify or discredit the story

Ah well, nevermind. Still have a soft spot for CMBO anyway. I did hear the explosion actually, it shook our windows and doors and woke me up. Later on, this weird black cloud spread across the sky. Looked kinda apocolyptic. We were downwind from it the day after too, so everything stunk of petrol for a few hours, which was weird. Women, eh? Can't live with them, can't live without them

I really don't understand where all this popular support for the T-34 is coming from!!! They're terrible! Their only redeeming feature is that you usually get hundreds of them

I was down t'pub with a mate of mine the other day (who is also a CM addict) and we got talking about the relative values of the various tanks produced by different nations. After a few pints were sunken and the conversation started to get a little, well, inebriated, we stumbled across an intriguing hypothesis. We decided that WW2 tank design is closely related to late 20th Century and 21st Century car design and then, in turn, both are linked to popular national stereotypes. Upon waking up the following morning (after a period of stumbling about trying to make tea) I thought that this forum would be an ideal place to discuss our idea. Allow me to present our findings... British Tanks All British tanks are sturdy, reliable, ugly and boring. Very much like British cars. And British food. And British women. But, whilst Johnny Foreigner is busy pouring scorn on the poor aesthetic quality of your Churchill, you can give him the kind of beating normally only now found in the headmasters offices of traditionalist public schools like Eton. Also, British tanks are an invaluable addition to any football riot. French tanks Franch tanks are very much like French cars. Small and nippy, they are great for doing shopping and picking up girls, but not much good for fighting. Most French tanks also come fitted with an automatic immobiliser that kicks in between 11.30 and 1.30, so that combat duties do not interfere with lunch. Some models are also fitted with loudspeakers that broadcast spoken word versions of pretensious existentialist literature, driving the enemy troops to suicide Italian tanks Like French tanks, Italian tanks don't seem to have been designed with combat in mind. They look nice and they impress the ladies, but its all show really when the guns come out. Very much like any Italian car you've ever driven. Beautiful, elegant styling- looks like the dog's bollocks- but nothing much really works. Also the only tanks to have more reverse gears than forward gears. All Italian APCs are tested to ensure that you can fit your mother and your 15 kids in the back. Italian tanks are easliy identified on the battlefield- they are always badly parked American tanks Damn, they look cool. The only tanks you can drive whilst smoking a cigar. In fact, American tanks are the exception that proves the rule. The Sherman series are dinky little things that seem totally at odds with the huge petrol guzzling motors that the Americans like to drive back home. However, my detailed research has uncovered some little known facts about the Sherman series that reveals a great deal about the American mindset. Firstly, they are fitted with special optics that make everything look like a threat. Friendly forces, enemy forces, civilians , livestock- everything gets treated to a burst of machinegun fire and a couple of HE shells just to be on the safe side. Secondly, there is an undefended hatch on the bottom of them that allows Mexicans to get in, only to be told they have to clean toilets for a living Canadian tanks All Canadian tanks are made by either the British or the Americans. Go figure Russian tanks Ever driven a Lada or a Skoda (yeah I know they were Czech, but close enough)? Ever been driven anywhere in one? Ever remind you of a T-34? In the same way that a Lada is a glorified go-kart, so the T-34 is a glorified dumpster. Indestructible and basic with absolutely no frills. Only comes in one colour (baby****-green). The interior of a Russian tank is also a great place to keep warm when you're queuing for 5 hours to buy a potato German tanks My favourite! Brutal, efficient Teutonic death-machines. Like a BMW driven like a shortsighted 14 year on crack. Love 'em. Somehow I can see the link between the Panther and the BMW 3 series. Tenuous, I know, but what a beautiful example of engineering in both cases! Excellent choice of colour schemes on both tanks and cars. Only the Germans could come up with something so functional, yet so elegant. It is also rumoured that you can fit about 3 gallons of beer and 52 bratwurst into the fuel tank of a PzIIIF, enough to keep the crew going for about an afternoon or so. Then supplies are replenished by women with unfeasibly large breasts in traditional Bavarian costume whilst the crew don leather shorts and spank each other. Most German tanks have a decent top speed too, allowing them to launch lightening quick advances on the sun-loungers by the pool, beating the Brits time and time again. Hungarian and Romanian tanks Grouped together b/c i rarely use them and can't think of anything to say about them. Other than they probably smell like goulash or something. They do look awful pretty though. That's enough from my insight into WW2 weaponary and how it fits into the wider sweep of history. Hopefully you will all go away informed and enlightened and I will get an honourary PhD from Cambridge for my research

I'd started it before they built it, but now you come to mention it I think'll have it as an objective. Need to buy CMAK really and do the map in there. Is it possible to import CMBO maps into CMAK? Ouch! Xmas and the ol' lady's birthday in the same week?! :eek: that must be a painful for the wallet!

Its near Reading, just between the M4 and the M3. Very nice woodland if you're into walking (which I happen to be). I also have a CMBO map of the place under construction- seeing as its near Sandhurst it probably would have been attacked if ze Germans had invaded. Its based on recent maps tho, so not a realistic view of how it would have been in 1940. Lidl is only good for cheap booze really- they do an excellent malibu rip-off which is virtually indistinguishable from the original. How's things with the Mrs, if you don't mind me asking? It was you that started the thread a week or two ago wasn't it?

Amen. Good to see this got resolved peacefully

Pretty much, yeah

I reckon by using huge troop concentrations coupled with knocking down any buildings that look like trouble. Also hose down a few buildings with MG fire or something and see if anyone gives their position away. Then knock the building down. But I'm sure Jason will disagree I think our tactics on this matter sit at either end of the subtlety spectrum. And also, I reckon that Jason's tactics probably work better in large towns or cities, whereas I've mostly developed my tactics assaulting villages and small towns.

Crowthorne has seen better days. Some idiot on the council gave Lidl planning permission to build a shop and now its full of pikeys and chavs. Great On the bright side, no-one has escaped from the loony bin for a while! Do you know Crowthorne well then? Crowthorne is the greatest town on Earth for those of you have haven't visited yet. Two ancient burial mounds, a very exclusive school (which I didn't go to), two mental insistutions, one high security prison, one former government testing site, miles of woodland, lizards and an ostrich farm make for utopia!

Hi mum! Before this all gets out of hand and the thread gets locked, I would like to attempt to resolve the issue for you both. Firstly, EM, a wargaming forum with international appeal probably isn't the best place for that signature. Funny as it is, not very appropriate. On the other hand, I think certain people have overreacted to it. I'm sure its not meant maliciously and its just a bit of fun. So we should all apologise, EM should consider removing the sig and we should get back to discussing heavy building mods

Ah ha, this is the only bit of CM that I really excel in! Try recon through fire. Pound a few likely looking buildings for a bit. This should hopefully persuade their occupants to leave, thus saving you the trouble of storming them with infantry. It is pretty much essential in urban combat to keep a few big guns behind to use as support. There's also recon throught death. Take a half squad and run about until it gets mown down. To be honest though, there are two keys to cracking urban combat- think like your enemy and advance in short, powerful bursts. Recon rarely plays a big role in my urban battles b/c LOS is so limited. As you have noticed, half hearted scouting attempts in urban areas tend not to work. Instead I find it easier to plan and move in such a way that recon is unnecessary. Firstly, you should be able to roughly identify likely enemy positions. Once done, blow them down or, preferably since it leaves no rubble, set them on fire. You can use the dust and confusion from a collapsed building to cover your advance too. Just make sure that once you have done this, you advance immediately or the enemy will take up position in the rubble and be even harder to root out. Spotting is hard in such situations, so the more you can work out before the battle starts, the less work you have to do later. Once the attack starts in earnest, use your guns to do the killing where possible. Send the infantry in first til they find something to kill, then roll up the street and blast them with a tank or something. the ISU-152 is perfect for this kind of thing. Secondly, try to move your troops in groups of a platoon minimum for no more than about 50m at a time. Move quickly (I usually use run most of the time) using the 'shadows' of surounding buildings in very short bursts. Speed and concentration is th key here. If you attack every building, no matter how small, with an infantry platoon with MG overwatch, there is little that can stand in its way. A sensible defender will generally not concentrate his troops too much in urban situations, simply b/c they will all be lost if the building collapses. Use this low troop concentration aginst him. If things start to get hairy or you suspect that there will be enemy troops in a building that you are about to enter, use the assault command. Or alternatively, send a half squad in first (I often use half squads to make sure that streets are safe to cross too). Once an urban attack is underway, I will tend to attack through depth- the first squad enters the building, makes contact and get pinned; the rest of the platoon arrives whilst the enemy unit is suppressing the first squad and mop up. Scale this up to a company sized assault and it will cut through most urban defensive lines. Remember to cover your flanks and circulate your leading squads to spread losses across the whole platoon/company. Also, take advantage of the limited LOS and flank where necessary Oh, and if in doubt, hit them with high caliber artillery fire. That will shake them up a bit and hopefully make them give their positions away Using this technique, you should be able to move around urban areas without doing recon first.