John_d
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by John_d
-
-
I'm with Xavier here, I never really bother to clear minefields. Normally I don't have time or my engineers come under fire. Just force your troops through and accept that a few of them won't come out with a full quota of limbs
-
Elmar- that sucks mate!
-
Shouoldn't matter anyway cos troops in boats, even when on land, are sitting ducks and u can pick them off with impunity
-
sorry, I meant that vehicles don't get HQs , nor can they take advantage of them. So how do halftracks fire?
-
So how do you spot for mortar half-tracks in CMBO where vehicles don't get command bonuses?
-
I once lost a whole infantry company of re-enforcements to a dive-bomber. Thankfully they weren't really needed, but it was still a pain in the arse
-
Can HQs spot for FOs?
-
You can always set up your own overwatch groups on the flanks, if you are on the defense. Two groups of ranged weapons overlooking the most likely path of enemy advance, but at a distance and kept well hidden. I've done this a few times to good effect. Your opponent moves between the two groups without noticing them, then sets up an overwatch position for an offensive move on your main position. Now most people don't defend their positions from sides they don't expect to be attacked from, so the chances are that your flanking groups will get clear shots at the enemy's side and rear, catching their overwatch units in a crossfire. If done correctly,you can time it so that your flanking groups open up when the enemy is already committed to the attack, thus causing the main assault to stall and hopefully break. Then the flanking groups get loads of kills as the opponent's troops retreat back through their kill zones. Also, these flanking groups are excellent as recon units
-
I agree with dieseltaylor on this one- ATG are very good if used properly. Its just that the AI rarely does, unless the scenario designer sets them up properly. But trying to take out ATGs with tanks alone is lunacy- you have to risk sacrificing a tank every time you want to get the ATGs to open up and reveal their positions. I think there's been loads written on how to deal with ATGs in this forum over the years, but I don't think anyone has seriously suggested spotting with tanks
-
Actually, I've thought of a few more.
Operations where that attacking force obliterates the defending force on the first battle and the defenders never receive enough re-enforcements to get back up to strength. And at the same time, the attacking force gets re-enforced until it just becomes a walkover. Boring for both sides
Aircraft are ok, providing the designer provides either enough cover for you to hide your troops or some AA defence.
Flat, steppe or desert type maps where you only get given infanty and are expected to take on tanks and other stuff with huge range. There's a reason why this is avoided in real life.
AT guns vs tanks. By this I mean battles where one side only has tanks and the other only has AT guns. Tanks just aren't any good at spotting and destroying AT guns on the one hand, and the AI doesn't use AT guns very well on the other.
This isn't to say that all scenarios that have one or more of these features are irredeemably crap (with a couple of exceptions that only occur b/c of the game engine), just that *generally* they don't make for enjoyable scenarios
Oh, and this is not to say that I don't enjoy the majority of scenarios that I download off the net. Most of them are fantastic and I really appreciate that there are people out there who spend their time doing this for little or no reward, just to increase the enjoyment of players like myself (who can't design scenarios for love nor money). This whole thread was inspired after playing couple of scenarios that were rather disappointing (which will remain nameless). But this kind of thing tends to form a minority of what's out there.
Scenario builders of the world- keep up the good work!
[ December 19, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: John_d ]
-
Is it just me or do daisy chain mines often prove to be more useful than straight AT mines precisely b/c the enemy can see them? Most of the time people try to drive around them, which allows you to use them for defensive parameters or to channel the enemy into a particular route. Nobody in their right mind will risk a 50% chance of losing a tank by driving through a clearly visible minefield
-
This is just a rant basically. Just all the annoying things I've seen in scenarios that I hope never to see again. I was gonna put this in the scenario forum, but nobody much goes in there, so I decided to put it here. These aren't in any particular order or anything and I'm sure that alot of people will disagree, but I just want to get this off my chest
1) Deep mud or snow. Yes, I realise that sometimes armies have to deal with this stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that it absolutely no fun trying to coax 500 Russian conscripts 1km through deep mud under fire. Officers have done this b/c they have to do it, not b/c they choose to do it
2) Huge, empty battlegrounds. "Wow!", I think when the scenario loads up, "that's an area about the size of Germany to fight over. Great!". But then I look around for my troops. I notice a company of men in transport and a couple of tanks. In a huge, huge area. consequently, most of the game is spent moving my troops across the map (usually with loads of traffice jams and bogging) and my troops arrive at the objective in such a piecemeal fashion that they get shot to pieces. Now again, I realise that this is the kind of problem taht faces commanders all through history, but I bought this game to fight a few battles, not act as some kind of omnipotent traffic controller. Its just not on :mad:
3) Too little time. If you want me to advance 2km under fire through enemy fortifications with virtually no cover, then fine. But at least give me a realistic time frame in which to do it. Give me an hour, or maybe two. Don't expect me to do it in 20 mins
4) Re-enforcements arriving under fire. I really hate this. The cavalary rolls over the hill just at the perfect moment, only to find itself under direct fire, usally from something that you didn't previously know was there. Please get re-enforcements to arrive in cover so at least they have a cat in hells chance of surviving
5) Re-enforcements arriving in total disorder. Now, I don't know much about scenario design, but surely it is possible to ensure that command HQs arrive near their troops, or that vehicles aren't so tightly packed that you have to spend 5 mins sorting them out, when they could be out killing stuff?
6) Uber-tanks. Why oh why oh why does anyone think its fun to be be told that you have to take out about three dozen King Tigers with a bunch of Shermans or something? It frustrating and its dull and there weren't that many King Tigers produced to expect to find so many of them in one skirmish at one time. That's why CM has rariety! Take note!
7)Capture the flags then exit scenarios. I hate these and I've never won one. Exiting, fair enough. Capturing the flags, fair enough. But has anyone noticed that if you're exiting your troops, they're not holding ground? This may seem obvious to some, but evidently not to everyone. Furthermore, what's the only way to ensure both safe passage for your troops and make sure that the enemy cannot capture the objectives? One word (JasonC will love me for this no doubt
)- ATTRITION!!! When was the last time that you had enough time to wear down the enemy's forces and wipe them out, and then regroup and parade off the battlefield? Never, in my experience. Either give us a decent exiting scenario or a straightforward fight with objectives. Don't try to combine them. 8) Any combination of the above
I'm sure more will occur to me in the future. Til then, please join me in my rant about crappy scenario design (or maybe its just an attempt to pass the buck for my poor planning and leadership)
Rant over
-
I'm ok in infantry only type situations, its just when I have combined forces, I always feel like my infantry isn't really pulling its weight as compared to the tanks. Is this normal?
-
Ok, while we're on the subject I have a question.
What is the point of infantry in CMBB???????
I've played CMBO for longer than CMBB and although I realise that the infantry there was totally unrealistic, I can't help but think that CMBB might be too far the other way. I have never really found a use for my infantry in CMBB (with a couple of exceptions- urban combat, scouting and getting chewed up by enemy guns so I can find out where they are). Anything that infantry can do, my armoured units can do better. My infantry frequently disobey orders, fail to return fire, never open fire whilst on overwatch, seem to all be very shortsighted and get spooked at anything. On the other hand, my tanks never spook (well, hardly ever), always do what they're told and generally kick ass. Most combined arms battles I fight, my infantry squads will get a handful of kills between them (not even one per squad member usually) whereas my tanks frequently rack up kills of 20 - 100. What can I do to rectify this? I can use infantry when that's all I've got, but if I have the choice between the two, I always opt for the tanks just cos they can be relied upon to get the job done properly
-
Not a bogging issue, but an artillery one. Amphibious assault on German positions. Had quite a long time before my troops were due to arrive at the beach head, so I decided to delay my artillery barrage so that it would come down a minute or two before my troops hit the beach, giving the enemy as little time to recover as possible. As that barrage lifted, my troops would start to unload onto the beach and second barrage would hit further inland to cut off the roads further back and prevent my opponent from re-enforcing his positions. Also, in addition to the main force, I sent two more smaller forces to capture other objectives (one was a building overlooking a road that I thought the enemy would use to move troops along and the other was a platoon of pioneers who I hoped would be able to make it round the back of the enemy fortifications on the beach and destroy them). A perfect plan, or so I thought.
First off, my pioneers run into problems. I'd sent them around the side of the main beach to land near some cliffs that were nicely sheltered. Turns out there's not enough space to land all the of the platoon. Half of them land and the other half bob about in the water. Enemy MGs figure out where they are pretty quickly. Everyone dies.
The other secondary force lands quite some distance from the main landing site, meeting no resistance. Except an enormous minefield! Boats are now useless as they are now grounded and my troops seem less than enthusiastic about walking through mines and barbed wire to get to the objective.
Oh well, I think to myself, its only a couple of platoons- the main attack force should be able to cope on their own, although its gonna take a little longer. T'was not to be. The first artillery barrage lands off target, right on the heads of my troops in their landing craft. They are still about 100m out to sea at this point. Lots of death. When the bedraggled survivors finally make it to land, the second barrage lands, off target, where the first barrage should have landed- which is now exactly where my troops are. I cancel the barrage and order them to charge up the beach, straight into a huge network of trenches, mines, barbed wire and bunkers. They don't get very far. As a final indignity, my opponent's artillery suddenly opens up on my men trapped on the beach, landing exactly on target. I surrender and go get drunk on my own.
-
Also, 315 from Jason's scenario pack is good practice for AT infantry tactics. Although it also shows up the major weakness of AT infantry- they can't move much without dying. You have to keep them concealed.
Possible Spoiler.......
On 315, try playing as the Germans and driving around the Russian positions instead of trying to fight through them. It takes 10 mins for the German tanks to get around the Russians, but you can easily win the firefight in the remaining 15 mins once the Russians no longer have the advantage of the terrain on their side
-
Juan, isn't NAMBLA a dodgy kiddyfiddler assocation? I'm not sure how comfortable I would be using their 'scoring' system!!
-
Just back to the original post, AT guns are alot more use than you seem to be giving them credit for. The key is to keyhole them so that they only have a narrow LOS (e.g. down a street etc) then keep them hidden until you are alost certain that you will get a kill. AT guns will generally make a mess of just about anything provided they hit them in the right place at the right range. Its takes a little patience to know when to open up. I have sometimes been forced to never use an AT gun just b/c I've never got the opportunity to get a good shot at anything. Bear in mind that AT guns are easy to keep concealed and will generally not give their positions away even after they have fired (especially the German flak guns) but they are really easy to kill once you know where they are.
In terms of positioning, I always try to place my AT guns in a place where they should be able to get clear shots at the flanks or rear of the attacking tanks. Again, patience is the key here as in order to get these shots you will probaly have to spend 5 or 10 minutes watching enemy tanks roll past. Also, if you are worried about rounds bouncing off stuff, but lots and lots of AT guns. One of the scenarios provided with the demo was like this. If you can make sure that the enemy tanks will be pelted with fire constantly, the chances are that you will hit the gun, the tracks or the tank commander or even a combination of the above. They will usually abandon after a turn or two, even if there is no armour penetration.
-
But no ammo
-
Excellent point there Dillweed about the learning curve. Nearly all the people I have talked into picking up a cheap copy of the CM series have taken it bak within a week b/c it is too difficult to start off with. Eventually, I worked out that the only way of keeping there interest was to play TCP/IP with them and let them win half the time. Something like CM might have wdier appeal if it contained some kind of grading for the difficulty of the scenario, so novices could plactice on relatively easy missions before moving onto harder ones. Needn't take the form of level 1, level 2 etc, but just be included in the scenario description
-
Does that mean that the polish word for field or area is 'pole'? Do they call themselves Poles or is that what other ppl call them (like the Hungarian/Magyar thing)
-
Well, the first bit is true. He claimed he was the Prince of Karelia, wrongfully driven out of his country by the Soviets in 1940 or sometime around then. We had great plans to take it back and place him back on his throne- recruiting the best part of 12 Finns to take on the Russian army armed only with WW1 rifles and molotov cocktails. But maybe 12 Finns would be overkill, given the size of the Russian armed forces. Anyway, we sobered up shortly afterwards and called it off
-
I used to be friends with a guy who claimed to be the Prince of Karelia (in Finland). He used to wrestle bears in the freezer compartment of our local supermarket. Honestly
-
22 years old, unemployed dosser. I was under the impression that CM:SF was going to be along the lines of the 'we go' system from the original CM series. Oh well.
To be honest, the community probably grows in a very unique way anyway. Most ppl who play these things tend to get a little obsessive about them and force it down the throats of their friends and families until they've been brainwashed into buying a copy for themselves to see what all this business about 'bounding overwatch' and the screams of 'DIE NAZI PIGDOGS' is about. Maybe 1 in 10 of the ppl u hassle into buying it will like it, become obsessed and force it on their friends, completing the cycle.
Maybe CMSF will get more ppl into the CM series, but I doubt that most of the new converts will be interested in the older titles. Thus hopefully we will have somewhere gentlemanly to discuss our favourite pastime without being interupted by spotty 15 year olds. May I suggest that we convert the old CMBO forum into a secret members lounge (seeing hardly anyone uses it anyway) where we can indulge in groggery in peace without others judging our secret passion for obscure military hardware.
)- ATTRITION!!! When was the last time that you had enough time to wear down the enemy's forces and wipe them out, and then regroup and parade off the battlefield? Never, in my experience. Either give us a decent exiting scenario or a straightforward fight with objectives. Don't try to combine them.
Effectiveness of Field Artillery.
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Have you got a link to that Jason?