Jump to content

Cuirassier

Members
  • Posts

    555
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cuirassier

  1. Well AFAIK, information is not shared between formations with different parent units in CMSF. So an infantry company can't tell a tank company where the enemy is, even if they are right beside each other, because they aren't from the same battalion. This is what I think needs to be fixed. I guess a more flexible TOE could fix this. As in that scenario designers could have the possibility of buying task forcers and kampfgruppes, so tank units and infantry are all under a single command. I have found some interesting anecdotes regarding the British experience with phones on tanks in Normandy. A lot of them say that it wasn't a useful feature. Infantry complained that the tankers rarely bothered to pick up on the other end, being busy fighting the war and all. Tankers on the other hand said it wasn't a good idea for infantry to hang out behind the tanks since they may slam it into reverse at any moment. So it seems the Brits at least hardly bothered with the things. Then again, they also had serious problems coordinating tanks and infantry.
  2. I agree that MG's need to be change for CM:N. In the real deal, they denied open ground or at least seriously slowed infantry advance, driving men to ground and sneaking around. In CMSF, they don't remotely achieve this. I've done tests where a US infantry platoon advanced from 700m to 100m against 4 PKM MG's without even stopping for a rest, over open ground. It's silly really. MG's have a specific, doctrinal role within the defence, and right now I consider them broken in CMSF. The do diddly to stop movement over open ground.
  3. Histories of the campaign make clear that infantry/armor cooperation was key to being successful in tactical combat. There are many cases of the Americans, Brits and Germans getting it right or getting it totally, and at times disastrously, wrong. I am curious if there would be a way to model this, other than how well a player scouts, uses his units on the map etc. For example, the game gives ratings to platoon and company commanders deciding how good they are at coordinating with armor. So say an infantry CO has a good armor coordination rating. This would mean that whatever his unit sees (especially important items such as enemy tanks, AT guns etc), get passed on to tanks that are out of LOS of the enemy but within a certain radius of the infantry CO. This would be an abstract way of simulating a runner going to the tanks and saying, "there are two Stug's on that ridge up ahead," or something like that. This ability would speed up the tanks' process of target acquisition and give them an advantage if they player then decided to have them engage. On the other hand, CO's that are poorly rated, have low morale or the tanks are buttoned, cannot communicate with the tanks. Therefore the tanks have to acquire targets on their own or use area fire. So the basic idea is that tanks can, in a sense come under command of infantry units in game, sharing info with them if they are close enough, unbuttoned and the infantry they are dealing with has a rating good enough to actually 'talk' with them. Thoughts?
  4. Maybe Red vs Green would be most suitable.
  5. I would have waited for you to attack. The tactical defender generally has a pretty big advantage in CMSF, especially when attacking armor can't stand at range and toss HE without even having to wait for spots.
  6. Only if the enemy is thoroughly suppressed or does not have LOS (deployed in back positions). It's generally a risky move though if you don't have a good idea of where all his positions are or not all his units are suppressed.
  7. IIRC, this is one of the crappier scenarios I've played. The reason is the designer apparently does not understand combined arms or purposely decided to not include the proper force to make the mission unrealistically difficult and silly. How is this so? The US force is expecting to drive through an ATGM/SPG front backed by significant infantry forces with RPG's, in trenches and on higher ground. Yet the US gets a platoon of useless scouts, a platoon of infantry and Abrams and no artillery. Artillery is a must for a mission like this, as is at least a company of infantry. The only useful element is the Abrams because they can shrug off repeated hits. But you still need to use them almost independently to smash through the whole defense network while the other arms are pretty much absent. It is simply poor scenario design, imo.
  8. Really, the 7.62x54R won't go through the plates? I always thought the body armor was only really effective against the short 7.62 and 5.45.
  9. I think Russia vs Ukraine/NATO, China vs Russia or China vs India would be cool. C'mon, what would be cooler than modern Russian forces fighting in the Ukraine against T-80's?
  10. The gun can penetrate the Tiger's armor easily. Its drawback is accuracy.
  11. Except the other historical counter was to use massed armor firing direct HE. This doesn't work when guns are placed behind the crest. So yes, it is a bug.
  12. IMO, Montgomery could be regarded as mediocre at best. In Normandy he was constantly searching for a decisive breakthrough when the conditions clearly didn't allow for it. Sure battles such as Epsom and Goodwood wore out the Germans. But those battles were more expensive for the British than they needed to be. If anything, Montogomery could have benefited from exercising more caution in Normandy. Instead of loading infantry or tanks into massive spearheads chasing after the illusion that he could beat the Germans to their own rear, he should have been more willing to probe with smaller forces over a longer period of time, and aim to stand on the tactical defensive whenever faced with serious German armor. As for Mark Clarke being an incompetent douchebag..well I can't really disagree with that one lol. It is hard to argue that he had any idea what he was doing in the Italian campaign. Edit: Though I can't help but vote Voroshilov as the biggest douchebag of the all...
  13. More important than any of those things for CMBB 2 would be to model Soviet AT weapons correctly. Meaning 76.2mm L/42 goes through 80mm plate under 500m, reliably. Stugs would lose their dominance and Tigers would at least be vulnerable to the historical 'flank and close' method. Tigers will always remain an uber weapon, however. That is what they were historically. German players just need to be responsible when choosing forces and understand that Tigers were never even close to having a majority within the German AFV fleet. In 1943 games, German players should almost uniformly take Pz III L/60, Pz IV and Marders.
  14. I haven't seen this bug yet while playing. But then again, I'm too afraid to put any unit on a balcony, or roof for that matter.
  15. Not to mention that the 1:1 representation results in some silly situations at times. For example, a squad in sight of a tank but the AT guy will not fire because he does not have LOS. Or a whole squad pancaking onto an action spot resulting in the death of every soldier thanks to a HE shell. Personally I prefer the more acbstracted CMx1 system. Not a fun to watch, but I feel it produces more realistic results.
  16. Well surely the Italians, Rumanians and Hungarians will make it in eventually. Can't model Uranus or Saturn without them.
  17. During the planning phase, there are two very important questions that you need to answer. First, you identify an approach route that you can fit your rifle company into without overconcentrating. Secondly, you want most of this cover to be 100-200m from the expected enemy MLR. Cover along the approach route is also important, though a well conducted advance can still move over open ground nearly devoid of cover. However, for that last stretch, you want shell hoes, trees, fences or whatever else there is to shelter your men so they can rally and fire back at effective small arms range. The next question to answer is where to place overwatch weapons that can effctively help the advance. From your comments, it seems to me that this may be your biggest problem. If the enemy unvails more of his defense to stop the second platoon you send in, this should not concern you the least. Heavy weapons should now have even more troops to chew on. And bring up more infantry, which serves to create another threat to the defense while giving the pinned guys to rally. Remember, the fundamental idea behind depth tactics is to continually feed fresh forces into the grinder at a sustainable pace. The enemy needs to use new shooters to deal with each new threat you make. Because you have greater odds, you should be able to outlast the defense, provided you do not give him any freebees. As for withdrawing the point, the best way is to simply gain fire ascendency. The job of point is the worst job to have, and the men rely heavily on the guys watching their backs to make it out with at least some of the alive. There is a reason that the US Army, for example, rotated point duty throughout companies, battalions, etc.
  18. The tactics are pretty much the same now as they were in WWII. Against a competent defender, you can't hope for them to unveil themselves because of your infantry or your light armor. They will wait, holding fire to hit your heavy afv's, which is their doctrinal role. If you have enough arty, you can launch preplanned fires, hoping to knock out a couple that way, without spots. I have also found that airpower has a decent knack for finding and killing ATGM's on its own. However, this necessitates a rather high force to space, a plan driven attack and solid guesses on likely positions. Another standard tactic is simply to trade through them. Like well commanded AT guns, when they unveil themselves, they will usually bag a tank. But then your mortar overwatch takes them out in turn. This is why attackers go in with odds. Fights often require the attacker and defender to exchange certain weapon systems evenly until one side runs out. The side that then runs out first then finds its force disarticulated in some sense and the fight snowballs from there. The last method, which can be combined with the above two, is to attack with significant armor on a narrow enough front. Most importantly, you need to attack along the unexpected route, avoiding his killsacks. Recon can help in finding this route, but the best way to go about it is simply to guess correctly in the planning phase and execute it aggressively. The idea is to leave 1/3 to 1/2 of his ATGM's out of position by simply attacking where they aren't, and defeat the rest with the combination of planned arty and high local armor odds. The armor platoon is the minimum force needed for this attack, while a company is preferred. So there are ways to minimize casualties on your side. And there ways to at least make the enemy bleed in return. What you can't expect though is to blow through his AT screen for no loss everytime. The armor war tends to be high variance, especially when you choose to ramp it up by shoving armor down a selected route. But really there is no easy way around it. You have to take your licks and make sure to give them too.
  19. I'm not sure if one is necessary. There are lots of people on the forum willing to help in this area. Not to mention there are hundreds of great posts re: tactics in the CMBB and CMAK thread areas that still apply for CMSF.
  20. And you have made the lamest, one-sided analysis of the game. Try different scenarios. Try red vs. red. Or maybe use tactics that actually require thought and accomplish more than getting your force killed in one and a half seconds.
  21. AAcooper, That is incorrect. Lehr's first action against US forces was its mid-July counterattack against US forces advancing on St. Lo, which predictably ended in failure. Cobra didn't happen until the end of July either. End of June, Lehr was west of 12 SS, and was containing the west wall of Epsom, in the British sector.
  22. Yep, 1. Company of the 503 Heavy tank battalion had Tiger II's. They were at first in LXXXVI Corps sector and shifted to I SS Panzer Corps near the end of July iirc. So they were opposite British 2nd Army.
  23. "Terrain had better favour the defender - otherwise, why is he there?" For operational reasons. The Syrians need a continuous front in depth if they want to have any hope in fighting the coalition in a conventional campaign. Syria isn't one giant reverse slope. It is impossible and unrealistic to assume that every Syrian defensive position in the country will have perfectly integrated combined arms while the coalition attackers will not. So the particularly tough positions will not be assaulted and the coalition will envelop them by striking more suitable points. Thats the doctrine. Likewise, the coalition forces, by virtue of having the initiative and attacking, can choose ground that maximizes their ability to coordinate and use firepower. "Given a choice, Blue never ever ever wants to give Red an even break. The whole point is to steamroll over the enemy is as one-sided a contest as possible." Of course. Thats always the goal in combat. But that didn't mean the people in CMBB made scenarios that featured a whole Panzer Reg. with Panzergrenadiers overrunning the borderguards while they were still sleeping. There is no fun in that. No tactics or strategy. It is a movie. "Sometimes an attack has to go in with less than desirable force ratios. Sometimes you do have to fight 3:2 or even 1:1 - but if so, the justification for it and the force balance must make some sort of sense. There must be a logical reason for why we are assuming this level of extra risk - and even then, there must be realistic expectations of what that force can accomplish (I'm thinking specifically of cascading objectives)" Sure. Then make this or that justification in the briefing. Either way, a coalition attack at 3:2 odds is hardly a risk. If they bring their whole tool kit, they'll be fine, provided the commander has half an idea what he is doing. I will also point out that a 3:1 odds ratio isn't always sustainable. When you open an attack, and have the advantage of global odds, surprise etc, it may be expected to have these odds or even higher. But campaigns aren't won in single breakthroughs. Enemy reserves rush to the wound site and local odds quickly dwindle, often the the global odds ratio. "Victory conditions need to adjust to account for the effect each side is trying to achieve. Red isn't going to hold that bit of ground in the face of a 3:1 ratio - so don't make holding it the key to Red's victory. Instead, Red's task is to inflict casualties and impose delay - and I can state with a fair amount of authority that NATO armies are VERY sensitive to casualties. Lose 6 guys in 24 hours and it's a disaster..." I guess CMSF's setting is to blame for this one. Sure you can adjust settings to balance victory conditions. But still, not many red players like to see their Republican Guard battalion mowed down in 5 min in exchange for a squad or two of infantry. This imbalance has been one of the biggest gripes on the board, if you look around. "Sometimes, it's not about the attack - it's about the COUNTERATTACK. Sure, your combat team steamrolled that poor little platoon - but then a tank coy hit your flank while you were consolidating on the objective... how about them apples?" Sounds like a scenario? Javelin's make short work of those. Or airpower. Or Abrams, Bradelys and Challengers.
×
×
  • Create New...