Jump to content

Vark

Members
  • Posts

    1,349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vark

  1. Agree that aircraft should not be bought in single units, but flights which attack sequentially, but they do not attack en masse, unless you want a high rate of fratricide. Historically, there are plenty of accounts of the last pairs of a flight having the roughest time as they flew through a fully awakened AA defence.

    If you are buying flights of aircraft, perhaps the proficiency of the flight could be an average, with each individual plane having a separate ranking. Even better, flights could be intercepted by the AI CAP (if available, depending on an air superiority rating) and a random number allowed to attack.

    Talking of AA doctrine, the Germans would vacate any non-AA vehicle and let the specialist units deal with the air threat. The Russians were encouraged to fire everything in the air, which could be surprisingly effective or lead to large casualties, will that be modelled?

  2. Interestingly, these courageous and crafty Soviets, of official German accounts, often transformed, in the same accounts, to became vodka fuelled automata. What had changed? The first description was when the Germans were attacking, the second when they were retreating.

    The Soviets relied on surprise, shock and momentum which will be hard to represent at the tactical level, unless the German player really wants to play scenario after scenario, with stragglers, or dug in units flanked at the start of the game. Or watch his panzers burn as he is forced to attack a reinforced flank of an attack. The Russians knew the war would never be won at the tactical level, so rarely bothered spending precious resources on training, equipping or supplying it's participants. Hence Stalin's maxim, about the relationship between quality and quantity.

  3. You'd think, unless they were .44 ACW revolvers, then, on a still day, you'd pray for misfires! To be honest, any decent breeze would clear the air, but heaven help a gun battle in a bar. No wonder shotguns were popular, point and pull, no need to aim, you cannot see a damn thing anyway!

  4. Bil, once you have conducted your terrain analysis will you play like a Russian, trading security for speed and punching after a feint, or play like a capitalist and advance cautiously, trading momentum for troop preservation?

    Thought the ISU-152 was designed as a stop gap kitty killer, The 152mm HE should obliterate most things it hits, the trouble is hitting things with an artillery piece is tricky.

  5. I always liked the SU-85's over the SU-122/152's, as the former had a greater ROF, good AP capability and tank riders compensated for the lack of a hull MG. Will you buy some ATR's?

    Personally, I'd steer clear of the Il-2's as the points could be better spent on FO's , the close terrain invites aerial misidentification and subsequent blue on blue engagements.

  6. Flamethrowers were only effective if,

    a) They were vehicle mounted

    B) They were used against pinned units

    I spent ages trying to perfect the correct engineer tactics, which boiled down to

    1. Unload everything fireable on a building so the engineers can close

    2. Throw demo charges at max range

    3 Your FT teams then are given a fire command with pause and then a sneak back, so they don't empty the tanks

    4. A couple of squirts and then several teams assault with the others firing and flaming (You could not be harmed by friendly flames).

    5. Rest of the team follows, FT teams trailing as the platoon expands into a building/BUA.

    If it was timed correctly and the charges hit home it was devastating, if the AI threw a wobbly then scratch most of a platoon of engineers

    I seem also to recall that FT's were savage in forests and broken ground when in hiding (lost some elite recce teams in the Kharkov Zoo scenario to them).

    Play a Normandy scenario with a Crocodile and then ask if they make any difference!

  7. I remember in, IIRC, Michael Herr's Dispatches, about a Marine officer, the men disparagingly called, Lt Gladly, because he'd 'gladly do anything the men were asked to do.' He lasted a few weeks before dying, leading his men, from the front.

    If you have command delays, it should also be related to the unit's morale state, as well as proficiency. For added realism, NCO's could be modelled screaming at the men, 'get up you bleeps and get bleeping moving!'

  8. So a Soviet conscript company, pivots 90 degrees and heads for a new objective with no time delay. This is worse than an artificial time delay, which often forced you to consider where you would be at the end of a move order? If the delays were long, due to troop proficiency, you'd end them in cover, or give singular waypoints, bit more realistic than the first case.

    Sergei, SP III had a good system, but you could cheat by setting objectives at the opponents base line, thus allowing considerable room for manoeuvre. Still, waiting for my useless PLO command to regenerate CP's, so they could exploit a gap in the IDF's defences after a 130mm bombardment, (CP's were expended for calling in indirect fire/air support)was a revelation. Eventually, he had enough to change the company objective, by which time the Israelis has speedily deployed reinforcements!

  9. True, and if they retired it could hit morale hard, especially German infantry and their uber tanks. Morale, paradoxically, is probably best represented by games focusing on higher formations as it can be approximated into a binary, +1/-1 morale factor. At CM's scale it seems to be a firepower/CC algorithm, lest it became hostage to too many arbitrary or subjective factors. Yet, one could argue these factors are often the essential factors that determine success or failure at CM's level of simulation.

    I do seem to remember more hands going up, in CM1, when infantry faced AFV attacks. especially from the flank, but that might just be my memory.

×
×
  • Create New...