black_prince
-
Posts
213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by black_prince
-
-
I think it's more likely that Pakistan would look to China who they like to refer to as their 'all weather friend' and which certainly has a much more antagaonistic attitude towards India than Russia has. Potentially, China could clash with India in their own disputed border regions in attempt to maintain the integrity of Pakistani territory in the hope that they would be able to recoup some of their investment in Pakistan and recover their interests their once the dust had settled.
-
Yep, an opportunistic Indian invasion to secure more ground in Kashmere and raid terrorist camps would throw some very interesting things into the mix-Indian vs Pakistani armour and high altitude infantry operations accross the line of control.
-
I think the black smoke is supposed to represent vegitation fires.
-
CMSF 2: Pakistan
Elements of the army and ISI sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists instigate a coup. International forces intervene to defeat the coup and safeguard Pakistan's nuclear weapons stockpiles.
I think this would make for an interesting mix of terrain, enemy oob and conventional/asymmetric warfare.
New features:
ISTAR assets such as UAVs (inluding micro-UAVs) integrated into players oob.
Fully functioning vehicle masts
Bridges and motorway flyovers
Improved scenario editor
More/better animations
-
You can use the hide command but it reduces spotting abilities.
-
What Erwin said. If you don't have enough heavy weapons/ammo to eliminate the enemy from outside of the building use very heavy fire to suppress the building, as the assaulting force closes in switch the supporting squads to target light. Then FAST the assaulting squad to a waypoint just next to the building with a target command inside the building and a 20 second pause. Your forces should chuck a few grenades into the building. The next waypoint will be either quick or assault into the building depending on wether you are using a full squad or a fire team.
-
You're welcome.
The experience levels can make quite a big difference. Green units in particular can take a very long time to spot and engage targets compared to units with higher experience levels. Other than that I would say you just had some pretty bad luck with that one.
-
In war extraordinary things happened and having completely unexpected things happen in CMBN (so long they are rare occurences) actually gives the game a more authentic feel. However, I would have to agree with DieselTaylor that the crew behaviour is pretty hard to justify and iirc Steve did concede that this is something that may need to be looked at. I suppose in this situation it is possible that the crew may judge it to be preferable to remain inside the tank -if there is no fire- until it has reversed back into cover. Something tells me that the Tac AI isn't that sophisticated though.
-
v
I myself found it strange when i had some 17pdr AT guns hidden in a hedge covering a road coming over the crest of a hill with cover arc on, the theory being the oncoming panther (buttoned) would get blasted as it came over the crest.
Infact the AT gun never fired a shot and the panther after a few secs spotted it & no more AT gun.
I would recommend reading the thread 'ATG issues re-visited'. You'll find a lot of good tips on the use of AT
Also a similar situation, AT hidden in low hedge had not fired and i kept the cover arc deliberately short so as to ensure the enemy tanks got close enough to ensure their destruction. The gun was spotted from about 300m away and the tanks opened up but did not hit/pin the gun, i deleted the arc and set the gun to engage the lead tank but it would not open fire for whatever reason, the gun got toasted along with a good section of that flank unable to defend itself without AT capabilities. any ideas?
In the first scenario outlined above was the Panther inside the target arc? What were the respective experience levels? What angle was the Panther at relative to the gun muzzle?
I would say that having a target arc of less than 300 metres for an ATG is probably asking for trouble (especially a big beast like a 17pounder). Other than being harder to spot and harder to hit (if properly sited) the ATG doesn't have any protection. When you take optics and binoculars into consideration, I imagine a 17pounder (and its crew) would be pretty easy to spot at 300 meteres-especially once it had fired. Even if it were to get the first shot off it isn't likely to survive long at that range.
I would recommend you read the thread ATG issues re-visited if you havn't yet. You'll find some good tips there on the use of anti-tank guns.
-
Sound advice. Will try that. The only trick now is to get within 30metres of a tank! It does sound unnervingly close. I don't know why but I always assumed the range to be about 100metres.
Yeah, 30 metres is hair-raisingly close. Succesfully stalking a tank with a panzerfaust isn't always easy but it is very satisfying. Remember, low walls, high crops, the 'slow' command and anything that causes the tank to button up is your friend.
-
They'll fire automatically but you may want to give them a target arc of 30 metres or less so they don't open fire on other targets/exposed crewmen with small arms before the tank is in range of the panzerfaust.
-
I've had alot of success with Panzerfauste but you should bear in mind that the type of Panzerfauste featured in CMBN only has a 30 metre range. The only times I've ever seen small arms fired at buttoned tanks is either when the TC has ducked inside the tank a few seconds before or when the tank is in between the squad and the target they are actually firing at.
-
Just carried out a little test to satisfy my own curiosity about how spotting/hitting a well positioned ATG plays out in the game. I only did 5 runs which I realise is too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. However what I did take away from it is that there is alot of variability in game and people should resist jumping to conclusions based on one or two incidents (this is a general point and not aimed at the OP).
I had a Sherman with 76mm gun in the open facing a Pak40 with a short target arc behind the crest of a hill. In each test run the Pak spotted the Sherman almost immediately. Here's the data from the tests:
1x Sherman M4a1(76) vs 1x Pak40 positioned behind a hill crest
regular
unbuttoned
facing towards ATG
range: 1040metres
1st test: approx 4 minutes to spot
1st round struck forward slope
2nd round hit
2nd test
3 minutes to spot
1st round high
2nd struck forward slope
3rd round struck forward slope
4th round is high (but very close)
5th round struck the forward slope
6th round hit
3rd test
4 minutes 40 seconds to spot
1st round high
2nd round struck forward slope
3rd round high
4th round struck forwarrd slope
5th round crest-1 casualty (red) amongst the crew
6th round struck forwad slope
7th round hit
4th test
2minutes 20 seconds to spot
1st round struck to the left of the gun, incapacitating all but 1 of the crewmen
2nd round struck the crest
3rd round hit
5th test
5 minutes 7 seconds to spot
1st round high
2nd round high
3rd round struck the forward slope
4th round hit
-
When it comes to spotting AT guns, I don't have any personal experience. But here's a quote from Otto Carius that I found interesting:
Tank commanders who slam their hatches shut at the beginning of an attack and don't open them again until the objective has been reached are useless or at least second rate. There are of course six to eight vision blocks mounted in a circle in every cupola that allow observation. But they are only good for a sector of the terrain, limited by the size of the individual vision block. If the commander is looking through the left vision block when an antitank gun opens fire from the right then he will need a long time before he identifies it from the buttoned-up tank....It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain. If he happens to look halfway to the left when an enemy antitank gun opens fire halfway to the right, his eye will subconciousely catch the shimmer of the yellow muzzle flash. His attention will immediately be directed toward the new directon and the target will usually be identified in time. -
Wasn't Kursk an example of one of the few situations where Hitler made a better call than his generals?
Not from what I've read. Hitler insisted on delaying the operation until the new Panther tanks were ready to participate, against the advice of his generals. The pincer attack on the base of the salient was doctrinally sound if somewhat unimaginative. As it happened, the Russians had excellent intelligence on the German's intentions and prepared accordingly. The unreliable early Panthers made no significant contribution. Eventually, the offensive was called off when the allies launched the invasion of Sicilly. All in all, Hitler's imposed delays proved disastrous.
-
In your opinions are the organic Battalions that are listed in CMBN about equal in lethality? I know there are small differences, but in essence a Battalion is a Battalion whether it is Brit/Yank/Kraut?
I think the Brits may appear to be at a disadvantage if compared at a company to company level with the Americans and Germans but at a batallion level their extra rifle company, Bren carriers and 6pounders probably make up the difference.
-
Gerd probably hated the Russians like all the German generals did and gave that answer to piss them off
Yep, agreed.
-
Interesting thread. Apparently, the Russians asked von Runstedt the same question after the war. They were expecting him to answer 'Stalingrad'. When he answered with 'the Battle of Britain' the Russians went off in a huff.
-
I've played alot of CMSF and a good bit of armour vs armour CMBN games. I don't get the impression that the accuracy is comparable, even with the German afvs.
-
Have played this mission against the AI without encountering this problem.
-
@Nik_B Just did a little test against the Panther and Tiger at a range just over 1000 metres. I can report that the APDS rounds are certainly capable of penetrating both Tiger and Panther armour at this range in game. The Tiger recieved more penetrations than the Panther, however the after armour effects of these rounds are very poor. They would also appear to be noticeably less accurate than the standard AP rounds (which did not penetrate).
-
It sounds to me as though you are doing alot of things right.
If I have dedicated recon assets then I usually send them up the flanks of the map, far ahead of my main force. I'll use scout teams split from infantry squads to look ahead and usually keep the rest of the platoon about one field back. So long as you're keeping an eye out (as you already are) for enemy fire missions, this shouldn't expose your forces to too much danger and will save you some time.
The type of artillery fire mission you use will tend to vary depending on:
the type of target
the assets available,
how much time there is left on the clock,
the enemy that you're facing
what you are hoping to achieve
If you are just trying to fly swat a single fire team taking cover behind bocage with a single 60mm mortar then a point attack on 'light, short' should be adequate. If you ahve two tube firng you can use 'light, quick'. If you are firing on a platoon defensive line in foxholes behind bocage then 2x81mm mortars on a linear target on either 'light or medium, short' should suppres them nicely. Of course, the larger the area you are suppressing the more intense your fire mission will need to be. I usually tend to restrict my area fire to no greater than 100 or 150 metres at most with 50 metres being the optimum when using mortars or 105mm and 25 pounder guns. Light intensity is usually adequate for area fire missions of 50 metre radius. For larger area fire missions, I would usually use medium or heavy depending on what duration I was going to choose. If you are using the 'heavy' intensity then I would recommend having only a short or quick duration as there is a danger of the guns overheating and the fire mission ending more quickly than you anticipated.
Shorter, more intense fire missions are useful when you have troops in contact and need to rapidly suppress the enemy or when targeting a particular enemy asset such as a gun or afv. If you are trying to cover troops advancing over open ground then a lighter barrage, longer in duration will be more useful. The 'medium' intensity is useful when you want to quickly suppress an enemy and then coverr an advance against their position. If you are trying to soften up a tough objective such as woods and you have sufficient time and assets available, then a 'light,maximum' can be useful as surivors of the barrage will have no time in which to recover their morale.
There are only so many ways you can deal with open ground.
1-Avoid it.
Take another look at the map. Do you really need to use this aveenue of approach?
2-Is it really devoid of cover?
What may at first glance look like billiard table country can sometimes, on closer inspection, harbour slight rises or depressions that can provide invaluable cover for your men. Be sure to get down to zoom level 1 and have a good look at the ground.
3-Smoke
Smoke screens provide an excellent means of obscuring your advance and assisting your men in closing with the enemy. Of course, they are only effective if you have sufficient smoke producing assets. Check 'conditions' in the menu and take into account the stenght and direction of the wind when planning your smoke screen.
4-Overwhelming firepower
The only other way to ensure acceptable casualties when advancing over open ground is to ensure that you have a very strong base of fire with good los on enemy positions. Use indirect fires to maximum effect with ling duration fire missions to ensure there are shells falling on the enemy througout your advance.
I think the main problem that you have is that it is can be very difficult to complete larger missions in the alloted time when playing RT. In the past I always played RT and would often find myself having to make a mad rush towards the end of the scenario, usually resulting in higher casualties than I would otherwise have taken. Like you, I would usually find myself playing most of the mission with only a small part of my force. There are ways of saving time in RT but the best advice I can give you is to try WEGO again.
When CW was released I found that I was staring to spend so much of my time issuing orders on pause that I might as well play WEGO. I've been using it for the last few days and I am actually enjoying the game a lot more now as I'm able to fully utilise my forces and implement tactics properly. I now find that I can complete scenarios and take all of the objectives assigned within the time alloted in most instances. There have only been two incidents which had me wishing that I had been playing in RT but as I've spent more time playing WEGO I've learned ways of avoiding such incidents. In addition, I'm now looking forward to being able to play PBEMs in the future.
-
TBH, I think the pathing is actually pretty good. In fact there's only one incident I recall where a vehicle went the long way round when i ordered it through a gap in the bocage. It turned out to be my fault-the gap was actually dense wood tile, impassible to vehicles. Here's a few tips on how to avoid your vehicles wandering around the map in unintended ways.
1 Mind the Gap
When ordering a vehicle through a gap ensure that:
a. The gap is sufficiently wide.
b. The terrain tile is passable
c. You plot your path directly through the gap.
2 Turning
Try to avoid giving plotting sharp turns. Wherever possible, plot a series of gradual turns in a circular fashion. Sometimes, reversing your vehicle first so that it has more space to turn helps. If you do have to give your vehicle a sharp turn be sure to use the move or slow command.
3 Avoiding traffic jams
Traffic jams and 'after you' situations are quite easy to avoid by using short pauses and/or varying the movment commands given to your vehicles.
I have to say that I completely agree with JonS' post above. The last thing I want my units to be doing is constantly second guessing my commands. There is room for the Tac AI to improve but as far as I'm concerned, micro-management is an integral-and very enjoyable-part of the game. I actually enjoy plotting movement paths for vehicles. If playing in WEGO there is plenty of time to plot your commands and get them right. If playing RT, you have the opportunity of correctting the paths of any vehicles which are not moving in the way you anticipated.
-
I've also noticed that German soldiers seem to be more prone to grenade throwing than their Allied counterparts and this seems to be especially true of the CW forces. Yankeedog's point does seem credible and it has also occured to me that the German's are armed with stick grenades that should have a longer throwing range and therefore they will probably resort to grenades earlier than their opponents. Having said that though, there have been quite a few situations where allied soldiers seem to be far too reluctant to throw grenades (even when they have a full load of them). in situations that warrant their use.
Drozd effectiveness?
in Combat Mission Afghanistan
Posted
I havn't really tested this exhaustively, just messed around a bit when I first bought the game but I can tell you:
1 There is no Drozd firing animation-you won't see Drozd rockets being fired. However, you can see the affects-RPGs will explode in mid air a couple of metres or so in front of the tank.
2 Yes, Drozd will only protec a narrow arc in front of where the turret is pointing.
3 I don't think the Drozd rockets are unlimited as I seem to remember it 'greying out' in the subsystems list after intercepting a number of RPGs. I'll have a look to see if I still have the test scenario later on and see if I can come up with some numbers.