Seedorf81
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
Posts posted by Seedorf81
-
-
Welcome to the world of bocage-fighting.
It's an awful, slowgoing, and casualtycreating hell of horror. And then I'm just talking about the game, not about the real thing.
Trial and error is one way to learn.
Realising that a lot of casualties are a near 100% certainty is another.
Use area fire ("TARGET" an spot where you cannot see the enemy yet, but where you expect them) and if even remotely possible: use your mortars.
Use smoke (preferably from mortars or tanks, otherwise from your infantry).
Try to flank (I know, seldom possible without engineers to blow holes in the bocage).
Read earlier threads on this forum, a lot of them bare witness of players frustrations and have advice on how to proceed.
Search the internet for reports of real soldiers/units that fought in the bocage. They finally solved some of the problems and those tactics can be succesfull in the game.
And realise that if you would receive a dollarcent for every time I cursed about losing men and or battles in the bocage, you would be able to buy Combat Mission Forces of Italy where there are ain't no bocage at all!
Keep on trying and good luck.
-
I just emailed the Mythbusters with the question if they can (want to) look into this myth: "Can a dead soldiers body provide cover for his buddy?"
Looks unlikely that they will, but one never knows..
-
What is this German in the bottompicture groping for????:eek:
-
Aragon, you're right The thing about these covers is that I don't know how accurate historically they are. How I came up with them was by visiting various online WW 2 uniform stores and reading what they had to say, and looking over what they were selling, and then starting up Paint Shop Pro. Not exactly rigorous research.
Later on today I'll post at the mods forum some pictures of them, and if there is any positive feedback I'll send them to the repository. Mike.
From what I see on this screenshots I like 'm!
-
I have an interesting anecdote on the cover bodys provide:
My uncle hunts wild boars and once he told me he hit 2 with a single shot. The bullet went straight through the first one and became lodged in the second one. He found the second one first and wondered why he couldnt find an exit hole, so he kept searching and later discovered the other one.
Seedorf81,
I just looked up the Mythbusters episode. The experiment was done at super close range, no wonder the high velocity rounds exploded when they hit the water. At several hundered meters the probably bullets wouldnt explode.
Well, "probably" ain't no good enough for me!:cool:
-
It's called 'survivor bias'. You don't hear from all the guys who tried to hide behind a body but found it wasn't all that bulletproof, because they died.
Incidentally - I don't think hiding behind a bunch of bodies would provide much concealment. It'd be like trying to hide behind the only tree in an otherwise featureless field.
Yeah, I realise that when under fire your psyche tells you that hiding behind ANYTHING is better than being totally exposed.
But with this survivorship bias theory I have my doubts; it's always subjective. Can we not say the same about armour? That we never hear from all the guys that tried to hide behind armour, but found out that it wasn't all that bulletproof, because they died?
-
So I ordered a forward observer into a building, 2nd floor... had them FACE towards the possible enemy location, there staring at a wall, no windows... how can I tell if they are actually able to see something or not...
thx
Use the TARGET command, even if you don't want your unit to fire. Use the "beam" to check what your selected unit can see by looking at the color of this "beam".
A light blue shows what the unit can see.
-
"...the Katyn massacre was just need to kill Polish officers that they are not moved to the side of the Germans..."
"...reason to kill them is the Soviets wanted control of Poland as a buffer..."
Both Germany and Russia had Poland as a longstanding enemy through the centuries, and both wanted to destroy Poland as a nation-state once and for all, turning into a vassel state of uneducated untermensch worker slaves... Rather what Germany planned to do with the entire Soviet Union as well. In terms of keeping it as a buffer, the Brest Litovsk agreement between Gernany and the SU divided up Poland so there was no buffer at all. Katyn happened after that.
I do not agree. The former Polish ( "Russian" after the Ribbentrop-Molotovpact) ground was most certainly used as a buffer. The Germans had to cross hundreds of miles extra before reaching their initial main goal: Moskou.
If the Germans had occupied the whole of Poland (which they didn't do for a lot of reasons, some debatable, certainly in hindsight), their supply lines and attackroutes could have been just that little bit shorter enough to catch the main prize. (Instead of faltering about 30 miles in front of it in Oktober 1941.)
But this bufferthingy had absolutely nothing to do with Katyn. If, theoretically, Stalin had helped Poland against the German invasion and they would have succeeded somehow, he most probably never would have left Poland again. And those Polish officers would have been killed anyway.
My opinion about Dresden:
I think that the Allies knew that it wasn't an absolute necessity, but after two world wars in which the Germans had played a very agressive and merciless role, they were fed up. Churchill was of the opinion that the German people had to be taught a lesson so stern that it wouldn't start another war for the next thousand years or so.
It's a little bit like punishing a kid for being disobedient for the tenth or twentieth time. The single incident that triggers the punishment maybe not bad enough to justify the spanking, but everything together does.
Discussing whether Dresden is a warcrime is like discussing whether spanking is a good or a bad thing. Strangely enough it seems that children that are spanked usually know very well if they deserved it, or that the beating was unjust. (I most certainly did!:eek:)
I think that a lot of Germans, even at Dresden during the bombing, knew they had it coming to them and realised that they reaped something that they, as a people, sewed.
-
AFIK there are many accounts of soldiers who, being under severe small arms fire, used dead comrades/adversaries as cover. They couldn't have told those stories if the corpses gave no protection at all. Or were the survivors just very, very, lucky?
And talking about Mythbusters, they showed that the amount of water that can stop a bullet is surprisingly small. Wasn't it a Barrett .50 bullet that was useless beyond 50 cm (20 inches) of water? So 70% "human humidity" of let's say 70 kg average bodyweight has to give some protection, I would think.
-
I remember someone saying there was going to be KM troops, but I don't think it was Steve. I think it was in one of the threads about what units are and are not in the Gustav Line module for FI.
Oops, I thought it was a battlefrontannouncement, too. Sorry if mistaken, but as stated the kriegsmarine was present in the battle of Arnhem.
-
Yeah, you're right.
The Kriegsmarine Infanterie (Navy infantry) was part of a hastily assembled German defense force, consisting of nearly any soldier that could be missed from the occupied part of the Netherlands, in order to contain the western side of the British landings at Arnhem. The Kriegsmarine boys were originaly mainly based on the Dutch coast as part of the Atlantikwalldefense.
After the Normandylandings and the Scheldelandings, they must have felt lucky, since another amphibious assault on the Dutch North Seacoast would be very unlikely. So their chances of getting through the rest of the war without having to fight were promising.
They probably didn't like it very much to leave their bunkers with a seaview to fight paratroopers inland.
-
May I ask which map/scenario this is?
Carbide, carbide.
-
A prominent cleft chin, a certain steely look in the eye with perhaps just a bit of a twinkle, a gallant pose standing as if there was a strong wind blowing from directly ahead. Maybe a well pressed, freshly starched spotlessly clean uniform. A gravely voice voice as if his commands were coming from deep within the earth.
Hear, hear!
Shouldn't daddy's be like this, too?
-
-
I'm learning the ropes, too, and am occasionally aggravated by invisible tanks.
I understand the spotting mechanism. I even like it. It makes sense that I can't see what my units can't, and that a unit doesn't see something just because others do.
But it often feels like my troops are blind, especially with armor. It seems way too hard to spot a tank in an open field, or even blasting at you with its machine gun. If a tank's driving across open terrain even a couple hundred yards from you, you ought to see it bar extenuating circumstances.
Too many firefights come down to which side magically pops into existence first.
It's not a huge thing, and I'm having a blast. I just think tanks not in cover, or firing, should stick out more. Other units, too, to a lesser extent.
Maybe I'll get used to it. Maybe a veteran will educate me on why my thoughts are invalid. Either would suit me fine.
Recently a shrekteam ordered to defend an intersection in a town, didn't notice a Sherman that drove by and stopped about 5 m. behind them. Yes, earlier they were facing the other way, but not noticing an enemytank, blazing away with all its weapons, seems really, reallly unreal.
Even if they would have been totally deaf, the vibrations had to make 'm look behind them.
-
What I do when moving over larger distances is varying the MOVE and QUICK commands.
On easygoing terrain I tend to use QUICK, when going through fields with mud (brown, looks a bit like just been ploughed), dense trees or wheat I use MOVE. And when crossing hedges/bocage also MOVE.
And when danger is close or suspected then I use QUICK again.
So my waypointserie looks like:
First 100-200 m QUICK (on grass)
then 50 m MOVE (still on grass) so my men can rest a little,
then QUICK (grass) until I reach a fence. MOVE until over the fence and QUICK again until forest. In forest MOVE until about 20 m from edge of next field, where I suspect the enemy to be dug in on opposite side, and of those final 20 m I use QUICK for 10-15 m (because of better situational awareness of my men) and the last meters I use SLOW (With short coverarc) or HUNT. That depends on how stealthy I want to be.
But like many things in Combat Mission it is a matter of trial and error and experience. Good luck.
-
Just playing for half an hour or so, have to stop now but this looks really good.
Haven't encountered the ATguns yet (one very painfull Piat so far), so maybe I will curse this scenario later on, but now it's very interesting. Looks like the beautiful map offers different approaches.
-
I know the point has already been made, but I just had to show off the force chosen for me by the AI just now
I thought I would have a little fun by throwing two sets of "Armor Only" Italian forces at each other. My force consists of 4 Semoventes (nice), 3 R-35's (fun!), a Carro Comando (makes sense), and not one, not two, not eight, but ELEVEN forward observers. Oh, and zero artillery for them to call in
**I think this is actually due to there not being enough rarity points available to field more than a few tanks, so the AI uses up the rest of the points on the only unit it can, which is FO's. Still, some mortars for them to call in would be nice.
The other way around, masses of arty and airsupport, but no-one to call it in (the few HQunits get "DENIED" if they try), has the same frustrationlevel.
Or that you're given a nice balanced force by the computer, and you deploy them in a genial way, only to discover that your QB AI-opponent has 5 or 6 stationary AT/FLAKguns with no decent protection.
-
That may be true for the initial lay, but once you've convinced her that you have plenty of money and are willing to spend it on her it all goes much more smoothly.
Michael
o yes, I forgot. It had to be "(..) fifty year old POOR gameplaying geezer".
-
So true. Just like airplanes. Lotsa people think the Phantom II was ugly. Me? Not so much, I think it looks mean like a fighter should.
There you go! I really love the P47 Thunderbolt (and the F-15 Eagle), but a lot of others will say they're awful to look at, and choose something like the P-51 (rather a plain plane in my view) as their favorite.
Good thing to differ.
-
Maybe there are people who know something about crewsurvivalpercentages in regard to WW2tanks? Or where to find such info?
I've got this unsubstantiated feeling that being in a Tiger I gave the crew a better survivalchance than most other tanks. Could that be true?
-
Is it now impossible (as in actually impossible, rather than impossible for my pixeltruppen) to get a "lucky" initial lay? Or was it just "too likely" before?
I don't know, but I do know that as a fifty year old gameplaying geezer my chances for getting a "lucky lay" are pretty slim.
-
I dont know.. the T34/85 is an impressive looking tank IMO...
Yeah, it's just like with them girlies, I reckon..
It's all in the eye of the beholder.
-
Do you know about Tiger-1 repairability? He was very heavy, always have problem with transmission and running gear. It was very difficult to evacuate this monster form field if your tank was damaged(needs 2 tractors and 1 Pz4 tank), it was very difficult to repair tracks on field (need loading crane), it was very difficult to transfer Tiger battalion, because to transport Tiger you need special railway platforms and you need change battle tracks on transport tracks and take off outward rollers, for this you need 48 hours. Tiger was nightmare for German surround services))) Panther was better but with similar problems, Germans have no time to fix all bugs in Panther. Germans should be build more Pz4 tanks and don't waste time and money on Tigers.
But this is game and in game you don't need repair or transport your tank, for me Panther is better.
He man, welcome back.
yes, I know about those troubles and I most certainly know about the Allied airsupremacy (Tiger equals duck; sitting duck that is:)), fuelshortages etc..
But when a battle is about to start, do not under estimate the effect that morale has. And even though the Panther is prettier and better, for me there is only one tank that seems to say:"He tankboy, you come with me and I will not only kick some serious ass, but I will also protect you when the bullets start to fly!"
Sherman, Comet, Cromwell, PzkwIV, T34 and T34/85 certainly do not say that to me. Churchill and KV1 and Panther maybe a bit.
KV1, Kingtiger, JS2 and JS3 way to cumbersome.
So if I had to go into battle with a ww2 tank, the TIGER I would be it.
PS. If only the Matilda tank would have had a decent gun, then I think it could have gotten a pretty good reputation.)
Color Combat Footage: Battle of Caen
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Some impressive footage of commonwealth troops.
Though some parts are Eastern front pictures. The exploding tank for instance (a real huge explosion where the turret skyrockets, after a short scene of a Tigertank firing) seems to be a KV2 russian tank.