Sulman
-
Posts
184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sulman
-
-
15 minutes ago, John1966 said:
And there's the rub. I absolutely fail to understand the enjoyment to be had from playing the same scenario repeatedly. I'll never grasp why some of us equate that with "fun".
The second I play a scenario a second time, I already think I'm cheating. I know stuff I shouldn't know. If it can't be won on the first attempt; if that's not a realistic possibility; I wish it said so right at the start so we could make our mind up whether to bother.
Harsh and apologies to those who put the work in on these things. Just explaining what I like.
On a well designed scenario I really don't mind. There's also a good chance there's things I didn't try or get to see. In the case of that first mission there's a variety of AI plans and the defensive lines did differ quite a bit, to the extent that I could not assume I knew the disposition of the other side's forces.
Where I don't like it is on those maps where the criteria are so tight that you really have to 'learn the trick' as it were, as in you must take this route and the objectives in that order and so forth.
-
On 8/25/2020 at 3:47 PM, John1966 said:
One of those cases where you'd be better placed not going after either objective, just get a toehold to deny the enemy getting them.
Alas, you cannot play get Paper Tiger missions like that. They're scored strictly. If you've got two objectives, you'd better bloody get two objectives. I know this because I tried that first mission about four times. I've repeated more missions in this campaign than any other, because there's always something stacked against you, either the clock, miserly artillery support, trick map set up, or no armoured support.
The recent changes to defensive behaviour make some missions extraordinarily tough. Fighting high morale SS troops in defensive positions with under strength infantry is not fun. It doesn't happen that often though.
All said and done, I'm almost through the campaign, and I have on balance enjoyed it. I'm not a fan of scenario designers pitting themselves against the player and I think PT is guilty of this, but the quality of the campaign does speak for itself and I am looking forward to trying his other work.
-
57 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Really? not fast at all it is 5 k's not 5 miles it would be a 4 hour Marathon if you could keep it up. Have a nice lake here 5k's around flat terrain.
I certainly hope I can do that when I'm 70. Remember that most people don't run at all. My wife's recently taken up 5ks and it's been great seeing her progress.
-
1 hour ago, Erwin said:
The Brits have an astonishing number of armored cars and recon vehicles that look like they could make for a really fun AC vs AC/light armor scenario. Unfortunately, I cannot recall a single scenario that features more than a few of the Brit AC's.
Yes, there's one in CW with the 2pdr (Daimler I think). That thing is nuts, you can go hunting PZIVs and Stugs with it. Superb mobility too.
-
24 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
British use of US 75mm APCBC projectiles entailed removal of the HE burster and replacement with inert filler, which increased penetration capability by about 4% according to published ballistic test figures.
-- World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, pg 104
That's really interesting, thanks.
-
I do agree with @chuckdyke to the extend that the LOS tool has some shortcomings that can bite. Norman orchards and the the effect of a reverse slope are a good example. In some scenarios you can test LOS over a field and see it blocked by a reverse slope, even if this is not quite evident from the '1' pixeltruppen view. Often, as the scenario plays out vehicles can be spotted well beyond this apparent limitation. Likewise I"ve seen actual LOS through orchards and multiple tree lines be surprisingly good. Often I hear myself saying 'well ****, they got LOS through all that?"
That being said I still like it as a simple planning tool, but you learn its foibles through experience.
-
It was the US Halftrack on the Ardennes maps in CMFB that really taught me about battle taxis. Coming from CMSF2 and CMBS, you get used to protecting them only from anti-armour weapons, but the halftracks are vulnerable to a stiff breeze. They're great for moving squads quickly across safe terrain corridors, but not much else. Their onboard 30cal guns, well, I use 400-500yds as a buffer zone or the gunners will go down fast. I treat them a bit like armed trucks, which I suppose is what they are.
The biggest exception to this is the Bren carrier, which when properly employed can slaughter infantry in surprising numbers. Stay out of 'schreck range and you've got a bulletproof mobile LMG with surprisingly good protection for the passengers. Very useful for surpressing difficult MG strongpoints that you can't get volume of fire on.
-
Scouting in CM (to me) is about moving to contact and losing as little forces as possible in that contact. @Bil Hardenberger has some superb guides about how to do this, and honestly it took me a lot of play to really grasp the subtleties of it. Covered movement really is important, and it's easy to forget to do it.
Vehicle recon (jeeps, universal carriers etc) is really handy for very rapidly finding out where they are, but just as importantly where they are not. There's a caveat though: If the vehicle is impervious to rifle fire you won't discover infantry until you dismount, which must be done in cover or the forecast is usually lead rain. Dependent on what side you play try and use units with binoculars, for some forces like the British it makes a huge difference for spotting. This means your HQ officers are at the front, as they should be.
I don't tend to use 'recon pull' very much, I normally have an idea where I want to go during planning and use scouts to proof the route.
After many hours playing vs. the computer you start to get a feel for how to approach certain tactical problems, especially given the AI's inability to organise any meaningful maneuvers. Human players are much less predictable. For a start the AI has zero fire discipline and will open up at any target, unable to consider the bigger picture.
-
I thought the ROQF 75mm was designed such that it could use American M61 rounds, but at a reduced velocity and thus slightly poorer penetration.
Ref: https://www.quarryhs.co.uk/alt WW2 tank gun.htm
I did discover it absolutely shreds PZiv tanks with no difficulty, so it has that in common with the M3 75mm.
-
Actually the internet tells me the APC-T Ammo is the same. Maybe It's just the roll of the dice.
-
Encountering some Panthers with my 2 Churchill sections, I did not expect an easy time of it. What did surprise me was the ease with which the big cat shrugged off penetrating hits. The Churchill VII like the M4 75mm needs flank shots, and I managed it a few times; this panther was knocked out by rushing (if you can rush a Churchill...) a tank for a rear shot. It still took 2 rear hits to do it in.
The three hits observable to the side did nothing.
The other side:
What made so many hits possible was that I got a number of hits to the front which, though ineffective did take the gun out of action. This seems to be quite common for me with the Panther.
I note that vs the Sherman flank shots seem more decisive.
This isn't a complaint, but I did think a hull penetration was quite a serious event for the poor meatbags inside the vehicle, but in the case of this Panther it successfully killed two of the attacking tanks having suffered multiple penetrating 75mm hits; in other words it did not seem to impair the vehicle's fighting ability at all.
I've seen the same thing with the 2pdr vs the pzIV, you can drill it plenty without any noticeable effect. The 37mm M3 (great gun) is similar, but I suspect little energy is left after getting though the armour. I expected more from 75mm though. Maybe the APC-T is just a better round?
-
A knocked-out Panther burns merrily in the grounds of the Granville Church rectory during operation Epsom.
-
On 12/23/2020 at 12:59 PM, John1966 said:
Opening the hatches makes a world of difference. I keep them unbuttoned unless the enemy is close (in which case they button up of their own accord pretty quickly anyway). And it's always worth getting some small arms fire on the AI tanks if they're unbuttoned so they close their hatches.
If the tanks are at a distance then it'll basically decide who spots who first and that might make a difference as to who wins a tank duel.
Although I've never "tested" it, if you're playing a big scenario, go round and unbutton all your tanks and you'll suddenly find they can see all sorts of things they couldn't see the previous turn.
The AI player's default appears to be unbuttoned.
It's hugely important on ww2 armour. The only problem is they're a magnet for small arms fire; you can close to well within small arms range and you won't be fired on until you dismount or unbutton. I learnt this the hard way with a Universal Carrier. Dismounnted the riders right next to an infantry position hitherto unseen and they got smacked.
I think the YouTuber Usually Hapless joked about this, referring to a panzer TC as 'I am important, please shoot me'.
Buttoned TCs are basically
-
Outside of this forum I have never observed anyone with the slightest objection to that abbreviation. It's the 2nd time I've seen it at BFC forums. What's the problem?
-
4 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:
Interesting, yes. But, "Unreal", no. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Norman history would know about the terrain.
I've read a lot about Normandy and knew the basic structure of the bocage hedgerows, but did not fully understand the nature of these covered tracks at all.
-
4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Yes, a mistake in the same category as Hitler's mistake invading Russia without a supply of winter uniforms. See the enemy, see the terrain, and see your troops. More easily said than done.
Just as special forces deployed to Northern Iraq in 1991 had the wrong camo, no cold-weather gear, and inadequate maps. It snowed.
-
4 hours ago, Vacilllator said:
And yet it supposedly came as a big surprise in 1944? These days it would be easy to ask @Falaise about his troublesome hedgerows or even Google it, but back in the day it must have been one of those 'well I didn't expect that' moments. Perhaps they could have researched the terrain a bit better though...
It would have been difficult as I expect they had little local knowledge, just maps (which through modern history prove inadequate in foreign theaters) and aerial photography. Little of this tells you about the actual lay of the land.
I think in the Pacific at least they had indigenous guides. This might have been difficult in France, and how many Free French knew Normandy. Did they even ask? The chap hosting the video mentions it was just as new for the Germans, but their experience and training seemed to be favoured by the terrain.
-
I've always liked the Al Fawr Ambush scenario, it's small and short, and you can try a number of different things.
'ATGM Ambush' is also good fun for perfecting tactics. Like the above contact is rapid and you can get things going quickly, which for me is quite important when you're doing multiple playthroughs.
-
I had no idea of the characteristics of the small sunken tracks. Unreal.
-
The spotting/cloaking thing is difficult to solve, and it's not just in CM2, I remember Steel Beasts being frustrating for this, and also the original M1 Tank Platoon had the most bizarre spotting at close range. MBT crews (loader especially) should always be checking flanks in combat areas.
It isn't just CMBS either, just last night I had a Piat truppen standing 30' from a wooden bunker that intermittently flashed in and out of LOS, but he never actually got to shooting it.
-
I think time limits are an important simulator of command pressure. Done correctly, they're nearly always appropriate, but everyone has played campaigns and scenarios where <annoying voice> "You have two occupy objectives, plus an opposed obstacle crossing. Your force is a single recon Platoon. Enemy forces are unknown, and your time limit is 40 minutes" </annoying voice>
Combine the above with a single avenue of approach (an obstacle) and you're in frustration town. There's nearly always only one way to do it, which you have to find out through trial and error. My point is, real world tactics are not just a part of the playing experience, they're also part of the design criteria, or at least should be.
-
It's difficult to say. This topic - the obsolesence of the tank - came up again during the recent Azerbaijan/Armenia conflict, as there was a lot of video released of tanks getting droned. Nicholas Moran says this is an old failing - no anti-air measures whatsoever means dead tanks.
We're likewise familar with SAA T-72s getting shwacked by FSA RPG teams, and yet the Syrian army still had nothing else that can get into city areas and deliver HE on FSA positions. The losses were an accepted risk. The infantry couldn't do it. The BMPs couldn't do it. The tanks could. They were basically being used as assault guns, but any army fights with what it has.
Tank war isn't glamorous and isn't easily propogandised. It's easy to put together a supercut of tanks getting smashed up by ATGMs but you won't find much footage of tanks killing other tanks or spearheading urban assaults because the danger's such nobody films those. Apart from the SAA, apparently.
I don't think the tank's done quite yet.
-
Basic fire and maneuver does work in isolated engagements. The bocage maps in CMBN offer plenty of it, and assaults against isolated strongpoints will be succesful too. However I'm guessing you've encountered the situation that your maneuver element very rapidly gets overwhelmed by multiple mutually supported enemy fireteams. It's very common, and you just need to find a bigger hammer. More firepower nearly always works. Sometimes your reward for assaulting a position is an immediate, urgent, and frightening defence. It's just the way it goes. Real warfare is similar - read about the Marines in Hue City during Tet 1968.
One of Bill Hardenberger's rules is 'establish local fire superiority'. This is gospel. If you don't do this, you're going to lose the suppression meta-game, and once that's lost, your attack will fail. One of my personal rules is 'don't leave combat power on the table'. If there's a unit that can help, make sure it's there or can get there quickly. A single tank or M2 Bradley can tip a fight very fast.
-
This is a tricky topic, because I always feel I'm on the unlucky end when it comes to unguided AT weapons. I routinely get dinged at 190m in CMFB by panzerschrecks, yet people have tested this and shown it's not that common. In CMBS I frequently curse at what i feel is outstanding accuracy of RPG teams. 150-200m is the danger zone. Although ostensibly at the long end of the range, I've seen TacAI regularly achieve effective fire at these distances.
I shoot a lot at 200yds, and it's a pretty decent length.
Regarding backblast, in the Battle for Hue there were accounts of recoilless rifles collapsing floors of buildings they're firing from when fired, the USMC learning to position them and use a lanyard. That shield on the panzerschreck isn't for looks.
The Scottish Corridor Thread
in CM Normandy Maps and Mods
Posted · Edited by Sulman
I spent most of that scenario figuring out a route the infantry could use. I eventually chose the field where the marshy river bed is. Annoyingly you get no engineers at the start, so you have to do it the long way. I never did get the company on the left into the fight, I just used what I had plus the reinforcements.
But once that scenario opens up it's pretty decent. I found that campaign hard and frustrating and yet cannot say I didn't enjoy it. I learnt a lot. Respect to anyone that keeps at it past 'School' as the first time I played that one put me off for about five years. It was only reading the forum that I learnt the philosophy of it.
Edit: Courage and Fortitude is a textbook example of a campaign where you need to replay some of it. Few people are going to get through School of Hard Knocks and Razorback Ridge without some do-overs. They're less scenarios and more tactical problems.