Chibot Mk IX
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chibot Mk IX
-
-
I think the tank guns and AT guns in CM's WW II titles are too accurate against infantry size targets. Please note I am not question the gun's accuracy or the lethality, I am wondering how come the AT gun can hit center of a infantry squad 800m with first shot? Or a T-34 first shot a HMG team hiding in a foxhole at 600m away? The problem is the range finding, how they can find the range so accurately with infantry size targets?
I remember in CMBB and CMAK, the AT Gun will take at least 3-5 rounds to correct the aim.
-
Hi all. As I remember, one of the biggest change in FR is to correct the Sov’s Inf company’s OOB. Change the 4th platoon into a SMG heavy Assault Platoon, while the 1~3 platoon kept as regular Platoon, SMG in each squad reduced to two. And I remember some of the member here mentioned that due to heavy loss each squad could have only 6-7 person, then at the end of 1944 the unofficial 6 men squad become official too. I am reading a website that records different counties infantry squad structural. https://www.battleorder.org/ussr-rifle-co-1944Here is some thought on this topic:
1, By 1944, platoons would be decreased to 4 sections of 6 men to deal with combat losses and allow for a greater number of deployable units.
Interesting here. Soviets would rather keep the number of squad on the battle field than increase headcount on the squad. Does that indicate Soviets would use their infantry squad in a way similar to western counties use their fire team?
2, Two Light Squads (1 DP each) and 2 Heavy Squads (2 DP each) were authorized on paper.
That’s same as the 1942 OOB. But if a squad has only 6 men, will they still have a heavy squads? To regular rifle platoon, I can understand it is inconvenience but possible. They are function as a firebase when the Assault platoons maneuvers and assault. But from description the Assault plt also have heavy squads. That is hard to image. How you can running through field quickly when you 2 of your 6 members carry cumbersome DP? And another two assistance gunner will have to keep pace with the gunner?
3, it’s hard to image how a Soviet Company CO should command his company effectively. There seems a lot of burden on his shoulder. The fire and maneuver elements split at Platoon level, so that means the Company CO has to carefully control the Assault Plt, constantly check where his three platoons are, make a decision on when and where to commit the Assault Plt. At the same time he has one HMG , one light mortar and two marksman at his back. On theory these support team should stay at least 200-300m behind the infantry line. But the poor company Co don’t have radio. So he has to use other method to communicate with these fire support teams. That’s a lot of works on the battlefield! Unless the HMG and light mortar will advance together with Infantry Platoons?
-
I am looking forward FR can provide a unique atmosphere, Götterdämmerung. A feeling mixed with taste of victory and the fear of defeat. the desire of revenge and the instinct of survive.
I am looking forward to play in a scenario similar to CMBB's "Once a King". You command an ad hoc battlegroup consist of SS, Heer, LW or whatever the troops that can still carry a gun, try to break through the Soviet's roadblock when under heavy Katyusha bombardment.
-
On 4/4/2021 at 10:42 PM, dbsapp said:
Infantry in Red Thunder seems to be completely impotent.
It doesn't shoot back, it's too vulnerable and it stops to implement order after the first shots from the enemy. Moving slow make soldiers exausted in 2 minutes after they crouched 10 meters.
The single machine gunner can wipe out the squad in a matter of seconds. Soldiers can't assault buildings or fortifications or woods no matter what type of order you give them.
It requiers a lot of micromanagement, including orders to shoot particular area or units, to make them do something except of dying.
Like in some ancient games, e.g.Sudden Strike, the infantry single role is to observe and find the enemy positions. It is the tanks that do the killing.
Actually, it's quite frustrating and unrealistic. Graviteam's games made much better use of infantry with substantially less micromanagement and greater survivability of the infantry.
Burning bunkers mission is the great example of infantry negligible role in the game. You have hundreds of soldiers, but the only things you need are the tanks with flametowers, which you have to direct manually, because they don't see German machine guns firing under their nose. Infantry can't make it even close to German positions. For the whole time playing the game I saw my men firing at the enemy maybe twice, despite I tried to place them at the locations with line of sight on their foe.
Would Fire and Rubble make improvements to TacAI and infantry behavior or it would be repackaging of the same Red Thunder with new units and maps?
I can understand your frustration. My wargame buddy and I had a conversation couple days ago. He is more connected to John Tiller’s Squad Battle series. In that game he understands he is in charge of Battalion , sending the instruction and guideline to Company COs and Platoon leaders to get their job done, he don’t get the Combat mission series because he is confused about his role here. Is he a Battalion CO? Yes, he has a whole Bn of Panzer + PzG under his command, But he has to make decision for every squad? Crap.
CM is full of details . Sending your squad stand behind a fence in a gunfight with MG-42 will get everyone killed in 3 MG bursts. Request your squad stand behind a short stone wall, they will stand and shoot back, they could probably suppress then destroy the MG-42. This is where CM shines. At the same time this is where it is causing confusion and uncomfortable. Where the squad should hide is a decision of SL. If the player has to make the decision for every squad , then we are playing as a Bn./Co. commander , a platoon leader and a squad leader. That requires a lot of micromanagement to help each squad to find the correct position, at the same time player still have to keep a big picture of the whole battlefield, it is not an easy task.
I won’t comment on Graviteam's games. I like some of its feature , dislike others. Overall I didn’t play too much Graviteam’s game. But I agree with others. Infantry is not correctly modeled in that game. They make infantry as superman.
I can share how I frustrated when I change from CMBB/CMAK to CMX2 games. In CM1 the infantry battle is relatively easy. You bring up enough squad to achieve at least 3:1 odds. Check the terrain description, then depends on terrain you may have to slightly adjust the number of squad you need, or chose a different approaching route . 2/3 of your force function as a fire base, 1/3 advance . Relatively easy. In CMX2 the basic concept is still the same , but how you execute the plan does matter. As people saying the devil is in the detail. The relative spotting system and information sharing changed the game. In CM1 you have the 2/3 of your attacking force shooting at the spotted enemy instantly, in CMX2 you may have only one squad fire, while others sitting behind do nothing. And more natural feeling terrain with up and downs slop makes reverse slop defense an important doctrine in CMX2 . It is a good habit that you create a Way point , then use target command from the way point to find out what you can see and what you cannot see from that point. Again, that means it will requires a lot of micromanagement and the understanding of the game mechanism
-
I partially agree with you. Using Bazooka against targets in open is not good idea. But in CM these short range portable WWII AT weapons are still very lethal against weapon in open. I saw a panzerschreck rocket took out 4 GIs before
-
On 3/28/2021 at 3:12 PM, Jabble said:
Any suggestions for a workaround, e.g. for that example of a Javelin team? Bear in mind the appearance of the tanks can't be predicted so no explicit pause & fire can be instructed.
31 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:In WEGO game this can be done in an ideal situation, it has restrictive condition so most of the time I would not suggest to do that. It is preferred to have Jav team hold fire. then at the end of the turn the intended target is in sight. When issue the order, give a target or armor target arc. In CMBS JAV team needs 15 SECONDS to finish lock/launch. So give a withdraw order then put 30 Seconds pause (20s pause is also an option , but it could be risky).
But sometime you must take a gamble. I had a PBEM game in which my opponent sent 3 BMP-3 to disembark Infantry in front of my position.
I had only one Corsar ATGM team available, and they are not in an ideal position. There are some trees in front of the building. The next building could be an ideal fire position. So I issued order like this.
Here is the result
-
On 3/28/2021 at 3:12 PM, Jabble said:
Any suggestions for a workaround, e.g. for that example of a Javelin team? Bear in mind the appearance of the tanks can't be predicted so no explicit pause & fire can be instructed.
In WEGO game this can be done in an ideal situation, it has restrictive condition so most of the time I would not suggest to do that. It is preferred to have Jav team hold fire. then at the end of the turn the intended target is in sight. When issue the order, give a target or armor target arc. In CMBS JAV team needs 15 SECONDS to finish lock/launch. So give a withdraw order then put 30 Seconds pause (20s pause is also an option , but it could be risky).
-
Walls are annoying. Tear down the wall!
I remember Rainbow Six II and III have a great feature. it allows you to pre-run the plan (in a non-hostile environment ,replace all terrorists by dummies) before the action.
I hope the future CM would include the same feature. Of course people are going to complain that because with the other side shot back the result could be totally different.
but "No plan survives first contact".
-
3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:
Which if any of the USSR equipment have FLIR in the game?
PRP-4 "Nard" , Artillery observation vehicle
-
I would love to see the auto cannon on IFV and reconnaissance vehicle can engage attack helicopter
-
1 hour ago, akd said:
Thank you for sharing.
ahh, too bad there is only one "smoke" command in game.
-
yes, pause + smoke combination doesn't work .
An alternative way is to have two squad, one smoke, the other pause for 30s~45s then charge.
but it is better to play it safe, wait for one min, check where the smoke grenade landed then issue fast/quick command in the next order phase . I have experienced a lot of issue that the smoke grenade landed two spots away from intended place.
-
3 minutes ago, Bufo said:
Depends on the smoke, I don't know about this era though.
Yes, but I think IR blocking smoke is not available back in 80s
-
For NATO player, I guess checking how many units have Thermal Sights is an important procedure before the first turn. Then use smoke smartly, as the thermal sights can "see" through smoke.
-
T-72B and T-64B can also fire ATGM), the production of T-72B began on 1985 (out of CMCW's scope), T-64B, 1983
-
The way how you handle mechanized infantry units should be different compare to WWII titles.
Where to put the APC is going to be an important decision. Don't put them too close to the frontline, keep them safe. Too far away is not a good idea , they should be in the right place to extract infantry units before enemy artillery rain down.
the IFV units follow a different rule. BMP-1/2 and early days M2 are very fragile, but they do carry significant firepower. They are the backbone of an infantry squad , just like a MG42 gunner to a WWII German squad.
-
Commander, what's my tactical nuke launch code??!
-
4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I had one of those b******s take nine PGMs and still trundle down the map and shoot my MTLBs to bits.
lol, I miss my poor MTLB too. Is that from scenario "Galloping Horse Downfall" ?
I have a wild guess, the problem is caused by ERA bricks. Will do some test in the future.
-
Arty kills in WW II title happen
As mentioned above , the complaint is more about modern title, though CM in WW II title didn't simulate the "Soft kill" ability well.
in CMBS, I have seen a Bradley survived two direct 122mm PGM hit, it can still move and fire after that.
-
23 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
If I were to say that very idea is under review & active discussion amongst the H&E team, would you be interested in joining in?
Count me in please, that would be a great honor
-
talking about Brazilians' infantry squad equipment:
One thing I like CMFI most is this title has great potential for Mod. Besides mod into North Africa, it can be mod to Pacific theater , Chinese civil war, Middle East 48-56, Korea war 50-53.
So a M1903 bolt action rifle + BAR squad can be mod to an early war USMC squad , a Chinese National Army squad and a ROK army squad.
-
Guess your ATGM team bailed out from the building after firing missile? That's a game feature to simulate the flame after launch and pressure in a constrained area.
you can hit "Pause" before the engagement to make your ATGM team stand their ground, and cancel any movement order automatically generated after firing.
-
Back to the topic
In a modern mechanized warfare, an IFV should be the backbone of an infantry squad. I remember The Operational Arts of War (TOAW) gives BMP-1’s anti-personal value at 9, BMP-2’s AP at 22, in the comparison an Infantry squad is at 7. There is a tremendous difference on the Firepower between a vehicle and footman.
That’s how an operational wargame describe the battlefield. I know it is very hard to translate this into CM, because CM is a tactical game, it’s about details. A general staff at Division level cares about if he has 3:1 numerical advantage on the attacking axis, a battalion commander has much more things to worry about, he may have a 3:1 advantage but most of his troops' sight are blocked by trees will do him no good. So in CMSF, troubled by spotting and communication, BMPs don’t stand a chance against NATO tanks. But they still have teeth to bite NATO soft target. Hide them from enemy’s LOS, let the infantry do the spotting and share the information. Move forward, area fire, retreat back to safe harbor in 15 seconds (before Javelin can get a good lock)
On 12/9/2020 at 8:57 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:The 73mm gun is OK vs infantry in buildings, but the Tac AI has a tendency to launch an ATGM at hard targets, which can lead to issues when the idiot gunner pops up to load a new one.
Yes, it is very annoying. Especially in urban fight. The dumb gunner will bravely expose himself to small arms fire, he will not back to turret until he takes a 7.62mm
On 12/10/2020 at 9:46 AM, SimpleSimon said:The BMP is designed with an offensive slant-predisposition in mind. For defensive work it'd usually be dismounted or dug in. They are not intended to change the whole battlefield by themselves, but to fit inside of an overall framework that called for MBTs to lead the way into pummeled moonscape while the BMPs advanced right behind protecting their infantry from artillery fire and NBC weapons. It's a very 1945-ish vehicle, designed in a time when infantry ATGMs were rare and likely opponents would be the M113 and trucks. The BMP is only one generation removed from the so called "battlefield taxi" design of previous generation APCs, and is designed with defeating those vehicles in mind not the Bradley and certainly not enemy tanks.
Asking "how should I use the BMP" should be rephrased into "how do I use Soviet doc". For Red Army Doctrine the thinking is meant to be "the big picture" and fixating a lot on little details can give one a misleading impression of the whole picture. You won't get a lot of mileage out of any single weapon system in a Soviet designed ToE...that's not how it works. If you're running a scenario for the Syrians without things like artillery and air support you're crippling them right off the bat by restricting their combined arms kit and should expect little.
I agree on most of the part, BMP-1/2 are just a part of Soviet machine, so they have to be put in "the big picture"
Talking about Soviet's Doctrine, nothing advertise a 60's-70's Soviet Doc better than A.A Sidorenko 's book " The Offensive" . Just image an age that a Soviet regiment commander has four tactical nukes at his disposal. (he don't need his boss' authorization to approve where he want to throw the nukes at), and then the whole concept of BMP make sense. It is designed to be used in NBC environment.
Well, a regular APC can be fit with NBC protection. But to reduce unnecessary exposure , it is need to reduce the deployment of AT weapon, so Soviet put AT weapon on the battlefield taxi design. Tanks have good characteristics for a NBC environment but they are too heavy. In a tactical nukes exchange, many bridges will be destroyed. the Engineer/pontoon units will have difficulty time to pass through contamination zone. so a small river could block the whole tank formation until the engineer units can catch up. In order to address this problem, the "battlefield taxi" has to add amphibious ability to control the other side of river bank. And now we got BMP-1s.
-
1 hour ago, Erwin said:
The CM2 C2 system is not compelling. I tested having several infantry units literally sitting on top of each other and when one unit had a confirmed spotting of an enemy, this info was not conveyed to the other 3 or 4 units in the same action square even after 5+ minutes. Maybe the C2 system only sort of works in a hierarchical command structure(?)
Units from different formation share information in CMx2. What you experienced could be a bug.
In WW2 title, I practice this a lot. Split a 2 men scout team form the inf sqd, carry the word that an ATG has been spotted and run to an unbuttoned Tank Commander that belongs to a different formation, TC will spread the word through radio.
1 hour ago, Aurelius said:Strangely enough, I have no problems with the Soviet side in Red Thunder, even though it has some pretty severe restrictions - a common soldier can't walk up to the company commander and tell him the situation. The company HQ exerts no C2 over him.
55 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:This matches my own experiences in recent testing.
To be honest , I don't play CMSF 2 often, I only played around 10 SP scenario as Red since the first release of CMSF 2. I didn't experience too many trouble of communication between different formations. But there could be something not right under the hood , and I didn't notice that because my limited gameplay. Also considering the last update was couple month ago, there could be something happen and a bug introduced with update. Anyway, the illustration above was run under 2.04. That shows the information sharing between different formation can happen.
I will do more testing later.
AT guns, a general question about when to fire.
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
it depends , 76mm ZIS-3 can knock out a PzIVD at 1500m. but will have trouble against a Pz IV H. It won't be able to penetrate IVH's front hull unless at very close range.