Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bozowans last won the day on August 4

Bozowans had the most liked content!

About Bozowans

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

786 profile views
  1. I've always had trouble close assaulting enemy vehicles. Infantry doesn't seem at all overpowered to me. They often miss their grenade throws entirely or the grenades explode in the air too early. They usually at least immobilize the target though. I just had a game of Shock Force 2 where my insurgents threw at least 7 grenades at a Stryker and still failed to knock it out. The Stryker then blew everyone to bits with its grenade launcher. Sometimes my infantry will do nothing but sit there next to the enemy vehicle for long periods even though they have plenty of grenades, and someti
  2. If you've been playing the WWII stuff for 20 years I don't think the learning curve will be very steep. IMO Shock Force 2 is easier than the WWII games because of the huge force imbalance, as long as you don't play as the Syrians of course. Some of the missions are like a turkey shoot for the U.S. military and it's possible to beat some of them while taking zero casualties. The Syrians can still give you a bloody nose if you're not careful though. ATGMs can be especially tricky to deal with. Some missions are harder than others of course, but in general I think it's easier than WWII, where the
  3. What about APS? At least when playing Black Sea, it's like a magic invisible wall around the tank. In all the other CM titles I would have to be extremely careful with my vehicles, keeping infantry screens in front etc. In Black Sea, sometimes I would do the opposite and lead an attack with the APS vehicles in front, with the infantry jogging along behind. Then I would laugh as all the enemy ATGMs and RPGs slammed uselessly against my magic shields and then I would laugh again when the enemy got blown up real good.
  4. Yeah, infantry that are very close to enemy vehicles will throw grenades (or satchel charges if they have them) in order to simulate a close assault (like infantry throwing grenades down open hatches or whatever). It can be risky to do close assaults with grenades though, and sometimes it doesn't always work. You might need a lot of guys surrounding the tank. If I was the tank though, I certainly wouldn't want to stick around even if it was just one guy! Tanks can shoot at infantry that are right next to them, but there is a very long delay. One of the limitations of the game engine is th
  5. Storming the presidential palace Anyone play Grand Theft Auto? Where it says WASTED on the screen when you die? Well... This guy is DONE
  6. These games have always had weird and sometimes funny spotting issues. There's been a couple of times now when I've had units fail to spot an enemy tank in the middle of the street at close range, but they spot enemy infantry BEHIND the tank. Then my units start shooting at the infantry, only to have their bullets bounce off the enemy tank right in front of them that they still can't see. I remember another situation where I tried to close assault a buttoned-up T-34 during a night-time scenario. I had an infantry squad run up to the tank in the middle of the street so they are surrounding
  7. I usually consider the poor bloody infantry to be more expendable than the vehicles. Losing a few guys with rifles isn't going to cost me much, but losing a tank or IFV is going to cost me a huge amount of firepower that might be sorely missed in later missions of a campaign. 20-30% casualties aren't that big of a deal as long as those aren't my vehicle crews. Especially in the modern titles, my infantry are just a bunch of glorified scouts and bodyguards for the high-tech vehicles. I try to keep the infantry dismounted as much as possible and I keep the vehicles hidden somewhere behind h
  8. I did not know the command rating affected the firepower of a squad. What does that mean exactly? Does it make their fire more accurate? I thought the command rating just affected how easily a unit gets pinned or how fast the suppression meter gets filled up or goes back down or whatever.
  9. I thought he said "Just drive down that road until you get blown up." That's usually what happens in CM anyway. Soldiers will certainly shoot at exposed enemies when using the Move command, as long as they are not being shot at themselves. They will stop walking and then stand there and shoot. They won't do it at really long ranges though. And at least according to the manual, soldiers are more likely to spot enemies when using Move as well. When soldiers are moving faster, they are concentrating more on where they are going and trying not to trip over things, and so are less lik
  10. That is a bit of a shame how limited the AI is when reacting to an ambush. I suppose a workaround for that would be to have the scenario start right after first contact or right after the ambush has been sprung. I know some scenarios have done that already, where they start with a couple of burning vehicles on the road and some forces already in position. Then the reaction to the ambush can be better planned. Perhaps one way to start a scenario would be to have the vanguard of the enemy force already out in the road in front of you with a burning vehicle or two and some troops strung out
  11. I had this issue in Black Sea earlier. It was the scenario where you attack a Russian AA battery in the middle of the night. I had three javelin teams and I fired every single one of the missiles. All of them missed except one. I had to knock out the remaining Russian vehicles using grenades instead.
  12. I just thought of another idea relating to Afghanistan in particular. Try taking a look at the paper "Taking Back the Infantry Half Kilometer" by Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart. There is a summary and link in the article here: https://www.military.com/defensetech/2010/03/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer Basically it talks about how useless US infantry could be a lot of the time in Afghanistan due to the long engagement ranges that the Taliban preferred. American training, doctrine, and weapons were optimized for 300 meter engagement ranges on flat, level ground, but the Taliban l
  13. I dunno how much this applies to Afghanistan, but reading Che Guevara's book on guerilla warfare made me think it would be cool to see some of the tactics he describes played out in a CM scenario. For him, weapons and ammo were precious and could not be expended lightly, so a lot of actions during the revolution were about swiftly attacking small, weak units for the sole reason of capturing their weapons and ammo. In a war like that, usually your sole source of weapons and ammo is from the enemy. Eventually, as their guerilla bands got bigger and stronger, they would graduate to trying to find
  14. If you still have a copy yes I would love to try it! lol how do you do that? I've wanted to make my own scenarios for a long time now but it's hard to find the time for it. It seems like playing around in the editor can be an entire game in itself, and there are still a million other scenarios and campaigns I haven't even tried yet.
  • Create New...