Jump to content

Flibby

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Flibby

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 05/03/1987

Converted

  • Location
    Cheshire, England
  • Occupation
    Consultant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To be honest they all have large and small options. I prefer smaller battles in CMBS
  2. I've been playing around with this on some test scenarios in hot-seat mode. I seem to get relatively similar results whether I approach a SBF position, covered or not, by crawling the last few spots or not. There doesn't seem to be any cover that a 3-4 man MG team can get into unseen from 3-400m away. As such it appears sensible to just make sure that enough firepower is arriving at the same time that the enemy can't shoot at them all, and then establish fire superiority. What i seem to be getting my head around is that fire superiority isn't about getting the best position for your
  3. Certainly when I last played Graviteam Tactics I spent 80% of the time wandering around on my own. The other 20% was trying to figure out the UI 😂
  4. I think that part of the problem comes from traditional army "battle drills". These documents always use scenarios where you have a platoon attacking a single enemy squad. That squad is sat in a Bush and they've seemingly been left all alone like some sort of punishment. Of course a text book fire and manoeuvre approach is easy here, but how often does that scenario occur? I understand the need for the rank and file to have simple and easy to understand instructions, but is not as easy to find instructional materiel for lieutenants and captains on how to approach attac
  5. To be honest the scenario played out with losing a lot of men to take the buildings which were occupied with a whole squad each. I think it sums up how futile it can be to attack occupied buildings without high explosive shells in one form or another.
  6. Thats interesting. I've never thought of using the rifle squads to enable the sbf position, more that the SBF would cover the rifle squads. Wouldn't the rifle squads be likely to suffer if they advanced over the hilltop without any overwatching units?
  7. Really interesting responses guys thank you for that.
  8. Does anyone manage to occupy overwatch/base of fire positions without being spotted? Despite crawling into cover I find it difficult to get into positions with HMGs/Mortars not being spotted. This sometimes leads to the base of fire being suppressed which is obviously the complete opposite to what I intend. Am I the only one with this issue? I may be overthinking this, i.e. I should just be moving up to the overwatch/BoF position with enough force that I can suppress anyone else who fires at me, but I would prefer a stealthy approach, and I don't see how it would be particular
  9. Thanks very much for the suggestions guys I think I am suffering from reading too much into the basic battle drills for assaults. Set up base of fire, suppress, move in with another team on the flank. This is obviously not so simple in real life or in CM. The enemy do not sit in isolated spots waiting to be suppressed. It's also hard to suppress units in buildings etc. I think that some other posts i have read and other information from the battledrill blog about building fire superiority is more useful. It's certainly good to have in mind the idea of a SBF position, but in reality i
  10. It could very well just be a matter of me miss-remembering, but after coming back to the game after a while, i'm having issues getting my support forces into covered overwatch positions without being spotted either upon arrival or shortly afterward. My usual plan is to advance units up on 'hunt' before taking the last action square on 'slow'. This seems to match the employment techniques for SBF positions by the book - http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/dm/CCMWorkbookMcBreen2002.pdf Does anyone have any advice?
×
×
  • Create New...