Jump to content

General Liederkranz

Members
  • Content Count

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

General Liederkranz last won the day on September 11 2018

General Liederkranz had the most liked content!

About General Liederkranz

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I agree with @Hardradi and @Freyberg. A steamroller attack on a 250m front, focusing on presenting overwhelming firepower and moving fast enough to keep ahead of the German artillery, works. This does require lots of micromanagement and Target Light commands, but to me that's entirely realistic--platoons are going to have standing orders to lay down cover fire on suspected enemy positions, not just to shoot at identified enemies. The game engine can't do this so the player has to. The force ratios are fine, especially since if you attack on a narrow front you can avoid engaging some of the Ger
  2. There have been several good threads on this over the years; searching for the title of hte campaign and the scenario will turn them up. The premise of this scenario is that either the preliminary artillery was largely ineffective, or that you've been knocked off schedule so you're not following closely behind the barrage, which is why all you get is that one rocket mission. Some people have rejected that as unrealistic but it doesn't seem so to me--surely that kind of thing happened sometimes and the battalion commander had to make the best of it. I''m not an expert on Soviet doctrine bu
  3. In addition to what others have said, Hunt isn't likely to be useful here. First, the spotters will move crouched over, which is more visible than crawling. Second, Hunt won't actually stop the spotters moving as soon as they have a line of sight to the enemy positions, as I think you were hoping. Unless you take fire, they will keep moving until they get an actual spot on an identified enemy unit. That will take longer, and it's also unnecessary since you already know where the enemy is and you don't need a full spot to call in the mortars. The best way to find a position with LOS to the enem
  4. In CMBN and CMFB the weapons platoon leader does have a radio, and so does his top sergeant in the HQ support team. This may represent an improved TO&E in 1944-45 compared to the 1943 version in CMFI. The weapons platoon organization changed significantly from 1943 to 1944 so it's possible that the army agreed the old organization made it too cumbersome to use the mortars. In any case I believe the SCR-536 handheld radios were issued at the company level, so the game programming must be making some guesses about how they'd be allocated to platoons. I seem to recall that in some previ
  5. I think it helps in two main ways: 1) the Hull Down command introduced in 4.0 can be very useful in the tank-heavy scenarios of CMRT, and 2) Soviet squads are generally better off unsplit, so the improved spacing in v4 keeps them alive more effectively (and makes it more realistic looking compared to the old conga lines). To me the other parts don't make as big a difference. Corner peeking looks cool but I don't recall it making a huge difference in any CMRT scenarios I've played. CMRT did suffer from the fleeing-from-fortifications bug before 4.01, but of course it was never affected by
  6. I believe that the Personnel setting is also only available for missions plotted before the game starts, or near TRPs--on the assumption that the artillery knows the exact range to TRPs, or has time to measure it before the game starts, so they can set the fuses appropriately.
  7. Related to this topic, I just witnessed an AI war crime. This guy surrendered then they threw a grenade at him anyway. (I'm not saying this is a bug; I imagine the enemy TacAI decided to fire before his own TacAI decided to surrender).
  8. This probably refers to the M4A1 mortar carrier, a predecessor to the M21, not to the M4A1 medium tank. As I recall mortar carriers weren't coded yet when CMFI and GL came out. http://americangimuseum.org/collections/restored-vehicles/m4a1-mortar-carrier-halftrack-1943/
  9. Sadly it seems this bug is still around, at least in CMFI 2.02. Playing the third scenario of the Troina campaign I observed a couple of occasions where cancelling a Target Light order causes a (US) unit to fire off one rifle grenade before they stop shooting. I wonder if the code cancels the "Light" limitation a split second before it cancels the "Fire" order? I have a saved game showing this behavior.
  10. As @Howler said this still sounds bugged to me. I did some tests with this scenario and noted that in v3.12 and v4, not only do the troops not flee forwards, they usually flee back, which makes far more sense. In 4.01 and 4.02 whenever they flee, it's always forward. So even if the issue here is that the pixeltruppen are seeing the elevation change in front of them as "better cover," that is itself new behavior in 4.01 and 4.02. The old behavior--seeking safer cover by moving back from the hedgerow--seems far more realistic to me.
  11. If you're seeing troops in buildings taking casualties from mortar shrapnel, it seems more likely that it came in through a window or door or shellhole than that it penetrated the building. I believe that probability is factored into the abstracted chance of taking casualties from a shellburst.
  12. On the flip side, the large teams allow the MG to stay in action longer. With US teams that are split, you will sometimes end up with the three-man team all wounded or dead and no way for the ammo bearers to take over the MG.
  13. Exactly, thanks @Howler. I am hopeful a fix is technically possible because of how German MG assistants behave, but I'm under no illusions that this is likely or easy or a priority.
  14. Since I think v3.12 or v4, if you have an FO adjust a fire mission it adjusts *all* the fire missions he's currently directing. I know people have posted about this before but I can't find the threads now. I'm wondering if anyone recalls how this was resolved--was it judged not to be a bug but to be intended behavior? If so, I'm having trouble figuring out what it is supposed to represent.
×
×
  • Create New...