Jump to content

General Liederkranz

Members
  • Posts

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    General Liederkranz got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in A question about cover   
    But don't use "Hunt" for moving into position, even though it may seem like the right command (and it did to me at first). Once they spot something they'll stop and dump all their remaining orders, including the pause and the movement command to get out of there after the pause!
  2. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Michael Emrys in A question about cover   
    It might be nice if the Hunt command could be revised in such a way that instead of dumping remaining orders, it would insert a pause as soon as it spots a target, but then continues as soon as the target is neutralized. In practice that might not make a whole lot of difference on most occasions, but in some it might.
    Michael
  3. Like
    General Liederkranz got a reaction from ctcharger in A question about cover   
    But don't use "Hunt" for moving into position, even though it may seem like the right command (and it did to me at first). Once they spot something they'll stop and dump all their remaining orders, including the pause and the movement command to get out of there after the pause!
  4. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Josey Wales in Wehrmacht resilience vs. Dogface nervousness   
    I've just run some tests in the editor and gun crews do behave slightly differently from infantry when suffering from Combat Shock and Combat Stress. The tests were done with small arms so as not to confuse the results seen with the HE bug.
    Typically infantry that is 'Rattled' will stay put unless they become 'Pinned' at which point they will auto evade. A static gun crew however will stay on their gun when 'Rattled & Pinned'.
    Gun crews do seem to abandon the gun sometimes in the 'Shaken' & 'Panic' states, however there were times during the tests when 'Shaken' crews do not abandon the gun, and 'Panic'ked crews attempt to relocate the gun. The reason as to why a crew will choose to remain on the gun as opposed to abandoning it is not yet understood. I think it is too early to say it is a bug, it could just be a mechanic that is not yet well understood.
  5. Upvote
    General Liederkranz got a reaction from Warts 'n' all in Cover   
    Assuming you mean a typical small wooden house, I'm not sure one is better against small arms/MGs, but the foxhole is often better protection from direct-fire HE fired from the same elevation, because the round has to hit the ground right near a hole to inflict casualties. In some cases you can't even manually target the action spot where a foxhole is located because it's on a reverse slope. The building, on the other hand, offers a nice aiming point that tanks or guns can easily hit, and a perpendicular surface that will detonate the shell. If you're taking fire from a higher elevation, though, the building might be better. And against mortars, the building is definitely better. But you also have to consider that a human opponent will often preemptively area fire at important buildings, whereas you can put foxholes in unexpected positions. As @Michael Emrys says, it's "highly variable"--which makes the cover model more interesting than in, say, ASL, where a foxhole and a wooden building are both simply +2 TEM.
    In my experience most tanks (e.g. 75mm or so guns) can knock out wooden bunkers and kill everyone inside with one or two shots. 
  6. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to ChrisND in Order completed!   
    The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
  7. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to MOS:96B2P in Questions from a newbie   
    @Chibot Mk IX 
    IIRC Excalibur precision was rolled back in patch 1.03 in May 2015 and the precision of laser-guided munitions such as Krasnopol was bumped up.
    The Russian Zala UAV is the only UAV in CMBS that can't spot for precision rounds.  So the Russian Pchela and Orlan UAV will spot for precision artillery. 
    Based on a previous thread, linked below, I don't think the in-game ECM affects GPS.  So ECM (in the game, don't know about RL) does not affect the US Excalibur round. 
    http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125644-precision-artillery-with-excalibur-shells-keeps-missing-target/?do=findComment&comment=1721907
     
  8. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to domfluff in New Schmuck in need of advice   
    Firstly, Bil's site is *Amazing*

    http://battledrill.blogspot.com/

    1) The Modern games are a lot more lethal, and a lot less forgiving of error.

    2) Urban combat is really hard, even for the professionals. Losing troops is normal, and it's a inch-by-inch, miserable process of "solving" one house or street at a time, sometimes.

    3) It generally useful to keep Platoons together, for a couple of reasons, but mostly around Command and Control (C2). The main upshot of keeping C2 is that your units will share spotting contacts (spotting the enemy faster), and they will have some defence against suppression (keeping your suppression down and your firepower up).

    The way it tends to work, as per Bil's site, is that a platoon has an objective, and may have elements attached to support it. In Breaking the Bank, I split up the Javelin team into two (Javelins are great anti-armour, but they also spot really well), one with each platoon, and also assigned an engineer, sniper team and Challenger MBT to each of them. 

    You generally want to engage the enemy with as little of your force as possible, so that you maintain maximum options - one of those options is to halt the advance, and bring in a second platoon to assist. That's a little trickier in complex terrain, but it still applies.

    IanL maintains a great FAQ thread: 

    Possibly the most valuable in there are:
     
    and
     
  9. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Ithikial_AU in Isn't the M8 Howitzer supposed to be in the cavalry troop?   
    Confused. It's there at least in CMBN - September 1944. I was building a scenario with them at the start of the year relating to the Panzer Bridage attack against Luneville. Yeah need to get back to that project.
  10. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Myles Keogh in Missing weapon slot for the Russian DT?   
    Just to be clear, I am asking if the "weapon slot" (the silhouette in the vanilla UI) for DT is missing for everyone else. 
    The DT is IN the game.  If you mouse over a crew member manning one then you'll see "DT" as the weapon listed and they will fire them.  However, there doesn't appear to be a weapon slot for the DT- no physical depiction of it like for all the other crew weapons of a Soviet tank.  In contrast,  you'll see the crew manned silhouette of the MG-34 for German tanks and .30 cal. for the Americans.   It appears the DT's missing weapon slot was an oversight by BF and just wanted to confirm.
  11. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Josey Wales in Tactical use of splitting squads?   
    Whilst the morale state of a squad is the average of the teams that compose it, the fatigue state that is applied to the squad is that of the team with the lowest state.
    e.g. 2 teams with a Cautious morale state (not being caused by suppression) join up with their 3rd team which has a Rattled state (not being caused by suppression) will average the squad out to Nervous.
    However, 2 teams that are rested joining up with their fatigued team mates make the entire squad fatigued. This is because an element can only move as fast as it's slowest sub-element whilst maintaining cohesion.
  12. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to DerKommissar in 8.8 cm Raketenwerfer 43?   
    Are you sure you're not refering to the paratrooper 75mm recoilless rifle?

    This one is listed in the TO&E in Gustav Line.

  13. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Wicky in US "Cannon Company" placed in wrong tab   
    Have a read of the monograph I linked to earlier  - they were almost cancelled early on by McNair but call from those on the pointy end still wanted them which helped quickly overturn the decision - and while difficult to haul around and keep up with advances (they ideally wanted self-propelled guns) they proved useful in a few situations i.e. Sicily with distrupting enemy armour attacks and direct fire at blocking bunkers, fixed fortifications.
  14. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Pete Wenman in German halftrack MG carrier?   
    Chamberlain and Doyle do reference both with the 250 referred to Sd Kfz 250/1 ( s MG). No specific designation is given for the 251
    In both cases the vehicles is identified as the carrier of the HMG group of an Armoured Infantry Det.
    For the 250 it is stated
    Crew 6. This version carried the support Halbgruppe with two MG34 in heavy field mountings.
    For the 251
    Crew 11. Armament two sMG34, one MG34 or 42. Ammunition 2010
    Difficult to determine whether these had different mounts for the MG from which the weapons could fire when mounted in the vehicles or whether they were just the carrier for the sMG teams
    P
  15. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Bulletpoint in US "Cannon Company" placed in wrong tab   
    Yep, you're right. I just checked and it does come with an HQ unit. No jeep though.
    @Michael Emrys Yes, the Cannon Company is much faster to call in (9 mins) than the regular 105s (13 mins). However, the call times are the same for every HQ unit; the Cannon Company guy doesn't get through any faster. So he's pretty superfluous.
    Here's a balancing problem: There is no reason to EVER buy the regular Medium howitzers. 
    In both cases, you get 105s, and they cost the same amount of points per shell. However, the Cannon Company divides into three separate units, so can target three different positions. And it gets called in much faster. Ok, you then have to spend 17 points on the HQ unit, but that's peanuts, and that unit can be used for a scout or observation post.
    I guess for scenario purposes, it's still nice to have both options though.
  16. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Kaunitz in WWII - sp. ATguns/TDs VS. tanks (in an infantry support role)   
    My recent H2H game taught me the differences between self-propelled ATguns (or tank-destroyers) and proper tanks in an infantry support role the hard way. I thought it would be interesting to discuss the topic and share some experiences here. If possible, though, I'd like to keep the discussion based on gameplay, not on real doctrines. I'm not really an expert, when it comes to definitions. For easyness' sake (disregarding that the two types discussed here were probably more differentiated based on their tactical and operational deployment rather than by technical intricacies?), let's just say that: 
    A tank has a turret and at least 1 MG (more often 1 turret and one hull MG). Most tanks in CM have ample supply of both, HE and AP ammo. In CM, it's usually much more expensive than a sp. ATgun A sp. ATgun has no turret (and the traversable angle of the gun is often very limited) and no MG. Most sp. ATguns in CM are focused on AP ammo and carry only few HE rounds (with some exceptions, e.g. SU 76M). An ATgun is usually much cheaper than a tank. Now a few thoughts:
    In an assault, you often want to lay down fire on several positions within a single turn at slightly varying angles to your vehicle's front. Because of its turret, the tank is so much better at this. As the whole vehicle needs to point in the direction of the shot, a spATg would need to approach in a curved, snake-like line or, alternatively, stand still for long intervalls to turn on its tracks. Any errors in planning the movement can be fatal, as the spATg might not fire at all if you fail to give it enough time to turn (pay attention to the turning stat of your vehicle!!). The tank, by contrast, can go in a straight line and fire at any angle.   For the same reason, the tank is much superior to the spATg in what could be called "corner situations" - these are the typical situations in which you want to go in one direction, but fire in another direction. For example, take a crossroad in a village - you know there is an enemy position around the corner. The tank can rotate its turret while still in cover, then expose itself and fire almost immediately at 90°. The spATg would need to expose itself, then rotate slowly on its tracks, and only then could it fire. So, for any kind of close combat and corner situation, the tank is superior.  In many cases in CM, main guns - the only weapon spATguns have - are tricky to use. The main gun is more dependent on proper aiming (and on confirmed contacts, for that matter). If your target is positioned somewhere around the same height as your muzzle, you will run into troubles. The main gun's HE shells are effective only if they actually hit something - either the ground or an obstacle. If they miss, they often have no effect on the intended target whatsoever, depending on the lay of the land. E.g. if the opponent is behind a gentle ridge, almost at the same height as your muzzle, and the surroundings are flat, it can be very hard to get a valid area target anywhere close to the suspected contact. Shots aimed too low will do nothing as the target is in cover behind the ridge. Shots aimed too high will sail over the heads of the target harmlessly. Note that this problem is most notable on flat terrain with main guns that are located close to the ground (vehicles with low silhouettes) and therefore may affect spATguns more than tanks. Main guns in turrets are located "higher" and can therefore see over terrain much better and area-target spots more accurately/easily - on a flat surface, the target will be positioned lower than the gun, making it easier for the gun to hit somewhere close to it. Positioning yourself somewhere higher than your target (on a hill) can solve the problem, if you're lucky enough to find such an elevation on the map. NOTE: I wished that assault guns with low velocity/curved trajectory weapons would get some kind of bonus here. I really think they should be allowed to target reverse slope areas (like mortars). The MG, by contrast, is less dependent on actually hitting the target in order to be "effective". So this is a big plus for tanks. With a tank, you can try to get the turret-MG in a position where it can deliver grazing fire (bullets traveling close to the ground over flat terrain), which allows you to strafe areas (far beyond your MG's line of sight) that are hard to hit with your main gun. Tanks would be even better if the game allowed you to use their hull-MG for area-fire commands (unless hull-down, the hull MG, being closer to the ground level, can often achieve grazing fire more easily than the turret MG whose fire will be directed "downwards", hitting the ground instead of traveling on at dangerous grazing height).   
     
  17. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to db_zero in BMP 1p (4c) Main Gun   
    Thanks for the info. I guess the solution is to add an extra man or contact the Russian MOD and get them to change their doctrine. Someone once posted a picture of Putin playing Black Sea. You’d think after a few games and seeing the performance of his BMPs he’d get on the phone and have the MOD to rewrite doctrine...
    I’m not crazy about using extra pixel troops to gain better spotting. It does sound crazy and a bit gamey but it is what it is...
    Well now I’ll know what to do with my bailed out crewmen or shot up squads 
  18. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to RockinHarry in Improvement suggestions   
    I´ve bit of an issue with (german) squads and assault order, that too oftenly the supposed support half of the squad (the one with the lMG) makes the first move. This is more of a problem with AI forces and making the assault order at instances less usefull (more hazardous) than it could be. I´d like having sort of a switch/toggle to pre assign a set move order for the individual teams during assault or maybe even every other move order.
    A related issue is the position of the squad leader for split teams. With german squad example I´d oftenly wish to have the squad leader and the benefit of the added Binoc assigned to the lMg half of the squad, while having the rifle half hidden and in full cover. Beside adaption to WW2 employment doctrine it would give the lMG portion with added SL some more advantages at middle ranges (spotting and engagement chance at 300-800m), while generally keeping the footprint of the whole squad low (rifle and AT sections hidden and in full cover). For full exploitation a "split off lMG team" from the full squad option would be quite usefull.
  19. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to ASL Veteran in How come Nebelwerfers are so rare in the big German scenarios?   
    Like I mentioned, the performance for Nordwind could be described as uneven and the descriptions I mentioned were for the initial attacks on New Year's Day with specific Volksgrenadier units.  You also can't draw much of a conclusion from total casualty figures since those would include a lot of non combat related casualties and there were phases of the operation where both sides were attacking and defending at different times.  Hatten, for example, was an intense city fight for more than a week before the Americans elected to voluntarily withdraw several miles behind a river to shorten their lines.  The Germans were so battered and bruised from that battle that they didn't even follow up the American withdrawal for something like twelve hours if I remember right (scenario Hot Time in Hatten and Breaking the Line).  The US twelfth armored division also launched a division level counterattack on the German bridgehead over the Rhine and was annihilated (scenario: A War Without Mercy and Last Man Out).  On the approach march to Wingen sur Moder the Nord battalions almost wiped out an entire American company in prepared defensive positions and followed that up by capturing or killing several HQ and supply units in the town itself without suffering very many casualties in the process (scenario Wax Museum and Drive them Out).  Troops out in winter conditions with WW2 era equipment for extended lengths of time would also suffer a lot of frostbite and sickness related losses.  So basically quoting Operation level casualty figures tells you nothing of value with regard to how the units fought tactically.  In order to know what happened tactically at the squad and platoon level you have to read first hand accounts.
  20. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to sburke in How come Nebelwerfers are so rare in the big German scenarios?   
    Some yes, but the performance of the German army in the opening days was certainly questionable.  The Twin Villages, Marnach, St Vith all examples of stubborn American units heavily outnumbered and holding their own long enough to completely disrupt the German timetable.  To say the above NEVER happened leaves one to ask then what did because the offensive certainly did not go as planned.  The above quote is from the 395th IR in front of Monschau in Cole's book Chapter 5 page 88 defending against the 326th VG division.  I have no reason to doubt the report.  The US units held the ground and would be able to verify the German losses.  German accounts may be detailed, that does not necessarily mean they are accurate. 
  21. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Snake726 in How come Nebelwerfers are so rare in the big German scenarios?   
    Speaking of VG "human wave" attacks, I have read that this is really a reported perception, not a tactic.

    That is, first-hand accounts sometimes report a "human wave" attack, but the argument is that what has in fact happened is that successive assault waves have become tangled up and clumped together due to poor planning and/or poor execution during an attack.
    We all know that a frontal attack involves, well, getting up and moving forward. But I haven't found a historian yet who cites anyone ordering human wave attacks - not even the Russians, whom I always had assumed had launched these sort of attacks, thanks to media representations of it.

    For instance, during the Normandy landings and in the Pacific you see some instances of individuals or small units charging unsuppressed machinegun positions, eliminating them, but being killed in the process. This is the sort of thing that happened to larger units.

    For instance, in Beevor's book Ardennes 44 he describes an American machinegun crew holding off an SS unit all day, noting that the Germans continually mounted charges straight ahead. This was not a "human wave", but a failure to locate and suppress the enemy base of fire before advancing - they were trying to get away with movement without the fire.

    Similarly, at Cassino, we can imagine what would have happened if the Commonwealth didn't have artillery support, and if the first wave was pinned down crossing open ground. Subsequent assault waves would pile up, and unit leaders would perhaps get men moving forward under fire to avoid remaining in the kill zone.

    So, a "human wave" attack is really nonsensical as a concept, something that commanders do not order - rather it is advancing under fire, with the perception that a "human wave" attack has occurred when the defenders are overrun or are able to defeat a large attack that wasn't properly supported.
  22. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to Kaunitz in Tiny details you might have missed   
    Interesting! Thanks for the info! Afaik though, the engine can't handle firing ports (e.g. in modern titles with the IFVs)? 
    I've been playing CM for a long time, but I've come across this just now, analyzing why my squad was so bunched up in my current H2H game. I guess most of you already know (lol)?
    In the crew/infantry UI-window, there is a maximum of three columns. For infantry, these columns actually represent squares occupied by the unit. The first/left column shows you the soldiers that are positioned on the "primary square" of the unit, the second/center column those positioned on the "secondary square" (if any) and the third/right column those on the "tertiary square" (if any). The "combine squad" order lets you concentrate more soldiers on fewer squares. E.g. with the "combine squad" order,  you can fill up empty slots in the first and second column with soldiers from the third to reduce the unit's footprint from 3 to 2 squares. Note that you can observe how the individual soldiers from the third column will move over to their new square/column individually. Each column can hold up to 7 soldiers. So, if your unit is stronger than 7 soldiers, it will take up 2 squares. Finally a tip: When splitting squads, make sure you never end up with a "7 men on one square" unit. It's horribly bunched up.  
  23. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to domfluff in Sd.Kfz 251s: Not just battle taxis   
    Inspired by this, I set up a near best-case scenario against the AI to play around with panzergrenadiers in detail. Using CMRT, a platoon of halftracks against a Soviet rifle platoon, with a couple of HMG's, on an Open map.

    The halftracks, perhaps unsurprisingly, dominated. I did find that they were best used buttoned up, minimising gunner exposure time (I did lose two gunners, but one was due to wandering into SMG range, and the other from some sneaky enfilade fire, so I'd be happy claiming both as my fault). Keeping the halftrack's nose pointing towards the enemy made them pretty much invulnerable. The tighter cone of incoming fire was evident, alongside the immediate reaction times of the enemy, but it didn't make a huge amount of difference.

    Mostly the engagement was from 300-500m away, and the three HMG and one sdkfz/17 - the 2cm variant. This has all-around armour protection for the gunner, and was extremely effective.

    "Assault" orders from the back of the halftrack are interesting - they'll all jump out, and half of them will take up positions next to the vehicle, whilst the other half sprint forward. That's probably the best way to dismount in general.

    Knowing that there were not AT weapons on the other side made bolder moves possible. Charging directly in spraying fire would still have been daft, but this is probably the best I've ever seen halftracks operate.
     
  24. Upvote
    General Liederkranz reacted to slysniper in Improvement suggestions   
    I will throw in my simple request that has bothered me since their very first cm game.
    Add a blasted wind directional arrow to the directional compass or something along that lines.
    drives me crazy that the only way to tell which way the wind is blowing and how strong is to pull up the text in the briefing.
    Wnen I am looking at a enemy position from a friendly location, I should have a arrow indicating that. instant knowledge as to what likely to expect of smoke and such.
  25. Like
    General Liederkranz reacted to Michael Emrys in Improvement suggestions   
    In the real war, tanks were usually loaded with HE on the premise that any contact come upon unexpectedly was much more likely to be unarmored. In the event that the surprise did happen to be armored, the quickest way to unload the HE round was to fire it at the contact. Besides, the HE might do some damage or at least ring the crew's bell.
    Michael
×
×
  • Create New...