chuckdyke
-
Posts
5,127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by chuckdyke
-
-
6 hours ago, IanL said:
You can do that now with the whole crew - Bail Out command. Are you suggesting just the TC dismount alone like a split squad for crew. That would be cool actually. But would the TC go alone on such a mission or would another crew member join them or would it be more common for the whole crew to go?
I am curious about the historical practice.
I have seen a picture of a Russian commander on the crest of a hill inside verbal range of his vehicle. What would be cool too is have a position like hull-down that only a .50 Cal machine gun is visible. Which you can do in RL. Useful also for APC's or halftracks. Almost impossible to plot manually. The list goes on, using an immobilized vehicle for a hide etc.
-
On 4/8/2016 at 4:23 PM, user1000 said:
http://s17.postimg.org/64rtmijou/dmpatrol.jpg
More tankers doing dismounted recon over a hill, why risk the tank? With no friendly troops in the area the tankers pull the duty.
It was common practice for the commander to dismount with his binoculars to have a look on the crest or on the attic of a nearby house. Something for Game Engine 5?
-
On 1/4/2021 at 11:15 AM, weapon2010 said:
its only 30 seconds , but they sit there for another 30 seconds doing nothing , they have a prime target at 131m, they are under command and tired, any thoughts on why they wont fire the PZ?
A: morale is on cautious B: There is no plan to exit the building. C they can't keyhole their target (Sure they can fire and tank B can take them out.) Plot your fire in the last 15 seconds of the 60 minutes turn. At the new turn they can do an exit from the building. Have an assault team popping smoke on the end of their turn. Just a few suggestions.
-
Fifty or so JS2's pulled up in front of a suspected PAK 75 mm position. The PAK 75 mm didn't fire, and nobody could blame them. Always plan for an exit if you don't have one you didn't plan right. How many people reverses an AFV after you plot a firing order? I watched YouTube videos and not many do.
-
3 hours ago, THH149 said:
Howdy
I played Factory Outlet H2H the other day and wanted to give a rundown of the action and learning from the encounter.
I was the Syrian Red Force and my opponent's turn to take US Army Blue Force. US attack with a first wave of three Abrams, accompanied by Strykers with the Abrams old gun and a selection of Bradleys with TOW launchers, and second wave as reinforcements were a company of infantry and engineers in Strykers, plus OBA and Apache helicopters. Their mission is to control four buildings spread across a factory complex (one however was outside the complex walls - the "Offices") with largely open ground either side of the complex (long fields of fire) and a wadi along the rear left of the complex. The buildings are arranged factory/warehouse/admin building in a front to rear format with the Office building on the center left. In front of the Factory there is a unmanned trench protected by scatter minefields (neither the mines or trenches can be moved at set-up), and there are trenches and a bunker or two on each flank.
Red force was a mixed bag of special forces infantry with a large number of green/conscript infantry, plus a AT company armed with two AT-3 Saggers, 2 RCLs and 2 HMGs plus some squads with RPGs. At around turn 25, Red force receives a company of T-62MVs (these are an upgraded model with ERA blocks) supported by three BRDMs with AT-5s.
Red Force set-up is broken into three set-up zones - the AT company is forced to be on the syrian left of the complex, a platoon plus of green infantry is forced to set-up on the right, with the rest spread across the four buildings. As my friend and were playing live via network play I didn't feel I had time to adjust the provided set-up to much (more on that later), but I did move a sniper team out of the Offices and put them into the Warehouse, and fiddled a bit with the saggers so they had a chance of a side shots on US vehicles. The Offices were already isolated and didnt feel like throwing a sniper team away. I didn't man the bunkers as they stand out like sore thumbs and are immediately targetted. In the read Admin Building there was a command squad, a sniper team and an observation team which spotted for batteries of 152mm. The observer let his first barrage go at minute one as pre-registered as airburst (a mistake) over the zone forward of the factory. As much as possible I hid everyone for as long as possible (too long perhaps, another mistake).
Broadly, the Abrams advanced with Bradleys behind, followed by the Strykers with the big guns shooting up the left and right flanks. Mostly the green Syrians cowered or ran as soon as they heard firing. A highpoint was one Sagger team destroying an Abrams (IIRC), but they quickly retreated from supporting vehicles return fire. The left bunker was first thing targetted along with the two bunkers on the right. The right flank was more misery as the Syrians were shot up by Bradleys and Abrams and friends who all stayed well out of RPG range. No more right and left flanks.
Once the flanks were cleared the factory assault began, but one Abrams was immobilised by the minefield. By then the US second wave had arrived and Strykers began to pour fire into the factory. The Strykers advanced to far into the complex and two went down to RPG fire, and several US squads were shatted by heavy infantry fire. A trade-off was the Syrian special forces squad (rated Crack) all died in the firefight. However, the Syrians kept holding on moving about the rear of the building, attempting to force the US to move adjacent and take point blank fire as they did so. Unfortunately, the US was on the roof and was using that advantage to interdict my own movement upstairs. The Syrian's knew all this was coming and planned their all batteries barrage onto the complex itself.
While that was happening, other Strykers were streaming past the Factory and moving infantry to assault the Warehouse and Admin buildings, (they'd taken the Offices and were using the roof to spot for OBA). I didn't have many units to defend those buidlings - a few squads and the threat of RPGs. All the buidlings are awkwardly constructed with several windowless walls and limited internal doorways so we both had to be super careful about orders in case our fellas ran into the streets and firelanes.
Anyway, while all this was happening, the cavalry arrived! yeeha! The ten T-62s will save the day right?
As soon as the T-62s appeared (in a very close clump of vehicles which is unlikely to be a realistic tactical employment) they started firing and knocked out three US vehicles. In the first orders phase after they appeared, I decided the best thing to do with them was to move Fast/Quick forward so they could move and shoot (a mistake) more out of position US vehicles, for the BRDMs to get hull down and seek out targets. In response, the Abram, strykers, TOWs and Bradleys plus Apaches had a field day with all reinforcements knocked out in 2-3 minutes. Nope, the cavalry didn't save us. The ERA blocks weren't enough to save the vehicles from repeated hits.
Anyhow, the US returned to the grind of clearing out the complex, and once my last OBA ended and due to the hour of the night, I called for a ceasefire.
Here's the result (sad face):
All credit to my opponent Andrew who played a very careful game. The US ground objective wasn't realised at the ceasefire as some objectives weren't solely controlled, but with a lot of time on the clock, the US would have captured all the buildings.
Some things I liked/didn't like about the scenario:
- I've got to do better playing old soviet armor. Researching the T-62 tells me they have poor move and shoot abilities, so a better play would be to move and then shoot from a halt, rather than shooting while moving. Syrians can only hope that Apaches aren't around when they enter.
- Set-up and reinforcements entry is to restrictive and probably not according to doctine. Why would Syrians put Saggers in front line when they have a 500 meter minimum range? reinforcements cant be entered as the player prefers but arrive as one tight group - only 2-3 spaces between vehicles which is weird. Se-up should allow the human player to put the Syrians anywhere behind the current most forward Red set-up zone, and let the player use their judgement on the spread of forces. There's no possibility of moving mines or trenches in front of the Factory, making for boring repeated play as H2H.
- The victory conditions are unbalanced. Despite the designer notes saying that both sides get the chance for equal points, the Blue Force can score 1500 points and the Red force 1200. The specific allocations are unbalanced as well - for instance if the Syrians keep their own casualties below 50% then they get 200 points which is completely unrealistic (it should be 90-95% casualties), and Red force gets 200 pts if they score 35% casualties against Blue (the % is way to high). There is also a pts allocation of 400 pts for elimating the US force or share there-off - the only points Red force scored (184 of 400, or 46%). The VC are complicated (they need a monte carlo simulation to work out if both sides have a chance of winning the game) and as usual not shown to the players before they start.
- Red force should have some anti-air capabilities.
- There are some entrenchments near the Factory, why would Syrians occupy those? My only idea is to use them in some reverse slope/ambush/enfilade position and man them with RPGs (or RCLs if they can be moved from the left flank) and avoid the backblast, but they'd be exposed with few retreat options (depends on access to buildings' door ways). Though that's something to explore.
Overall, I did like the contest and there were some dramatic moments (a cheap as chips Sagger defying the odds to take out an Abrams), but overall the balance as a game (where both players have an equal chance of winning the game even though Red force will get hammered) is probably 75-80% in Blue's favour. I'd reduce the length of the scenario, allow Red set-up across one deployment zone, change the deployment of Red reinforcements to be more tactically aware, and change the VC to have the US only score points for the ground captured, while Red only score points for US casualties. Another change I'd make is to bump the Conscripts to Green and Green units to Regular.
Have you played this scenario? What do you think?
THH
I think just change the parameters. US forces follow Norman Schwarzkopf philosophy of one body-bag is one too many. As Syrian you need just to kill one HQ unit for example or take out an Abrams Tank. The Americans probably end up with a Pyrrhic Victory so be it, get too many of them and the public will protest and vote for a withdrawal. Yesterday I lost one Warrior IFV didn't realize they built only a thousand of them. Today at Al Amarah two Strykers and with 5 killed ended up with a major victory only as I failed the parameters for a total victory.
-
The purpose of a minefield is to create a chokepoint (chokepoints) to channel the enemy's forces to a killing area of your choice. You don't want to do that, scout for at least three approach routes or conduct a breaching operation through the minefield. It may be cheaper than going through a killing area full of TRP's you don't know off. "Hi Aussie (a Yank once called) I stepped on one of your mines." Is that right mate be with you in a second!" 15 minutes later he walked over got a pin out of his pocket dug under the boot and put the pin back in the 'Jumping Jack'. Then the fight started for some reason.
-
Their motivation is 'Cautious' Yes it takes a brave man to fire, how does he get away?
-
They have Abrams for mine clearing in RL. Talking about mines I wish I could equip troops with Claymores. Just to get even, knock on a door and run away after leaving a little present behind.
-
22 hours ago, Erwin said:
To me what is surprising is not the length of time it takes BF to produce product given the tiny development staff, but the fact that BF is still in business after 21+ years and AFAIK the only and last surviving developer making realistic and brilliant tactical wargames for our tiny niche within a niche market.
We should not begrudge these guys from wanting to make some money from MOD even though that surely has delayed all entertainment product development. My only hope is that BF is making the money they deserve and are not getting exploited. My experience in the US DoD development game is that the sort of products that BF has been developing for us gamers would cost million of dollars - and many millions more when developing for a government agency. These products would cost the customer many hundreds of thousands of dollars - very easily many millions. We are getting them for $60-$70 bucks! The biggest software bargain of all time.
The choice may be slow development of entertainment COTS vs no product at all. Yes, we're all impatient. But, we must consider the commercial realities.
I thought I was the only one who was thinking that. I looked for a long time for something like this, and these games are familiar. People bitching about the price! You have the opportunity to study military scenarios and come up with real life solutions in a fun way. I appreciate now modern equipment, MBT's travel cross country full speed and fire more accurately and are situational aware. It is now a completely different weapon. The Halftrack, APC have evolved into an IFV and has more fire power than a 60's MBT. A squad of infantry have their own personal AFV not just a battle taxi. You learn more in these games than by reading a library of books. My tip for the day, select a squaddie above his IFV. That's what I would do in real life and if real world tactics guide you, you never go wrong in this game. Be guided by common sense, like the Good Book. David and Goliath outrange a powerful enemy and you beat him. David the infantry man spotted Goliath (2 T72 MBT's) His sling was The Tac Air Controller, and the smooth pebbles were two Helicopters with ATGM's and the outcome was the same as all those years go. I am not religious, but a good read is a good read.
-
18 hours ago, Erwin said:
In all CM titles one has to avoid whenever possible having friendlies anywhere near the LOF of anything from 50 cal up (unless the inf is at a lower elevation). It's should be SOP to use the LOF/TARGET tool to see how close any friendly inf may be to the line of fire. If too close, make sure they are moved further out of the way b4 the gun starts firing.
And even when one is careful, it's always surprising to me how often a friendly can be hit by friendly fire that is occurring 50m-100m+ away. Also am suspicious of ricochets. In one instance I recall having a lot of suppressive fire aimed at a wall while my inf assaulted a nearby wall. They took a lot of casualties even though there did not seem to be any enemy fire. Am wondering how ricochets are modeled in CM.
I can't agree more, also if it comes to choices what do you select. The IFV or the Section of Squaddies? I selected the IFV the infantry section was outnumbered by what I estimate was a platoon. The recon had revealed troops in one building only. Only way to secure drive the IFV's right up to the wall to join in the firefight and keep the squad out of LOF of their cannons. The squad didn't lose anything of their combat effectiveness, the morale of the enemy collapsed. It is not the first time I used this tactic. I keep the IFV's always nearby.
-
3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
The Contacts Icons get relayed to the HQ of the Scouting units if they are in contact. If you place the 2iC unit with the Tac Air controller in his Vehicle, he gets the Contact Icons first spotted by the scouts. In this scenario, you're right the sub units don't convey information to each other even if they share the same building. It is nothing new, the Dutch underground spotted the headquarters of a Panzer Division in their town. British High Command ignored it as the Dutch underground was not part of their communications network. (The security of the Dutch underground was already compromised) Even when the network of the Dutch Telcom (PTT) was offered to them they stuck with their non-functioning short wave radio network. As they say the Battle for Arnhem is history. The story is an interesting one part of it is called Operation North Pole, till now we don't know how many double agents were involved. We get the idea when the likes of Speidel (Rommel's 2iC) became one of the staff of NATO. Give the 2iC a go with FO's when they don't share the same network. Watch the Green Radio Buttons. I use games which I already played for testing. I told a little bit of history as the game may also take into account communications protocols. By the way, I was Dutch born but am an Australian citizen for the last 55 years.
-
On 12/12/2020 at 2:53 AM, Aurelius said:
@Chibot Mk IX Great illustration. One major flaw - it took you five minutes to transmit that data throughout your units. As I play H2H only, it is of no use to me.
I tried doing something similar on several occasions and the results were spotty - hence my doubt.
I had a reserve militia battalion HQ (highest HQ of the formation) and special forces company HQ (highest HQ of the formation) in the same building. Next to the building was the tank company HQ (highest HQ of the formation) that was unbuttoned. They shared exactly 0 spotting contacts.
The Syrian C2 system is sketchy at the best.
Check the C2 structure yes different structures don't communicate with each other except on the higher levels. It can be protocol.
-
2 hours ago, THH149 said:
The consistent description I have for these kinds of vehicles - whether Marders, Bradleys, LAV, et al - is that they drop infantry 100-300 metres from battle zone and then let infantry advance with the vehicles providing fire 100-300 metres behind infantry both to suppress and destroy strongpoints etc to help speed the infantry along in their mission. They also have option of dropping infantry closer to objective, on the objective (very dangerous/aggressive), or past the objective, as well as forming a kind of battle group of AFVs (eg bronegruppa) to perform specific tasks including fire group onto the enemy from a different angle or relocate to a different part of the battle zone.
The US and NATO vehicles seem to be able to be used more variably/aggressively as they have ERA which helps protect against RPGs.
The combat power of their weapons doesn't require them to be point blank to have an effect, a hull down position 200metres behind the infantry is fine if it has LOS.
The BMP is a little different as it has a low silhouette and has difficulties using reverse slopes to get hull down as the gun depression angle is just 6 degrees. BMP1 and 2 is more exposed to fire and has to find other cover or a greater distance behind infantry, and doesnt have ERA. The BMP3 seems more comparable to modern western vehicles.
The last feature where you can hide to debus your infantry. The infantry needs the vehicle to weather an artillery or chemical attack. Three hundred meters is a long way to run in 38 C in full battle gear. The debussed infantry provides the protection against RPG attacks etc. IFV have taken the place of the infantry support tank in WW 2. IFV's and APC's in real life have been used to breach housing walls by driving right through it. You bring it as close, as necessary. I rather lose an IFV with 3 crew members than a squad. I just have a different opinion, the 300 meters you better off to debus infantry as their personal equipment is inside effective range. They protect each other by staying in proximity and maintain communications. You communicate at times by firing tracer at the spot where you want the IFV to fire. Best done in proximity of the vehicle. The .50 Cal of an APC fires traces where they want a nearby MBT to fire. It is all teamwork using the German saying Klotzen, nicht Kleckern , don't use one finger to knock use your fist. Roughly translated. Your keyword is LOS often AFV's don't have it, see or the squad keeps their IFV updated with their contacts by passing on the contact icons. If you don't have it, you risk that you see on screen no LOS and all the previous plotting doesn't work and is the cause of frustrations.
-
Great I still have Engine 3 for Red Thunder. Look forward to the new releases.
-
1 hour ago, Erwin said:
I did a bunch of tests while playing one of GeorgeMC's large CMSF map scenarios. The inf units sitting on top of each other would not communicate - least not after 5+ minutes, when I gave up trying to get them to acknowledge each others' existence - very rude I thought.
The Contacts Icons get relayed to the HQ of the Scouting units if they are in contact. If you place the 2iC unit with the Tac Air controller in his Vehicle, he gets the Contact Icons first spotted by the scouts. In this scenario, you're right the sub units don't convey information to each other even if they share the same building. It is nothing new, the Dutch underground spotted the headquarters of a Panzer Division in their town. British High Command ignored it as the Dutch underground was not part of their communications network. (The security of the Dutch underground was already compromised) Even when the network of the Dutch Telcom (PTT) was offered to them they stuck with their non-functioning short wave radio network. As they say the Battle for Arnhem is history. The story is an interesting one part of it is called Operation North Pole, till now we don't know how many double agents were involved. We get the idea when the likes of Speidel (Rommel's 2iC) became one of the staff of NATO. Give the 2iC a go with FO's when they don't share the same network. Watch the Green Radio Buttons. I use games which I already played for testing. I told a little bit of history as the game may also take into account communications protocols. By the way, I was Dutch born but am an Australian citizen for the last 55 years.
-
Don't forget Forest Gump. "We went for really long walks looking for a guy named Charlie. Charlie, where are you?" The NVA had something in abundance, which was time. Time is what took away success in Korea and Vietnam. Eventually the taxpayer votes in an administration which will pull out. Also, the boots on the ground didn't have to win the war the other guys had to. Omaha beach was won because it was the only way out of the situation. Bastogne the same story just enough resources to win and the boots on the ground knew it. This a war game can never achieve.
-
1 hour ago, Sulman said:
I actually found a tank and HMG crew were ideal companions for the AT firing position. In defence (as this was) they get overrun very easily, and you need a good HE tank (75mm is perfect) and an MG to keep the crew from breaking while they hook the gun up to the track or whatever mule you've got to pull it.
You don't live in a perfect world. The tank was for pursuit the AT gun for an anticipated counterattack. Once an AT gun fired it was gone. After WW 2 they were obsolete, they were cheap to make the Germans made 20000 PAK75 the reason the allies rather had the 75 mm than the 76 mm. The 17 pounder was about the practical limit. Already they had an experiment it was Rottkappchen (Little Red Riding Hood). A little rocket guided by 2 wires. Mmmm wonder were the Russians got that idea from. Panzerabwehrrakete X-7 Rotkäppchen | Weapons and Warfare
-
1 hour ago, Sulman said:
...Than towing an AT gun to a spot you picked, dismounting and deploying it, and that little 6pdr making a difference for that whole flank. I love the crewed weapon mechanics in CM2. Fabulous.
Here is one of the roles of the M4 Sherman. They provide cover while your AT guns or HMG position themselves. I never knock that tank there was a good reason they built fifty thousand of them. The 6-pounder had better armor penetration than the 75 mm. It could take on the Tiger's side between 500-1000 meters.
-
24 minutes ago, Sulman said:
@chuckdykeIt is the ww2 titles that gave me an understanding of the assault gun. I could not underrstand really what it was for, until I started regularly assaulting buildings with little artillery prep...Having a big HE thrower is very handy. It's a shame you can't open walls with them, like the breaching charges because that would open up many possibilities. Sure, you can blow out an entire wall, but that's not quite what I'd prefer. An infantry-sized hole would be great.
The Bradley's 25mm cannon is quite excellent for sweeping floors. Be careful though, it will easily kill your men (ask me how I know...). Make sure there's no AT enemy in the room as a covering Bradley will happily light the room up even with your guys in it. The Russian BMP-3's 30mm autocannon is similarly powerful, and that can handle tanks surprisingly well too. I'm a big fan of the BMP-3. Sure it explodes like a box of dynamite sometimes, but it's a pretty versatile beast.
The Centurion in Vietnam had a 105 mm the same gun as on the M60. That one was used to breach walls with it HE followed by Cannister Shot. 0.50 cal gave support for the infantry from the M-113. The drill needs to be rehearsed till it is 2nd nature. IFV their defense is their speed; people forget an Abrams on the move at full speed has more than a 90% hit probability at the ranges in Combat mission. Your IFV's travel in the formation of the MBT's. I figured out a drill in CM-SF2 which works, Abrams, Challenger or Leopards are versatile they are a jack of all trades. They breach walls with their cannon, IFV and APC's follow up in RL they can drive and breach walls further. Once on that stage infantry mop up the survivors inside. In CM the IFV's are just right up the wall they do the fighting. You should play on WeGo do the risky moves after a pause of 45 seconds and you can study your intel at leisure. When the enemy troops are in a fetal position your infantry storms inside. Apartment buildings: Boxing Barrage covers the sides and the back of an apartment. Take it from me whoever is inside surrenders your troops can remain inside their IFV's the moment the barrage lifts move inside. This works. MBT's fire their main gun for 45 seconds, the IFV for the full minute, you start the next turn see or the infantry can move inside. Artillery is the big killer, at Long Tan they won the day one Company (D Company 6RAR) vs a NVA regiment. The Forward Observer gave his own position as the TRP do it time enough to get out before you call fire for effect. In CM it comes automatically. I lost an IFV Warrior it bogged down whilst on full speed, little things like that can happen. On WeGo time your movements the crew could bail out and the section dismount in time.
-
On 12/29/2020 at 2:48 AM, Erwin said:
Yes, your initial approach makes sense. However generally, we players tend to agree that in RL one would demolish buildings from where enemy was firing effectively and killing our pals, and to hell with the points loss. In most CMSF missions you lose a lot more points for losing friendlies.
This is especially true in campaigns where force preservation should be important.
First thank you for your attention. Abrams Tanks don't seem to have HE and Cannister however I observed the following. Breach a wall with the 120mm and area fire inside the building with the quick firing weapon of an IFV or APC it is safe now for the infantry to assault. Their M203 grenade launchers to be used with the assault team. In SF2 Syrian infantry tend to surrender with little or no resistance. RL assault of Binh Ba Vietnam Centurion Tanks and M-113 did a similar tactic in support of a Company of infantry. The Centurion 105 mm had HE and Cannister for the operation. The M-113 had their .50 Cal. The Battle of Binh Ba: 6-7 June, 1969 | Army.gov.au
-
2 hours ago, Erwin said:
I never bothered playing Iron as I couldn't see much difference from Elite, but if one plays the C2 "game" it looks interesting. The big problem iwith C2 in the game is that the C2 system only works in a hierarchical manner and not per RL. You can have a bunch of units sitting on top of each other, but if they are not from the "right" formation(s), they will not talk to each other.
Yes, it is how the game operates. The 21 C team is responsible for the administration of the HQ. Lots of people use them as medics etc. It is a waste now the Forward Observers have the contact icon and plotting missions have become a lot easier. What good is a recon if your key people don't get the intel? The scouts run more risks and it is no good putting the Forward Observer in the same proximity. On Iron you must make sure the area of your gunships and fighter bombers doesn't include some of your own troops. It is an effective way to find out how effective a half ton bomb is. Trust me HQ's and their staff talk to other units which are not in the same hierarchy. FiST Vehicles have become more useful. I suggest you try it place your HQ or its 21 C team in the proximity of a unit with which they don't share the same C 2 network. In this game the 21 C team is inside the vehicle of the Tac Air Observer. The T72 tanks and their ATGM's support are now at the mercy of the helicopter gunships. The problem the AI can't figure out which observing post you use in the Area of Operations. I let the HQ Challenger bail out and get the intel too before I commit them, there is a good chance they score the first hit if they have the contact icon to go by.
-
43 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:
I think Iron mode makes a difference here also. IIRC, Iron mode has more "realistic" limitations on verbal and visual comms. You have to be closer for longer to pass info on to subordinates and non-subordinates.
The comms and the morale stuff are still two of the main features that other wargames lag behind on. CM2 seems to have a more detailed model for both and they are inter-related.
I just put on a post how to speed up intel on Iron as a new topic.
-
In the picture above I put the 21 C team in the same vehicle as the Tac Air Control Party. The result is that the intel of the scouts gets relayed to the Tac Air Control Party. On Iron difficulty people who don't share the C2 Link remain blissfully unaware. This works also with the other Forward Observers. The Artillery Observer is teamed up with the HQ of the recon party. The idea of wargaming against the AI experiment and see what works. You find much less LOS issues.
-
CMFB (Unofficial) Screenshot Thread
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
And in CM infantry and Armor don't share the C2. On Iron I come to the realization not to plot area fire unless having a contact Icon. Sending 5000 .50 Cal rounds in a house at 50 yards distance and still get an infantry squad wiped out was the eyeopener. Once the tanks had the visual it was over in one turn. Testing is usually done with the Icons visible and in Hot Seat area fire is also more effective, against the AI it is definitely a different game. I use now the Ci2 as the liaison contact. having the Comp HQ and the Armor HQ in proximity also works. Set it up in your TLP before you start a game.