RMM
-
Posts
355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by RMM
-
-
23 hours ago, Bozowans said:
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 sometimes they will seem to pin themselves down with their own grenade explosions before getting machine gunned by the enemy vehicle.
I have certainly seen infantry knock out vehicles with one or two grenade throws, but it's not very reliable. I find that I often have to swarm the vehicle with a lot of guys from multiple directions to reliably knock it out, and they will usually fail if they have any kind of suppression at all.
That sounds pretty true to life
-
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:
The thing about Sherman being a fire death trap, it wasn't so bad compared to other vehicles. PzIV and Panther would immediately burn like Roman candles when holed. The Russians grew to appreciate how a holed Sherman tended to not cook off its ammo like a bomb, like their T34s would, killing anyone standing nearby.
A handy rule of thumb in CM gameplay is 'Don't do anything in the game you wouldn't want to do personally in real life', whether its infantry charging a mg nest across open ground or driving your tank into an occupied town without infantry support.
That's an interesting addition. I have not been aware of such a reputation for the PzIV and V. The one for Sherman I've heard in numerous documentaries and interviews over the years.
It's definitely a feather in the cap for the game that real life advise can be applied to it, but I would also include in that attacking tanks with infantry unless they're of a higher calibre and in an urban setting or in possession of afore-mentioned, late-war anti-tank weapons.
-
1 hour ago, danfrodo said:
This thread was about whether to get CMBN, and none of this changes the answer -- YES. This is all quibbling about details and overlooking the big picture. Infantry should run away when they see tanks and be gunned down by machine guns? or stay under best available cover? We could argue this into the next century yet the reality is that basically everyone here plays CMBN and loves it so this is very much a small detail.
Oh, I've gone ahead with the purchase
-
3 minutes ago, John1966 said:
I'm not so sure. Yes, no-one would want to be in a Sherman when the tank could go up with a shot from an anti-tank gun you haven't even seen. But when the threat is right in front of you and vulnerable because it's pointed the wrong way, I'd think you're safest bet would be to shoot it again.
I'd also note that in RL, the Panther couldn't have even rotated its turret in the narrow street but I don't think CM models that.
Yeh, true 'nuff
-
Just now, John1966 said:
It occurs to me that in RL, the best you're liable to do with a grenade is immobilise it. Blow a track off. (In ASL that would be the "Defensive Fire Phase method")
To get a kill, you'd need to be shoving grenades through vision ports or hatches. (In ASL that would be the "Close Combat Phase method")
But the current engine can't really model the latter.
So I assume (as someone has already said) that it's abstracted to account for that plus specialist anti-tank devices, grenade bundles etc.
Yeh, fair enough, but it sounds like the balance could do with some tweaking in favour of the AFV
-
4 minutes ago, John1966 said:
When I got that Panther with infantry, I actually had a Sherman stalking it. But the crew were rattled. They got behind the Panther and fired one shot. Even got a penetration. What did they do? Finish it off? (It was short range, they were unlucky not to get the kill with the first hit) No, they popped smoke and reversed. *sigh* Then the infantry in the building next to the Panther (who'd just taken multiple casualties from the Panther's MA), KO'd with two grenades.
Go figure.
Makes sense in regards to the Sherman crew. Despite many historical notes, people actually didn't like the Sherman. It was actually regarded as a fire death trap, particularly when up against something like a Panther. The rule of thumb is that you needed at least three Shermans to take out a Panther, and at the end of it, you'd be thankful to still have one Sherman. However, particularly if the infantry just took casualties from the MA, that doesn't ring very true.
-
3 hours ago, John1966 said:
Yes, curiously armoured vehicles are more intimidated by tanks than infantry appear to be.
On the other hand, maybe that makes sense. Infantry at least can hope they've not been seen or there's something more important to shoot at.
That behaviour makes sense for lightly armoured vehicles, but I wouldn't think that infantry would be similarly spooked the same just because a tank appears somewhere. This is more in regards to having one right ontop of or adjacent to you.
-
54 minutes ago, Erwin said:
I can imagine that if you are in a big stinking steel can surrounded by gas fumes and HE with very limited if any visibility and you can hear loud CLANGS reverberating around you - you have no idea what is shooting at you or if the next one will kill you... one would be very nervous and eager to bail out to the fresh air. May not be "logical" but it's human nature.
I dunno though Erwin. I mean if you hear that stuff hitting the outside, I can't think that would be great motivation to jump out of the protection you have into that environment, particularly if you're not sure what it is. Plus, tank crews in general are pretty well trained an disciplined for that very reason. Personally, I'd think one would want to stay within the protective shield compared to the outside where you've got little more than a pistol at most.
-
2 minutes ago, John1966 said:
Yeah but it's fun.
To be honest it genuinely doesn't bother me. Tanks shouldn't be getting too close to infantry. If they're forced to in urban terrain then close infantry support should keep them reasonably safe.
Agreed that in an urban setting, that makes sense and is realistic
-
Yes, that just doesn't sound right at all. Pity
-
3 minutes ago, John1966 said:
My hunch is that, currently, there's no TC involved. (And also that grenades are more effective against tanks than perhaps they should be)
Sounds like you might be right unfortunately. I watched something similar on of the tactical videos from the former Army officer, and was pretty surprised by a Stuart, M5 tank being taken out by some grenade throwing infantry. I dunno. Sounds like a feedback and suggestion entry might be in order!
-
1 minute ago, John1966 said:
If it does (and it might), I've not seen much evidence of it lately. I've had more AFV kills with grenades than actual infantry AT weapons in the last couple of months. Many unplanned. As well as the aforementioned "distraction" incident, I had some engineers blow a wall behind a tank to give the a PIAT LOS. But as soon as they blew it they shouted "Enemy armour!" and started throwing grenades, knocking out the tank before the PIAT could fire. Curiously they didn't even use a satchel charge. Watched it several times to make sure.
Hmm, gotta say that sounds a bit sketchy.
-
Anyone on here able to confirm whether the game does in fact take into account an intimidation factor for infantry v's AFV's? Perhaps the earlier complaints against such a factor were based on that 'TC' being too restrictive?
-
1 minute ago, danfrodo said:
I totally agree RMM, I was just saying tanks were still quite reticent to move forward w/o infantry support unless in very open terrain. Yes, I would much rather be in the tank than being shot at by the tank. Until that tank moves next to my hedgerow or building and infantry disables it. In open fields it's not contest -- tank wins. but in terrain w cover tanks are vulnerable. Tanks still have the advantage, but it's no longer black & white situation. but by "43 infantry had better tools for dealing w tanks. And tanks definitely are terrifying.
Oh absolutely. Combined arms has been proven over and over again. Ironically, it was the Germans who got a serious reminder that AFV's need infantry support, even in the relatively open spaces of the Kursk battlefield, when their much vaunted Elephants were eventually taken out by infantry, albeit at quite a price, but one the communists were content to pay, particularly since they could, sadly replace people a lot easier than AFV's.
-
I would hope that there is something akin to the TC that ASL used, since any reading of memoires makes it clear how infantry were far more shy of dealing with tanks than vice-versa. Hell, people were given medals for taking out tanks single-handed or in close quarters, so that shows the value placed on such actions in real life. To danfrodo's point, true, some AFV's were vulnerable in the rear, but it still, generally took a well placed grenade to affect such areas, and from mid '43 onwards, the introduction of shape-charged weapons such as PF and bazookas, certainly made tankers, sensibly wary of keeping their distance. Regardless, I think John1966 makes a good point about the psychological effect any lumbering hulk of metal is going to have on exposed and unprotected personnel nearby. Well, I'm still waiting for my download link, but hopefully it'll show up soon and I can meet some of y'all on the field
.
-
17 minutes ago, Vacilllator said:
So right in timescale for BN, as I have found to my cost in a lot of scenarios and have likewise benefitted from in others. My behaviour has been suitably modified.
Indeed. Good point
-
8 minutes ago, Vacilllator said:
The effectiveness of Panzerschreks, Panzerfausts, PIATs and Bazookas gives me pause for thought in any of these situations. It's all too easy to lose your armour assets to a couple of squaddies with one of these weapons.
Oh absolutely, once those weapons began to appear on the battlefield, the whole dynamic began to dramatically shift, but the first of those didn't appear until late '43 with the German PF and American Bazooka. Even then, it wasn't until Spring/Summer of '44 that infantry began to be a hitherto much greater threat to armour.
-
35 minutes ago, John1966 said:
It's easy to forget just how vulnerable tanks are to infantry at close quarters.
In a night time scenario I had a Sherman closing on a Panzer IV but in the dark, they couldn't see each other. They were at either end of a road and the conditions were wet so leaving the road was likely to result in bogging. It was going to be who saw the other first. If the Sherman was the one moving I surmised the Panzer IV would get the first shot in as they were facing each other.
So I ruthlessly got an infantry squad to charge the Panzer IV. The idea being that it would rotate it's turret to blow them away giving the Sherman a chance to get a couple of shots in as it charged down the road.
Didn't work quite as anticipated because the infantry who charged the Panzer IV lobbed a couple of grenades and the German crew bailed before it fired a shot.
That sort of changed how I viewed infantry vs tanks. I always try to get them close and they're often very efficient at dispatching tanks. Stopped me thinking about nothing but my AT assets. Recently sent a couple of squads after a Panther in urban terrain with similar results. Not an AT weapon in sight.
So if the AFV overrun was available in CM, I doubt it'd ever get used that much.
That's some odd observations. Granted, later in the war, the Germans in particular had some potent anti-tank grenades, but even they took some nerves of steel, because you had to get right up against the vehicle to place them! For much of the war, there was very little infantry had against heavy armour like a Panther. Consequently, traditionally, one of the easiest ways for a tank to quell dug in infantry was to literally drive over the entrenchments and then pivot on their tracks, which would bury the troops alive. It was a terrifyingly effective tactic. In addition, accurately throwing an anti-tank, let alone and anti-personnel grenade at a moving AFV was an intimidating prospect to say the least, and many infantry would balk at the thought. If the AFV were immobilized, that was a much different prospect; otherwise, this seems an oddly not-true-to-life gameplay.
-
5 hours ago, Bozowans said:
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 that it does not take gun barrel elevation into account when acquiring targets, so tanks can shoot at things even when they would realistically not be able to elevate/depress the gun barrel enough to reach them, like if infantry were swarming around the base of the tank, or if there were infantry in the upper floors of a building right next to the tank. The game compensates for that by making it take very long to acquire the target at very close range. The tank will sit there and stare at the infantry (could be 30 seconds or a minute or even longer) before it's allowed to fire, giving the infantry time to throw grenades.
Unfortunately tanks can't run over infantry and you can't ram enemy vehicles either. Sometimes that mechanic leads to some silly things, like if a friendly and enemy tank somehow manage to drive up right next to each other without getting destroyed in the process, they will just sit there and stare at each other with their gun barrels pressed against each other like some kinda standoff until one backs away. That almost never happens in the game though so it doesn't really matter.
That's quite the amusing image!
-
5 hours ago, John1966 said:
In CM an "AFV overrun" is best described as "losing an AFV to hand grenades".
-
Fantastic CHEqTRO. I'll check 'em out! Thanks
-
9 hours ago, CHEqTRO said:
It could be that those are all old bugs that havent been corrected for the demo for as far as I am aware Battlefront doesnt update them.
Infact, just before I bought Battle for Normandy i also downloaded the demo, and it was still using the v1 (or v2, dont really remember) version of the game engine ( When i bought it, v3 had just been released).
There is an easy way to see if this is still the case. Do the sound contact icons have an interrogation sign or do they show an infantryman or tank silhouette?? If the former, the demo is still running an ancient version of the game engine
That brings up a question - did you remove the demo before installing the actual game, since they're not the same version? Just wondering if installing over the demo could cause a conflict?
-
56 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
I bought CMBN first ~5 years ago. And still haven't played all of it, there's just so much if you get the big bundle. Part of that is that I now have all the games except Afghanistan, so bounce between them. You have hundreds of hours of epic battles -- jump in. Learning curve just takes a little time; watch gameplay & tips videos from youtube, you'll be a pro very quickly. And you'll still lose battles sometimes, that's what makes these games such an enduring challenge.
Yeh, I watched those YouTube videos and actually found them immensely more helpful then the manual! I do hope that the new CM2 is going to go back and upgrade the CM1 North Africa, etc. games as well as bring out early war and other theatres of Ops? Seems like there's, currently a focus on more modern ops.
-
Well thanks for the tips and suggestions all. It's been good to hear that this is not an expected game feature or bug, in fact quite the opposite. I'm looking forward to going ahead with the purchase - one can put the same license on a desktop and laptop though, right? I'm a pilot, so constantly on the road and need it on two machines, because I would much rather use the Desktop when at home.
As an unreformed and unrepentant, ASL grognard, it's been interesting to find out about this some 20yrs after it was originally developed to be the eASL we all pined so much for! Why I never came across it before when I would do the occasional Google search for eASL or some such to see if anything (worthwhile!) had come along, I have no idea. I do love how the WeGo blends the turn-based process, allowing one to think with the real time action that does away with the clunky turn and/or move process of dedicated turn-based systems!
Concerns before buying
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Hi Anderw,
Yeh, I did go back and check that from the saved games and no. The extra or unwarranted commands were individual in nature, and it happened a number of times but only in the latter half of the game. It was fairly coincident with my not being able to successfully order a couple of other units into their buildings or to stay there.