Jump to content

THH149

Members
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by THH149

  1. I really will temper my expectations then, with my strategy now: - occupy just one objective square and - attrit the RU forces as much as possible while taking minimal losses. Interesting challenge ... but its lucky the defender is so placid which would not happen in a PvP QB.
  2. Really? I must be failing at something as I can barely get my US out of the set-up zone, or occupy a mere single square on the objective to contest it!
  3. I'm playing a few QBs and wonder if the points values for US are way off. Siutation as follows: tiny map, small battle, small forces, US Attack. US budget: 6,660 or so, Russian budget: 4,000 or so. No force adjustment for the attacker (US) or defender. With the US budget I can buy about a company or so of infantry, but with the Russan budget, I can buy a BMP battalion plus maybe half of another or for art/air/drones. Now I know the US is really good, but is this what's meant to happen in a QB with these settings? Best THH
  4. I would love to see training scenarios for Black Sea but while this resource is a good starting point I do worry its not quite up to date enough to deal with drones, precision artillery and ATGMs are much more lethal but armour defenses so different and so much more complex .... Does anyone have insights into new model army doctrine .... In ukraine fighting the battle seems to be over once a few dudes or a vehicle dies, and I wonder why that is - maybe all guns are now trained on that battlefield it become too lethal to be seen? THH
  5. Here's the story of the 93 Brigade UAF at the Airport ...
  6. Maybe trees, the graphic is just a graphic and the effects, I think, are calculated based on the terrain square not the graphic per se...
  7. Nah, its the easier of the two if you enjoy attacking (as Soviet) ....
  8. That was a question I had asked myself many times while attacking as the US, but part of the answer is seeing the other sides vulnerabilities. To do that I switched sides and took the Soviet as the Attacker, and promptly got several burning BMP wrecks! So that was a useful experience, seeing what the other side does to get the edge. Also, my other insight - and this advice is free of charge - is: they're in the trees, they're always in the trees! THH
  9. I'm thinking something more banal than tank spotting, and apologies for not having ready data on any of this. My situation is Russian infantry are getting shot from say 100m- 200m range by American infantry without the Russians seeing the shooter (not even a contact/just the bullet graphics), when both sides are using the same eyeballs and bino's. It's weird that I even notice this (and maybe the Russ get to knocked around to much to register a contact, but that's unlikely). Maybe its do with the CM algorithm to give the US a technical/equipment advantage for some - unknown to me - reason, say if, the US would in reality spot the moving russ in say 5 seconds and the russians moving would spot the US in 5 seconds after the fire comes in, but the attacker gets a CM engine game lead of hidden fire for say 20 seconds to make the difference meaningful in game terms. I love BS much more than CM and SF2, but gosh its scary. And its all learning by die-ing. I would love to see a few training scenarios based on BS like CW has. Best THH
  10. I'm 'feeling' like this is true, eg when my Russians walk the walk and then die from unseen shooters and even when stopped find it hard to spot the shooters! Could this be a thing or just my imagination? Spotting in CW seems far easier than BS. THH
  11. Well this is just me but my 80's inspiration ....
  12. Isn't this a commercial question? Which module or stream of modules will bring the most sales for the least cost? So, BOAR vs Sov Then West German vs Sov Then Sov Allies vs US, BOAR, West Germans Then Other western allies vs Sov and Sov Allies
  13. I think I lost 4 tanks and a TOW vehicle playing RT Elite, so good on you!
  14. I really like this scenario 'cos its so realistic in terms of terrain. I've had one play through so far as Sov's and spent the whole time just hunting infantry forward to the left bank bluffs, silly me for being so cautious in one of my first CW playings! I've played as the US and just left the game to run and found I had to intervene a few times to get the Amies back in the game, it could've been a loss! So that's bodes well for balance (I dislike Blue side scenarios when not moving a unit results in a major victory for them eg Fort Apache). About the briefing, a seasoned player would basically discard most briefings (not just in Czechmate), cos theyre usually misleading, talk as if they know what the plan should be (eg they want the player to seize an objective but the AI surrenders before my forces get close to it), or filled with what seems to be Amie military mumbo jumbo etc etc or content that is meant to make the player feel like theyre really there (its not even history!). Like in Czechmate the objecives are to seize the bridge and town but that doesn't mean you need to use a frontal assault. Sov's must maneuver first! Like Valley of Ashes it takes some time to adjust to losing heaps of vehicles ('cos youre the attacker and the scenario imposes a time constraint and doesnt penalise you for losing them too much) and the need to plot the defenders defensive framework. Seeing the CMCW MRB training scenario, Czechmate conforms to the doctrine (which is pretty cool): - send out scouts to identify defensive works - setup ATGMs - send in the artillery - destroy whats left with ATGMs, SPGs, more artillery - roll in tanks - roll in APCs etc behind to infantry assault what's left - roll out FSE to the next US line The difference here is slight, the ATGM gun line needs help, and infantry needs to press the flanks, with BTR backup, before the tanks roll in, forced by the terrain and the one tank crossing point. I think the design enables the Sov doctrine and tactical problems to be explored well. Its not Rorkes Drift! Kudos to ASL Veteran! Best G
  15. Noticed a few odd things in the QB side of CW: - The US is allocatted Engineers as infantry in most games where AI is allowed to select forces - Soviets sometimes get air controller but no airpower, or no airpower but there are air controllers - rarely, an art battery has no on board artiller controller - Soviets can sometimes get a profundity of Strela teams (like, 6-8 strela) Now, I'm currently using the odd-bods as scouts but seems costly when they depart this world. Can BFC fix those? Best TTH
  16. Its a difficult one to win. I've just tried a double envelopment not going thru the town to touch the bridge. but time ran out and 1 or 2 single man red survivors in the first bridge prevented US control of that. I think the town is the hardest approach. I've been toying with the idea of a hard run on the right flank to the sunken lane to the right of 55D, or a more indirect approach of crossing the river to the far right of 55D with M113s. Its not possible at all to get Alpha 1/2 or the Command Post otherwise, and Red wont surrender due to the size of their forces. I'm suspecting that the design is unfinished!
  17. I'm finding this an odd scenario, defend against a strong Soviet tank attack, then attack against a solid defence across two rivers to reach a far objectives all with 5 ****ty M60 RISE+ and two platoons of M113 infantry and Cobras that get shot down! With 3 Soviet AI plans. Also its only playable as Blue (only Red AI plans) Tips? Best THH
  18. I got a Minor US Victory in my first run through by sending 3 tanks straight up the guts towards the bridge, they died but destroyed the BMP/T64 advance and had the other two tanks hang right at the town and tried to duel the T64s as they drove past toward the first US bridge. Only a mauled squad managed to reach the touch objective Bridge and there was no way to put pressure on Alpha X, but got some Dragon teams to take out tanks on the other side of the river. I'm bemused at how the Soviet Command Post could even be put under fire!
  19. This thread seems to ask the question How can my Shermans possibly beat Tigers and Panthers in France '44? but in CW, and the answer is similar: be clever/ambush, hit flanks, apply combined arms, and use numbers where you can.... I'm being flippant of course as an M60 isnt quite a Sherman and a T64 isnt quite a Panther but many solutions to old problems can be revised and updated for new ones, and we can enjoy trying the many suggestions others have provided... But, does anyone have a source for a pdf of the FM 71-1 (77) field manual?
  20. Odd, it looks like Squad Leader or Advanced Squad Leader! I've no clue on how it plays like or similarity to ASL!
  21. Yes it indeed could be! A challenging AI makes for a better product and better players, knowing of course that some new players would need to be carefully mentored to develop their skills rather than crash out or quit.
  22. Very indepth comments that I can't address all facets of now. One thought I had was that the "Do Nothing and Win" test may or may not require a mandatory pass to qualify a scenario (and there could be many other requirements too). My preference would be that its a "good to know" result (that the player can by doing nothing). After all the designer should know what he/she is doing. But it is informative of the challenge to the player. A couple of requirements: the setup and AI applied is that one that would ship with the scenario (and would need to make sense both in game and military simulation terms). If the player themselves change their set-up then so be it. Obvsiously, its more likely to test the attacker AI plans It would seem to me that a key advantage of the Do Nothing and Win test is that it helps build better more challenging AI plans. One tension if that challenge is knowing that the scenario could be played multiplayer so a fix can't simply be add more attacker combat power as that would imbalance a multiplayer competition.
  23. Some sides of a scenario are definitely tougher than others, eg most Syrian/Red Force in SF2. Some sides can be won handily but losses are significant but are exceptionally hard to reduce further even when the same win result arises. On the other hand, some scenarios are so easy to win most of the their forces are unneeded, See this for example:
×
×
  • Create New...