Lack of Armor cover arc = game breaker

[Vark]

It was quite easy to be gamey about the CM1 armour cover arc. Just lead your Tigers with a few Pz II's or cruddy Pz III's, SOP's are the answer, but they have been nixed by Battlefront. I really thought they allowed a degree of tactical finesse in Tac Ops and especially helped recon (pop smoke when under fire). I cannot see why you could not set the units SOP at the start of the scenario and then have it fixed. SOP's have been used, are used by the military why not represent that in a tactical game? Having arcs triggered by certain criteria will always lead to disaster, but an SOP "Target side armour of heaviest tank" would allow PAK front tactics to be simulated without the constant micro-management CMBN seems to require.

[~Viajero]

But, but... hasnt this issue being discussed many times over and hasnt battlefront already stated that an armor cover arc feature would not be implemented at least until the next game series release (i.e. The Bulge)? Or maybe I remember wrong?

[Michael Emrys]

So your ambushing Stug needs to stay hidden for a whole minute before it can respond.

To point out the obvious, that depends on when the Sherman swings into view. If it appears, say, in the last 10 seconds of a turn, it isn't at all likely to fire at your StuG before the end of the turn. That allows you to in the next orders phase to drop the covered arc and manually target the Sherman. How long before the end of the turn that safety margin extends depends on a number of variables; under extreme conditions, it might be the whole turn.

Michael

[thejetset]

But, but... hasnt this issue being discussed many times over and hasnt battlefront already stated that an armor cover arc feature would not be implemented at least until the next game series release (i.e. The Bulge)? Or maybe I remember wrong?

Yes to both of your questions. .... but an occasional bitching & moaning session never hurts to remind them that feelings on the subject haven't changed!!!

[Broadsword56]

Yes, SOPs are terrific and TacOps had them back in the mid 1990s, so it can't be that hard to incorporate them into a computer game almost 20 years later. Wish we saw that more often in games today.

[~Viajero]

Yes to both of your questions. .... but an occasional bitching & moaning session never hurts to remind them that feelings on the subject haven't changed!!!

True that! Armor cover arc now darn it! Or else!

[Vark]

You meet a combined arms attack with a combined armed defense. As has been said before, there is a reason you often see tanks/AG's in Normandy, and other theatres, in defensive positions with infantry supporting, often with MG's and SFMG's. The route of advance would have a TRP for mortar support or even a lowly sniper. All weapons that would suppress infantry rapidly, with the infantry bogged the tank then has to support them and becomes vulnerable.

Why did the Stug miss at 250 metres? With it's sighting system I'd have thought that the M4 would have literally filled the gunners sights. Again I note with dismay the uber M4 response, one shot one kill with inferior sights against a target with a lower frontal silhouette.

[A Canadian Cat]

To point out the obvious, that depends on when the Sherman swings into view. If it appears, say, in the last 10 seconds of a turn, it isn't at all likely to fire at your StuG before the end of the turn. That allows you to in the next orders phase to drop the covered arc and manually target the Sherman. How long before the end of the turn that safety margin extends depends on a number of variables; under extreme conditions, it might be the whole turn.

Suuuuurrrrrrre - true enough - but with a cover armor arc I do not have to roll the dice that the attacking armor support will not enter the kill zone at the beginning of the turn.

Don't get me wrong. I am willing to roll the dice for an ambush like this. Personally, I will not roll the dice on my country's constitution but for an ambush in a game I'll roll the dice:)

Right now IMHO the right thing to do is give the Stug a short arc and clear the target when armor enters the kill zone. It is the only way to prevent your ambush from being triggered by infantry.

I actually try to set my ambush with a combination of MGs and AT assets. The AT assets get "hold your fire cover arcs" and the MGs are weapons free for the kill zone. I do this so that the infantry screen will come under MG fire which will in turn encourage the attacker to move up his armor support to deal with the MG threat.

So far all that dice rolling has come out in my favour most of the time. Once we get armor cover arcs then I can set the whole ambush up to work just like I want with no risk that the enemy armor will show up just as the turn starts and cause me trouble.

[noob]

Suuuuurrrrrrre - true enough - but with a cover armor arc I do not have to roll the dice that the attacking armor support will not enter the kill zone at the beginning of the turn.

Don't get me wrong. I am willing to roll the dice for an ambush like this. Personally, I will not roll the dice on my country's constitution but for an ambush in a game I'll roll the dice:)

Right now IMHO the right thing to do is give the Stug a short arc and clear the target when armor enters the kill zone. It is the only way to prevent your ambush from being triggered by infantry.

I actually try to set my ambush with a combination of MGs and AT assets. The AT assets get "hold your fire cover arcs" and the MGs are weapons free for the kill zone. I do this so that the infantry screen will come under MG fire which will in turn encourage the attacker to move up his armor support to deal with the MG threat.

So far all that dice rolling has come out in my favour most of the time. Once we get armor cover arcs then I can set the whole ambush up to work just like I want with no risk that the enemy armor will show up just as the turn starts and cause me trouble.

I set up the situation i mentioned and gave the Stug a reduced cover arc, it slavishly obeyed it and did not fire back even though it had a LOS on the target thus allowing the Sherman to get off three unanswered rounds resulting in a kill.

Now with an AT gun in a hedge i might get the chance to be unnoticed by the time the turn finishes and then fire at the target "if" it is still in view, but with tank on tank action down a road there's no way my tank can hide once the enemy tank gets into it's LOS, so unless my cover arc is at the maximum range for my LOS i'm dead meat, and then we get back to the original problem, obviously this does not apply for real time play but i only play PBEM so i'm screwed until the fix comes out.

[noob]

You meet a combined arms attack with a combined armed defense. As has been said before, there is a reason you often see tanks/AG's in Normandy, and other theatres, in defensive positions with infantry supporting, often with MG's and SFMG's. The route of advance would have a TRP for mortar support or even a lowly sniper. All weapons that would suppress infantry rapidly, with the infantry bogged the tank then has to support them and becomes vulnerable.

Why did the Stug miss at 250 metres? With it's sighting system I'd have thought that the M4 would have literally filled the gunners sights. Again I note with dismay the uber M4 response, one shot one kill with inferior sights against a target with a lower frontal silhouette.

Firstly even if i had placed an MG in the middle of the road just in front of my tank they wouldn't of had time to supress the infantry as the enemy tank came into view within seconds of the Stug aquiring the enemy infantry as a target and letting off a HE round, so anyone wanting to trigger AT guns in such as situation only needs a tiny delay between the their infantry screen moving into the LOS area and the tank following up behind.

I can put down the miss as bad luck but with an armor cover arc i would of had two shots at the Sherman not one, the game just doean't feel right without the ability to hold fire at insignificant targets i'm afraid, and as a i said i'm a defence nerd so it itches worse for me

[akd]

How about don't give it a cover arc at all?

[noob]

But, but... hasnt this issue being discussed many times over and hasnt battlefront already stated that an armor cover arc feature would not be implemented at least until the next game series release (i.e. The Bulge)? Or maybe I remember wrong?

I know it's been mentioned and i had an idea it was going to be released in the future but i was so annoyed i needed catharsis

[Statisoris]

I fully agree with the topic of this thread but I am also filthy drunk. Blarg! This was hard ti write

[noob]

Anyone subscribed to this thread please read this:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=102748

[slysniper]

Ok, I agree the game needs the arc system fixed. but here is the work around for now. What I am doing anyway.

I find locations totally out of site where the keyhole is a few yards away, then a place infantry nearby to be my eyes. Thus, if I was guarding the road, I want my infantry to see the enemy, they hold their fire, then when the shermans roll around the corner. Then I roll my tank into place to open fire. I also might have some infantry devert the enemies attention first as I roll into place. Most of the time I find I get the first shot off, maybe the second. Also if too many enemy tank units emerged, I have not been placed in a bad position.

In some ways I feel I am actually playing it more realistic than the old armor covered arc.

In most situations, hiding a tank with concealment in a location that can be spotted was not the best tactic. The germans were pro's at it, but most of the time they would pull into place from a totally concealed spot.

Anyway, learning to adjust ones tactics with how the game plays always work.

So I see, none of you agree with my concept, or what?

Instead you keep trying to do what works in CMX1 instead of trying a correct tactic that does work in CMX2.

[noob]

I find locations totally out of site where the keyhole is a few yards away, then a place infantry nearby to be my eyes. Thus, if I was guarding the road, I want my infantry to see the enemy, they hold their fire, then when the shermans roll around the corner. Then I roll my tank into place to open fire.

I don't like the idea of moving into an enemy tanks LOS, i want it the other way round.

Anyway, learning to adjust ones tactics with how the game plays always work.

I prefer the method i outlined in this thread, http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=102748 using infantry to suppress any enemy infantry that move into the ambushing tanks cover arc, that way the tank does not get distracted by them and does not have to move, also the tank i used was a Stug so it would have to move and then turn to get a shot off.

[noxnoctum]

Ya I usually just give my ambushing AT elements a tiny cover arc... of course this is risky because an enemy tank might plow through an ambush, but usually it works OK.

Then next turn I just clear its arc and have it fire at any armor that moved into the kill zone.

An armor cover arc is def sorely needed though, IIRC we'll have to wait for Bulge for it. Hopefully Bulge will come with tcp-ip wego as well . Those are the two most needed features IMO.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

So I see, none of you agree with my concept, or what?

Instead you keep trying to do what works in CMX1 instead of trying a correct tactic that does work in CMX2.

The trouble is there's a flaw with your concept. If the amushing AFV is not a tank but something like a Stug or Marder then the spot its moving from that is completely out of LOS would more than likely be off to the side of the road. In the process of moving into the ambush position on the road it's exposing its side armour and providing a bigger target plus there's also the problem of the delay in being able to swivel in place in order to bring its gun to bear on the intended target.

I really don't like the odds in that situation where the target is very likely to spot its stalker first and we all know the likely outcome when a unit gets the first shot off in that situation.

Regards

KR

[Wodin]

No it's not a game breaker at all. As I play alot and the games aren't broken, infact they are alot of fun. It is however a much needed addition and most likely a No1 priority.

[slysniper]

The trouble is there's a flaw with your concept. If the amushing AFV is not a tank but something like a Stug or Marder then the spot its moving from that is completely out of LOS would more than likely be off to the side of the road. In the process of moving into the ambush position on the road it's exposing its side armour and providing a bigger target plus there's also the problem of the delay in being able to swivel in place in order to bring its gun to bear on the intended target.

I really don't like the odds in that situation where the target is very likely to spot its stalker first and we all know the likely outcome when a unit gets the first shot off in that situation.

Regards

KR

Both you and Noob are correct in that there is approaches that do not work, you have mentioned some of them.

When it is a stug I am working with, I look for locations where coming from the side is not required. Like a location back in the woods where he just needs to move forward a bit. Or where woods and building hide him from view, but he is set at the angle that will be front armor when the enemy appears.

In hedgerow covered lanes, at intersections, even 90 degree turns, you can set the stug at a angle so that when he pulls into the lane he is about 30 degrees off the front face, he needs to rotate only about 10 degrees and then will fire, plus he improves his armor alittle at this position.

Maybe all the old positions you are use to cannot be used, but I find generally I can find locations using the new method.

Next, as for being concerned about moving and being caught and fired on first. I find in general, I have the advantage. First since they have exposed themselves the turn before and things were quite, they normally think they are safe and have given commands for this turn that generally are in my favor.

second, I normally help distract the units. Third, I find that a quick move into position with a hunt after that will have my unit in place within seconds. then I have my arc focused on where I know I want my armor shooting. With the new spotting rules I find my tank almost always will spot and fire first since the enemy unit does not have his focus just on the location I am springing my trap from.

As I started out saying from the beginning, I agree with you that I would like my old options back, but I really do think that with the new system, that what I am trying to point out here works very well and gives results that I know I find very satisfactory. What I really need is some of the guys i play against give their opinion on how well it works.

[noob]

I'm just glad there seems to be a workaround to avoid the situation i experienced, also the only place my Stug could be to see down the road was on the road as the road stretched to the edge of the map with no intervening cover, so i could not hide, that's why i needed to supress any non tank unit moving forward of any enemy armor, something i can rectify in the future.