Bren Carriers and v2.01

[Fetchez la Vache]

What-ho!

Just been replaying the CW campaign "The Scottish Corridor" with my newly upgraded V2.01. Nice.

I am finding that the 'scout' universal bren carriers you are given are very potent weapons against the AI infantry for the following three reasons:

1) V2.01 upgraded MG's (I assume bren's were included?);

2) Passengers can supplement the carrier's fire with their own weapons (although not PIAT's I think?);

3) AI infantry doesn't seem to give a high priority to targeting the carriers, or their occupants, with small arms.

I am happy with points 1) and 2) - no problems there. :thumbsup:

However, with point 3) I feel that the bren carriers and their occupants have much greater battlefield survivability than should really be the case historically.

The enemy infantry seem disinclined to fire small arms, and even HMG's, at the carriers until they are very close (10-20m?). This is despite the passengers sitting up with their upper 1/3 exposed or even kneeling up when firing. PF's and PS's certainly are fired at carriers if they are in range but I would have thought small arms would still be effective - if only to suppress?

Well, in any case, I have found "The Scottish Corridor" to be pretty straight-forward when using the bren carriers effectively as mobile MG pillboxes. With their large supply of ammo, I can happily keep them pushed quite far forward and area-targeting at any likely spot without much fear of them being knocked out by infantry as long as they keep +100m away. The passengers have pretty good vis and seem able to pick targets almost as well as grounded infantry.

I certainly have seen the passengers taking hits and becoming casualties. The MMG carriers seem vulnerable to this and appear to attract infantry small arms fire as you would expect. However I am pretty sure that for bren carriers casualties only occur at very close range or from AFV MG fire. Are they treated differently in the code I wonder?

In any case I fear I am being rather gamey and ahistorical with the aggressive way I am using the bren carriers. :confused:

Any thoughts?

(Note: since I have small children and a modelling hobby to support I don't spend time running tests or suchlike. I'm just giving my RT in-game impressions which may be skewed or incorrect. I stand happy to be corrected!)

Toodle pip and all that,

FLV

[Seedorf81]

What-ho!

Just been replaying the CW campaign "The Scottish Corridor" with my newly upgraded V2.01. Nice.

I am finding that the 'scout' universal bren carriers you are given are very potent weapons against the AI infantry for the following three reasons:

1) V2.01 upgraded MG's (I assume bren's were included?);

2) Passengers can supplement the carrier's fire with their own weapons (although not PIAT's I think?);

3) AI infantry doesn't seem to give a high priority to targeting the carriers, or their occupants, with small arms.

I am happy with points 1) and 2) - no problems there. :thumbsup:

However, with point 3) I feel that the bren carriers and their occupants have much greater battlefield survivability than should really be the case historically.

The enemy infantry seem disinclined to fire small arms, and even HMG's, at the carriers until they are very close (10-20m?). This is despite the passengers sitting up with their upper 1/3 exposed or even kneeling up when firing. PF's and PS's certainly are fired at carriers if they are in range but I would have thought small arms would still be effective - if only to suppress?

Well, in any case, I have found "The Scottish Corridor" to be pretty straight-forward when using the bren carriers effectively as mobile MG pillboxes. With their large supply of ammo, I can happily keep them pushed quite far forward and area-targeting at any likely spot without much fear of them being knocked out by infantry as long as they keep +100m away. The passengers have pretty good vis and seem able to pick targets almost as well as grounded infantry.

I certainly have seen the passengers taking hits and becoming casualties. The MMG carriers seem vulnerable to this and appear to attract infantry small arms fire as you would expect. However I am pretty sure that for bren carriers casualties only occur at very close range or from AFV MG fire. Are they treated differently in the code I wonder?

In any case I fear I am being rather gamey and ahistorical with the aggressive way I am using the bren carriers. :confused:

Any thoughts?

(Note: since I have small children and a modelling hobby to support I don't spend time running tests or suchlike. I'm just giving my RT in-game impressions which may be skewed or incorrect. I stand happy to be corrected!)

Toodle pip and all that,

FLV

Ehm, about those small kids and not doin' no tests no more. Don't know how closely you follow the news recently ("Dutch-Turkish relations under duress" .) but we here in Holland have some mighty fine adoptionrules!

[womble]

It's an interesting observation, given that ISTR some changes that made jeep drivers and passengers more likely to cop a bullet in a recent patch/upgrade. I wonder if the carriers you're concerned about "ought" to have gotten that change too, but didn't.

[Sublime]

Hmm well first - your experience does seem to be more comprehensive than mine - you recently played the campaign (i played it over a year ago) and I only occasionally get CW equipment in my PBEMs. I more often take US equipment. That being said, I also dont use the Vickers or Bren carriers that much in that role either, I use them more as battlefield taxis, and for the ammo.

NOW, all that being said, I take casualties somewhat frequently if I get too cocky using them near the front. Since 2.01, I've actually noticed an increase of small arms fire at pretty much everything, and a commensurate increase in casualties riding in jeeps and bren carriers, etc. So it'd seem I have the opposite experience, though also I'm playing humans, not the AI. I know how you feel about the tests though, I go to school and have a 2 year old son. When I noticed something possibly amiss with AT mines and reported it as a possibility it was suggested that I should do tests before even stating there might be a possibility of a problem. I didnt bother explaining why I'm not going to spend the time I have to fu*k off on the computer running AT mine tests.

Thanks for the tip though, Im defending as the Canadians in one pbem now and I'll give em a shot =)