grunt_GI Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Now that I am playing WWII where the US does not always have artillery firepower dominance, I have been on the receiving end of some pretty intense barrages. (Now I know why the majority of US Army casualties came from German artillery and mortar fire..wowza)... So, what is the best tactic to minimize casualties...take cover in buildings? Those some to be artillery magnets...Seek shelter in the tree lines? That doesn't seem to work either all the time. OR, do I just have to ride it out and carry on. I mean I have had whole squads wiped out before I even spotted the bad guys....ouch. This is equally true of CMRT...damn those Russkis love their artillery..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 The only 'paper' that consistently beats the 'rock' of artillery is "be somewhere else" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 This is a problem with small maps. The enemy knows you are in fairly constrained terrain so can often predict likely spots to barrage. On large maps (2K-3K per side) the enemy doesn't have enough ammo to saturate avenues of approach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grunt_GI Posted July 6, 2014 Author Share Posted July 6, 2014 Ahhh... Interesting point...I do play a lot of small maps. That does seem to magnify the effect of that initial bombardment. Argh...well I guess those infantry will just have to dig deeper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 My only advice is if you see spotting rounds try and guess where the target area is and clear it. If it is too late for that anyone under the barrage is better off hiding in any cover they can find. So if they are in a building stay there and hide. If they are in the forest stay there and hide. Being in the open is a crap shoot with no good side - you can either hide where you are or run for cover and hide there. Hiding definitely improves your odds but if your guys are right under a round no amount of hiding will help. Anyone on the edge of the barrage could benefit from running out from under it so look for opportunities to get your guys out of the target area if you can but running around is the worst thing you can do so only do that if you think they can clear the area quickly. If your guys have fox holes or trenches then hiding can be very effective for weathering the barrage. Only a direct hit right in the trench will cause casualties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 My only advice is if you see spotting rounds try and guess where the target area is and clear it. If it is too late for that anyone under the barrage is better off hiding in any cover they can find. So if they are in a building stay there and hide. If they are in the forest stay there and hide. Being in the open is a crap shoot with no good side - you can either hide where you are or run for cover and hide there. Hiding definitely improves your odds but if your guys are right under a round no amount of hiding will help. Anyone on the edge of the barrage could benefit from running out from under it so look for opportunities to get your guys out of the target area if you can but running around is the worst thing you can do so only do that if you think they can clear the area quickly. If your guys have fox holes or trenches then hiding can be very effective for weathering the barrage. Only a direct hit right in the trench will cause casualties. good advice, this is exactly how I approach arty also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Is it serving you well in our current game? There is a ton of 105 coming down on what was my positions. I had to call in the arty on my own lines as I pulled back / got shredded by your Tigers. I have a bad feeling that I am dropping it on empty space. :-( 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Is it serving you well in our current game? There is a ton of 105 coming down on what was my positions. I had to call in the arty on my own lines as I pulled back / got shredded by your Tigers. I have a bad feeling that I am dropping it on empty space. :-( Of course it is empty space, nothing would live in that area that long. I cannot beleive how much arty you have dropped there. You have a Ton of it. As for shredding you, I beleive you deserve it. I was pleased with how many fireflys I have taken out without losing too many Tigers. So yes the battle is very enjoyable from my side at the moment. Of course you still have a few of them fireflys, why dont you bring them out to play, I am running out of things to shoot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 If your men are getting hit by enemy artillery, it is because they are TOO FAR AWAY!! Rush the enemy! Stack your bodies in front of their machinegun nests so the barrels are fouled with bloody entrails of heroes! Storm over the bodies and bayonet the boche! If he dares fire artillery on you, then he will merely kill his own men. Your casualties don't matter. Victory is what matters!! Forward, comrade! For the Motherland!!! Oops. What forum was this again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Of course it is empty space, nothing would live in that area that long. I cannot beleive how much arty you have dropped there. You have a Ton of it. LOL true. The issue, for me, is that there were only two batteries but lots of guns and loads of amo but the call times for the HQs I had were crazy. 13 minutes is a century when you are facing 100s of Tiger tanks. Those four that have surrounded my stagglers just drove out my side as the barrage as getting going. If only it had been a 9 minute call things would have been different. Or at least your Tigers would have had to doge the rain:-) As for shredding you, I beleive you deserve it. I was pleased with how many fireflys I have taken out without losing too many Tigers. So yes the battle is very enjoyable from my side at the moment. Of course you still have a few of them fireflys, why dont you bring them out to play, I am running out of things to shoot Yeah, true. They are hanging around. I am hoping for a few more two Tiger turns before the time is up. Not sure I have enough Cromwells left to draw the Tigers out to play though. One thing is for sure this is not the eastern front those Tigers are really mean and nothing can stand up to them. Oh, I know the Fireflys hit hard but they cannot take any incoming fire at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggard Sketchy Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I think trees make it worse. Notice how they make shells explode above? But forests conceal against spotting so their protection is good overall. Just don't use them for indirect cover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 We need improved foxholes with overhead cover. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 We need improved foxholes with overhead cover. Michael A-freekin-men!!!! BFC, please fix or sumfink! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 I think trees make it worse. Notice how they make shells explode above? But forests conceal against spotting so their protection is good overall. Just don't use them for indirect cover. As it should be. Getting caught in the woods under arty is never been a place to be 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 We need improved foxholes with overhead cover. Michael Agree, it would be nice. What is needed is not a fix to the present foxholes. But more options as to the level of foxholes that are contructed. The present foxholes are fine for something built in the short term. but if the unit has been able to work on the foxholes for awhile, yes it would be nice to have well developed protection. Really it would be nice to have 3 or 4 levels of developement for foxholes. Of course that should be the case for bunkers also, there should be about 8 options of design instead of the 2 that are presently given. But you know, we sure do want alot from them when it comes to making a game. But the longer they stay with the same game engine, you would think they could add a few more types of fortifications in general. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Agreed. However, with what's available now, there are three different fortifications which correspond with different amounts of time to prepare defenses. 1. Foxholes: Given an hour or two, defenders should be dug in. Good cover against direct fire 2. Trenches: A day or two, and now you've got covered lines, not individual positions. 3. Bunkers: Overhead cover, representing improved positions Couple all three, and you get WWI-like defensive belts. It would be nice if more types of engineer works were added. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Agreed. However, with what's available now, there are three different fortifications which correspond with different amounts of time to prepare defenses. 1. Foxholes: Given an hour or two, defenders should be dug in. Good cover against direct fire 2. Trenches: A day or two, and now you've got covered lines, not individual positions. 3. Bunkers: Overhead cover, representing improved positions Wooden bunkers are, it seems to me, a bit of a waste of time, though. They don't seem to give as much protection against direct fire as trenches and foxholes do, especially DF HE. Better against airbursts, natch, but I don't think that's enough compensation. So that third "tier" is limited to concrete bunkers, which I thought took quite a lot of effort, compared to a double log top over your foxhole... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Couple all three, and you get WWI-like defensive belts. I would say only in the sense that you can setup the defensive fire plan with some extra protection. WWI like defensive belts included lots of overhead cover, protected sleeping and eating locations we cannot get anywhere near that level of protection. It would be nice if more types of engineer works were added. Then perhaps we could come close to WWI like defenses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Well, take your bunker, take your ditch lock, and drop it in a hole. Use trenches, ditch-locked, to enter and leave the bunker. I've seen some pretty good trench-lines/bunker defenses in the game. Some mg's, mortar support, etc., and my guys don't get close. Without tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 Well, take your bunker, take your ditch lock, and drop it in a hole. Use trenches, ditch-locked, to enter and leave the bunker. I've seen some pretty good trench-lines/bunker defenses in the game. Some mg's, mortar support, etc., and my guys don't get close. Without tanks. Ah, now you are talking. So you can come close but not with just using the existing fortifications but also by editing the terrain as well. I was thinking of the defenses you can build from what you can buy in a QB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 What is needed is not a fix to the present foxholes. But more options as to the level of foxholes that are contructed. The present foxholes are fine for something built in the short term. but if the unit has been able to work on the foxholes for awhile, yes it would be nice to have well developed protection. Really it would be nice to have 3 or 4 levels of developement for foxholes. That's exactly the point. We could argue about how many levels are required (well, this gang can argue about anything, can't we? ), but in addition to overhead cover, with time a unit could add such refinements as aiming stakes, cleared lanes of fire, and camouflage. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 ...in addition to overhead cover, with time a unit could add such refinements as aiming stakes, cleared lanes of fire... Michael TRPs, you mean? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted July 8, 2014 Share Posted July 8, 2014 That's exactly the point. We could argue about how many levels are required (well, this gang can argue about anything, can't we? ), but in addition to overhead cover, with time a unit could add such refinements as aiming stakes, cleared lanes of fire, and camouflage. Michael Especially important by the time CM gets to the Bulge era -- the US troops had so much time on that static front before the offensive that they almost always had overhead cover on their foxholes, at least in their starting positions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 I dont have v2 or 3 so I don't know this: can units in ditch locked sunken trenches still see or fight out of them? If not, all you've created is a very badly dug air raid trench -- not even that, with 45 degree sides, more of a bomb crater -- not a proper fighting position. I do wish people would drop the sophistry that the CMx2 "entrenchments" are anything more than quick and dirty hacks Charles threw together to quiet the clamour for FOW entrenchments in CMBN. The reality as plain as day is that there has been no real evolution in hard cover modeling since early CMSF, and it is long overdue, as infantry combat at present is basically paintball (actually, I'm sure it is on occasion). To start, there are no embrasures or slits. All walls/banks/fortifications etc are perfect flat parapets like Charlie Brown's thinking wall, with men's upper torsos fully exposed to 360deg of fire as they prairie dog up and down randomly to spot, heedless of incoming, until they eventually catch a bullet or frag (or if they're luckier get Pinned). Hence there's no need to go over the top in WWI or Dienbienphu; just pump in enough lead from a distance and by the law of averages the 'dug in' defenders will melt away in a few minutes. Attacker wins, again. To compound the problem, Charles' quick hack was derived from the CMSF Bunker, which is for most game engine purposes an immobile vehicle. So these duds not only provide lousy cover they actually REDUCE concealment compared to non-entrenched units, the reverse of reality (unless you're somehow forced to entrench in open ground). The troops might as well be in a halftrack; oh wait, they are as far as the spotting engine is concerned. But I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell us that, no, this was all painstakingly researched, modeled and tested as realistically as can be with Ouija board input from the ghost of Pierre Vauban. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensal Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 A-freekin-men!!!! BFC, please fix or sumfink! err also called wooden bunkers? (more or less...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.