Jump to content

A question about cover


Recommended Posts

You mean having infantry hug a wall so they look around the corner? That can be tricky to make work sometimes (though I did have an RPG guy take out two APCs by doing that). I meant more like having guys waiting far back down the street, so the enemy gets blasted one at a time as they turn the corner onto the street. Or something like that.

Like for example, one of the most successful positions I had on the map was this one down the street by the bridge:

Cfm3oPY.jpg

 

That's the view from the window that one of my RPG guys was shooting out of. He could sit there and fire at each APC as they crossed the bridge one by one and none of them could fire back before they were hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

THAT, made me laugh out loud.  Something you can do, especially when you're first learning the game is "save".  Load everybody up with ammo (I also many times cross load teams in vehicles) and po

Yep. By creative use of the pause command and stacking orders. Ex: You run your guys up to the crest of a hill, select the end waypoint, issue a pause (in 5 sec increments), issue an area target brief

It might be nice if the Hunt command could be revised in such a way that instead of dumping remaining orders, it would insert a pause as soon as it spots a target, but then continues as soon as the ta

Posted Images

By the sounds of it @Bozowansexample has benefitted from the way targeting works in Combat Mission. In essence buildings can't be targeted unless the spotting unit can see a good proportion of the facing of the building. I believe, but haven't tested it to any degree, that units in buildings can get targeted in these instances by the Tac AI if they are seen but there are vagaries in the whole process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Combatintman said:

.I believe, but haven't tested it to any degree, that units in buildings can get targeted in these instances by the Tac AI if they are seen 

That is absolutely correct.

Sounds like an excellent position to cover the bridge well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One issue with comparing this game to real world is that often the game's virtual general (or human general) is as profligate with the lives of his men as any French WWI general. Under real world circumstances losing 15 APC would effectively end the assault. But both the AI and the human player insist of pushing forward. That kind'a skews the behavior. Maybe its appropriate for battling through WWII Berlin or Stalingrad but its unusual behavior in modern conflicts.

An old joke of my is the best way to deploy troops in buildings is to put them BEHIND buildings. Buildings are a death trap more often than not. If I've got troops in an upper story I often need to 'face' them away from the lethal side of the building and give a 'hide' command in the hope that the incoming fire will abate. Then I revive them and send them back into the fight. If they stay in place they die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

One issue with comparing this game to real world is that often the game's virtual general (or human general) is as profligate with the lives of his men as any French WWI general. Under real world circumstances losing 15 APC would effectively end the assault. But both the AI and the human player insist of pushing forward. That kind'a skews the behavior. Maybe its appropriate for battling through WWII Berlin or Stalingrad but its unusual behavior in modern conflicts.

An old joke of my is the best way to deploy troops in buildings is to put them BEHIND buildings. Buildings are a death trap more often than not. If I've got troops in an upper story I often need to 'face' them away from the lethal side of the building and give a 'hide' command in the hope that the incoming fire will abate. Then I revive them and send them back into the fight. If they stay in place they die.

Yeah that's what makes this scenario hilarious to play. The AI will suicidally charge every last one of their units ahead toward the objective zones, eventually feeding even their HQ units into the meat grinder. Broken squads will retreat a short distance, then recover, turn around, and charge back in again until every last man is wiped out. It always bugged me that units can't rout off the map in this game (yet they could in CMx1 IIRC). In the end it's still a lot of fun to play though. One of my favorite parts:

O5hNOgx.png

 

That was a spot where the Russian infantry would turn the corner and then immediately get mowed down by a bunch of my guys a few houses down. Eventually there got to be a nice pile of bodies there. The Russian company commander is lying in there somewhere. :D

I definitely agree with buildings being death traps a lot of the time. Especially in Black Sea where the weapons are so lethal and accurate. The WW2 games are more forgiving. Buildings can be great cover in a straight-up infantry firefight where you're only taking small arms fire at long range, but in Black Sea every infantry squad usually comes with their own vehicle with a big gun. One tank shell or missile or APC autocannon hitting the side of a building from a mile away can shred a whole squad in seconds. So I'll put guys in buildings that have a good keyhole view of the enemy or are otherwise protected from view (like the ground floor of a walled compound). Or I'll put them in there strictly as observers and tell them to hold fire. Otherwise that building will be their tomb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 11:03 PM, MikeyD said:

One issue with comparing this game to real world is that often the game's virtual general (or human general) is as profligate with the lives of his men as any French WWI general. Under real world circumstances losing 15 APC would effectively end the assault. But both the AI and the human player insist of pushing forward. That kind'a skews the behavior. Maybe its appropriate for battling through WWII Berlin or Stalingrad but its unusual behavior in modern conflicts.

Yeah, this has come up in discussions many times over the years. One thing I do to try to mitigate this tendency is to try to find a way to win with few or no casualties. Of course this does nothing to affect the AI behavior, but it does mine. I suppose that eventually Charles will find a way to program the AI into a more cost-conscious form of tactics, but this can be a tricky proposition  where a live commander might decide that the objective or his orders compel a go for broke approach to the battle. Could/should a variable option for AI grim determination be offered to the player when for instance setting up a QB? Not my call to make. We already have lots of options including EW strength, troop quality and all the variable soft factors, but this is apt to be more complicated to set up.

Michael

Edited by Michael Emrys
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ctcharger said:

I now realize that I need to zoom down to eye level a lot more.

Really makes a difference. I had to remind myself to do this a few months back. I had originally plotted movement paths for some units that viewed from #3 height looked quite reasonable, but when I got down in the weeds with my soldiers I discovered other paths where they would have better cover due to irregularities in the ground that were not visible from above.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...