Concerns before buying

[RMM]

17 minutes ago, Vacilllator said:

So right in timescale for BN, as I have found to my cost in a lot of scenarios and have likewise benefitted from in others.  My behaviour has been suitably modified.

Indeed. Good point

[John1966]

1 hour ago, RMM said:

That's some odd observations.

Actually, what I should have said was, "It's easy to forget just how vulnerable tanks are to infantry at close quarters in Combat Mission."

As I've never tried taking out a tank in RL, I'm not going to comment on whether it's actually realistic. 

But I think you mentioned playing a lot of ASL further up. And as we all know, infantry can't try to take on a tank at close quarters in ASL without passing a TC first. That's something CM's pixeltruppen don't have to do. Perhaps they should have to do something similar. Morale dropping temporarily while next to an enemy tank? Tanks were/are pretty terrifying so maybe they need a psychological effect in CM.

In fact, I seem to remember in COD that infantry had to pass a TC just to stay adjacent to an enemy tank whether they planned to attack it or not. (Although that's a 30-year old memory and possibly wrong)

Edited September 19, 2020 by John1966

[Freyberg]

On 9/18/2020 at 1:46 PM, RMM said:

Thanks for any info and insight

I'm had 20 years of enjoyment from playing the various Combat Mission games, having bought every title and module except 'Afghanistan'.

There's a lot to learn, in terms of gameplay, tactics, unit capabilities, and so on - it's endless. Mistakes are messy.

That's why it remains such fun.

When you want something different - there's a whole world of map, scenario and campaign design (I love making and playing my own QB maps).

It's an amazing game - the frustration is part of the challenge. Just buy it

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, John1966 said:

infantry can't try to take on a tank at close quarters in ASL without passing a TC first. That's something CM's pixeltruppen don't have to do.

We really do not know what routines are used to calculate that sort of thing in a computer game like CM.  Easy to have a check like that - but it's invisible to the player.

[John1966]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

We really do not know what routines are used to calculate that sort of thing in a computer game like CM. 

True enough. But as frustrated as often get with my pixeltruppen, they never seem to be shy at chucking grenades at tanks.

Mind you, I'm always surprised how effective those grenades are.

[Erwin]

Am sure there was a time when they were shy about close assaulting tanks and many complaints were made so now BF changed the routine so that they will do that. 

Us old-timers who have been playing versions of CM for 20(!!) years have experienced so many upgraded and patches that it's hard to remember (and forget) the obsolete info and to relearn the game every few years.  Eg:  From the very beginning of CM, HUNT meant that if an enemy shot at the unit within its arc, it would stop.  Now I hear from other threads that after recent patches/upgrades the unit will keep moving.  Sheesh...

I actually envy newcomers to the game as you guys are getting a much more complete and polished version and only have to learn the latest version.

 

[danfrodo]

My quite unqualified take on the infantry vs tanks question is that every tanker memoir I've read seems to indicate tankers were generally very wary of going anywhere near infantry, at least in the 1943-45 period.  And the rear engine areas could be damaged by grenades, causing power losses, fires.

[RMM]

I would hope that there is something akin to the TC that ASL used, since any reading of memoires makes it clear how infantry were far more shy of dealing with tanks than vice-versa. Hell, people were given medals for taking out tanks single-handed or in close quarters, so that shows the value placed on such actions in real life. To danfrodo's point, true, some AFV's were vulnerable in the rear, but it still, generally took a well placed grenade to affect such areas, and from mid '43 onwards, the introduction of shape-charged weapons such as PF and bazookas, certainly made tankers, sensibly wary of keeping their distance. Regardless, I think John1966 makes a good point about the psychological effect any lumbering hulk of metal is going to have on exposed and unprotected personnel nearby. Well, I'm still waiting for my download link, but hopefully it'll show up soon and I can meet some of y'all on the field  .

[danfrodo]

I totally agree RMM, I was just saying tanks were still quite reticent to move forward w/o infantry support unless in very open terrain.  Yes, I would much rather be in the tank than being shot at by the tank.  Until that tank moves next to my hedgerow or building and infantry disables it.  In open fields it's not contest -- tank wins.  but in terrain w cover tanks are vulnerable.  Tanks still have the advantage, but it's no longer black & white situation.  but by "43 infantry had better tools for dealing w tanks.  And tanks definitely are terrifying.

[RMM]

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

I totally agree RMM, I was just saying tanks were still quite reticent to move forward w/o infantry support unless in very open terrain.  Yes, I would much rather be in the tank than being shot at by the tank.  Until that tank moves next to my hedgerow or building and infantry disables it.  In open fields it's not contest -- tank wins.  but in terrain w cover tanks are vulnerable.  Tanks still have the advantage, but it's no longer black & white situation.  but by "43 infantry had better tools for dealing w tanks.  And tanks definitely are terrifying.

Oh absolutely. Combined arms has been proven over and over again. Ironically, it was the Germans who got a serious reminder that AFV's need infantry support, even in the relatively open spaces of the Kursk battlefield, when their much vaunted Elephants were eventually taken out by infantry, albeit at quite a price, but one the communists were content to pay, particularly since they could, sadly replace people a lot easier than AFV's. 

[John1966]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Am sure there was a time when they were shy about close assaulting tanks and many complaints were made so now BF changed the routine so that they will do that. 

That sounds about right. I've been playing 20 years and I've just returned after a long gap.

My comments here are based on what I've seen recently but I must admit that I don't remember infantry being quite so effective against armour in the past. That's why it took me a while to notice. I never used to let my infantry anywhere near a tank and only discovered how easily they could dispatch one with the incident I described further up (when I used them to distract a tank but they ended up knocking it out). Done it repeatedly since which may or may not be realistic.

2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

My quite unqualified take on the infantry vs tanks question is that every tanker memoir I've read seems to indicate tankers were generally very wary of going anywhere near infantry, at least in the 1943-45 period.

To me it makes perfect sense that a tanker would be nervous of infantry in closed terrain. I thought they avoided it without infantry support (which will stop the enemy infantry's anti-armour antics pretty effectively).

Not actual history but every time I see that Tiger go down the street on its own in Saving Private Ryan I think, "What are you doing?!" Even though it's only a movie it illustrates exactly how vulnerable a lone tank is to determined infantry.

[Vacillator]

12 minutes ago, John1966 said:

determined infantry.

So determined they are prepared to go without socks

It's a fair point though, I would not replicate that move unless I had no other choice.

[RMM]

Anyone on here able to confirm whether the game does in fact take into account an intimidation factor for infantry v's AFV's? Perhaps the earlier complaints against such a factor were based on that 'TC' being too restrictive?

[John1966]

1 hour ago, RMM said:

Anyone on here able to confirm whether the game does in fact take into account an intimidation factor for infantry v's AFV's?

If it does (and it might), I've not seen much evidence of it lately. I've had more AFV kills with grenades than actual infantry AT weapons in the last couple of months. Many unplanned. As well as the aforementioned "distraction" incident, I had some engineers blow a wall behind a tank to give the a PIAT LOS. But as soon as they blew it they shouted "Enemy armour!" and started throwing grenades, knocking out the tank before the PIAT could fire. Curiously they didn't even use a satchel charge. Watched it several times to make sure.

[RMM]

1 minute ago, John1966 said:

If it does (and it might), I've not seen much evidence of it lately. I've had more AFV kills with grenades than actual infantry AT weapons in the last couple of months. Many unplanned. As well as the aforementioned "distraction" incident, I had some engineers blow a wall behind a tank to give the a PIAT LOS. But as soon as they blew it they shouted "Enemy armour!" and started throwing grenades, knocking out the tank before the PIAT could fire. Curiously they didn't even use a satchel charge. Watched it several times to make sure.

Hmm, gotta say that sounds a bit sketchy.

[John1966]

6 minutes ago, RMM said:

Hmm, gotta say that sounds a bit sketchy.

My hunch is that, currently, there's no TC involved. (And also that grenades are more effective against tanks than perhaps they should be)

[RMM]

3 minutes ago, John1966 said:

My hunch is that, currently, there's no TC involved. (And also that grenades are more effective against tanks than perhaps they should be)

Sounds like you might be right unfortunately. I watched something similar on of the tactical videos from the former Army officer, and was pretty surprised by a Stuart, M5 tank being taken out by some grenade throwing infantry. I dunno. Sounds like a feedback and suggestion entry might be in order!  

[John1966]

1 minute ago, RMM said:

I watched something similar on of the tactical videos from the former Army officer, and was pretty surprised by a Stuart, M5 tank being taken out by some grenade throwing infantry.

A Stuart? I got a Panther with two grenades last week.

 

[RMM]

Yes, that just doesn't sound right at all. Pity

[John1966]

1 minute ago, RMM said:

Yes, that just doesn't sound right at all. Pity

Yeah but it's fun.

To be honest it genuinely doesn't bother me. Tanks shouldn't be getting too close to infantry. If they're forced to in urban terrain then close infantry support should keep them reasonably safe.

[RMM]

2 minutes ago, John1966 said:

Yeah but it's fun.

To be honest it genuinely doesn't bother me. Tanks shouldn't be getting too close to infantry. If they're forced to in urban terrain then close infantry support should keep them reasonably safe.

Agreed that in an urban setting, that makes sense and is realistic

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, RMM said:

Anyone on here able to confirm whether the game does in fact take into account an intimidation factor for infantry v's AFV's? Perhaps the earlier complaints against such a factor were based on that 'TC' being too restrictive?

Not sure of 'intimidation factor' for infantry if they observe AFVs, but at least halftracks and other lighter vehicles will try to smoke and reverse if they spot an enemy tank. 

Tanks in decent positions and with proper infantry support aren't easy at all for infantry to come close to. Infantry close attacking tanks only really works good if the tanks are close to or inside complex terrain (for example in urban environment or in a forest), or if there is a covered route for the infantry available to get close to the tanks. 

Infantry close attacking armor with grenades are a bit abstracted, as they don't model individual AT-grenades / grenade bundles / etc whatever regular infantry might be carrying; all are displayed as 'grenades'. 

Pz Schrecks / bazooka's, fausts etc are more dangerous imo, as they don't require your infantry to move real close to the enemy tank.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Lethaface

[John1966]

13 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

but at least halftracks and other lighter vehicles will try to smoke and reverse if they spot an enemy tank. 

Yes, curiously armoured vehicles are more intimidated by tanks than infantry appear to be.

On the other hand, maybe that makes sense. Infantry at least can hope they've not been seen or there's something more important to shoot at.

[Erwin]

I can imagine that if you are in a big stinking steel can surrounded by gas fumes and HE with very limited if any visibility and you can hear loud CLANGS reverberating around you - you have no idea what is shooting at you or if the next one will kill you...  one would be very nervous and eager to bail out to the fresh air.  May not be "logical" but it's human nature.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Erwin

[RMM]

54 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I can imagine that if you are in a big stinking steel can surrounded by gas fumes and HE with very limited if any visibility and you can hear loud CLANGS reverberating around you - you have no idea what is shooting at you or if the next one will kill you...  one would be very nervous and eager to bail out to the fresh air.  May not be "logical" but it's human nature.

I dunno though Erwin. I mean if you hear that stuff hitting the outside, I can't think that would be great motivation to jump out of the protection you have into that environment, particularly if you're not sure what it is.  Plus, tank crews in general are pretty well trained an disciplined for that very reason. Personally, I'd think one would want to stay within the protective shield compared to the outside where you've got little more than a pistol at most.