A Beginners Tale: Story of crystal tanks

[PEB14]

Sorry, long post here...

This post I write out of frustration, after the mauling of my tanks in my last games of CMRT that I called off yesterday.
I started playing Combat Mission a little more than one month ago. I was a Squad Leader player a LONG time ago (more than 25 years!). This is the story of my discovery of the dynamics of tanks in combat mission: tanks vs. tanks and tanks vs. AT guns. A very frustrating one indeed.

Chapter I
I started with the CMFI training campaign. In the last mission, you get 5 Sherman tanks against 2 Pz III and 2 Pz IV. When my Sherman arrived on map, they only faced one remaining Pz IV. I carefully advanced three of the Sherman to face it, at a distance of about 400 m. Seconds later, one Sherman was ablaze and another one abandoned by its crew after partial penetration.
I finally managed to get rid of the Pz IV, blinding him with smoke to allow my remaining tanks to get into firing position, but the surviving Pz IV (Regular rated) crew memeber only abandoned its machine after SIX penetrating (or partially penetrating) shots on targets, plus a 7th boucing on it with no damage. Three Sherman, 7 shots on target to get rid of a Pz IV...

Chapter II
I decided to play the CMRT training campaign next. In the last mission you have to assault a German village defended by a Tiger and a handful of StuG III, with plenty of armors (including heavy JS and JSU-152) and infantry on your side.
In this game I never managed to use my armor properly. The village approaches are heavily channeled by forests and a deep gully whose bridge is not crossable by heavy tanks. Impossible to flank manoeuvre before reaching the village on a relatively narrow front. I lost my first T-34 from a StuG III at about 600 m (first shot, direct kill). I then advanced my heavy armors under the cover of smoke to close on the village. When smoke dissipated, one JS-2, one JSU-152 and another T-34 were blown up at 250 meters by two StuG. No miss, all shots were direct kills. The Tiger didn't have to shoot a single shot. As Russian infantry bears no AT weapon, I honestly still don't know how I can win this one. No idea what to do with those crystal tanks, as they're vulnerable from all distances... Highly frustrating.

Chapter III - A story of AT guns.
In the meantime I also played the CMBN training campaign. The last mission teaches very well how to flank enemy armors. I make stupid mistakes that cost me 3 Sherman tanks but I manoeuvered the other ones in a satisfactorily way so to flank another Pz IV, killing him in TWO SIDE shots at 200 meters.

Last week, I played a CMBN CW scenario where I got 3 Churchill tanks in a bocage countryside with large open spaces. I had to face three 50 mm German AT guns. Two of them were suppressed easily, but the third one... It managed one (front) shot-one kill on one my Churchill at 250 meters. I then pounded him with two light mortars (30 rounds in total)... to no effect!! (British light mortars, what a crap!) So I had to go on it with another Churchill. After blinding him with light mortar smoke to allow me to get into position, he nevertheless got the first shot, which bounced on the front of my Churchill (at last!) and I silenced him for good.

And next comes yesterday's game: a CMRT scenario in which I played the German (with its undestructible Pz IV!) In this one I faced several 57mm Soviet AT guns with Pz IV, JPz Iv and one Hetzer among other amors.

At the cost of one halftrack I spotted two enemy AT guns. Having no LOS on them from any artillery observer (my bad!), and too long a range to suppress them, I decided to give a go on one of them (the furthest away, emplaced behind sandbags) with a JPzIV. So I sneaked my SP gun in a wood at low speed (open-topped to optimize my chances for an early LOS). Kaboom! One frontal shot at 600 meters and the JPz IV is damaged and abandoned by its crew. What?! I need six Sherman 76 mm shots on target to disable a Pz IV, and at an even longer distance a single shot of 57 mm makes my JpZ crew flee away? What the f**k????
OK, while the Soviet AT gun was still pounding the abandoned JPz IV, I sneaked the Hetzer in another wood tile, opened up and close to an infantry unit with a LOS to the AT gun, trying to get the first shot. And I did. One machine gun burst and one gun shot on target: NO EFFECT. Zero. Nada. One single shot of the 57 mm gun: the Hetzer blows up. Great.

In the meantime I tried to outflank another 57 mm AT gun with a Puma, two Pz IV (ya know, the tank which requires 6 front shots on target to get disabled), and screening infantry. I close up under the protection of woods. The AT gun itself is in the open (no foxhole, no trench) on the other side of the wood. Once again, I advance slowly, three tanks against one gun, with infantry support and everybody opened up. The AT gun gets the first shot at 200 meters through the woods. One Pz IV is damaged and backs away. NOBODY on my side gets a LOS to the AT gun. Second shot: the other Pz IV blows up. Great. Neither the remaining Puma nor the infantry gets a LOS to the AT gun. I gave up, completely disgusted.

Chapter III - Conclusion and questions

So what? I made mistakes (in the last scenario, my HQ were too far behind and couldn't provide mortar suppression on any of the AT guns as required). But seriously, one frontal shot-one kill with a 5-cm PaK on a Churchill? one frontal shot-one kill with a 57 mm gun at 600 meters on a JPZ IV? One frontal shot-one kill with a StUG at 250 meters against a JS-2? What are the odds?? And the other way round, two 76mm side hits to get rid of a Pz IV? SIX 76mm frontal hits for the same effect???? Am I especially unlucky or did I miss a point?
In the end, I feel completely helpless against tanks in defense, and against AT guns as well when distance is too long for infantry suppression fire to be efficient.

Are the tanks supposed to stay far away at the back of the infantry? Are they supposed to NEVER engage AT guns, even low calibre ones? Shall they charge their targets at high speed and hope for the best, instead of trying to sneak into firing position?

US, German and to a lesser extent British infantry have short range AT weapons which can allow them to deal with enemy tanks under the cover of their own ones; but the Russians?!

What is disturbing in Combat Mission when compared to Squad Leader is the lack of knowledge of the chances: what are the odds of a JS2 against a StuG III at a given distance? of a Pz IV against a 57 mm AT gun?

I take any advice here...

(And special thanks to people who had the patience to read all through this post!)

 

[chuckdyke]

25 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

What is disturbing in Combat Mission when compared to Squad Leader is the lack of knowledge of the chances: what are the odds of a JS2 against a StuG III at a given distance? of a Pz IV against a 57 mm AT gun?

I take any advice here...

C2 first I am a lazy tester, possibly the algorithms relate to the C2 and the way you set up the radio networks. In short if something wouldn't work in real life, I won't do it in CM because I have the almighty PC. Take for example the MG42 in heavy machine gun mode. At a range of 800 meters, they depend on area fire. So I make sure the HQ of the MG42 teams is in contact with the Company HQ Radio who get the tentative contacts from the platoons they support. You can do the same with AT guns infantry will spot enemy armor the contacts will go to the AT guns, on tentative contacts they will shoot first and hit first. If I enter a house and the assault team has intel of the enemy by mixing movement and fire orders my casualties are acceptable. Stug III has probably better soft factors reason it spots better, JS2 you need to watch the crews it is often Green and Conscript. A Veteran Stug III crew will spot first and hit first, you need to develop tactics for the JS2.

[Bulletpoint]

If you stick with the game, you will find that you slowly start to develop an idea about the chances of success with the various matchups between different units.

However, keep in mind that the game, while quite realistic, is still a game. Part of winning is to use sound tactics, and part of winning is simply realising how the game mechanics work and how to use them to your advantage.

As you found out, Combat Mission heavily penalises units that are moving compared to stationary units. At least in the WW2 games. If your tank moves into the LOS of a stationary enemy tank, you will nearly always get spotted and engaged first. And often, your tank will just sit there without spotting anything while getting hit 3-4-5 times.

To optimise your chances, keep unbuttoned and make sure the tank receives a contact marker for the enemy tank. This will increase your spotting chances. You do this by first spotting the tank with your infantry for example, and then moving the infantry close to your tank. Or if the units are in contact with the same HQ unit, they can also share info this way.

Also fire mortars or even small arms at the enemy tank first to make sure it closes its hatches. This drastically reduces its spotting ability (in WW2 games).

Even so, there's always a big risk when moving into LOS of a stationary enemy tank. Flank shots are still preferred if possible.

Regarding damage, there's a random component. The Panzer IV is actually very brittle, but sometimes they get lucky with the dice.

Lastly, about LOS, be aware that it works in mysterious ways sometimes. You can't eyeball it from the graphics. Often, it will look like there are only two trees between you and the target, and it looks like those trees could not possibly obscure a tank. But if you use the target tool, you will see that the game actually says "no line of sight" to the spot where the tank is, and in those cases, you will never be able to spot it from that position.

So that might be why your supporting tank doesn't spot the AT gun that took out your other tank. In other cases, you simply rolled unlucky dice for your spotting checks.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Bulletpoint

[Brille]

Getting more units into action than your opponent can is a valiable option indeed. But regardless if you are attacking tanks or at guns, you should do it from different angles (if possible). So the gun (which turn very slow) or the tank have to turn a bit to get to another target. 

If your units stand close side by side and the enemy has their range it can turn out to be a turkey shooting. 

 

By the way units spot better to the front than to the sides or back. Tanks are even worse at this regard, especially when their commander is forced inside. They are nearly blind if something pops up to their side. 

 

In at gun engagements you first have to locate the at gun (obviously) . If you know it's position you either destroy them with artillery, close assault them with infantry or bypass them. Only if you have the forces to suppress them properly you may engage them with tanks. They are designed to ambush tanks so the least unit you want to engage them with should be tanks. 

And I guess it is regardless if you sneak them into position, they will almost always outspot tanks. 

One tactic I use (if I have no other option) , if the map allows it is to gather some tanks together, roll into a hull down position fast and area fire the guns position at a distance. Most of the shots will be misses, especially at flat ground, but they may pin and or kill personal. If the gun stands in forests it is even better since some of the shots will explode on a treetrunk over or behind it. Sooner or later it will be either abandoned or destroyed. But it may take several he rounds and a tank or two. 

 

Don't know about the probability of a tank kill with low caliber shots but I guess you just had bad luck. I had engagements with 57mm churchills against a huge Panzer IV fleet with different effects. Sometimes they seem to get no damage at all and sometimes the Panzers exploded in all its glory or were at least silenced very quick. 

Once I even had a one shot kill with an soviet at rifle on a Stug whereas it is very lucky to even get a penetration sometimes. (talking about the sides of course). 

 

Is2 or any of the ISU versions can be very frightening. They are tough nuts to crack for anything armed with a 75mm L48 and even for better guns at a distance while the 122and 152mmm cannons will obliterate most of german afv.

So you might think it is better to engage german armor at range, which is partially true. But you have only very slow rates of fire in the soviet heavies, so by the time they have the range, most German tanks may have already landed some hits at them. Though they probably may survive those, their subsystems will get degraded pretty soon. If you go into more close range you have better hit probability of course but you trade it with lesser armor protection. 

You can amplify the reloading speeds and hit chances with higher experienced crews so they may be valuable on range too. But you should outnumber the enemy forces, so they have more to shoot at while your other units may have the chance to range in properly. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Brille

[Lethaface]

4 hours ago, PEB14 said:

Sorry, long post here...

This post I write out of frustration, after the mauling of my tanks in my last games of CMRT that I called off yesterday.
I started playing Combat Mission a little more than one month ago. I was a Squad Leader player a LONG time ago (more than 25 years!). This is the story of my discovery of the dynamics of tanks in combat mission: tanks vs. tanks and tanks vs. AT guns. A very frustrating one indeed.

Chapter I
I started with the CMFI training campaign. In the last mission, you get 5 Sherman tanks against 2 Pz III and 2 Pz IV. When my Sherman arrived on map, they only faced one remaining Pz IV. I carefully advanced three of the Sherman to face it, at a distance of about 400 m. Seconds later, one Sherman was ablaze and another one abandoned by its crew after partial penetration.
I finally managed to get rid of the Pz IV, blinding him with smoke to allow my remaining tanks to get into firing position, but the surviving Pz IV (Regular rated) crew memeber only abandoned its machine after SIX penetrating (or partially penetrating) shots on targets, plus a 7th boucing on it with no damage. Three Sherman, 7 shots on target to get rid of a Pz IV...

Chapter II
I decided to play the CMRT training campaign next. In the last mission you have to assault a German village defended by a Tiger and a handful of StuG III, with plenty of armors (including heavy JS and JSU-152) and infantry on your side.
In this game I never managed to use my armor properly. The village approaches are heavily channeled by forests and a deep gully whose bridge is not crossable by heavy tanks. Impossible to flank manoeuvre before reaching the village on a relatively narrow front. I lost my first T-34 from a StuG III at about 600 m (first shot, direct kill). I then advanced my heavy armors under the cover of smoke to close on the village. When smoke dissipated, one JS-2, one JSU-152 and another T-34 were blown up at 250 meters by two StuG. No miss, all shots were direct kills. The Tiger didn't have to shoot a single shot. As Russian infantry bears no AT weapon, I honestly still don't know how I can win this one. No idea what to do with those crystal tanks, as they're vulnerable from all distances... Highly frustrating.

Chapter III - A story of AT guns.
In the meantime I also played the CMBN training campaign. The last mission teaches very well how to flank enemy armors. I make stupid mistakes that cost me 3 Sherman tanks but I manoeuvered the other ones in a satisfactorily way so to flank another Pz IV, killing him in TWO SIDE shots at 200 meters.

Last week, I played a CMBN CW scenario where I got 3 Churchill tanks in a bocage countryside with large open spaces. I had to face three 50 mm German AT guns. Two of them were suppressed easily, but the third one... It managed one (front) shot-one kill on one my Churchill at 250 meters. I then pounded him with two light mortars (30 rounds in total)... to no effect!! (British light mortars, what a crap!) So I had to go on it with another Churchill. After blinding him with light mortar smoke to allow me to get into position, he nevertheless got the first shot, which bounced on the front of my Churchill (at last!) and I silenced him for good.

And next comes yesterday's game: a CMRT scenario in which I played the German (with its undestructible Pz IV!) In this one I faced several 57mm Soviet AT guns with Pz IV, JPz Iv and one Hetzer among other amors.

At the cost of one halftrack I spotted two enemy AT guns. Having no LOS on them from any artillery observer (my bad!), and too long a range to suppress them, I decided to give a go on one of them (the furthest away, emplaced behind sandbags) with a JPzIV. So I sneaked my SP gun in a wood at low speed (open-topped to optimize my chances for an early LOS). Kaboom! One frontal shot at 600 meters and the JPz IV is damaged and abandoned by its crew. What?! I need six Sherman 76 mm shots on target to disable a Pz IV, and at an even longer distance a single shot of 57 mm makes my JpZ crew flee away? What the f**k????
OK, while the Soviet AT gun was still pounding the abandoned JPz IV, I sneaked the Hetzer in another wood tile, opened up and close to an infantry unit with a LOS to the AT gun, trying to get the first shot. And I did. One machine gun burst and one gun shot on target: NO EFFECT. Zero. Nada. One single shot of the 57 mm gun: the Hetzer blows up. Great.

In the meantime I tried to outflank another 57 mm AT gun with a Puma, two Pz IV (ya know, the tank which requires 6 front shots on target to get disabled), and screening infantry. I close up under the protection of woods. The AT gun itself is in the open (no foxhole, no trench) on the other side of the wood. Once again, I advance slowly, three tanks against one gun, with infantry support and everybody opened up. The AT gun gets the first shot at 200 meters through the woods. One Pz IV is damaged and backs away. NOBODY on my side gets a LOS to the AT gun. Second shot: the other Pz IV blows up. Great. Neither the remaining Puma nor the infantry gets a LOS to the AT gun. I gave up, completely disgusted.

Chapter III - Conclusion and questions

So what? I made mistakes (in the last scenario, my HQ were too far behind and couldn't provide mortar suppression on any of the AT guns as required). But seriously, one frontal shot-one kill with a 5-cm PaK on a Churchill? one frontal shot-one kill with a 57 mm gun at 600 meters on a JPZ IV? One frontal shot-one kill with a StUG at 250 meters against a JS-2? What are the odds?? And the other way round, two 76mm side hits to get rid of a Pz IV? SIX 76mm frontal hits for the same effect???? Am I especially unlucky or did I miss a point?
In the end, I feel completely helpless against tanks in defense, and against AT guns as well when distance is too long for infantry suppression fire to be efficient.

Are the tanks supposed to stay far away at the back of the infantry? Are they supposed to NEVER engage AT guns, even low calibre ones? Shall they charge their targets at high speed and hope for the best, instead of trying to sneak into firing position?

US, German and to a lesser extent British infantry have short range AT weapons which can allow them to deal with enemy tanks under the cover of their own ones; but the Russians?!

What is disturbing in Combat Mission when compared to Squad Leader is the lack of knowledge of the chances: what are the odds of a JS2 against a StuG III at a given distance? of a Pz IV against a 57 mm AT gun?

I take any advice here...

(And special thanks to people who had the patience to read all through this post!)

I think you were probably a bit unlucky.

AFAIK the odds aren't decided according to a table. So if you can penetrate the armour it all depends where you hit it. Sometime first shot can be a catastrophic kill, sometimes many penetrating shots fail to destroy the vehicle. The type of round used does matter in that regard.

In general the unit that is moving will be spotted first by the unit that is not moving. But no guarantees. I guess the advice would be to not try dueling tanks/AT-guns with your tanks and expect them to win it without losses.

There's plenty of guides on the forums. Searching using google (include 'site:community.battlefront.com') works better then searching in the forum.

Some general points I play by:

* Scout first with your infantry and have them report the tanks, AT-guns to their HQ and up the chain.
* Ensure c2 so your tanks receive the report and have a tentative contact before engaging
* Move along covered terrain
* Make use of the terrain. Choose positions behind crests, trees, bushes, behind a house, whatever you can.
* Shoot and scoot. Against AT guns area fire works great.
* Use numbers

Also:

* Can you somehow ensure your tanks/troops have an advantage? Smoke, suppression, flanking.
* Do you need to engage the AT gun with your tanks or can you just mortar them or overrun them with infantry?

I think all players been where you have been. When you get more experience, you'll get better results.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lethaface

[WimO]

Squad Leader, Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) vs CMBN, CMRT, CMFI, CMFB

It is my impression that PEB14's experience and response to (frustration with) the CM titles appears to be 'typical' of long-term ASL players. I believe that I can reasonably make such a claim because two of my long time friends have also been regular (obsessive?) SL and ASL players from the first appearance of SL until today. One of the two quite playing CMBN after two games, the other still plays.

In my opion the contrast is between ASL's god-like 'control' and omniscience which includes positional awareness, the protection and armor value, combat odds etc. In addition moves from here to there only cover a few hexes and arrival at destination takes no time at all.  CM on the other hand is emphatically far more realistic in terms of the many unknowns. Just like in real life. Traditional ASLers have a difficult time downgrading from omniscience to the many unknowns. My good friends have grown accustimed to the like the chess like 'control' of ASL and get frustrated when things don't turn out they way they do in ASL.

The more I read personal accounts of Canadian soldiers in Normandie and Nederland, the more I learn that most combat takes place with uncertainty.

Learning to love CM requires some degree of learning to surrender to the unkown.  That's how I look at it anyway. Your views may well differ.

I love CMBN - warts and all. For better or for worse. Till death do us part.

[Brille]

In the older Combat Mission games you had something like hit percentages and probability of a kill through the various gun platforms. 

This kind you don't have in the Cmx2 versions but bfc set this on purpose. They want to give you some sort of feeling the troops back then would have:

 

Not knowing much about the vehicles you are up against while only knowing slightly more about your own weapon performance. 

The more experienced you get the more you know what works against what. 

Otherwise you can test things out via the scenario editor in each installment or read/watch about the hardware performance of that Era. 

In the editor you can set up a shooting range and play it in hot seat mode with the enemy forces set on tight cover arcs. 

 

This way I'll often test various weapon platforms on what they can penetrate or how good they hit anything on various distances. 

It is not 1on1 representative with an actual game but at least gives you a good direction if you are not accustomed with the various vehicles, tanks and self propelled guns. 

[PEB14]

Thanks to all poster for taking the time to read my long post and to provide interesting advices.

By the way, I didn't make all wrong. Incidentally, it happens that I applied (unkowingly, at least until today!) the concept of "keyhole" with some tanks in an urban CMRT scenario. And to great success, as my T-34 totalled nearly as much kills from this keyhole position that all my other units combined!

3 hours ago, WimO said:

Squad Leader, Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) vs CMBN, CMRT, CMFI, CMFB

It is my impression that PEB14's experience and response to (frustration with) the CM titles appears to be 'typical' of long-term ASL players. I believe that I can reasonably make such a claim because two of my long time friends have also been regular (obsessive?) SL and ASL players from the first appearance of SL until today. One of the two quite playing CMBN after two games, the other still plays.

In my opion the contrast is between ASL's god-like 'control' and omniscience which includes positional awareness, the protection and armor value, combat odds etc. In addition moves from here to there only cover a few hexes and arrival at destination takes no time at all.  CM on the other hand is emphatically far more realistic in terms of the many unknowns. Just like in real life. Traditional ASLers have a difficult time downgrading from omniscience to the many unknowns. My good friends have grown accustimed to the like the chess like 'control' of ASL and get frustrated when things don't turn out they way they do in ASL.

The more I read personal accounts of Canadian soldiers in Normandie and Nederland, the more I learn that most combat takes place with uncertainty.

Learning to love CM requires some degree of learning to surrender to the unkown.  That's how I look at it anyway. Your views may well differ.

I love CMBN - warts and all. For better or for worse. Till death do us part.

Your reflexion is very interesting. I stopped Squad Leader (SL) a long time ago so I'm not totally blinded by this wargame mechanics. BUT, as a matter of fact, my vision of WW2 tactics was clearly influenced by SL, and for sure I have to un-learn several things.

To paraphrase you, I have absolutely no problem to "surrender to the unkown". I absolutely don't miss the god-like omniscience enjoyed by the SL player - not at all. Uncertainty, even it may be a source of frustration, is one of the most exciting part of the CM series. I similarly consider that the TacAI concept, to which one releases some degrees of control of the Pixeltruppen, is an extraordinarily good idea; some similar mechanics already exists to some extent in the SL/ASL series with the concepts of "broken" and "pinned" units, but obviously not to the degree achieved in CM.

More frustrating is the lack of knowledge of the relative protection and firepower of the armor; in CM you have no table to rely on. But I agree that knowing to the fourth digit the percentage of chances that you might hit or miss is far worst !

Indeed, there are two aspects that I, the former SL player, have to integrate.

The first one is the time factor. In the SL game you play for a dozen of turns. You MUST rush. So I have a tendancy to move my units - letting them stand still, waiting for reco or artillery support, gives me the impression to lose time… That does influence the use of armors as well: in SL they will shoot twenty times in the whole game, so you should not waste an opportunity to fire. So I have to learn patience. Thanks to some advices above, I found the concept of the three times: 1/3 of time dedicated for preparing an attack (scouting and getting into position), 1/3 for the attack proper, and 1/3 to mop-up and deal with counteratacks. In my CHurchill tanks scenarios I got a German surrender only a few minutes before the full time, so I doubt the concept is valid for all scenario; I nevertheles shall give it a try.

The other concept that strongly differs from ASL is the treatment of LOS, in particular the influence of elevation. The SL system is primitive (it cannot be otherwise in a 2D game); in CM I have tremendous difficulties to manage LOS on maps with gentle slopes and long LOS (It's a lot easier in the close bocage of CMBN, or in the urban fightings).

And a third point is that the relative strengths and weaknesses of the weapons system is not the same in SL and in CM. The fate of my JS-2 and JSU confronted to the StuG would certainly not have been the same in SL. So I have to learn these new scales like any beginner!

Anyway, be sure that I won't give up Combat Mission because I lost a few Jagdpanzer. The learning curve is steep, but I'll carry on, and I'm quite convinced that your advices will be helpful. SL belongs to the past, at least as far as I am concerned, and I fully adhere to the concepts of Combat Mission.

The only thing that I really miss from SL: early and mid-WW2… Please Steve us, give us the multiturreted T-28, the Finns, the French, even the Rumanian and the Matilda tanks… I need to play Stalingrad's The Factory in Combat Mission 2 !!!

Thanks again to all posters for their messages.

[Bil Hardenberger]

@PEB14, might I humbly offer my Combat Mission tactics blog The goal for my blog was teaching the application of real world tactics in the CM games. Look for the Tactical Toolbox along the left side of the page.

Bil

[PEB14]

35 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

@PEB14, might I humbly offer my Combat Mission tactics blog The goal for my blog was teaching the application of real world tactics in the CM games. Look for the Tactical Toolbox along the left side of the page.

Bil

Hi Bil,

Thanks for the insight; coincidentally, I found your blog earlier today while following some of the above poster's recommendation.

Looks very interersting and relevant !

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, PEB14 said:

Hi Bil,

Thanks for the insight; coincidentally, I found your blog earlier today while following some of the above poster's recommendation.

Looks very interersting and relevant !

I would hold off playing CMCW until you get a bit more time in the CM chair, especially playing as Soviets.

[Erwin]

When I graduated from CM1 to CM2 in 2007 I also was horrified at how hard it was to keep the troops alive.  CM2 is a very challenging game with steep learning curve.  If you are a new player you have to expect that you need to gain experience.

[chuckdyke]

13 minutes ago, Erwin said:

If you are a new player you have to expect that you need to gain experience.

Spotting is everything, I am now successful in finding enemy positions without losing troops in the process. Only this would need its own manual. Need to look at all the soft factors, experience etc. Only then can you work out why a Stug III can beat a JS2. Then back to work out tactics for the JS2. A tank with a green crew is a different tank compared with a veteran crew. When I started playing, I used them the same, hundreds of smoking hulks later we changed the tactics. CM with its soft factors is superior to all the others on the market. Yes, when you ignore the soft factors the competition with better graphics not more realistic graphics appear better. Don't let this fool you. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by chuckdyke

[slysniper]

Some great advice has been given.

And as we all have had to learn we were not great  leaders when we started playing the game,

All those skills we think we have until this game proves us wrong early on. Spoken as someone that also was a excellent ASL player and found it lacked a lot of the skills needed to be of help in this game. Also an ex-marine, which helped me much more at playing this game but I still had to learn to apply many things I had been taught but had never really used in real life, but to some extent, I do get to use in the game.

So be patient and start trying to learn from your mistakes, and yes , you are not using your armor correctly.

Never play with the concept that your steel is your defence and you invincible and that will help you alot. It does not matter you have that advantage, use tactics that dont require seeing rounds bounce off your armor. 

Set up a test map. make markers on it at 400, 600, 800, 1000 yards then select the tanks you want to test against each other and run the test a few times at each range.

I set up 5 or 10 tanks on each side, I have maps that have lanes so each tank can only see one enemy tank. Anyway, you will get results very quickly as to the odds and the distances that are effective. And in truth the numbers are very realistic to real world results. Not only will you learn what to expect, but you will also know when you have had a unlucky result because of the results.