Zooks, after the kill, are as good as dead

[Juardis]

While I'm in a pissy mood (I lost some assets last night in a couple of QBs that should not have been lost), allow me to complain about zooks. I setup a beautiful ambush that took out a Stug IV. Now the crew of that same Stug is targetting my zook. My zook is defenseless. He will die shortly. The ironic thing is that, as far as self preservation goes, he'd have been better off not killing the Stug.

Granted, he killed his target, but this is an armorclash battle and most of my tanks are dead (due to the previous thread about my elite tanks missing everything while his veteran tanks racked up 7 first shot kills). So I need my zook. And to have it taken out by a tank crew really ticks me off. Is it my fault for not providing an infantry covering force for him? Or do I have a valid complaint?

------------------

Jeff Abbott

[Supertanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis:

Is it my fault for not providing an infantry covering force for him?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the risk of inflaming your pissy mood any further , yep, it is your fault. If you had a regular infantry squad there, they would stomp that crew like a big, juicy bug. Sometimes this is not feasible, in which case the AT team becomes a sacrifice. I have found that the post-patch ability of AT teams to run for short distances can sometimes put them safely behind their covering infantry.

All that said, my vote was always for giving the AT teams some pistols or carbines, but IIRC that is impossible - one weapon to a customer.

[Four Stringer]

I feel you pain, having learned that same lesson the hard way. I try to always put at least a half-squad in a supporting pos to any bas/pzsk/piat team.

------------------

Homer: [gulps] I suppose you want to probe me. Well, might as well get it over with. [unzips his pants]

Kang: [disgusted] Stop! We have reached the limits of what rectal probing can teach us.

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it my fault for not providing an infantry covering force for him? Or do I have a valid complaint?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO, both.

On the one hand you should have given him some kind of infantry support. Afterall, you have no way of knowing if the next unit to walk thru your ambush is a Stug or SMG squad.

But on the other hand I agree with you 100%, zooks should have at least sidearms for self defense. I've lost quite a few from the same situation you've described, and it's not just limited to zooks. Piats and Shrecks are just as vunerable.

------------------

...This is Romeo-Foxtrot, shall we dance?...

[Bombardier]

Last time I checked, a zook team has two members. Is it possible that the second member does not even have a side arm!!?

While I’m at it… FO’s have nothing to carry except a map and a radio.

It seems reasonable to assume that these poor bastards be given SOMETHING to defend themselves with. I believe even jeep crews have side arms.

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it my fault for not providing an infantry covering force for him? Or do I have a valid complaint?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have found that AFV crews come out of their knocked out tanks like mad hornets. If they have a chance they'll wax the AT team that got their vehicle. However, if there is any infantry cover for the AT team nearby, the crews head the other way pronto!

I usually have two categories of AT teams; ambushers and stalkers. The ambushers hide along likely avenues of approach. I try to safely withdraw the ambushers to new positions. The stalkers actively hunt enemy AFV's. Generally, the stalkers are expendable.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish:

IMO, both.

On the one hand you should have given him some kind of infantry support. Afterall, you have no way of knowing if the next unit to walk thru your ambush is a Stug or SMG squad.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear what you're saying, but here's the deal. Most people keep their tanks in a standoff position with their infantry well away from them. That is to prevent close assaults on your tank. Good strategy. So I try to overcome said good strategy by putting a zook (or shreck or piat) out by himself in an area I suspect a tank to take up a stand off position. I do not want infantry there possibly giving away my AT teams position. So I put them where I do not expect infantry to stumble upon them. Now, if I have 3 or 4 zooks scattered about the map, that's two squads to cover 4 AT teams (assuming I split the squads). That's 2/3 of a platoon right there and seems such a waste when I want my platoons to occupy the opfor infantry, not protect/possibly reveal by zooks. See what I mean?

So maybe I'm using my zooks wrong?

------------------

Jeff Abbott

[Croda]

I recently began a new strategy in a pbem I'm playing. I am defending in a Probe and set up 2 panzerschreck ambushes. They are in good cover with good LOS in all directions, so the ambush is more of whatever comes within a good kill radius. What I did was set an MG42 with him, thus giving some added protection, and figuring this MG team can knock down anything bailing out of a nearby diabled AFV. On top of this, both AT/MG ambushes are within good cover distance of my inf and Anti-Inf weapons, allowing for the mother of all slaughter zones. Hopefully, this will work well. If you play Ameris, you can take some of the MG teams from a heavy weps platoon for this purpose.

On top of that, I had 4 HTs trip a zook ambush in another pbem. The zook KOed 2 of the HTs. One of the HT crews (2 men) hid in the woods right next to my zook team. When the crew initiated fire, my zook team KOed the crew with his zook. That guy was taking no prisoners at all!

------------------

"Nuts!"

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most people keep their tanks in a standoff position with their infantry well away from them. That is to prevent close assaults on your tank. Good strategy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, but i've also noticed that most people won't advance their tanks into that standoff position until their infantry have swept thru it, therby uncovering the very ambush you are trying to set.

Consider also that even if that AT team was armed with self defense weapons its still only 2 guys with pistols. A tank-less crew can be as many as 5 guys, so you'll still need some kind of back up. Otherwise those AT teams will only be good for one AFV kill.

[David Aitken]

This has been discussed before.

Anti tank team problems

David

------------------

Somewhere between a joke and a conspiracy

[Maj. Bosco]

I think that tank crews recover too quickly from being in a knocked out vehicle. Just my personal opinion of course but I think that two guys with pistols would capture the 3-5 surviving crew members as soon as they crawl from their tank. The crew coming out of knocked out vehicles should suffer a severe morale hit.

I also think that zooks, shrecks and PIATs should have some small arms. So should mortar teams and FOs. They'd be virtually worthless as combatants because pistols aren't anywhere near as effective as rifles but they'd be able to fend off crew.

[Guest wwb_99]

While on the subject of underarmed crews, what about bunkers/pillboxes? These guys are regular infantry and should definintely be packing something a little larger than a pistol (do I hear weak, fragile infantry squad).

WWB

[109 Gustav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

While on the subject of underarmed crews, what about bunkers/pillboxes? These guys are regular infantry and should definintely be packing something a little larger than a pistol (do I hear weak, fragile infantry squad).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They may be regular infantry, but when their bunker gets knocked out, their instinct is going to get the heck out of there, not wait for someone to come up and drop a grenade or two in the firing slit. As a result, they skedaddle with only their sidearms, rather than grab rifles or smgs. Tank crews work the same way. Although tanks carried a few SMGs (The MP40 was originally designed for tankers), they would rather bail out while they can, rather than wait around for the tank to brew up while they get the SMGs.

------------------

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda:

On top of that, I had 4 HTs trip a zook ambush in another pbem. The zook KOed 2 of the HTs. One of the HT crews (2 men) hid in the woods right next to my zook team. When the crew initiated fire, my zook team KOed the crew with his zook. That guy was taking no prisoners at all!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem. You forgot to mention that your little old 'zook team was elite. I swear elite troops are like freakin' machines. They do not give up, pin, take cover, or anything. You literally have to run OVER them and kill them to be rid of them.

Twas' a good ambush though, but I would geuss things would have turned out differently if that 'zook wasn't elite.

Jeff

[Johnno]

In reply to the above, I agree, but a randomized feature to add other side arms would be appropriate don't you think. I am not sure what the standard side arms of a Bazooka, Piat or Panzerschreck are but I find it Insane and down right unrealistic that they don't have rifles.

Now I know most people don't like CC referred to in reference to CM, but they're AT teams have sidearms and are they not based on realistic units? I'd only assume that standard issue for a AT team would be rifles or a SMG. Hopefully I'll find a book someday detailing exactly what was standard issue for Infantry in WW2.

CM has done an excellent job on this game and if they felt that making the AT team extremely vulnerable is strategic and just, then so be it; it'll work for me.

Still the game has some issues I hope a patch will be out soon, and where's that TC/IP?

Johnno out

[This message has been edited by Johnno (edited 10-27-2000).]

[elementalwarre]

ok, CM's currently written so a heavy weapon team has that weapon and nothing else

what prevents a patch, or CM2, or the next engine rev from treating a weapon team the same as a squad or half-squad? ie squads have a weapon mix, why not a weapon team?

[Croda]

Jeff, regarding that zook, ambush...what a freaking great setup, eh? you ran 4 hts right through my ambush. Why is that? was it because of the wonderful use of barbedwire? did you think there were mine's on the far wide side of that opening? What an ingenius ambush.

------------------

"Nuts!"

[Raze]

Given the fact that squads have a variety of sidearms and weapons, why can't we equip the ammo bearer with carbine or at least .45 pistol?! They BOTH did carry sidearms!

------------------

Sticks and stones may break my . . OUCH! Hey! Who threw . . .Stop! STOP IT!

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda:

Jeff, regarding that zook, ambush...what a freaking great setup, eh? you ran 4 hts right through my ambush. Why is that? was it because of the wonderful use of barbedwire? did you think there were mine's on the far wide side of that opening? What an ingenius ambush.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it was the simple matter of me not scouting out that damn position first. I scouted out that entire damn woods to my right of that hill but not the left.

I should have checked it out first. Oh well.

Not including the HTs I only lost a flamethrower and about 5 infantry. I never count on HTs to give MG support. They usually are too damn scared to do anything like engage infantry.

Your ambush did hose up my timing. I was hoping to get up a litte closer faster and

I planned to be in those woods with your infantry squad already.

Oh well.. next time I will be looking for that.

Jeff

[Compassion]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre:

what prevents a patch, or CM2, or the next engine rev from treating a weapon team the same as a squad or half-squad? ie squads have a weapon mix, why not a weapon team?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably the desire to prevent ahistorical use of crews or depleted AT teams as disposable shock troops or fill ins in the line. That's what prompted the current state of affairs, I think (the Forum of last year is so hazy).

------------------

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" - G.W. Bush, January 2000

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Compassion:

Probably the desire to prevent ahistorical use of crews or depleted AT teams as disposable shock troops or fill ins in the line. That's what prompted the current state of affairs, I think (the Forum of last year is so hazy).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

their morale's hammered, they may have casualties, and they probably have little ammo for their personal defense weapons. er, -what- shock troops?

dunno. to me it may be going too far towards enforcing weapon team uselessness to say they've no other weapons. change victory points or something, but leave the teams as they really were

bailed-out vehicle crews i understand, but weapon teams?

[Juardis]

OK David Aitken, thanks for pointing out the fact that this has been covered before. But I was mainly venting my frustration. I did go read the post and was gratified to see that BTS will change this situation in the future (hopefully in CM2). But even besides the sidearm issue, I was interested in the best way to set an ambush with AT teams without compromising their positions or their health after the kill. Got some ideas on what's best from this thread.

------------------

Jeff Abbott

[KiwiJoe]

I think BTS stated that not giving zooks/mortors/foo's side arms was to stop gamey play. I have to say that it promotes more gamey play the way it is. Foos should have 1 x pistol 1x submachinegun. Mortors and zooks should have 2 x pistols 1 x submachine gun. I doubt any1 is going to charge a foo into battle, the lose would cost a lot if victory %. Same with zooks and mortors. PLEASE arm them! Its unrealistic the way it is. If you stubbornly refuse to do this then u have to unarm all crews to balance things.

[Redleg]

Since the term "discussed before" has been used by david in the following posts, it is no longer necessary to repeat it.

Topic Name Date Forum/Archive

Rant 2 David Aitken 08-20-2000 Combat Mission

Merely my 2 Cents... David Aitken 09-13-2000 Combat Mission

If my artillery pops a squad in a forest how the hell do I see "infantry eliminated" David Aitken 09-15-2000 Combat Mission

Zooks, after the kill, are as good as dead David Aitken 10-27-2000 Combat Mission

[Compassion]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre:

their morale's hammered, they may have casualties, and they probably have little ammo for their personal defense weapons. er, -what- shock troops?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends what you mean. Seems to me that shock troops move in a highly agressive manner and help clear the battlefield. in this context by unmasking enemy troops to allow concentrated firepower to operate safely at a distance. As I recall, this was a big reason for the way things are now. THis did happen all too often during the Beta Demo days.

Now, has the pendulum swung too far the other way and does this issue need to be revisited? Yeah, maybe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

bailed-out vehicle crews i understand, but weapon teams?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I don't think that these units should be completely defenseless... Low ammo levels to keep them from operating in an offensive role, perhaps?

------------------

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" - G.W. Bush, January 2000