JasonC Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 That is obviously not the reason in this particular case, Vanir, since they are playing CMBO. "it's quite another to pull up a couple of tanks and specifically target and then level every building in site." It is perfectly realistic and a perfectly sound tactic. Ammo was not scarce, men were - on both sides. Sending ammo instead of bodies is what firepower based strategies are all about. In the real war, all sides expended tens to hundreds of heavy shells (along with thousands of bullets) for every casualty they caused. They also conducted "recon by fire" as a matter of course. With buildings, direct HE works better than indirect, because it generally hits instead of landing in the street outside. Indirect HE is for trees, or infantry in the open. If you read real AARs of US forces clearing defended villages, the infantry's job is typically to grenade the hold outs in the cellars - or take their surrender. HE pins everyone it doesn't kill before the attacking infantry leaves its own cover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 JasonC wrote: It is perfectly realistic and a perfectly sound tactic. Ammo was not scarce... I guess that kinda depended on the year for the Germans. Sending ammo instead of bodies is what firepower based strategies are all about. Artillery barrage on the town/village to prep the area before sending bodies in. I stated this. In the real war, all sides expended tens to hundreds of heavy shells (along with thousands of bullets) for every casualty they caused. Wow! Startling revelation here. With buildings, direct HE works better than indirect, because it generally hits instead of landing in the street outside. Indirect HE is for trees, or infantry in the open. Wow! Another startling revelation. If you read real AARs of US forces clearing defended villages, the infantry's job is typically to grenade the hold outs in the cellars - or take their surrender. HE pins everyone it doesn't kill before the attacking infantry leaves its own cover. Do the real AAR's of US forces go on to say that it's the tankers job to, "knock down every house in the town/village"? As a matter of course, do you play this way every game? When I say this way, I mean, pull up a couple of tanks and blow up every house on the map in the enemies zone of defense. Doesn't this get old after a while? As you can hopefully tell by my response, you have not convinced me in any way shape or form that this is/was a realistic tactic. You have convinced me that this is how YOU play Combat Mission when you have armor and are attacking a town/village. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phemur Posted July 4, 2003 Author Share Posted July 4, 2003 Some of you are saying that to reduce to rubble every building on the map is not gamey but I can't see it. It takes a perfectly good WWII strategy/simulator and reduces it to the level of some sort of pointless building smash-up derby.I don't think flattening a town with direct HE fire is gamey at all. My definition of gamey is "exploiting flaws or oversights of the game system/engine to obtain advantage over your opponent". The recon by Direct HE doesn't exploit the game. It's an ineffective tactic, but it's not gamey at all. In the game I'm currently playing, its very ineffective. Most of my units were not in buildings, because there was no clear line of retreat, and most of the objectives where not in the village anyway. My opponent is effectively wasting ammo. What's worse, he's causing exactly the situation Redwolf mentioned. As the building get flattened, my guns on the right flank now have full line of sight to the armor on the left flank. 5 of his vehicles have been knocked out. Many more are to come, as he's so focused on destroying the town that he hasn't seen my tank hunter platoon move up his left flank. Destroying buildings without knowing if there's anyone there or not is not a good stragety, in my opinion. You're wasting ammo, destroying potential cover for yourself, possibly opening up enemy fire lanes and putting on blinders that your enemy could exploit. I think the disadvantages far outweight the gains. Phemur 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hansson Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 What's the problem with your attitude, Jack Carr? You asked for feedback and got a few different opinions. Why getting all worked up just because they didn't agree? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 The house blowing up would be a non-issue if people were not hanging out in the houses in first place. As a matter of fact, the laddergamers some of you like to bash don't do that, and for good reason. No safer way to get your spotter killed than hanging out in the only building overlooking all map. Heck, I just read a book on WW1 (not 2) were they systematically blasted away all hilltops. And they didn't take down the cathedral in Ypres because they were appaled by the religion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterX Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 the laddergamers some of you like to bash.... Huh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaLion Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 I am the one who Phemur was fighting. I knew him to be a most excellent infantry commander, and I knew the value of buildings as defensive posts, so I selected my forces accordingly. My armor heavy units lay siege to the wood structures first, and then I will move in to finish off any survivors. This is not my strategy. Having read over 100 books on military history and philosophy, I know that in the old days (1939-1945) there was little chivalry on the battlefield. Did you know that in Russia, 3 out of every 4 buildings in the country were leveled by war's end? (Usually by Generals like me) Or that when the Americans pushed on toword Berlin, if they took fire from a village, they often leveled the village? Even in Vietnam this sometimes happened (My Lai was not the only village to undergo this) My study of military thought led me to my current tactics. Plus Phumur is such a fomidable opponent, I decided to take no chances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaLion Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Besides, Phemur is smart enough to come up with a counter tactic to stop to massive deconstruction that I am doing. That's what war is like -- tactic, counter-tactic, and so forth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 Hansson wrote: What's the problem with your attitude, Jack Carr? You asked for feedback and got a few different opinions. Why getting all worked up just because they didn't agree? Sorry. I reread my last response and found it also to be a little on the aggressive side. I apologize. Without using too many quotes here, Someone mentioned knocking down buildings to obtain a line of site. I don't see that as "gamey" at all. I can easily see this being done in order to get to the enemy units that are known to be behind such buildings. I have done this myself. I don't want to expend a tank by exposing it and I know that the enemy unit that has been giving my men a real hard time is behind a particular building. I don't see this as gamey. Also, someone else responded about their definition of gamey being to exploit a flaw in the game engine. Ok. I guess my definition is a little different. I see gamey as doing anything the game engine allows that takes a great strategy/simulator and turns it into a "game". To further clarify my point, I am talking about this situation being done as a sort of "rule of thumb". In other words, me as a player, the first thing I always do if I have a few tanks and I'm on the attack, is pull them up and blow up every building, whether or not there is a reason to. I hope that I have made this clear for everyone interested in this thread at this point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaLion Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 A good rule of thumb is to always use a Priest to level any buildings in village or rural map. Always use artillery to level the town in an urban map -- the buildings are closer together and you will run out of ammo if you use vehicles to demolish them. One of the artillery spotters has 100 rounds -- perfect for wiping out both pesky troops hiding in the houses and for eliminating the enemy civilians too. This way you can have your own civilians occupy the land after the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Hansson wrote: What's the problem with your attitude, Jack Carr?Your right. I do have an attitude problem. I just don't understand it. No matter how hard I try, I can't get along with most of the people who post messages to this forum. But you'll have to admit, I haven't called anyone any names yet. In any case, thanks to everyone for the feedback which, Hansson so kindly pointed out, I did ask for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaLion Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 Don't worry about getting along with everyone. The free exchange of ideas is what makes Western Civilization great -- especially, sometimes, ideas that are contrary to our own. ------------------------------------- Peace Through Overwhelming Strength 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.