Ronf Posted April 19, 2001 Share Posted April 19, 2001 tanks do not seem to provide any cover. i tried to have my german e-buddies walk behind a kingtiger to have cover against a mg in a house, but the mg was still able to drop its deadly load on them, even if i hid them behind the tiger. maybe its because of the cpu-power the feature would need if implemented, but its still a pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 Vehicles do not provide cover in CM. And your infantry should be in front of that King Tiger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 nah. . with the king tiger being a beast and all, your infantry should be behind it, and I do think it sucks that a squad can't take refuge behind a tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 Yeah, it would be nice of you could do that, but it's not going to happen until relative spotting. In other words, not for a long while. Frankly, my biggest beef is that tanks themselves can't hide. Even if they are in trees, haven't moved and have a "hide" command they are spotted every time. It makes them of dubious worth on defence. I know for a fact hidden and camoed tanks were much harder to spot in real life until they opened fire, and sometime even after they fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Frankly, my biggest beef is that tanks themselves can't hide. Even if they are in trees, haven't moved and have a "hide" command they are spotted every time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They can hide, but it takes some effort. Place them some 30+ m in from the treeline in scattered trees, and they usually won't be spotted from >300m, while still being able to see (and shoot) out of the trees. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abteilung Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 crews of ko'ed afv's can be found sheltered under their vehicles by pressing shift-v to turn off the vehicles. I see it all the time and the enemy usually loses LOS to them while they are under there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schugger Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 Using tanks as cover by hunkering behind them is not a very wise infantry taktik - at least they told me so back in my army days. A large piece of metal attracts a lot of fire which might not be dangerous for the tank itself but certainly for the "soft" groundpounders behind it. I know that many pictures exist, where a tank is in combat and infantry hides behind it, but I do still think that another place which is not so fire-magnetic is a much safer place for infantry. Anyway, I would like to hear what the grogs say to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Petrovsky Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 Peterrson is right about being able to keep a tank hidden behind some scattered trees. In a PBEM game last night I pulled a Stug just up to some scattered trees about 30m thick to try and get a shot at a US TD. My stug spotted and targeted the TD KOing it with one shot and the TD never moved it's gun nor saw my Stug. It can be done, because I've had it done to me as well. I've had tanks nailed by unseen tanks as well. Not a very hard tactic to learn and a VERY effective one being that you can get 2-3 shots off without being seen. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cos Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lars: Vehicles do not provide cover in CM. And your infantry should be in front of that King Tiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Shouldn't they be on the sides to protect against zooks? The frontal armor should stop most stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>nah. . with the king tiger being a beast and all, your infantry should be behind it, and I do think it sucks that a squad can't take refuge behind a tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dunnee, your going to send a very expensive, long range asset like a King Tiger right into a bazooka just waiting for such an chance. The infantry belongs out front to prevent this. If you run into trouble with the infantry, well, that's what the King Tiger is for. [ 04-20-2001: Message edited by: Lars ] [ 04-20-2001: Message edited by: Lars ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 Cos, just missed your post. I believe zooks, fausts and shreks will penetrate just about all armor. What I meant is a wide semi-circle screen of infantry in front of the tank to guard against nasty suprises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted April 20, 2001 Share Posted April 20, 2001 Lars. . i never get a tank within 200m of any infantry unless i've already won. . .i was just saying that the kid's point was to use the tank as cover for infantry. .in that case. .i would hide behind the tank too, and not in front. And as far as hiding behind something that attracts a lot of fire. .infantry in WWII would walk behind the tank to their attack positions, filtering out around the tank as they started taking fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immolator Posted April 21, 2001 Share Posted April 21, 2001 Originally posted by Dunnee: [QB]Lars. . i never get a tank within 200m of any infantry unless i've already won Boy, I'll go along with that! I had a TD smoked by a Panzerschreck or faust from 167 m - a lucky shot I'm sure. But that was about it for my antitank defense. I'm just a newbie learning the hard way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 21, 2001 Share Posted April 21, 2001 Dunnee, this is a tactical game. You're already at the point where your going to take a lot of fire. As for bunching up your infantry and hiding behind the tank you just present a good target for mortars and offboard artillery (which the tank wouldn't shield you from anyway). It would be nice if the tank did provide cover for an assault but even then it would probably only cover one squad (think StuG with an engineer squad behind - hopefully for CM2 in Stalingrad). As for not getting within 200 meters until after you have already won, that is the point I was trying to get across. He won't know that he is closer than that until the tank goes BOOM! After you locate the position you should reverse your armor to a safe distance and then let the bad guys enjoy some HE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted April 21, 2001 Share Posted April 21, 2001 lars, hiding a whole company behind a tank is just stupid, i meant a squad could slink behind a tank in real life, it doesn't work in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 23, 2001 Share Posted April 23, 2001 If hiding one squad behind one tank is a good idea, why wouldn't you hide a company behind twelve tanks? I've already gave you my reasons why you shouldn't but I would like to hear your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted April 23, 2001 Share Posted April 23, 2001 alright. . .I brought it up because i've seen footage of what i've talked about. Hiding companies of men behind tanks is a quick way to lose a battle, BUT, i've seen combat footage of WWII squads using tanks as cover in order to advance to a key building or hedgerow, that was my thing, you might not think its a good idea but it was done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 24, 2001 Share Posted April 24, 2001 Dunnee, I guess we were just talking past each other. I agree that it would be nice to be able to hide a squad behind a tank to advance on a key point in certain situations. See above about the StuG and engineer squad. But once you know that there is somebody in that position the tank better be careful about a AT team. Rereading the first post I'm wondering why he didn't just stand off with the King Tiger and blow that MG away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted April 24, 2001 Share Posted April 24, 2001 Lars, what you just said about standing off, I agree totally, with a beast like the king tiger, you stand off just out of close effective range of the allied guns and tee off on any ass that gets in your sights. And about an AT team shooting at a tank covering infantry, the way I understood it was, that the infantry would know where the big guns were, and would abandoned their cover before the tank they were hiding behind took fire. Like I said, it was used as cover from small arms to stage an attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted April 24, 2001 Share Posted April 24, 2001 Kind of unfair that a disabled tank will block of a bridge or whatever, but will not provide any cover. Gyrene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubber Bullets Posted April 29, 2001 Share Posted April 29, 2001 I agree with Gryne. Knocked out vehicles and tanks should offer .some form of cover from small arms. It kinda takes away from the realism as I watch my troops take fire from the other side of a knocked out Panther(A) and the shots travel right through it. other than that this game owns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS was 71331 Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 CM visually represents a squad with a three-man symbol, and most of us have bases turned on so we can spot visible squads more easily on the screen. However, I don't know what model CM uses to for a squad in the game's computer program. I'd expect the CM program treats the area occupied by a squad as a circle with the squad's personnel distributed randomly within the circle. I'd also expect that this circle is much larger than the rectangular area occupied by a tank. Even though the game shows the squad base as smaller than the tank base, the CM program may consider the squad area as larger than the tank's area. If so, a tank can't conceal a squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 Well, it's a moot point anyway cause tanks just can't provide cover, it's not in the game, but it was a stimulating conversation none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts