Dr. Buhl Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 I've only played the AI because I am still a beginner but I have three questions: 1) I normally succeed in rushing the German panzers when they turn away from my hidden tanks. Sometimes I even drive behind their lines and nail them in the rear (I had a Sherman do that to two Pan-thers recently). It is of course exiting to play this way but would the average GI even think of doing this when you think of their respect of the big German cats? I for one would fire smoke and run as fast as my Sherman could carry me and my crew. I would NEVER drive right at it and hope it wouldn't be able to move it's turrent fast enough to kill me before I finish it of with my peashooter of a 75 mm. 2) Why is it, that even when the AI knows I have several tanks at my disposal (I have already killed of two tanks in an ambush) it then seem to "forget" and drives the next couple of tanks to the exact same spot just to get the same treatment. I have the feeling a human opponent never would fall for that. 3) It seems too easy to trick the AI to shoot at a HT driving like a mad man and then rush your tank to the kill from the other side, and is it realistic for the crew of the HT to say "Sure, we will go die for you" and drive off in to certain death? In other words does anyone have any historic proff that allied tanks really did rush German panzers? Dr. Buhl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 Re: 1) I can't speak with much historical authority, but afaik, when going against the later German tanks like Panthers and Tigers, it was common to gang up on them and take advantage of the better overall speed and turret traverse speed of the Shermans. Trying to flank enemy tanks and hit them from behind only makes sense, since a) they're less likely to spot you and react in time and the rear armor is the weakest (excluding top armor). Personally, if a tactic helps me win in CM, I don't care about its historical validity ------------------ War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman [This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 12-28-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 1. AFAIK some flanking moves were normal to take out German medium and heavy tanks. Have one Sherman fire smoke, and the others try to get past the enemy. Realistically, I have read that when dealing with German tank hunters a UK Churchill unit used to call down arty, to get them to move away. 2. It is difficult to teach the AI the difference between an ambush and ordinary opposition stalling it. This is why it is really not possible to create scenarios involving an ambush where the AI is the ambushed. At least that was what I found with 1.01, don't know if that has changed. 3. No it is not, and I think the tactic is a bit gamey, but your mileage may vary. If you are concerned about this kind of play, try finding like-minded opponents who will not use it. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-28-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Buhl Posted December 28, 2000 Author Share Posted December 28, 2000 Thank for the replies!! I love the game but I guess it is impossible to avoid gamey tactics. I have played ASL and I am a sucker for historical correctness. That is why I like this game. By the way, I once read that both the Firefly and some T34's had a low ROF due to cramped conditions in the turret. Does anyone know if this Is modeled in the game? Thanks Dr. Buhl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 I read a New Zealand combat report from Italy 1945 of a Shemran tanker running flat-out to find themselves less than 50 yards from a Tiger I(!) then slamming six smoke shells point-blank into the turret to blind and to choke crew out (even at 50 yards 75mm AP was almost useless)! Open CM's scenario editor and place a Sherman 50 yards from a Tiger I. It's enough to give you chills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Buhl: Does anyone know if this Is modeled in the game? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Open scenario editor, go to unit, select Firely. Go to map, preview, click on Firefly, hit 'return'. If it say 'Low ROF' (or somefink to that effect) in the bottom of the black panel, it is modeled. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte99 Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Buhl: Thank for the replies!! I love the game but I guess it is impossible to avoid gamey tactics. I have played ASL and I am a sucker for historical correctness Dr. Buhl<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I encourage you to try a moderately intelligent PBEM opponent. The "gamey" moves that you have described will generally result in your ass being handed to you... ------------------ "Arms are my ornaments, warfare my repose." - Don Quixote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 Just Thought I'd add my two cents' worth: Awhile back i read a discussion about "gamey tactics" on this board. Somebody (i can't recall who) said that by definition "gamey" tactics are ones that exploit glitches or AI faults in the game....such as the old infinite arty spotter ammo glitch that was fixed in patches. So non of the things you mentioned seem gamey to me. Now if you mean unhistorical or improbable, thats different (to me atleast) than gamey. Also...to Monte99, I am a casual gamer-i play a wide variety of games, and usually off and on. So i have never cared to fight human opponents in CMBO, since i usually just play games to relax and kill time. But i am intereted in what you said to buhl: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The "gamey" moves that you have described will generally result in your ass being handed to you...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Im often startled by the boasts people make on this board...if the things that they say they can do in CM are true, I must really suck! But seriously, if anyone else cares to read this post and respond, please explain to me how the tactics that buhl mentioned can be easily thwarted. Im asking not as a skeptic, just because i'd like to know as a somewhat unskilled player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: *snip* please explain to me how the tactics that buhl mentioned can be easily thwarted. Im asking not as a skeptic, just because i'd like to know as a somewhat unskilled player.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is called 'defense in depth', meaning that you cover possible flanking zones with AT weapons (Schrecks, AT guns, an SP AT gun, what have you). Put them into 'Hide' and ambush. If you are on the advance, well it is not only the size of your armour but also how you use it - advance in overwatch position. When OPFOR tries to zip past, toast them. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte99 Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: Im often startled by the boasts people make on this board...if the things that they say they can do in CM are true, I must really suck! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I apologize if my remark came across as a boast. In fact, I've often been handed my own ass while using methods that had proven successful against the AI. Germanboy's observation about "defense in depth" is precisely what I was thinking of. Good human players seem a little less tolerant of letting enemy armor get behind them. ------------------ "Arms are my ornaments, warfare my repose." - Don Quixote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted December 30, 2000 Share Posted December 30, 2000 No need to apologize Monty. I just get uneasy when i hear someone talking so negatively about a tactic-especially if I use it ! I guess your right though. Knowing how devestating it is to have your armor flanked, if I did challenge another human being i'd probably take extra precautions to prevent this without even realizing that im using "defense in depth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Kemp Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 The tactics described in this thread are not 'gamey'. The allies were outproducing the Axis on all weapon systems, but the individual quality on a per tank (weapon) basis was very still much in the German's favour at the end of the war. As Stalin said, at a certain point "quantity becomes quality' so it did not matter. Faced with a Tiger/Panther the standard tactics were, Typhon, or Thunderbold stike, artillery bombardment, or take 5 Shermans and rush him. The goal is for one to get around behind and blast through the (relativel) thin armour at the back. The Shermans turrent is hydrolic powered the Germans were still hand cranked so it could not get both of the left and right flankers. So, if faced with a Tiger, be satisfied with a 5:1 kill ratio if you can get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 Actually, that's not entirely true: the Panther and Tiger both had hydraulic turret traverse, just rather slow (or painfully slow for the Tiger ). The Panzer IV (except Ausf J--hand traverse) had electrically powered traverse. ------------------ War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman [This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 01-02-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckwheat Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>a HT driving like a mad man . . . and is it realistic for the crew of the HT to say "Sure, we will go die for you" and drive off in to certain death?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds to me like armoured reconnaissance doing a normal day's work. If you want to make it realistic, move the HTs in pairs, leap-frog style. The one hidden in the rear is supposed to spot the gun or tank that takes out his buddy in front. He then maintains visual contact, waiting for arty or armour to do their job. Lather, rinse and repeat. ------------------ -- mzajac AT pangea.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 Heavy ATGs are very effective in MEs. I have lost two out of three AFVs to concealed 17pdrs in one game I am playing now. It was a hellva shock. WWB ------------------ Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say, Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No.6 Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 I see no reason why surprising heavier tanks and shooting them in the weak armor is a "gamey" technique. In early '42 the Wehrmacht with their relatively weak-gunned PzIVs did a similar thing to Soviet T34s; led them on towards "undefended" artillery and then the Pzs sprang the trap from the rear and decimated the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gremlin: Actually, that's not entirely true: the Panther and Tiger both had hydraulic turret traverse, just rather slow (or painfully slow for the Tiger ). The Panzer IV (except Ausf J--hand traverse) had electrically powered traverse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Panther Turret Speeds Engine(RPM) Speed Ratio 360deg 1000 High 46 sec 2000 High 23 sec 2500 High 18 sec 1000 Low 93 sec 2000 Low 45 sec (Jentz 1995) The Sherman did it (360deg) in 15 sec. The Panther D and the Tiger had a single speed hydraulic turret traverse which limited them to 360deg in 60sec. Panther A and G had the multi speed as above. Due to the cost the Panther F was to have a simplified single speed hydraulic turret traverse rated at 30sec for 360deg. The KT had the same engine and multi speed hydraulic turret traverse as the Panther, one lost a second or two compared with the Panther. ------------------ Kittys words For whatever reason, my guess is because the post was damn funny, the hamster jokes grew and grew. Slapdragon added some classic WWII photo retouches with hamsters (see "Combat Photos" on this site), and eventually it took on a life of it's own which, I guess pretty much peaked with my mods and this site. So you see, I'm not the originator of this thing, I just happened to stumble upon the CM boards at about the same time as OGSF's post appeared and I found it, and the subsequent posts it spawned, to be a refreshing change from the endless barrage of condescending and ultra-serious posts from insulting and short-tempered wanna-be academics about obscure information [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-06-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by No.6: I see no reason why surprising heavier tanks and shooting them in the weak armor is a "gamey" technique. In early '42 the Wehrmacht with their relatively weak-gunned PzIVs did a similar thing to Soviet T34s; led them on towards "undefended" artillery and then the Pzs sprang the trap from the rear and decimated the Russians. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Germans did this at kompanie level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 I really think this 5 for 1 ratio causes tremendous confusion. It is not a tactically derived ratio it is an operationally derived ratio. It is not arrived at in some sort of armour only analysis either it factors in all means of tank loss not just to other tanks. From my reading I think that it is less a feature of the relative quality of allied and german tanks than the nature of the combat. A number of armour commanders I have read remarked that generally when attacking they had a 5 to 1 loss ratio and when defending they had a 1 to 5 loss ratio (this is British), but who was doing the attacking in NWE eh?. This doesn't mean enemy tanks took out those 5, in fact ATk guns, mines, SP guns and infantry AT weapons were all significant contributors in any combined arms battle. In the German counteroffensives which followed Epsom the Germans suffered crippling tank losses, most of which were claimed by British ATk guns and SP guns. In this regard the British always benefitted from some powerful and effective ATk guns in contrast to the US and so their perspective on the problems of attack is different. Conversely the 88 did stirling work for the Germans. What am I trying to say? At CMs scale you should not need 5 allied tanks to overcome 1 German. You may also notice that the point allocation you get never allows you this luxury anyway hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 Bastables, the Tiger's turret traverse speed also depended on rpm. I posted the figures somewhere in the main forum (I think)--can't remember where. ------------------ War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 7, 2001 Share Posted January 7, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by No.6: In early '42 the Wehrmacht with their relatively weak-gunned PzIVs did a similar thing to Soviet T34s; led them on towards "undefended" artillery and then the Pzs sprang the trap from the rear and decimated the Russians. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Afrika Korps did that with fast 'retreats' that drew Brit tanks into a cavalry charge onto dug-in 88s. Worked every time, you should have thought they would learn ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I/O Error Posted January 7, 2001 Share Posted January 7, 2001 The only ones who figured out what was going on died... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 7, 2001 Share Posted January 7, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gremlin: Bastables, the Tiger's turret traverse speed also depended on rpm. I posted the figures somewhere in the main forum (I think)--can't remember where. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm quite sure that the Tiger I and the Panther D and F had turret traverse which operated at fixed speeds at all rpm. ------------------ Absolutely Shatter, you have been completely misunderstood. When Andreas, Chuppy and Peter posted pictures of themselves at the IWM I took the earliest opportunity to complement Chuppy on how hot he looked in that T-shirt. Of course the next time an appropriate thread about the front bogey wheel on the Matilda II came up I skillfully insinuated a subtle remark about what a spunk PeterNZ was and a redhead too! But alas, shatter, everyone thought I was a dickhead as well. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual. by Simon Fox Mr T says "I pity the foo!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts