Hans Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 I've found that you can use the Alt F foxholes designed for alternate positions as hasty obstacles to block/slow down enemy armour. Has anyone else had any luck with this technique? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 I've never noticed that foxholes affect vehicle movement, but if it works it sounds more like a good feature than an oversight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted October 20, 2002 Author Share Posted October 20, 2002 I found if you put 3 or 4 in line on a road it slows the vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 What about large craters? Have you tried them? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 This all has a gamey smell on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 I'm not sure it's that gamey. With fallback positions, you have time for your men to do some extra digging. If you want them to dig up the road instead of the woods, that's fine with me. The effect on movement rates for vehicles is pretty small, and you can only cover 10m or so well with a whole platoon worth of foxholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by Slappy: I'm not sure it's that gamey. With fallback positions, you have time for your men to do some extra digging. If you want them to dig up the road instead of the woods, that's fine with me. The effect on movement rates for vehicles is pretty small, and you can only cover 10m or so well with a whole platoon worth of foxholes.Well what you are getting is an obstacle for free and doing so by exploiting a game feature in a way which it was not designed for..that by definition is "gamey". Much like flaming buildings to prevent troops entering them for cover. I would be sure to check with an opponent to see if he has a problem with this before putting in your homemade crater groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikser Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: This all has a gamey smell on it.To say the least! Daisy-chain mines are cheap as dirt, so I don't really see how this could NOT be gamey... Fallback positions are for just that, falling back; why place them on a road which is likely closer to the frontlines than the regular foxholes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Aye. It reminds of the notorious Starcraft multiplayer matches against the AI forces... People playing as humans would build supply depots to block roads; the AI usually didn't figure how to get past. That's the epitome of gamey. And using foxholes as roadblocks destroys any realism that was left in the feature. I've noticed that town maps also lead to a lot of frustrating gamey tactics, like the already mentioned house torching, and like I've experienced, systematical destruction of buildings with field guns. It's pretty boring to play when all your opponent does is blasting a line of sight through rows of buildings towards the victory flags. "Urban combat"... Yeah right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: It's pretty boring to play when all your opponent does is blasting a line of sight through rows of buildings towards the victory flags. "Urban combat"... Yeah right.Why? He's just doing you a favor since the rubble will give you better defensive cover than the buildings ever did. Maybe not in terms of cover% but because of the greater ease of getting hits when targetting buildings. As for digging up roads, I agree with Slappy. Digging up a road is a legit and realistic way to try to block it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 When you look at it from the point of view of the commander on the ground, it makes perfect sense to use all of the tactics mentioned above. I could certainly imagine a situation where it made more sense to "foul up" the road somehow than dig fallback positions. And I certainly see nothing wrong with bulldozing a built-up area prior to an advance, or lighting it up, depending on the circumstances. If you don't agree with that I'd be interested to hear your reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: I've noticed that town maps also lead to a lot of frustrating gamey tactics, like the already mentioned house torching, and like I've experienced, systematical destruction of buildings with field guns. Isn't that SOP for most countries? That's why the Sturmtiger and Churchill AVRe we're built (the yanks used Priests for it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 It was considered somewhat unsporting by the old breed of light infantry officer, but everyone was doing it by the end of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akdavis Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 I wouldn't say you're getting an obstacle for "free." You are in fact, exchanging fallback positions for a minor slowdown of the enemy advance (and tearing up roads is entirely realistic). I'd rather have fallback positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foobar Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 I think The_Capt is referring to the use of flamethrowers on the defense, to block buildings as being gamey. I am not sure that I agree with this objection, to the same extent that I did in CMBO. The fires start more slowly, and less reliably than they did in BO, and it is not quite as easy to build the "Wall of Fire" Thoughts Capt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by CMplayer: Why? He's just doing you a favor since the rubble will give you better defensive cover than the buildings ever did. Maybe not in terms of cover% but because of the greater ease of getting hits when targetting buildings. As for digging up roads, I agree with Slappy. Digging up a road is a legit and realistic way to try to block it.I really don't understand that first paragraph. Are you saying that it's easier to shoot enemy infantry located in buildings from rubble? When playing head-to-head, I prefer short battles with small maps, usually with 800-1000 points, due to perfomance/stability issues. In battles of this scale, a field gun can easily have a FOF covering the entire map horizontally. It gets repeative when every match shrivels down to fifteen turns of building blasting, and five turns of infantry "combat" with the remaining survivors. And besides, rubble doesn't offer nearly enough concealment to troops behind it, unlike standing buildings. This eliminates much of the fun sneaking factor offered by towns. And I find the foxhole lining gamey, since it abuses the benefits given by the system. Sure, if you can agree with your friend that the row of foxholes on the road is actually an anti-tank ditch, then fine. I wouldn't take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CMplayer: Why? He's just doing you a favor since the rubble will give you better defensive cover than the buildings ever did. Maybe not in terms of cover% but because of the greater ease of getting hits when targetting buildings. As for digging up roads, I agree with Slappy. Digging up a road is a legit and realistic way to try to block it.I really don't understand that first paragraph. Are you saying that it's easier to shoot enemy infantry located in buildings from rubble?</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: And I find the foxhole lining gamey, since it abuses the benefits given by the system. Sure, if you can agree with your friend that the row of foxholes on the road is actually an anti-tank ditch, then fine. I wouldn't take it.The reverse of that is that you now know he has fewer fallback positions available. You can also deduce his defensive intentions from their position, as you would if he'd placed a roadblock or wire, so as a tactic it has it's own negatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: I think he is saying that it is easier getting hits on buildings than on units. The significance of this statement lies in the fact that if you have a unit in a building, a few shots at the building will bring it down, usually with deleterious effects on your unit. If the building is already rubbled however, that can't happen.You might've noticed my several rants on troop AI. One thing where CM has succeeded in this ordeal is house evacuation; if the infantry units inside the building aren't pinned or otherwise immobilized, they'll pull out when the building is nearing critical damage. So if the my troops are well managed, they rarely get killed in collapsing houses. That is, unless the enemy uses serious artillery. Also, houses provide concealment and LOS blockage for troops positioned at the far wall in relation to the hostiles. I do not know whether rubble offers this, too. What are you doing with a field gun in a battle that small? That seems to me to be asking for a wanked game from the getgo.Usually battles like these include several tanks. I've learned the hard way not to trust solely on armor when playing Axis. This is one of the dilemmas in urban battles: in city landscape, infantry troops should be superior compared to tanks - field guns lack LOS to enemy tanks, unless towed (which is usually suicide in cities), and instead usually opt to start blowing up the obstacles. The result is that the infantry rarely sees any battle, when the buildings are placed under the wrecking ball constantly. So ditch the field gun. Buy more infantry. If you are playing against a human, have a gentleman's agreement to that effect. If you are playing against the AI, either take it on faith that in a battle that small it won't indulge in heavy artillery, or purchase the units for both sides..True; for instance, setting the force mix to "Infantry" will block out the heavier stuff, and force my opponent to rely on less gamier tactics. But the best cure for this stupidity is to find a way to thwart this tactic that he constantly uses: a couple of bitter defeats will likely lead to a radical change in battle plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 20, 2002 Share Posted October 20, 2002 Originally posted by Sirocco: The reverse of that is that you now know he has fewer fallback positions available. You can also deduce his defensive intentions from their position, as you would if he'd placed a roadblock or wire, so as a tactic it has it's own negatives.Call me a conservative, but I prefer playing a game as it is. I hate it when people try to talk me down by underlining the "negative impact" the gamey move has on their force. I don't care whether the foxholes work as road ditches or not, use 'em for what they were meant to be used! It's a matter of taste, and I find this serving bitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted October 21, 2002 Share Posted October 21, 2002 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco: The reverse of that is that you now know he has fewer fallback positions available. You can also deduce his defensive intentions from their position, as you would if he'd placed a roadblock or wire, so as a tactic it has it's own negatives.Call me a conservative, but I prefer playing a game as it is. I hate it when people try to talk me down by underlining the "negative impact" the gamey move has on their force. I don't care whether the foxholes work as road ditches or not, use 'em for what they were meant to be used! It's a matter of taste, and I find this serving bitter.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted October 21, 2002 Share Posted October 21, 2002 Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: I think The_Capt is referring to the use of flamethrowers on the defense, to block buildings as being gamey. I am not sure that I agree with this objection, to the same extent that I did in CMBO. The fires start more slowly, and less reliably than they did in BO, and it is not quite as easy to build the "Wall of Fire" Thoughts Capt?Actually I havn't tried it in CMBB..good point though. Look fellas, if it can be seen as gamey it will be. Save yourself some trouble and tell an opponent whether this or any other idea (ie blowing bridges with ATGs) is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinxi Posted October 21, 2002 Share Posted October 21, 2002 Will have to try that. Have not used the alt F foxholes for anything yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 21, 2002 Share Posted October 21, 2002 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: I sympathize with your point, but if you want to get a certain kind of fight, such as the desparate infantry versus tanks urban fighting like in the Schijndel Dunes scenario in CC2 you'd be well off using a custom map and perhaps making some agreements with your opponent about force purchases. But this applies in general to any sort of engagement-style you are interested in. Relying on the QB map generator and free purchases won't let you vary the tone of the fighting in the way you seem to desire. One idea is to not allow field guns on attack or in ME unless they are purchased with transport and hitched up at setup. Another is to disallow them altogether in the smaller battles you describe. Another idea would be to simply increase the depth of the built up area (with a custom map), so that even if tank/gun fire knock down a few, there will still be space to scurry behind. Remember your opponent is using a lot of ammo by targetting buildings. I love it when an opponent wastes ammo like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akdavis Posted October 21, 2002 Share Posted October 21, 2002 Or, if you're allowed to dig-in, just put your men in foxholes immediately behind buildings. Once demolished, crawl right on in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts