Quick poll: CM Black Sea

Boomkow said:
I think spotting in general is borked.
Click to expand...

Rico said:
I've had a Bradley parked 50 metres away in clear LOS from a Russian AT team who don't spot the big noisy hunk of metal - yet the Bradley opens up on them
Click to expand...

Well we have discussed it often enough - guy the basic game has a hugely flawed spotting system. Battlefront won't be addressing it because its at the heart of the game. I think they favour the modern game because adding in drones etc helps cover over some of the stupidity the spotting throws up.

The modern era will also help them with all that nasty work with tank riders since modern forces will tend to have dedicated IFV's.
 
Playing it and really enjoying. Hard to go back to wwII personally . . .
 
Boomkow said:
Steel Beasts does the same thing, makes Leopards and Abrams look damn near invincible. If I recall, RPGs disabled Abrams in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. I was a member of a virtual OPFOR unit which specifically used the playable Russian vehicles in that simulation in both cooperative play and H2H battles. The idea was to test and use old Soviet armor doctrine for fun and learning, see if we can beat those guys who constantly harped about how great and god-like the western vehicles were. We learned quite a bit about Russian tactics and developed a great respect for their operational and tactical thinking. IIRC we won at least 50% of our games in H2H so it was no one sided win on the NATO side.

Below is a link to an old YouTube video of one of the H2H online campaigns run a couple of years back. The campaign was something like 8 weeks with two missions per week, first being a recon type mission to determine where start lines were in the big mission later in the week.

The video below is one from the perspective of a guy who played the NATO side. I was the guy opposite him running a Russian company plus of BMP-2s. He is shooting at me. We used coordination, smoke and HE fire to suppress while assaulting his positions and utilizing terrain to mask our approaches. I learned you adapt your tactics to your terrain and weapon systems. If you do it properly, you win. If you don't, you lose. This same principle applies to the Combat Mission series as well. We (The Russian Side) won this campaign by the way.

 
Boomkow said:
I think spotting in general is borked. To often my troops miss things right in front of them. I also believe Russian equipment is underestimated and the US is too powerful.
Click to expand...

It is all in the tactics and terrain.
 
enigma6584 said:
No it doesn't. I was a member of a virtual OPFOR unit which specifically used the playable Russian vehicles in that simulation in both cooperative play and H2H battles. The idea was to test and use old Soviet armor doctrine for fun and learning, see if we can beat those guys who constantly harped about how great and god-like the western vehicles were. We learned quite a bit about Russian tactics and developed a great respect for their operational and tactical thinking. IIRC we won at least 50% of our games in H2H so it was no one sided win on the NATO side.

Below is a link to an old YouTube video of one of the H2H online campaigns run a couple of years back. The campaign was something like 8 weeks with two missions per week, first being a recon type mission to determine where start lines were in the big mission later in the week.

The video below is one from the perspective of a guy who played the NATO side. I was the guy opposite him running a Russian company plus of BMP-2s. He is shooting at me. We used coordination, smoke and HE fire to suppress while assaulting his positions and utilizing terrain to mask our approaches. I learned you adapt your tactics to your terrain and weapon systems. If you do it properly, you win. If you don't, you lose. This same principle applies to the Combat Mission series as well. We (The Russian Side) won this campaign by the way.

Click to expand...

I see that you moved up BTR and BMP recon elements and kept yourself in defilade to observe him. I haven't played Steel Beasts very much since 3.0 came out, but I imagine much has changed. However, Steel Beasts is a bit different in its approach, especially its focus on a fictional WW3, Fulda Gap conflict during the 1980s. I'd like to try out a H2H in Steel Beasts, I didn't know that even existed. :S

Also, do you have some references for Soviet/Russian military doctrines. I'd be interested in reading and adapting them into my games.
 
@Boomkow I don't remember the book title, but back in the 80s/90s David Isby wrote a pretty definitive book on soviet tactics - an eye opener possibly but a decent primer I think - if I find my copy I will tell you the name...

Just googled it - Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet army - kind obvious really.

If you want the quick and dirty version tho - as I remember it its pretty simple. Drive West. Chemical stock everything first, everyones stays in their tanks and BMPs, drive to the key areas, don't fight unless you have to. Back in the 80s the crucial thing was the ground from east to west wasn't big enough for any kind of incursion to be a defeat for the west. Especially Germany.
 
Boomkow said:
I see that you moved up BTR and BMP recon elements and kept yourself in defilade to observe him. I haven't played Steel Beasts very much since 3.0 came out, but I imagine much has changed. However, Steel Beasts is a bit different in its approach, especially its focus on a fictional WW3, Fulda Gap conflict during the 1980s. I'd like to try out a H2H in Steel Beasts, I didn't know that even existed. :S

Also, do you have some references for Soviet/Russian military doctrines. I'd be interested in reading and adapting them into my games.
Click to expand...

He was observed by our deep recon BDRM-2s always on his flanks. They would report over the comms channel plus their positions would be marked on our map. He did not see them until halfway in the video or he sees just one of them. Artillery was then requested over comms by me or my battalion CO. We pounded his forces with artillery, always HE and smoke together. HE to kill his infantry and damage his vehicles and smoke to make his lasers ineffective. While this is going on, I'm constructing the next phase of movement routes for my company of BMP-2s and then with another round of artillery coming down on his position send them on their way with me following behind. Their routes always put a hill or obstacle between them and him until the very last moment. I also had a platoon of BDRM-2 AT vehicles at my direct command. These were usually in over watch and while he was busy trying to get my BMP-2s in his sights, they (BDRM-2 ATs) would then fire long range missiles at him, scoring hits as you see in video, actually taking out his Thermals. The platoon of tanks we had (run by two other guys) were with some BTR-80s doing the same.

So in effect, we identify him and his positions, hammer him with artillery while moving our forces up to his position in assault. He falls back and we do it all over again. You saw in the video we had him at nerves end, his wingman kept telling him to calm down. :)

Steel Beasts has changed very, very much since that video. It is so very much improved.

As far as references, there were quite a few I've used. Here is a link to one I use on a regular basis.

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/dr_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm7_100x1.pdf

The same tactics shown here in this fantastic armor simulation can and are used by me in Combat Mission series. I'm obviously not riding in the vehicles in CM. ;-)
 
Richtig said:
@Boomkow I don't remember the book title, but back in the 80s/90s David Isby wrote a pretty definitive book on soviet tactics - an eye opener possibly but a decent primer I think - if I find my copy I will tell you the name...

Just googled it - Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet army - kind obvious really.

If you want the quick and dirty version tho - as I remember it its pretty simple. Drive West. Chemical stock everything first, everyones stays in their tanks and BMPs, drive to the key areas, don't fight unless you have to. Back in the 80s the crucial thing was the ground from east to west wasn't big enough for any kind of incursion to be a defeat for the west. Especially Germany.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have this one as well. It is a good book but outdated in the encyclopedia of weapon systems. Still, the concepts on tactics and strategy are same as the newer Army publication I've linked.
 
Shorker said:
t

The price for an APS Abrams is 755 points - so I bought five "Kryzanthema" (the one with the two AT rocket launchers on his roof/top) for ~ 160 or so (~ 825 points, so there would be 9 Kryzanthems against 2 APS Abrams for example).

The APS Abrams could kill only three Kryzanthemas, six rockets hit it, the crew paniced and bailed out. ;)
Click to expand...

That works on a billiard table when everyone shoots and spots at the same time. Since the Abrams spots and reacts so much faster than anything else it can pick the Kryz up one by one. 5:0 for the Abrams.
Add to that that a Kryz may be good versus tanks but the Abrams is good versus anything that does not fly. The US player gets a much more versatile vehicle than his counterpart.

It may be a good tactic to pair two T90 and hope that while one gets destroyed the other gets a shot out.
 
I played it out via hotseat on a normal map with the Abrams even standing still and waiting for the Khryzantemas - it killed three and was hit itself by six AT rockets. I'm pretty sure it will always work. Time will tell. The "double T-90 tactics" will work too, I suppose.

And not to forget AT rockets are plenty and cheap in the game. ;)

Anyway, I for one don't see any reason why an APS Abrams should be "banned" by house rules - but it's up to the players, of course, what they are agreeing to. :cool:
 
Now, one more.

I like the modern modern warfare games.

I not see RPG-29. :-(. Good weapon against abrams in CMSF.
 
I have it and am playing it, although badly :-( at the moment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom