Wanting opponents please!

[naughtkris]

>1. Hinds are beasts, no doubt! During their strikes - in my part of the map - was a real **ell (I lost close to 40% of >my infantry). I have always loved these birds. I have found them very beautiful, especially "part where tail >connected to main body", so gracious. But after this battle these birds probably will start to come to me in my >nightmares.

I've also found a certain sleek style with the Hinds (Hind being the Nato reporting name).  
One of the reasons they did so much damage, is because you didn't know they were coming. Had you known it was a possibility, you would have moved your troops differently, and you would have invested resources into AA.
Also, I suspect in-game, the Helo's are the easier to shoot down then planes. By how much, I have no idea.
Try not to over spend on air power either. Its a fine line of how much return on investment can you get for air power.
Having 10 Light Hinds (50cal only, 2 per purchase) is less than 400 points. You could sprinkle some Medium or Heavy helo's into the mix since they will have some limited herd immunity. Ie, 12 targets in the are instead of 2, and the enemy only has so many AA missiles to shoot-and they don't all hit.

A reverse to this strategy is to take no air power when the enemy would expect you to. They'll potentially will divert resources to AA assets that will have lmited threat as frontline troops. The exception to that is the Shilka and the Pivads. They can be excellent fire support as long as their ammo holds out.




>2. I like how you use your SPAAG's, they are very effective in your hands. But if my memory is correct, they have a >small amount of ammo. I hope their ammo finishes soon.

Lol, I guess I should read all your points first, then reply. Yes, as I mentioned above, SPAAGs make excellent fire support platforms. I've been a little careless with them in our matches and I've paid the price.
In CM: Black Sea, i would tend to take Tunguska's, and yes, I found their ammo ran out way too fast. To keep this in check, fire discipline is important. Instead of using the red line Attack command, use the brown Temporary Attack. 15 or 30 seconds of firing at a building is more than enough in a single turn. No need to use double the ammo.


>3. I made big error when I purchased my forces, I bought M113A1 instead of M113A2. M113A1 do not have a shield >on a weapon mount, many commanders of vehicle crew is already KIA (I replace them by regular riflemen). But >from my experience these shields it is a bad help, so probably my error is not a so big. In overall, in this battle M113 >do not delivered much combat power to me. But they was very good as cover during air strike, fire of Hinds was >penetrated a brick buildings but was not penetrated a M113's.

I noticed that lack of '3A2s. I figured you were trying a gambit of spending less points on the transports to spend them elsewhere. One suggestion I'd make- unless you plan to use your M113's as battle taxi's to get your troops into a far and/or exposed position, don't purchase them. As unfortunately the Ukrainians are finding out now, the M113 was never meant for sustained direct exposure to combat. It is not an IFV. Yes, in a pinch it can supply some really important suppressing fire, but its very vulnerable. Now having a few is good, if nothing else to share all the free ammo and launchers they sometimes come with, but if that's all you want, maybe buy Logi trucks instead. 
The cost of an M113 can get you easy two light squads of base infantry.


>4. Funny thing: you have sappers in your arsenal in "R V B", too; engineers vs engineers, lol.*

In that match, my forces are a mixture of Combat Engineers (or sappers) and Recon troops. I have no standard infantry. You would notice a stronger firepower if I had regular infantry.  In out B V R, I also only have Engineers, no regular infantry (other than some specialized teams I've added).


>5. My under smoke move was a my big error. But I do not expected to see one more tank in this part of the map. So >probably it is was not so bad move, it is probably your good (in right place/time) tank.

The smoke was an meant to be an ambush. Probably was, both my tanks took too long to spot your tank. Worse, is that so many shots that did hit, failed to kill. Because my ambush failed, all those infantry near your BTR made a push, but were caught out in the open and nearly wiped out.

I've also been moving my vehicles between the two flanks. One a small map like this, it both keeps you guessing, and allows me to provide surprise support and leave before you can converge on that armour. Or I will, when it works.


>6. Your error, in my opinion it is that you was going too far. Better to you, in my opinion, is was to find and hold >good positions in the middle of the map.

You are correct- I was 'over reaching' with my push. I should have moved more troops to the middle to add suppression before pushing in. But, keep in mind- killing the enemy is only part of the mission. We still want to control the Victory Objectives. This means having to push the enemy out of it. In or R vs B match, since you did not (or could not) push your troops farther into the Victory Zone, I've been able to push right up to the edge of the zone. If you want to get back in it, you'll have to push hard. So my gambit was to loose some points via casualties to gain a superior hold of the VP. Now, you could still out manoeuvre me and contest the VP, but gaining full control of it will be very difficult in the time left. I'll still have defence in-depth to the back of the VP.


>7. How do you think what was happened in situation of two Patton's vs T-64, it is was good armor of T-64, bad >ammo of M60, or it is was just your bad luck.

The M60 has the advantage when at range. This is mainly from the advanced sensors and kill-power additions due to RISE+.  The T-64 gains the advantage at closer range.  Part of the problem with this engagement was I don't have RISE+. I think I only have RISE.  And yes, luck played into it too. I could have penetrated with any of those shots, but I just didn't. Just the way the dice roll.


>8. I love a "small turret on a basic turret" of my Patton's right now. That turret is such a good thing (and doing a >many kind things)**.

I like it too in-game. Probably with it in real life was that it made the tank so tall, that it was easy to spot (and thus hit). There is a reason we keep trying to make tanks flatter.



>9. I was not know that T-64 top machinegun works like that. I thought he is some kind of WW2-era AA->machineguns. But now I see that machinegun works great (like on Patton), some kind of RWS or what, I was not >expect.

Unfortunately, no in-game, no tank MGs can be used for AA. The only exception to his might be the Starship version of the M60, but even that I don't think can do AA. Just be very careful about exposing that tank commander to fire the MG. Every nearby explosion or riflemen will want to take his head off.


>10. Funny thing: I was doing my first adjustments to initial plan even before first contact. Part of my initial plan was >to place a couple of fireteams in a some good buildings in the middle of the map, with recon and spotting purposes. >I had a one special BTR for delivering those fireteams, and at those time I thought: please, this BTR shouldn't be >bogged, every other can, but please not this. And what do you think happened next. During first action turn, exactly >this special BTR bogged, lol.

I also had an M60 just a few turns ago start to bog while rolling over some craters. When bogging starts to happen, cancel its move orders, then use the Slow command to get it out of the bad ground. Also, to reduce the risk of bogging, always switch to Slow or Move when passing over any kind of obstacle or rough ground. Don't go FAST on a dirt road (or a muddy field). You will have both a high chance of bogging and becoming immobilized.



>(*). Reminder for myself: I have a couple thoughts and one question about RL engineers. I do not have much time >to write it now, it is not important. I will write about it at someday later.

I assume you mean Combat Engineers, not like say, a software engineer.



>(). Be careful this post is includes many ugly (poorly constructed) sentences inside. Ask me if something is not >understandable.


I understood it all.