Wanting opponents please!

[Cupressus]

Great!

Through reading of your answers, I understand that you understood of what I wrote, what I wants, and a part of mine personality. Thank you.

I am very glad* that we found mutual understanding.***

Now, let's go!****


(*). I am sincere in these words.

(**). immediat... etc. You already know what ** is means. One note, find a right word for a joke, it is - quite often - hard for me.

(***). This sentence is looks ugly. But - no worry - a good meaning in this sentence.

(****). You may understand these words as how you want! Or you can ask - about the meaning of these words - at someone who is from Latvia! Because I am already tired to make references, in which I should chewing***** for you the meaning of every **ing sentence!**

(*****). 'Chewing' it - in my sense - is as "explaining something as to a little child".

(). Do I can use the "Great!" in beginning? My sense is: "First of all. I want to say that I am very glad." I almost sure that it is works how I think, but I do not like to make a stupid errors. Do not have much time to figure it out on my own, for now. When I asking at Google, he tell me only some trash (info about: 'great' it is 'very big'; thanks, lol).

P.S.
I forget to write a one thought about "letting to win (you understood my term correctly, thank you)". I do not love this stuff not only because that it somehow may to hurt someone feelies. I do not love this stuff because that is hard to make correct estimation - of: plans, units, orders, moves, tactics, firefights, etc. - and to gain a right experience, when that stuff is exist. For me much better is to lose, than be in situation when I do not understanding what is going on.

[Cupressus]

I want to ask a couple questions:

How does 'ceasefire' and 'surrender' works? I want to know how it works from different aspects (mechanics, rules, etiquette of game, in which conditions/when player should use 'ceasefire' and 'surrender', etc.). I know nothing about it.

Also I want to know how other players finish battles like our current ones (short ME), through what (one of sides do not have more troops, 'ceasefire', 'surrender', no more time ( = 30min - 30min), something else). I know nothing about it. Share a part of your experience to me.


(**). This post do not includes my jokes inside / <-- recursion, lol /, only exception is this one.**

[Cupressus]

Part of my thoughts:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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)**.

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.

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.


(*). 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.

(**). ICS.

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

[naughtkris]

>How does 'ceasefire' and 'surrender' works? I want to know how it works from different aspects (mechanics, rules, >etiquette of game, in which conditions/when player should use 'ceasefire' and 'surrender', etc.). I know nothing about it.

Surrender: Once you push that button and finish your turn, a new turn will be sent to me. At the end of me watching the playback portion of the turn, it will change screens and declare opponent has surrendered. This will be a typical end of match screen, ie kills/losses/missing/score etc. I'm fairly certain surrendering also auto gives control of all victory points to the winner. A player would surrender when they know that its either/or impossible/not worth time to continue with hopes for a victory. If you hit me so hard, and I'll I got are a few troops left, instead of hiding and waiting out another 30 turns, I'll just surrender. Then we start a new game.


Ceasefire:  This is toggle on or off. It's secret to the opponent. If at any time, we both have 'Ceasefire' toggled on, then the following turn (assuming we keep the ceasefire on) the game will auto end. Victory points are calculated as is.
It's another way of ending a situation where realistically, any sane commander would have pulled his troops back (or requested a ceasefire to collect wounded and dead). Players can discuss ceasefires, but bluffing can be a tactic, but "Prisoner's Dilemma" is a rule of human nature. So be careful when playing in a closed group of people where people can learn a commander's tactics and personality. 



>Also I want to know how other players finish battles like our current ones (short ME), through what (one of sides do not >have more troops, 'ceasefire', 'surrender', no more time ( = 30min - 30min), something else). I know nothing about it. >Share a part of your experience to me.

Typically, if both players think they have a shot at winning, we'll go to minus 5 turns (turns don't always end at Zero). But if one player knows he's beat, then surrender is fine (again, move on to rematch). Ceasefires are probably the rarest, just because of all the guess work. Now in a Campaign, a ceasefire could help you hold on to valuable combat strength when pressing the attack would be too costly.

For instance, I considered pressing Ceasefire in our B vs R match as I did some cost analysis of pressing/defending.
My best advice for cease fire is toggle it when you think ending the match would give you a better outcome than fighting to the end. You don't have to tell the opponent that you toggled it- but if they toggle it as well (because of their own analysis) its just a question of who's tactical analysis was better.




(**). This post do not includes my jokes inside / <-- recursion, lol /, only exception is this one.**

[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.

[Cupressus]

My answers to your answers. So, re-answers:

(0). It is very good answer, you explain to me everything what I wanted to know. Thank you very much. Check how I understand this topic now (something like rules for myself):

A. If I satisfied about how battle is going, I should not care about how many troops I have and how many time is left (did not know about -5 min, thank you), I should care about how to use my advantage to get a higher final score.

B. If risk to fare in worse situation - than I have on a current turn - is too high, I should toggle on the Ceasefire. I should understand that my opponent/s is capable to use the Ceasefire and discussions as a trick, to get higher final score for himself.

C. If I already understood that I have no more chances to win or hold positions in battle, I should use the Surrender to not waste my time.

D. I should care only about what acts, moves, decisions will bring me a higher final score. And I should not care about what opponent is thinking - about my decisions - and about what opponent is wants, after battle is started.

This rules are simple and logical, it is very good. Because I love simple and logical rules. I see only one drawback in logic of this rules. Rational player should to use the Surrender never at all. Because opponent will get max score, and player get only VP's for enemy losses. So rational player should fight to last soldier, to gain max possible VP's for enemy losses. To fix this drawback game engine should have some reasons to rational player. Something like following: If player press the Surrender, some of a troops of player (let's say 50%) will left a battlefield, other will be surrendered; opponent will get score that not the max.

> - ...For instance, I considered pressing Ceasefire in our B vs R match as I did some cost analysis of pressing/defending...

Do not even hope that I will toggle on the CS in this one (B V R), muahahaha, at least for now.


> - ...One of the reasons they did so much damage, is because you didn't know they were coming...

(1). I did not expect at all. (in next sentence 'support' as "Art/Air support") My mind - during purchase of forces - was thinking following: "The map is a town, support is not so important in town, so I do not need that support; forces are tiny, support is quite expensive, so I have very small amount of money to buying that support; battle is short, calling a support need a time, so I do not want that support; my opponent is probably thinking same way, he probably will did not have that support, so I do not need AA-troops."


> - ...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...

(3). My mind (lol, right now I found that write like that (flow of my thoughts) it is much more easier then make a complex sentences, I will to write like that quite often from now, sorry if it looks strange or stupid, lol) - during purchase of forces - was thinking following: "The map is a town, so I should have a lot of infantry. It is CW-era, so all infantry are already mechanized. I have not a lot of money, so I want to buy a company of mechanized infantry. My opponent with high probability will did have a some armor, so I need something for AT purposes. Tanks are multipurpose and good as AT, so I want to force a company of mechanized infantry by platoon of tanks." Of course I understand that all this M113's and BTR's it is (often and almost) thrown away money, and platoon (3 or 4) of tanks it is may be not a best choice (maybe 2 tanks or 5 tanks is much better), but I love realism ('realism' here it is my vision of how it works in real life, my knowledges about how it actually works in real life is pretty small). So I do not know what to choose: 'realism' vs 'effectiveness'.* Therefore my question: "Do in RL combats, forces organized in their default formations (TO&E), or they can be organized in as how conditions of combat required (infantry without APC's,  infantry of different types, mix of not full formations, etc.l)"?


(5). No, I meant other situation. I meant situation that was in "R V B" match. My mind - during that error - was thinking following: "We (I your beautiful mind with you stupid Cupressus) already lost many M113s, also we lost almost all infantry, so now we should to do following. As our enemy already lost one tank and as he have a lot of Shilkas, and a lot of Hinds, and we did not saw other tanks, so he with high probability do not have more tanks, only some amount of infantry and a couple low-ammo Shilkas. And as all our Pattons (aces in sleeve) are fine (not destroyed) and as we still have a reserved full platoon of infantry, so let we make next move. On a crossing of paved roads there are a couple of not a bad buildings. This buildings are in the Zone. And our troops already feel themself good in this part of map. Our enemy are weak here, he probably want to advance at different flank. If we will place our reserves there (those buildings), so with help of our high-HE-ammo Pattons we will be able to finish that match at some kind of a draw." So I maked smoke screen (through WP shells of Pattons) on paved road and rush my APCs with reserves to those buildings. Everything was great: APCs have come to the buildings, riflemen dismount and place in the buildings; smoke screen was good. But then your T-62 arrived from a corner and annihilated almost all my reserve platoon, shooting at the buildings. Then I lost my Pattons in very stupid way. My mind - during this losses - was thinking following: "OMG! Cupressus you are **, **, ** and **! How you ** ** are did lose all you tanks against this damned Shilkas and **ing RPG!". So it is was my big errors. I do not have more chances now. I already press the Surrender.


> - Unfortunately, no in-game, no tank MGs can be used for AA...

(9). No, I constructed this sentences poorly, I meant other things. My mind - during "B V R" battle - was thinking following: "Small-turrets on Pattons is such a good thing. Sadly top machinegun (not coaxial) on soviets tanks it is WW2-era AA-weapon. And if I want to use this MG (against infantry) I need to 'open up' a commander.*** So that MG is not a useful at all, cause live commander is more important than additional fire power. (But then during battle I have saw how this MG is working) Great! That MGs are works like Patton's small-turrets (without 'open up'). I do not know how (what technology) it works (some kind of CW-era RWS or what), but it is working great. I need to read something about that technology later." Of course I understand that this MGs it is trash in AA purposes (12.7mm vs modern aviation it is lol). And of course I know they do not work as AA-guns in CMx2.


> - ...When bogging starts to happen, cancel its move orders, then use the Slow command to get it out of the bad ground...

(10). Sure, of course I know all this stuff. My knowledge of mechanics part of the game is pretty good. My only big drawbacks is mechanics of Air/Air-Defence, do not have much experience in this topics. I will fix this drawbacks later, through hotseat QB, on my own.


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

Of course, of course, I meant Combat Engineers. I will write about it right now. I always thought (I do not have knowledge, just some my thoughts) that CEs it is support troops and they do not act in a hot phase of a combat. I thought they act only before or after combat (neutralization of mines and IEDs, construction of bridges and trenches, etc.). But in many wargames CEs (sappers, pioneers) it is some kind of a shockforces, they are stronger than regular infantry especially at assaults. So a few years in my mind sit question: "WTF?"** I was try to find answer (a couple years ago), but do not found usefull info. So I want to ask this question to you. How it works in RL, how I thought initially or like in wargames?


(*). Reminder for myself: write a more thoughts and questions about 'realism' vs 'effectiveness'.

(**). ICS.

(***). Reminder: write your question about tanks.

[Cupressus]

(9). I was right, this feature (in this post 'feature' is "small turret of soviet tanks") it is some kind of CW-era RWS (remote weapon station). Here is info that I found:

From Wikipedia: "...battlepost was transformed by mounting a small stabilised turret with an anti-aircraft NSVT 12.7 mm × 108 machine gun, electrically guided through an optical PZU-5 sight, and fed with 300 rounds. It could be used from within the tank so that the tank leader could avoid being exposed (as on previous tanks)..."

Checked out what is PZU-5, it is periscopic optical sight.

Checked out which tanks have this feature in CMCW, my result: T-64 (all mods), T-80B, T-80B1.

Checked out, which tanks have that feature in real life, CMCW is right. In real life T-72 is a cheaper tank (for mass production, for total war) and do not equipped with that feature.

Big drawback of this feature - in my opinion - is a very small amount of ammo (300 rds). In our current combat one of my tanks already out of 12.7mm ammo. Seems to be NSVT is have a very high rate of fire. During previous turn my tank - for less than a minute - shoot a 150 rds.

[naughtkris]

>A. If I satisfied about how battle is going, I should not care about how many troops I have and how many time is left >(did not know about -5 min, thank you), I should care about how to use my advantage to get a higher final score.

It could be -5, but its random. I'm not sure I've ever seen past 5.

But it's not so much your score that important, its the degree of victory (draw, minor victor, major, etc). Should a game be recorded/scored for a ladder/tourney the exact score won't be recorded. So if you think pushing will decrease a Total victory to a minor victory, it may not be worth it.



>B. If risk to fare in worse situation - than I have on a current turn - is too high, I should toggle on the Ceasefire. I >should understand that my opponent/s is capable to use the Ceasefire and discussions as a trick, to get higher final >score for himself.

More or less. I've never actually had someone try and trick me into a cease-fire, but it is a possibility. Another reason to cease fire if neither side is willing to push from their position. If that's the case, ask for cease fire and start a new match.



>C. If I already understood that I have no more chances to win or hold positions in battle, I should use the Surrender to >not waste my time.

Pretty much. Like in our B vs R, i'm going to make you push me out if you want the victory zone points. Doing so though may cost you. This is another reason to get depth of defence.


>D. I should care only about what acts, moves, decisions will bring me a higher final score. And I should not care about >what opponent is thinking - about my decisions - and about what opponent is wants, after battle is started.

That all depends on who you are playing, and in what community. If you play individuals a lot, you can pick up on their play styles. Some are more brash, others really like to inch their way through the match. Some blot out the sky with constant arty.



>This rules are simple and logical, it is very good. Because I love simple and logical rules. I see only one drawback in >logic of this rules.

Just remember, rules are made to be broken. Somethings the hidden left hook will win you the match.

>Rational player should to use the Surrender never at all. Because opponent will get max score, and player get only VP's >for enemy losses. So rational player should fight to last soldier, to gain max possible VP's for enemy losses. To fix this >drawback game engine should have some reasons to rational player. Something like following: If player press the >Surrender, some of a troops of player (let's say 50%) will left a battlefield, other will be surrendered; opponent will get >core that not the max.

If it was a tournament or if honour was on the line, then yes, I'd refrain from using the 'Surrender' because I'll be putting a lot of thought and effort into my moves, and someone will really have to get up early to pin me to the mat that badly.

But, if someone is so good that they push me back into my deployment zone in a Tourney, and they are not interested in a Ceasefire, then sure, I'll surrender. They earned it.  Plus, I have time to start up a new match.

But again, points themselves don't matter, just the ratio, which leads to the Degree of Victory. (Total victory to Total defeat).








>Do not even hope that I will toggle on the CS in this one (B V R), muahahaha, at least for now.

3 turns to go, and how ever many negative rounds we get.










(>1). I did not expect at all. (in next sentence 'support' as "Art/Air support") My mind - during purchase of forces - was >thinking following: "The map is a town, support is not so important in town, so I do not need that support; forces are >tiny, support is quite expensive, so I have very small amount of money to buying that support; battle is short, calling a >support need a time, so I do not want that support; my opponent is probably thinking same way, he probably will did >not have that support, so I do not need AA-troops."

Excellent thought process.









>(3). My mind (lol, right now I found that write like that (flow of my thoughts) it is much more easier then make a >complex sentences, I will to write like that quite often from now, sorry if it looks strange or stupid, lol) - during purchase >of forces - was thinking following: "The map is a town, so I should have a lot of infantry. It is CW-era, so all infantry are >already mechanized. I have not a lot of money, so I want to buy a company of mechanized infantry. My opponent with >high probability will did have a some armor, so I need something for AT purposes. Tanks are multipurpose and good as >AT, so I want to force a company of mechanized infantry by platoon of tanks." Of course I understand that all this >M113's and BTR's it is (often and almost) thrown away money, and platoon (3 or 4) of tanks it is may be not a best >choice (maybe 2 tanks or 5 tanks is much better), but I love realism ('realism' here it is my vision of how it works in real >life, my knowledges about how it actually works in real life is pretty small). So I do not know what to choose: 'realism' >vs 'effectiveness'.* Therefore my question: "Do in RL combats, forces organized in their default formations (TO&E), or >they can be organized in as how conditions of combat required (infantry without APC's,  infantry of different types, mix >of not full formations, etc.l)"?


I also like to skew towards realism. I find it more fun. I need to think on my feet more.

I won't go into the 16 steps of battle, but;

So in real life, when planning an operation: Size (section, platoon, company); Commander's intent (and 1-up); type of operation (patrol, probe, defence, etc); Resources available.

Resources available: During war, the 'front line' typically has several layers (defence in depth). These people are doing the direct fighting (and being shelled). But that is only about 1/5 to 1/3 of your forces. Many will be Tooth to Tail support troops (clerks, cooks, supply techs, mechanics, staff officers, troops to make the staff officers comfortable, etc); but the rest are your reserves.

Reserves come in several types. There are your ready-to-go QRT types. This could be a single section, or an entire battalion. They are typically untouchable as they have a role. The rest of the reserves are going to be those who take turns swapping out with the guys on the front. Troop rotation wins battles.

So, getting back to your question- If you are an infantry company, and told to attack a given objective; Units have access to organic support units (mortars, AA, medics, mechanics, etc).  When you present your plan to your 1up (the next level of command), they will say yes or no to you requesting extra/special troops being attached to your command.
Sometimes, you'll need something that you don't have organically (tanks, air support, large arty), your 1up and 2up need to approve your plan, then request the listed support from other units (or different element for Air force).

You also have to consider that there are dozens of other people all with orders, and all wanting the same support units for their own upcoming engagements.





>(5). No, I meant other situation. I meant situation that was in "R V B" match. My mind - during that error - was thinking >following: "We (I your beautiful mind with you stupid Cupressus) already lost many M113s, also we lost almost all >infantry, so now we should to do following. As our enemy already lost one tank and as he have a lot of Shilkas, and a lot >of Hinds, and we did not saw other tanks, so he with high probability do not have more tanks, only some amount of >nfantry and a couple low-ammo Shilkas. And as all our Pattons (aces in sleeve) are fine (not destroyed) and as we still >have a reserved full platoon of infantry, so let we make next move. On a crossing of paved roads there are a couple of >not a bad buildings. This buildings are in the Zone. And our troops already feel themself good in this part of map. Our >enemy are weak here, he probably want to advance at different flank. If we will place our reserves there (those >buildings), so with help of our high-HE-ammo Pattons we will be able to finish that match at some kind of a draw." So I >maked smoke screen (through WP shells of Pattons) on paved road and rush my APCs with reserves to those buildings. >Everything was great: APCs have come to the buildings, riflemen dismount and place in the buildings; smoke screen was >good. But then your T-62 arrived from a corner and annihilated almost all my reserve platoon, shooting at the buildings. >Then I lost my Pattons in very stupid way. My mind - during this losses - was thinking following: "OMG! Cupressus you >are **, **, ** and **! How you ** ** are did lose all you tanks against this damned Shilkas and **ing RPG!". So it is >was my big errors. I do not have more chances now. I already press the Surrender.

So, aside from the surprise air raid;  I think you needed to push in and hold the position more. You have no depth of defence, so once you first line was pushed off, there wasn't a second. It also makes you static and allows the enemy to take the initiative.  Oh, and it was a t-64.








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



>Of course, of course, I meant Combat Engineers. I will write about it right now. I always thought (I do not have >knowledge, just some my thoughts) that CEs it is support troops and they do not act in a hot phase of a combat. I >thought they act only before or after combat (neutralization of mines and IEDs, construction of bridges and trenches, >etc.). But in many wargames CEs (sappers, pioneers) it is some kind of a shockforces, they are stronger than regular >infantry especially at assaults. So a few years in my mind sit question: "WTF?"** I was try to find answer (a couple >years ago), but do not found usefull info. So I want to ask this question to you. How it works in RL, how I thought >initially or like in wargames?

So in real life, Combat Engineers are not infantry. They will be insulted if you suggest that to them.
CEs not only have to learned most of what infantry learn, but then a hell of a lot more.
CEs are extremely valuable because of all the training they have. I know movies like to show just any gi joe planting explosives to take out a bridge, but that's not really true. You would attach CEs to the infantry unit.
CE are also rare compared infantry.

But its not impossible for a non-infantry unit to be charged with defending or patrols. Military Police, CEs, Arty, are good examples of units that may need to do some hands-in fighting.

But if a company of CEs are the only troops you have in the area, then guess what, they are doing the mission (or most likely, defending off an attack)

[naughtkris]

>(9). I was right, this feature (in this post 'feature' is "small turret of soviet tanks") it is some kind of CW-era RWS >(remote weapon station). Here is info that I found:

>From Wikipedia: "...battlepost was transformed by mounting a small stabilised turret with an anti-aircraft NSVT 12.7 >mm × 108 machine gun, electrically guided through an optical PZU-5 sight, and fed with 300 rounds. It could be used >from within the tank so that the tank leader could avoid being exposed (as on previous tanks)..."
>Checked out what is PZU-5, it is periscopic optical sight.
>Checked out which tanks have this feature in CMCW, my result: T-64 (all mods), T-80B, T-80B1.

>Checked out, which tanks have that feature in real life, CMCW is right. In real life T-72 is a cheaper tank (for mass >production, for total war) and do not equipped with that feature.

>Big drawback of this feature - in my opinion - is a very small amount of ammo (300 rds). In our current combat one of >my tanks already out of 12.7mm ammo. Seems to be NSVT is have a very high rate of fire. During previous turn my >tank - for less than a minute - shoot a 150 rds.


Interesting. Thanks for looking that up.

Yes, I tend to use short attacks for 15 to 30 seconds. Full auto (even in bursts) use up ammo fast. In real life, you'd also have to be concerned with barrel warping.

[zovs66]

This has to be the lonest Opponents Wanted thread I have ever seen! lol