Steel Beast Player Specific Tactics and Strategy

[Gunfighter]

In an effort to ease the learning curve (and avoid getting my haunch kicked over and over again). I'm posting player specific tactics and my thoughts on them.

I detected and Killed Nik's Tank because, I've used the same trick over and over. (Unfortunately so has Nik and Alot of players on me.)

[ShermansWar]

Yes, drawing a tank with a brad or a hummer works well, and i have done it on occasion myself.

[JAVEHN]

So , you lured Nikatori tank with HHMMVW out , and then shooted him ? That's clever one mate . Classic , it's called "drowing ambush" - you drow the enemy outside , using some sort of "easy appetiser" , and right inside the ambush - or in this case , your tank . Nice one , you got 10 in my book :lol:

[PS-SCUD]

Hehe......this is where trying to pop an easy kill on a HMMWV to boost your PKs doesn't pay off. :lol:

[Gunfighter]

So , you lured Nikatori tank with HHMMVW out , and then shooted him ? That's clever one mate . Classic , it's called "drowing ambush" - you drow the enemy outside , using some sort of "easy appetiser" , and right inside the ambush - or in this case , your tank . Nice one , you got 10 in my book :lol:

Javehn, look at the colours. Nik was trying to do a "drawing ambush" on me. As soon as I saw the HMV, I knew that Nik was waiting off axis.

How did I spot him first? I was using the Leo2's periscope, allowed the Gunner to track the HMV, then looked at the likely place off angle for Nik's Tank. I spotted his Dust Cloud and layed the Gunner to the real threat. I got a shot off as Nik was about to fire.

[JAVEHN]

Oopsy . you right , my bag !


Nice one , you could also do somewhat an "anti ambush" on this case . You could promote a drawing fire tank on position , while using other tank to shoot and kill . It's somehwat dangerous , because second party can take the shot and hit your "drawing fire" tank , before you would able to hit his .

[kamov60]

I like the topic, "player specific tactics and strategy." Clearly, there is a handful of elite players. But I don't think tactics or gunnery is what sets them apart. These players seem to hold superior SA. How they obtain superior SA is still unclear to me.

I once used a drawing ambush on Player X. I used a BRDM along a contour line and woodline along the map edge. It's unprofessional to send units on a suicide mission, and I was hoping the BRDM would survive, but he got shot. It was satisfying because Player X mistakenly got on the all channel and said, "I got baited by a BRDM."

Use of the peri was brilliant GF, but risky at 3500m. Do you remember the range? Did you shoot through the GPSE, GPS, or did you engage the gunner? If you are shooting Nik with your AI gunner, well, you are a bigger man than me.

It's funny, Nik never baited me with Hummers. Guess I was already distracted!

[Ratseal]

Nik and AA have each gotten me once with the HMMWV trick - and I knew that they were doing it each time and still I couldn't help myself, I had to have that Hummer - things will be different in SB2 - the use of manned M2 and Hummers will radically change unit employment.

[tankrlm]

Yes, drawing a tank with a brad or a hummer works well, and i have done it on occasion myself.
Great idea,only if you are not in the brad/hummer.I doubt if this tactic would be used in actual combat.(western military)

[Gunfighter]

I like the topic, "player specific tactics and strategy." Clearly, there is a handful of elite players. But I don't think tactics or gunnery is what sets them apart. These players seem to hold superior SA. How they obtain superior SA is still unclear to me.

I think Nik loves desert maps, for the reason of dust clouds. When I saw that HMV coming, I knew that it was a trap. Using the Boyd Cycle, I Observed the Situation 1st, Oriented at the Real Threat (via Dust Cloud), Decided and Acted faster than Nik.

Use of the peri was brilliant GF, but risky at 3500m. Do you remember the range? Did you shoot through the GPSE, GPS, or did you engage the gunner? If you are shooting Nik with your AI gunner, well, you are a bigger man than me.

The max visibility was unlimited for that scenario. Using the Peri (on a Turret Down) was just doctrine - little brilliance there, clear crest and fire. The brilliance was that Nik initiated the bait but I knew it was a trap and hit the hunter. (A very brief Superior SA) The range was about 3300 and I hit him first round using the Gunner's Seat.

It's funny, Nik never baited me with Hummers. Guess I was already distracted!

Dagger used inf squads running back and forth covered by a Tank in Turret down. Sean SB usually follows his Tank with a Missle Carrier 1 bound behind it. I've seen LS use double tanks in overwatch(a Crest Drill). Archangel, I can only see him in AAR. I agree it is superior SA that gives victory. But what could compose Superior SA? Experience, Map Knowledge, Psychological Insight, A Tactical Mind that can plan 10 Minutes Ahead?

I beat Nik on this instance because I knew it was a trap (having fallen for it many times) and in knowing, looked at a likely place for him to shoot me. Things would have been diffrent if the HMV was a tank or Inf.

[YdnarB]

in knowing, looked at a likely place for him to shoot me.

Seems to me that is the key with the good players. They seem to know where you are going and either beat you there or flank you somehow once you are there. They also move, move, move. My weakness is that I tend to stick to a spot.

So I guess it is a mix of experience and being able to read the map and determine the enemy's course of action based upon that map.

[Nikatori]

That is a 2-edged sword. using the hummer, other types of PCs, and grunts as bait is only a secondary mission. the primary mission was actually to gather intel. it could have been best if both units survived.


with regards to "The Second Coming" (SB2), i believe fundamental tactics will stay the same. the execution and environmental aspects may change, but tactics developed by years of warfare will stay the same.

Hai !!! :thelmuts:

[m1a1vha]

this may not always work. i play lots of SP and this tactic usually does not work that well with AI. my tactic is simply to arty the possible location of enemy units in defilade. now here i get sneaky. i dont arty the exact location, but just behind it.

here ICM is best, because the unit has 2 options, move forward or backward. in the former i would have 2 or more tanks waiting (redundance) and in the latter case chances are good that i will score an arty kill.

i find that SB players play a game. i try to follow a military doctrine. i dont send uits as bait.

SOP: kill the enemy scout, gather intel and dont take stupid chances. redundance is also a very real factor in military planing.

[DrDevice]

I doubt if this tactic would be used in actual combat.(western military)

True enough. The fact that loss rates of 70-95% are acceptable makes this a moot point. We grind battalions into nothing in bad operational engagements all the time. Due to balance and playability factors, we don't even worry about sending troops, HMMWVs, and anything that isn't a Leo or M1 out there to find an opponent tank with NO hope of survival.

I think tactics WILL change in SB2. Crewable vehicles are inherently more dangerous, and I think the tactics will have to re-adapt. When that M2 becomes a very lethal, more survivable asset against armor, players will think twice about writing them off. I think that sneaky, well-driven scout M1026 HMMWVs are going to make scouting very different.

Simple fact is, SB has many compromise issues that make anything less than a tank a less-than dangerous opponent. Reality says that is dead wrong. (Ask an FO in a M1026 with an LRAS3) Let's hope SB2 brings us that much closer to reality! :D

[Bluewings]

I personaly believe the major difference between a Player and a Good Player lies in 2 factors :

1) Awareness helped by good instinct and fast reaction time .
2) Mobility .

While some like Nikatori use concealement and fast penetration with a section of Tanks , which is not military technics but work well enough in SB because we 're simply not affraid to die , some others like Archangel prefer flank probing with a whole platoon , 1 Tank ahead while the others are covering the lone advancing Tank .

In both cases good intels are not really important as they use conceal approach along hidden paths mostly on the Enemy flanks . They spot and kill as they go .
BUT in both cases , mobility is the key factor . Stop , listen , then move for the kill and disapear .

Those people are using "Specs Ops" tactics .

Another good idea is to avoid troop contact when moving Tanks . If you spot or have been spotted by Troops , simply remember theirs location for later ARTY strikes and move away from them . Do NOT engage them as you only waste precious time allowing the Enemy to react and send Tanks to your position .

Speed is the essence . By moving faster than the Enemy , it is like playing a Chess Game where you always are one move ahead .

In this regard , the Leo is a far better Tank than the M1 , even if you can hear the Leo 2 kms away .

All the rest is gunnery skills ....


----> on a personal but unofficial note , yes the Brad in SB2 is a real dangerous threat ! :twisted:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Gunfighter]

Dr. D, M1;

I agree, very few commanders will "sacrifice" a unit to draw out the enemy in Real Life (western Armies of course). But the topic is named for a reason. I would like insight and comments on Specific Steel Beasts tactics or counter tactics.

M1, your comment on Arty right behind a possible contact, I do that particular move as well since it "flushes" the target in the open. But that move is countered when the target is on Hold and the Engine is Off. The Arty Just lands harmlessly behind him. I agree that it works well in SP, but in an MP environment, were Arty is set to Med or Low, would you waste an Arty Strike on a "possible" contact? Maybe if you definitely know that there is a tank in that ridge, but he's gone Turret down, you can use arty to keep him away while you:
a) Close the distance
b) Set up a BP that is off his axis or view,
c) Flank him.
d) Some other Tactic worthy of Guderian, Rommel or Mike Whitman.

GF

[TankHunter]

Well I find that being in a good BP and dig in like a tick is a good idea. But of course I am a defencive kinda guy, not too good with attacking.

[Gunfighter]

I personaly believe the major difference between a Player and a Good Player lies in 2 factors :

1) Awareness helped by good instinct and fast reaction time .
2) Mobility .

How does one attain "awareness"? Is it knowledge of the map, experience, a long stretch of OP/BPs in key features? Ghost once wrote in BL# so and so, that he places sniper tanks with very narrow arcs, overwatching key features. The engines are shut off, and they act like listening posts. This frees the bulk of his forces to concentrate where the key fight may be. I've used this tactic as well, (my best was on "House on the Prarie", Southern section Red)


Whil.e some like Nikatori use concealement and fast penetration with a section of Tanks , which is not military technics but work well enough in SB because we 're simply not affraid to die , some others like Archangel prefer flank probing with a whole platoon , 1 Tank ahead while the others are covering the lone advancing Tank .

In both cases good intels are not really important as they use conceal approach along hidden paths mostly on the Enemy flanks . They spot and kill as they go .
BUT in both cases , mobility is the key factor . Stop , listen , then move for the kill and disapear .

Those people are using "Specs Ops" tactics .

What would you call real life soldiers who have Done the Mission over and over, know the terrain like the back of their hands, fought the same enemies over and over and won? I can call them highly trained, heavily experienced, lucky and Special Operations Capable in that sceanrio. When I was a newbie up against AA, Nik, Dagger and LS; using mass and manuever tactics got me killed by Battalions - because the AI was not smart enough to Observe, Orient, Decide and Act against veteran players.


Another good idea is to avoid troop contact when moving Tanks . If you spot or have been spotted by Troops , simply remember theirs location for later ARTY strikes and move away from them . Do NOT engage them as you only waste precious time allowing the Enemy to react and send Tanks to your position .

Ah yes, Fire Discipline. I too must resist the urge to "Cap that M**F%C&er" Firefight when the chance presents itself. Its hard. Habit has thrown away my descretion in favour of valour. I must work on that....


Speed is the essence . By moving faster than the Enemy , it is like playing a Chess Game where you always are one move ahead .

Are there specific tactics where you can be faster than the enemy? Please explain how....

And yes, the M2/M3 that is piloted will "enhance" the flavour of SB Mp gaming.

[Gunfighter]

Well I find that being in a good BP and dig in like a tick is a good idea. But of course I am a defencive kinda guy, not too good with attacking.

TH, what happens when they find your general area and drop ICMs on it? Do you have several BPs as an alternate? I remember in TGIF 33, Lonestar's Raiders, The CO A told us to mark several specific BPs with narrow arcs that overlapped, but not to ccupy it. He then wanted 1 unit in Turret Down to observe and snipe with the rest in an assy area ready to replace the unit forward. (BTW the graphics on the 1st post was from that game) If Bluefor had massed his forces at my end and advanced in overwatch, my position would have been "smashed like a bowl of eggs". More so since Nik was going to be Leading that Assault.

[DrDevice]

GF,

Point well taken...SB tactics are the focus here, rather than the reality of things.

On awareness: keeping those "eyes" out there is critical, AI or otherwise. And even on the defense, multiple BPs that overwatch your area of responsibility seem key. You might have a great spot, but that spot will not stay secret for long, both in game and as a "sweet spot' for the map itself. You need to find the 3-4 places you can watch an area and keep your forces popping up like a game of "Whack-a-Mole." With AI limits on what they can effectively cover, a human can hop around and manage the engagement and let the AI keep eyeballs out for the OPFOR.

Players do indeed know the individual maps well, and I think it helps, but isn't the major factor. Flexibility still plays the majority part IMO.

Another "gamey" aspect that players avail themselves of is the map edge. There's no good way around having them, save using maps that are significantly too large to defend a whole front, or using scoring options that require OBJs to be captured within a time frame that makes long flanking maneuvers impractical. I believe it's a matter of scenario design rather than of game limitation.


I was a newbie up against AA, Nik, Dagger and LS; using mass and manuever tactics got me killed by Battalions - because the AI was not smart enough to Observe, Orient, Decide and Act against veteran players.

A strong argument yet again that SB is NOT a game for a Btn commander. The unit logic is too limited to react in this extremely complicated tactical environment. Hence, you can trust the AI to hit targets and drive your routes effectively, but not make any sort of "decision." (This fact is why I believe players with whole battalions, even companies, is a micro-management war, not a good test of player skill or tactical ability.)

[Gunfighter]

Another "gamey" aspect that players avail themselves of is the map edge. There's no good way around having them, save using maps that are significantly too large to defend a whole front, or using scoring options that require OBJs to be captured within a time frame that makes long flanking maneuvers impractical. I believe it's a matter of scenario design rather than of game limitation

Dagger loved using the edges. Using the edge has a great tactical advantage - you do not have to worry about your extreme flank. Using Maps with a Punch Bowl Edges Effect can correct these feelings. Perhaps in future scenarios we can place automated "sniper" tanks beyond map edges to make edgerunners more cautious.

A strong argument yet again that SB is NOT a game for a Btn commander. The unit logic is too limited to react in this extremely complicated tactical environment. Hence, you can trust the AI to hit targets and drive your routes effectively, but not make any sort of "decision." (This fact is why I believe players with whole battalions, even companies, is a micro-management war, not a good test of player skill or tactical ability.)

Tell that to Archangel. He usually plays 6k Front vs. 2 or more players. The results are the same, Blue dies a quick, hideous and horrible death. If it wasn't for the AAR, I'd accuse him of cheating. I am accusing him of being psychic - and reading my mind. Everytime I approach his flank, an AI tank already has the range and bearing on my position. As I gunfight with an AI tank, I find out too late that he has an asset that's on a reverse slope under 1K. As I erupt into a fireball and switch tank, I have a few seconds until it blows up as well and on and on and on...

The question remains "How do you become more 'Aware' than your enemy?"

Do any of the MP players play with a "deliberate" open flank to "sucker" players in Prepositioned Kill Zones? If so, how do you do it?

[TankHunter]

Well I find that being in a good BP and dig in like a tick is a good idea. But of course I am a defencive kinda guy, not too good with attacking.

TH, what happens when they find your general area and drop ICMs on it? Do you have several BPs as an alternate?


A great example of my tactic was when I was up against TurretPlug (I think). I advanced far into his northern flank, after I made contact I held my positions there. I moved some tanks here and there to cover areas that were left open (because a tank was killed or to meet a new threat). For most of the fight I lost only 3 tanks (and one immobilized), even when I was under ICM and HE barrage.
I then let him attack me.
He was so confused that I had him poping his own tanks. :twisted:

[Gunfighter]

A great example of my tactic was when I was up against TurretPlug (I think). I advanced far into his northern flank, after I made contact I held my positions there. I moved some tanks here and there to cover areas that were left open (because a tank was killed or to meet a new threat). For most of the fight I lost only 3 tanks (and one immobilized), even when I was under ICM and HE barrage.
I then let him attack me.
He was so confused that I had him poping his own tanks. :twisted:

Send graphics.....

If you do not have them can you make some rough sketches? I am interested in trying to recreate that session and maybe convert it to a usable tactic.

[TankHunter]

A great example of my tactic was when I was up against TurretPlug (I think). I advanced far into his northern flank, after I made contact I held my positions there. I moved some tanks here and there to cover areas that were left open (because a tank was killed or to meet a new threat). For most of the fight I lost only 3 tanks (and one immobilized), even when I was under ICM and HE barrage.
I then let him attack me.
He was so confused that I had him poping his own tanks. :twisted:

Send graphics.....

If you do not have them can you make some rough sketches? I am interested in trying to recreate that session and maybe convert it to a usable tactic.

I will do my best, what I did was have a layered defence and over watch when I was attacking. So that is probably how TP got confused and popped one of his own tanks defending along a ridge. I moved in so fast up north that he probably was supprised.

[Ratseal]

Suckered ambush: Make a demonstration as though you are refusing a flank, and when your deliberately weak defense fails (after taking an attacker or two along with them), then you allow the enemy to bypass a series of strong BPs. On order, the crewed ambush vehicles take the enemy in their flank and the fleeing friendlies reverse and engage from the last hill.

I will send some pics from my other pc later today -

[TankHunter]

How do I send a graphic here?

[Gunfighter]

Create the graphics with MSPaint or any other Image Creator.
Save it as a .gif or a small jpeg.
Click on Add Attachment in the Attachment Posting Control Panel
Browse for the Attachment.
Click on Add Attachmeny

[TankHunter]

Create the graphics with MSPaint or any other Image Creator.
Save it as a .gif or a small jpeg.
Click on Add Attachment in the Attachment Posting Control Panel
Browse for the Attachment.
Click on Add Attachmeny

[Bluewings]

Gunfighter wrote : How does one attain "awareness"?

The awareness I am talking about is the SB awareness , not the one in real life .
Basicaly , it is a blend of many little things like :

a) constantly switch from F6 (gunner) to F8 (outside view) , as it erradicate the "tunnel vision" .
b) checking map as often as you can .
c) listening .
d) guessing where the Enemy is going when its Units shows up on the map .
e) and at last but not least , look for Enemy who are already engaged/engaging .

You are the most vulnerable when you are already engaged as you simply can 't fire on more than one front/direction .
Most people see the flanking attack as if it was like ambushing a passing by convoy .
Wrong .
A flanking attack is always directed to an already engaged Enemy for 3 main reasons :
1) He is already busy defending himself .
2) It will take time for him to understand his Tanks are not dying from the directly facing Enemy (12 O'clock) but from the 3 or 9 O'clock .
3) It puts the Enemy in a high level of stress who can turn into sheer panic , completly clouding his mind and ability to "think" rationaly .

Gunfighter wrote : Are there specific tactics where you can be faster than the enemy? Please explain how....

1) Avoid crests to "have a peak" , as your Tank slowdown when climbing . So choose a flat and hidden path if possible .
2) Split your Tank platoon early as Tanks move faster alone rather than in formation .
3) Always move Top speed .
4) Do not look for Enemy until you reached your planned destination , meaning avoid contact/fight/engagement . You have a job to do , so go where you have to go then fight .
5) Keep moving ! . You wanna see that 1200 bhp engine giving all its got .

On a more personal note , I would like to refer to what Sherman is endlessly repeating :

" go into the Enemy 's decision cycle .

In other words , break the Enemy 's tempo by fast counter attack where and when he's vunerable .
Is it easier to kill an Enemy occupying a BP , or killing him when he 's going to his BP ? :roll:

The latest is the right answer .

To archive this , awareness , speed , good guessing are the keys . Force him to stop and change his plan on the fly . By doing that repeatedly , the Enemy is bound to loose precious time (tempos) and his general position on the map will look chaotic , disunited and fragile .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Stumpy]

3) Always move Top speed

Except when you're moving through trees, then you move about on fast speed(when the AI's driving, if you are, get in one of the "lanes" that rn N-S, or E-W between the trees and hit top speed, but keep tapping shift+a or d to keep the AI from taking over).

[Gunfighter]

2) Split your Tank platoon early as Tanks move faster alone rather than in formation .


Merci beacoup BW. That answers my question on why Nik keeps moving faster than me, even though we started from the same LOD.

Ce réponses ma question dessus pourquoi Nik continue à se déplacer plus rapidement que moi, quoique nous ayons commencé à partir du même LOD.
J'aime Babelfish et j'aime aussi ma femme, qui parle francais. Je parle francais comme une vache espanole!

[Bluewings]

Spaciba bolchoi to speak French to me GF !

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Gunfighter]

Alright, let's reverse the table here. I spotted Nik's East tank and decided to send WildBill (WB) to set up a Reverse Slope offense. Arty was used to pin Nik Down.

Here we see the AI's slow reaction caused WB's quick demise. Also WB was looking elsewhere when Nik popped up and shot him at PBR. Also, I should have stayed on station until WB reached appropiate cover on the slope.

BTW, the shooter tank was taken out by Nik a few seconds later.

[Bluewings]

GunFighter wrote : Je parle francais comme une vache espanole!

:lol: 8)

(for the non french speaking : " I speak french like a spanish cow ! "

Ton francais est excellent , pas parfait mais excellent ! :D

Cheers . :3starSK:

[PS-SCUD]

That map looks familiar, where is that?

[Gunfighter]

BW, Altavista's Babelfish translated the 1st Part. My wife did the Spanish Cow thingy.
PS, that map was from TGIF 33.

Anyway, I spotted Nik 1st again by his Dust Cloud. - approach your BP slowly to clear crest and avoid dust rooster tails.

[Ssnake]

One of the best threads ever on this forum. :)

[ShermansWar]

I had asked awhile ago if we could start a forum on just strategy and tactics, as relates to gameply.I ask again.

[ShermansWar]

what i wouldlike GF, is if you could explain to us some more about the boyd cycle, and how we can apply it to gameplay.probably rates it's own thread

[Bluewings]

Don 't ask Sherman , do it ! :wink:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[PS-SCUD]

"Do not look for Enemy until you reached your planned destination , meaning avoid contact/fight/engagement ."


Well, I don't stop to engage, but I do take pot shots at top speed. Might as well.

[Gunfighter]

what i wouldlike GF, is if you could explain to us some more about the boyd cycle, and how we can apply it to gameplay.probably rates it's own thread

Sherman, is this your HMV trying to draw me out of a perfectly good BP?

I'll bite....

"The OODA Cycle – Theoretical Explanation
The concept of the OODA cycle was first developed in the 1970s for military applications. The originator of the theory, Colonel John Boyd, in an analysis of air-to-air combat outcomes postulated a scenario in which one side in a conflict presented the other with a sudden, unexpected challenge or series of challenges to which the other side could not adjust in a timely manner. As a result, the side with the slower response was defeated, and it was often defeated at a small cost to the victor.

In Boyd's paradigm, victors consistently are able to recycle through the OODA loop or Boyd Cycle, faster and this gave them an advantage over their adversaries. The actions of the opponent, on the other hand, became slower and slower. Since they were going through the OODA loop slower, over time, they fell further behind until the faster side achieved victory. This model, although originally applied to military situations, is also applicable to business and other competitive situations.

Boyd postulated that any conflict could be viewed as a duel wherein each adversary observes (O) his opponent's actions, orients (O) himself to the unfolding situation, decides (D) on the most appropriate response or counter-move, then acts (A). The competitor who moves through this OODA-loop cycle the fastest gains an inestimable advantage by disrupting his enemy's ability to respond effectively. He showed in excruciating detail how these cycles create continuous and unpredictable change, and argued that our tactics, strategy, and supporting weapons' technologies should be based on the idea of shaping and adapting to this change — and doing so faster than one's adversary."
--Taken from www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/bridges2.htm.

How it applies to SB:

In the 1st Graphic That I posted, I stated:
1) Observered Nik's Trap (the HMV as bait)
2) Oriented The Main Gun on HMV 1st and Peri to Scan for Nik
3) Decided that the Dust cloud must be Nik's Tank
4) Acted by relaying the Gun at Nik's Tank and Fire.

Nik must have done something like this:
1) Observered that he needed to find out where I am by sending out HMV.
2) Oriented his Tank to Cover his HMV
3) (Got killed Here) Decided to scan the North Ridgeline
4) (Smoking Ruin here) Acted by Switching Tanks or Pulling that HMV out

The key to Boyd's Cycle is Anticipation - same conclusion reached by the source of the quote.

Nik, anticipated where I generally was but could not OBSERVE me.
GF, anticipiated picking his nose and did not know where Nik is coming from. Nik won the initiative here, But I OBSERVED 1st - wresting the initiative away from him. It was only possible since I knew/ANTICIPATED what he was attempting.

[Volcano]

Speaking of western tactics and the appropriate use there of, we could also create a "end mission if" or scoring function that causes BLUEFOR to fail if they fall below say.. 60% strength. I suspect that doing so would cause people to babysit their units more realistically.

[DrDevice]

Agree 100% Volcano. I use just such scoring penalties in my .sces. The "end mission" would be neat, but as it is, at least we can make the mission un-winnable with force level conditions. Think of how much a TGIF game would change if you couldn't grind a whole battalion of tanks to scrap just to get that little box in the center of the map...

The concept of "unacceptable losses" is something that I enjoy about the Fulda Gap series and many more cool things to come.

[Gunfighter]

You can See alot of excellent examples of competing OODA in the Battle Labs AARs or TGIF AARs. By comparing AARs on Both sides, one can deduce who was anticipating what first. In TGIF IVU season One, LS Raiders had a big advantage by confering/conjuring a plan of deployment 1st with his Company COs and quickly disseminating it. A Detailed Examination of the Ground allowed us to ANTICIPATE where the enemy may deploy. LS and Brun then gave the COs their "Areas" focusing our OBSERVATION of the enemy to only what was critical - this kept me in my Coy "looking" for tell tale signs of the enemy - (Dust Clouds, Sounds of Gunfire, My Tanks Burning...) Greatly helping Our ORIENTAION to a fluid situation. Since I only had to look at my Tanks and was there Manning Only the exposed 1 tank, A Human DECISION was always at hand for ACTION.

[Hammer6]

Hands down the BEST topic I've seen in a while. Well, except for the revivial of the Steel Beasts song and Alpha India... LOL. God, now I need to play....

Why is it that I never hear tanks and have never had a black icon come up on my map. Am I not updated? Or do I never hear the tanks?

[Gunfighter]

Ssnake, Hammer6 thanks you for your endorsement; but the real Kudos goes to GHOST and his BL AARs and for HellHounds' RTWs. The RTWs forced me to collect as many insights into player specific tactics as I could gather.

It was the study of these AARs that I discovered a pattern and understand why that pattern happened and how to escape it. (The pattern was me falling for the HMV trick time after time!)

[ShermansWar]

test

[ShermansWar]

Thank you for your informative post, GF. I asked because Archangel had mentioned to me in the past that he plays a style wherein he tries to get inside the enemies decision cycle, rendering the enemies intel obsolete before he can act on it. You had mentioned boyd cycle and i wondered if they were the same thing or related, so i asked. I try and apply the concept, and armed with a clearer understanding i will do so more in the future, i hope.

Myself i have never had any formal schooling in armored tactics, just a lifetime of study of warfare,and a lot of experiance playing tactical sims, boardgames as it were. I try and take what i know in general and apply it.

I use Clausewitz as an example to break the enemies will and maintain initiative, with no cessation in hostilities, i use tzun tsu as example to discomfit,decive, misdirect, and attack the enemy where he is not. i use what i learned in the Marines, as far as basic tactics, I.E. the single envelopment, involving base of fire element and maneuver element. i use Sherman to try and find an indirect approach, and the use of mutually supporting columns, multiple objectives, the path of least resistance,combined arms and the ability to shift focus of attack from well defended objective to a less well defended objective, where i will suffer less casualties.

I use chess tactics as best i can transpose them( seize the center of the board, seize the initiative, and develop my fighting pieces.)seize the center means seize the key terrain with the dominant lines of sight that cover the main avenues of approach, either to the objective, or that i intend to advance along, (thus restricting the enemies mobility).Seizing initiative is just that, plus getting inside his decision cycle to keep him reacting and prevent him from creating.
Developing my pieces, again means seizing the dominant BPs that have the lines of sight that cover the objective. Also having my peices where they can be of use,as applies to SB means not several Ks from the front, where if i get a contact i dont have time to react before my intel is obsolete.

Basically is an amalgamation of what i know, adapted to how i think i can use it, as opposed to playing US army SOP(which i dont know anyway).When i play, i have a set of principles that i try and go by, as opposed to playing situation specific. I try and make any action i take fulfil as many of these principles as possible, ( this is not meant to imply i dont play the map, cause the map, the LOs's and the dominant BPs are the keys to understanding any particular scenario).The more Principles i i fulfill with any given action, the more likely i am to have success. When i take actions that dont fulfill these basic principles, i find i am not successful.Combined arms i learned from playing other wargames.i also try and utilize all my assets, as opposed to letting them sit, and getting no benifit from them, as i see that as surrendering initiative.

I also like to seek and maintain contact, as it lets me dictate tempo, draws the enemy to me where i want him, and away from my main avenues of approach, to an extent, depending on how the enemy reacts to my known position/advance.also gives me intel, and keeps him reacting. Of course, i figure it wrong a lot of times, but i find that staying with a set of principles, such as the ones i stated, works best.other players may have what works best for them, but thats how i play.

[Gunfighter]

Thank you for your informative post, GF. I asked because Arcgangel had mentioned to me in the past that he plays a style wherein he tries to get inside the enemies decision cycle, rendering the enemies intel obsolete before he can act on it. You had mentioned boyd cycle and i wondered if they were the same thing or related, so i asked.

I think AA's Bio is that he works as OPFOR at Ft. Irwin. I heard it through the rumour mill. I believe he's Al Delaney playing with our heads, experimenting with his new SB2 AI.

Can you post specific examples of AA's playing style? I would have posted some, but they almost always feature my units embarasingly facing the wrong way while engaging phantom positions.

And how do you think AA gets a faster Boyd Cycle than his opponent?

[dejawolf]

the M901 bait tactic. similar to the humvee bait, but can take infinite amounts of hits.

[ShermansWar]

yes, that is AA's Bio.no, i cant state any specific examples, as i have no screenshots, but i did have a game with him last night where in a 1v1 engaement he employed boyds principles on a microcosm scale, specifically, he beat me in a Battlesight engagement by taking advantage of the leos superior maneuverablity. It took my M1 toolong to change directions while rolling back and forth and changing directions while trading salvos, and he anticipated a direction change and put the round where my tank was going, even before i finished the maneuver.

As to how he does it,i think he simply decides faster. as i said, i have a set of principles i try and not violate, these principles are based on trial and error, and what i have found to be succesful.i imagine he has a similar set of principles, more developed, that allows him to assess a situation faster and make the right decison faster, because he knows from experience what to include in his repertoire of choices of maneuvers and what not to even consider, whereas i have to consider many options, because i dont have the body of experience to elimiate the bad choices from my repertoire.

For example: i hear a leo on the opposite side of the slope i am on.do i set a course, man the gun and fire as soon as he appears after i crest? Or do i go to the top of the hill travelling along the spine, and then try and come at him from above and on the flank. Or do i travel to the bottom of the hill, again along the spine, and try and attack him from the flank from below? or do i back up, giving myself a wider field and in the beleif it is he who will crest first? anyway you cut it, i have to stop and consider my course of action. He simply acts, based on what is in his repertoire of responses, doesnt have to think about it, because he knows from experience what works best, and what to not even consider. His decison making process is streamlined by the more evolved set of standard responses he has.

So he saves time and acts faster., then, like in chess, he builds on his advantage, and causes each decison you make to be more and more obsolete, until he is several decisions ahead of you.at that point you are critically disadvantaged, and are perpetually responding, never being able to create against him.He creates the Dilemna, offering you only bad choices,once he gets a few steps ahead, and then you are screwed.

[Gunfighter]

the M901 bait tactic. similar to the humvee bait, but can take infinite amounts of hits.

What if you use HEAT against it? Will that work? I too fell so many times for that Hammer Head Trick. But I was soo focued on putting round after round on that never dying M901, that I didn't even bother to look where the real killer would lie.

[ShermansWar]

he has 2 styles he plays.the first is based on his skill as a gunner and his ability to maneuver a single tank. he can beat the AI and most human gunners in battlesight engagements, so he has the luxury of attempting to win a scenario by simply attritting the enemy without being objective specific, until his opponent doesnt have enough forces to achieve the objective. The other style is to get inside the enemies decision cycle.If you get inside his decision cycle, you will find he dont like that, and often his will to fight flags, especially when he doesnt have a stock response cause he was playing an attrition game, and you came up with a viable defense. It throws him off his game, and is very noticeable when he has to stop and regroup.he often will play halfhearted once you blunt an offensive.
He plays an off tempo style, and if you throw his tempo off he gets frustrated.

[Gunfighter]

he has 2 styles he plays.the first is based on his skill as a gunner and his ability to maneuver a single tank. he can beat the AI and most human gunners in battlesight engagements, so he has the luxury of attampting to win a scenario by simply attritting the enemy without being objective specific, until his opponent doesnt have enough forces to acheice=ve the objective. the other style is to get inside the enemies decision cycle.If you get inside his decision cycle, you will find he dont like that, and often his will flags, especially when he doesnt have a stock response cause he was playing an attrition game, and you came up with a viable defense. it throws him off his game, and is very noticeable when he has to stop and regroup.he often will play halfhearted once you blunt an offensive.
he plays an off tempo style, and if you throw his tempo off he gets frustrated.

Can anyone else verify this with Screen Shots or personal insight. I do not want create an "Aura of Invincibility" around anyone (except me!)

[mapman]

I find managing what forces I have control of in an efficient manner to be an interesting challange.

I try to place my AI units in such a way as to have natural protection on their sides and rear and a small arc in front of them that they can control, such as a small dale or culvert.

When placing them on hull down / turrent down positions, I will set up a berm drill route as follows.

Two or three bps along a ridge set on guard (so they will retreat under fire if I am not manning them at the time), with retreat routes back a hundred meters or so. The embark command set on incremental at 30 seconds, so they are never exposed for long if I am not in them.

From the first retreat check point, I have an engage route to the next bp and so on.

When I am done I will have two or three bp check points on guard and two or three hidden check points that switch to engage as they move up to the next bp. This becomes a full circle.

If I have time, I do one in planning and then copy the route chain to my other expected bps. I then route my tanks to each and they are on their own. I try to set them up to cover the front and the flanks and this gives me more overall situational awareness because I have more eyes than if I just kept them hidden behind the one tank I am manning.

I then hop in the tank that has spotted an enemy.

I also enjoy using the arty to flush out a tank I know is hidding someplace. I will find a good bp from which to hit them when they are escaping from the arty and move back just out of site. When the splach count down is up, I move up and there they are, getting out from under the rain.

[colin]

In BW's SP scenario's I have used FASCAM to deny crest to overwatching tanks, a rather useful if not realistic approach.

Remind not to volunteer to be your Humvee driver in SB2 !!! I will feel like the cheese in the trap!

[Hell_Hound]

the M901 bait tactic. similar to the humvee bait, but can take infinite amounts of hits.

What if you use HEAT against it? Will that work?

In my experience HEAT has maybe a :?: 10-20% :?: chance of killing when you hit the hammerhead and the vehicle is hull-down.

[TankHunter]

In BW's SP scenario's I have used FASCAM to deny crest to overwatching tanks, a rather useful if not realistic approach.

Remind not to volunteer to be your Humvee driver in SB2 !!! I will feel like the cheese in the trap!

Well I was kinda thinking that being in a M2/3 or a Humvee might be fun in SB2

[m1a1vha]

FASCOM may be one of the most effective passive defense systems in SB. I MEAN THERE IS NO MINE CLEARING EQUIPMENT!

FASCOM may lose much of its value in SB2. unless the players are denied plow/rollers. :evil:

i cant wait to see what a battle in SB2 would look like. tactics of SB will have to be thrown out the window. i do hope that the game mechanics eliminate the 'lone hunter tank' of SB.

[TankHunter]

FASCOM may be one of the most effective passive defense systems in SB. I MEAN THERE IS NO MINE CLEARING EQUIPMENT!

FASCOM may lose much of its value in SB2. unless the players are denied plow/rollers. :evil:

i cant wait to see what a battle in SB2 would look like. tactics of SB will have to be thrown out the window. i do hope that the game mechanics eliminate the 'lone hunter tank' of SB.

If they do that Ren would be screwed!

[m1a1vha]

about the M901. in real life the HEAT round would make it unusable, if it does not blow it clear off. the blast of 120mm HEAT is small, but powerful all the same.

[Bluewings]

ARTY , where , when and how :

Let me , if you please , speak about the ARTY strikes .

In SB , we can use 4 different tactics .

1) Interdiction : This is basicaly what we do in the begining of every scenario . You call ARTY where you think the enemy is going to slow down its advance , or to make him choose a different path than the best one in case you use FASCAM .
But that 's not all ... Interdiction Strikes have other purposes as well . A fundamental one is to keep pounding the same area , which can be a key crest , an avenue of approach of high value , etc .
The goal is to take away from the Enemy a decisive spot , like a crest overlooking a key OBJ . If you have suffisant amount of ARTY , it is well worth it , even if the Enemy is not occupying (which is the main point) the area .
You simply denie him that key position/route .

2) Support fire : The goal of a support ARTY fire is to create an impassable wall of shells between the Enemy and the Unit you want to support .
It gives you more than one advantage . First , it stops instantly the Enemy attack , provide smoke , and give you time to :
a) Move away/fall back .
b) Bring reinforcement .
c) Develop a flanking attack .
d) Pin the Enemy on the spot .

3) Destructive fire : Here we are talking about destroying Units . There are good destructive fires , and bad ones . You must follow simple rules .
HE tend to be more efficient on large area where ICM work best on small areas . Some Units are more likely to be destroyed by HE than ICM .
In general , PC's and Troops (with few exceptions) hate HE . The exceptions are the Marder , the Jaguar and BMP2 's , as they tend to resist well to HE .
Tanks hate ICM .
So , how to make a destructive fire efficient ?... :roll:

By setting a single trap , or a double trap .

The single trap is where you lunch a HE barrage FIRST , slightly excentered from the Unit you want to kill , a bit behind it , and immediatly after an ICM barrage in front of your HE drop . The Enemy Unit will have to move forward to escape the HE , going right under the ICM who will make the kill .
Just make sure the timing is right , meaning the ICM will have to land no more than 10-20 seconds after the HE .

The double trap occur when the Enemy Unit is occupying a crest/hill top , and you have Units watching the crest . Simply apply the single trap to force the Enemy Unit to come on the wrong slope of the crest , the one you are watching , and kill it . That tactic work best when there is more than one Enemy Unit .

4) Covering fire : Here , two methods are available .

a) Fall back . Drop Smoke , or even HE in front of the friendly Unit then retreat in good order behing the created screen .
b) Assault . Drop Smoke , or even HE in front of the position you want to assault . That will slowdown Enemy Tanks fire , and annihilate all ATGM activities .
Keep in mind it will do the same to your own Units , but the point is to reach the battlesight engagement safe . The attacking force has always the upper hand in battlesight engagement .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Poker]

i cant wait to see what a battle in SB2 would look like. tactics of SB will have to be thrown out the window. i do hope that the game mechanics eliminate the 'lone hunter tank' of SB.

Add Lone hunter M2/3's

[Bluewings]

Yep ! :twisted:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[PS-SCUD]

No kidding Poker.

People are going to be in disbelieve at how good some players will get with the TOW.

They'll be making insane blind shots from the other side of a hill, through woods, through a ditch, over a hill and around a woods, etc. etc.
It will definitely change the tactics of the game. It will be interesting to see!

[TankHunter]

No kidding Poker.

People are going to be in disbelieve at how good some players will get with the TOW.

They'll be making insane blind shots from the other side of a hill, through woods, through a ditch, over a hill and around a woods, etc. etc.
It will definitely change the tactics of the game. It will be interesting to see!

Well I think that I have some ideas for the M2/3s. Mwhahahahhaha :twisted:

[PS-SCUD]

And if you can have better control over troop movement and fire control, their tactics will change from being the religious ritual of:w-s-f-f-f-h-e-f-f-f-h-e-f-f-f-h-f-f-f AAAAAA! JUST FIRE YOU STUPID GRUNT! To a serious and consistent threat.

[Bluewings]

It 's on The_List . :)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[GaryOwen]

Add Lone hunter M2/3's

Manned Bradleys firing TOWs from turret defilade.

[m1a1vha]

"People are going to be in disbelieve at how good some players will get with the TOW.

They'll be making insane blind shots from the other side of a hill, through woods, through a ditch, over a hill and around a woods, etc. etc.
It will definitely change the tactics of the game. It will be interesting to see!"

over a hill or through woods may not be impossible, though difficult. however, the rest is a bit on the wild side if you asked me. i think we will see more erratic TOW paterns rather than any 'smart TOW' chasing units all over the place.

i do wonder how long it will take a human player to set up the TOW and fire. then waiting for the launcher to reload. this will be a real piss off.

any chance to man other ATGM units like BMP2 and Marder?

[DrDevice]

any chance to man other ATGM units like BMP2 and Marder?


According to the site/FAQ, no.

[m1a1vha]

thats no fun. OPFOR units would be at a clear disadvantage. if OPFOR dont get to man their own PCs and scouts (BRDM2) then SCE designers should be given the option of turning off the manned M2/3 and HUMMWVs. that makes any H2H more fair.

[DrDevice]

Remember that the focus of SB Pro (and from there, SB2) is to be a training tool for Western armies.

Although the value you mention is easily understandable, and would indeed be great, the limited resources eSim has are going into vehicles that armies will want to train in. I wish we had a full gamut of NATO and former WARPAC units, but alas, not until we get eSim a phenomenal amount of time, money and additional talent.

Right now, HTH will have to be content with similar/like vehicles, a la SB.

[ShotMagnet]

...OPFOR units would be at a clear disadvantage. if OPFOR dont get to man their own PCs and scouts...

Never underestimate the resourcefulness of OPFOR. Not having crewable AFVs hasn't hampered WP units in FG, where they currently enjoy about parity in terms of wins and losses against their crewed NATO opposition. I can't imagine that if player-usable TOWs enter the game it'll change things much, or at all for that matter.

Shot

[Bluewings]

M1a1vha wrote : i do wonder how long it will take a human player to set up the TOW and fire. .

In hulldown position , it takes me 3.3 secs to switch from the 25mm Bushmaster to the TOW , including aim , laze and ...Blaze ! .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[PS-SCUD]

Besides, I think NATO vs. NATO battles would be fun. You'd have to be real carefull IDing your target.

[Lone*star49]

...

Great Post Thread GF..

I find two very key factors in my battle plans; first: I choose those that I know that have both gunning experience, as well as communications.. (quick, short, responces) and have learned to deal with a communication, either right away, or after their situation becomes stable enough to respond..

Second: When I have newer, less experienced players, I like to put them in the Over Watch BP's, as this gives them great responsiblity in spotting, and the all important, long range shots..

When I have no choices, as far as who is on my team, I usually give them a front line BP in their assigned areas, along with good staging areas for reserves.. along with the instructions to only have 1 forward "manned tank" and one as close reserve, and one or two, as rear AI overwatch.

I tell them to leave the artty to only the Co's and Xo's, as they get the faster artty calls.. and gives the artty faster "overall" times in that only a limited number of artty calls are in the process of being dropped..

Sometimes, it may seem boring for them I suppose, but the overall attitude of most of the newer guys is, that it is a "team effort" and the Victory is shared by all, and allows them IMHO, to learn to view the map and hopefully, learn to give quick target sightings to those units that are being effected..

General overall sim/game tactics, come into perspective as a result and we all gain by their accepting these roles along with gaining experience in all areas mentioned above..




LS :3starSK:

[colin]

It would be nice to have the ability to point and shoot for Opfor vehicles. If you were in the zoom mode, lase the target you want and then the AI would take over and engage, I think this would even up the odds quite a bit.

[PS-SCUD]

How about just being able to order them to fire when you want to?

Fire at ANYTHING lol. I don't even care what it is, as long as it is OPFOR.

[Lone*star49]

How about just being able to order them to fire when you want to?

Fire at ANYTHING lol. I don't even care what it is, as long as it is OPFOR.
...

There is.. just before you leave AI unit, hit the F-key "fire at will".. off ya go..lol

And Colin, many times on long shots, over 2500m, if I see a target I jump into TC slot, and palm gun, or gunner picks it up fast, and move tank down till gunner says target/identified, then move tank up and let AI take shot, then move tank back down.. works well for me.


LS :wink:

[PS-SCUD]

" just before you leave AI unit, hit the F-key "fire at will".. off ya go..lol"

That works, until there is a Leo bearing down on you, and you really need to fire lol.

I've had times when I could get my PCs to fire consistently for me, and then other times when they simply refused. Troops are the same, only moreso.

I've tried every f-switch unit, fff-h-e-mark target-fff ritual that there is lol.

[Hammer6]

how do you mark a target?

[Bluewings]

You run after it with a tin of paint and a brush , you mark it , and you run back to your Tank . Easy ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Stumpy]

You run after it with a tin of paint and a brush , you mark it , and you run back to your Tank . Easy ...


ROTFLMAO!!! :D

[Hammer6]

ah.. that works! after I ran my entire dismounts up to the side of the tank (and of couse they wouldn't fire at it - no matter if I hit, E, F, whatever) and then they just kept on running. I couldn't figure out what they were doing...

[m1a1vha]

dont you just hate it when the inf decide to start a rase? once they do, they seem to go all out for some unseen finish line. they never reach it too. :roll:

[PS-SCUD]

What works Hammer?

You mark a target by holding down the shift key and clicking the lase button at the same time.

[NEpi]

BW, i can see you've never been exposed to laser markers :D

[Gunfighter]

About manuevering and fighting Non-Crewable vehicles....

Is the something in the design code that really makes a Non-Crewable Vehicle Blind to a target(s)?

In RTW Turn 1, 29th D went North of their Capital. GF, 2B were defending against a salient coming from the south. While 2B was engaging Infantry and Tanks, I snuck around and appeared on 29Ds West. At a range of under 500m, I did the ffffff-h-fffffff keyboard dance without the BMP firing. Even did the SHFT+Lase to mark the targets but still no Sagger Action, no 73mm Death, Not even Machine Gun. It was one of the most painful 15 seconds of gaming I've ever had. It could have been longer, except that a 29D Leo spotted my BMP, after killing a T72, and sent it to where Syrian AFVs go in the afterlife.

What happened to the Fulda Gap Red Players? How did they overcome this problem? Is there something in the WP vehicles that makes them react very slow?

As for Manned TOW in the M2/3 for SB2/Pro/PE. Can u fire the TOW on the move? (at least very slowly) so that you can:

1) Spot and ID a Target at 3K+
2) Fire the TOW skyward in the direction of the Target.
3) Drop back behind the Crest into Turret Down.
4) After counting the approriate Seconds pop back to Hull Down.
5) Guide the Missle to its termination.

Can u fire the TOW off angle (lets say at the 3 O'clock position) and guide it back to your target at 12 O'clock so that the Missle will hit Flank instead of front?'

[ShotMagnet]

What happened to the Fulda Gap Red Players? How did they overcome this problem?

To my knowledge there were no issues of significance regarding WP units. In PT they seemed slow to react, but that was the expected handicap of playing essentially AI units against crewed units. Could be a function of numbers, too.
There are a lot more WP units in an FG scenario than there were Neutralians in a RTW scenario, that could have skewed things if AI units behave as a function of a bell-curve.

Shot

[DrDevice]

GF:

The TOW is guided by the sight, hence you cannot be turret down and still track. The missile will attempt to fly to wherever the sight is pointing. This is why they train TOW operators to attack targets with an estimated 12 seconds of exposure: you need time to get the missile on target, and track it the whole way. You can be hull down, but not turret down. Maybe just the gunner's sight above crest?

Maybe if a target is stationary, or you are aiming at a BP and can keep the sight positioned relatively to the target, you can mask the sight, then re-appear, but it would be really lucky. I would guess that you would more likely ground the missile w/o the IR interchange between missile and launcher. I suppose it also matters in how SB Pro/PE/2 deals with the commands to the weapon. Perhaps it's not the same sight-to-control functionality.

From the FM: Chpt 5: Combat Techniques of Fire:

Deviations of the missile from the line-of-sight trajectory are sensed in the launcher sight by infrared means that receive information from infrared radiators attached to the missile. This information is processed in the form of electrical signals to produce error signals proportional to the azimuth and elevation displacements of the missile from the intended trajectory. Correction commands are derived from these error signals and are sent to the missile over the command-link wires, which are dispensed from the missile. The missile performs corrective maneuvers using aerodynamic control surfaces that deflect in response to the command signals from the launcher. On target impact, a high-explosive, shaped-charge warhead is detonated.

When the missile appears in the sight picture, ignore it. Never try to guide the missile. If distracted, tracking becomes poor and chances of hitting the target are reduced. Continue to track the target at a smooth tracking rate, keeping the crosshairs on the center of visible mass until missile impact (Figure 5-12).
FM 3-22.34 TOW Weapon System: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-34/fm3-22-34.pdf

[Hell_Hound]

[Insert shrieks of frustration about DM33]

The payoff for having non-crewed vehicles is that your players scan better (F8 view) and check the map more often instead of spending long minutes with their eye screwed into the GPS. That gives them better tactical awareness, which can be worth more than a pixel-hunting gunner.

[GaryOwen]

GF:

The TOW is guided by the sight, hence you cannot be turret down and still track. The missile will attempt to fly to wherever the sight is pointing.

Given the position of the sight aperature at the top of the turret and the position of the missile launcher when erected, a Bradley can be, for the most part, turret down when engaging with the TOW.

[Gunfighter]

GF:

The TOW is guided by the sight, hence you cannot be turret down and still track. The missile will attempt to fly to wherever the sight is pointing.

Given the position of the sight aperature at the top of the turret and the position of the missile launcher when erected, a Bradley can be, for the most part, turret down when engaging with the TOW.

Anyone with SB Pro/PE/SB2 Beta Version care to comment?

GaryOwen, What if you point the cross hairs in the emptiness above the target and at its termination drop the Cross Hairs back to target, will that work?

12 Seconds worth of wait to fly that Missle onto Target? Can the M2/M3 move (even slowly) during that time?

[Poker]

It would be imprudent to comment publicly that which has not been stated by Ssnake or Al.

[m1a1vha]

most ATGM platforms need to stand still to fire and guide the missile. however, some like the T90 can infact fire on the move if its moving on the same axis as the weapon's flight path. remember that all attack helos do move around a bit when firing their missiles.

[GaryOwen]

GaryOwen, What if you point the cross hairs in the emptiness above the target and at its termination drop the Cross Hairs back to target, will that work?

12 Seconds worth of wait to fly that Missle onto Target? Can the M2/M3 move (even slowly) during that time?

The one thing stressed the most in the training I received on TOW gunnery was to track the target rather than try to fly the missile. From the sight, the only portion of the missile that is visible is its rear end. Given that you are looking at the sight with one eye and that the ranges in a TOW shot can go out to over 3500 meters, lack of depth perception is an issue. You can't reliably gauge how far along the missile is in its flight path. Trying to manually drop a missile onto a target is a really good way to waste a missile. It is so much easier and reliable to just keep the crosshairs on the target and let the system do what it was designed to do.

One of the problems with moving while a missile is in flight is that you are going to change your sight picture. Even a slight change of sight picture - the slightest jiggle - is going to be translated by the missile guidance computer into missile flight correction information. And a one mil change of the sight picture is a three meter change at a range of three kilometers. This can be compensated for by a stabilized platform. But you are much better off not moving at all.

[PS-SCUD]

I'm surprised it doesn't start a counter when the missile is launched, estimating the range of the missile, based on the [(total time of flight so far)- (time to accelerate to crusing velocity) * (cruising velocity)]+ (average distance travelled by a TOW to reach cruising velocity).

Wouldn't that give a semi-accurate estimated of the missile's distance from the launcher? As an alternative, they could measure how much wire has been pulled out by the TOW, of course, deviation from a linear path by the missile, would mess it up, but then, they'd mess up the formula above as well.

[ShermansWar]

Yeah Scud,but why would they?
What Gary said.As a dragon gunner,you track the target, not fly the missile.As a matter of fact, the hardest part of firing wire guided weapons is overcoming the tendency to track the missile itself, as,in flight, it will not always appear to be on track,and subsequently many gunners wind up tracking the missile itself in an attempt to make unneeded course corrections,and wind up missing the target.

Furthermore,most wire guided weapons have a very narrow field of view in the sight picture, say, 6-8 degrees. Any sudden movement can make the missiles' infrared flare( which is used to tell the tracker where the missile is) move out of the field of view of the sight,and then you lose all ability to guide the missile anyway, as the tracker no longer knows where the missile is.Doesnt matter that the wire is intact, because all the wire does is tell the missile where the tracker wants it to go,but only in relation to the missiles known position in relation to the tracker. once you break the visual line of sight between the missile and the tracker, you've lost it anyway.it may have happenned somewhere along the way that someone lost the visual link between the missiles' flare and the tracker, and then reaquired it, but that would have to be considered a fluke occurance, and cant be used as any kind of standard gunnery practice.So movement of the launch platform will generally ensure a miss.

[m1a1vha]

then many will lose hair un SB2

"WHERE ARE YOU GOING YOU @#$$%$ MISSILE!!!! OVER THERE!!! THERE!!!"

[PS-SCUD]

RGR. It wouldn't be usefull for SOP, only for those the fun wacky kind of shots that GF was referring to. The: your-not-supposed-to-take-because-they-waste ammo-but-people-will-take-them-in-the-game-anyway-for-the-heck-of-it-kind-of-shots

[GaryOwen]

So movement of the launch platform will generally ensure a miss.

Having been a Bradley crewman but never having been on an AH-1 Cobra helicopter, I've often wondered how the TOW sight was stabilized for firing from a hovering position. I'm certain that there must have been some sort of stabilization of the sight to compensate for movement during the hover. Certainly, though, moving an M2/M3 or M901 while a missile is in flight would most likely end up in missing the target.

[Ky3Mu4]

Just to comment tactic showed on first page: In WW2 - 1943, russian command uses same tactic to "lure" german "Tigers" near Skalat - few T-34 was send to front line to lure german tanks to start shooting, then they used long range artilery to supress enemy for general attack. Those tankers was named as "Smertniki" or "Deadmen", most of them knew they are going to die...

[Ratseal]

Used Call for Fire in Somalia to direct MAGTAF AH1's onto snipers in the condo' s just east and south of the old embassy. They would stand off a little over 1km and put a TOW into the specific window that you called for.

It worked pretty darn well at suppressing or eliminating snipers. The few times we checked on BDA, we had step ons. Of course, the cost of the round (@$100K per TOW2A, and less than $50K for a I-TOW) means that this is not a cost effective trade. However, my buddy who worked at the Fallbrook Weapons Station thought that it was pretty neat - he's the one that gave me the $ figures.

So - in a long winded way, this suggests that the gunners were very effective at firing at very small targets (a specific window) from a hovering platform (actually, they had about 5KIAS- seemed to drift forward as they hovered).

[ShermansWar]

As long as the tracker keeps a line of sight to the missile it can be controlled.Once the missile moves outside that 6 degree field of view you lose it.

[m1a1vha]

$50K for ITOW! are you sure? Kornet costs only $20K.

[Ssnake]

You mark a target by holding down the shift key and clicking the lase button at the same time.
Technically, the marking happens upon release of the laser button to let you track the target and make sure that the crosshairs actually DO mark it.

[Ssnake]

12 Seconds worth of wait to fly that Missle onto Target? Can the M2/M3 move (even slowly) during that time?
TOW, like the name suggests, is wire guided. Moving the launching vehicle is likely to rip the guiding wire at which point the missile will go ballistic (and probably bite the dust pretty quickly). Besides, the TOW launcher box is really heavy, and its hinge simply isn't constructed to withstand the acceleration and deceleration loads that will occur when a Bradley bumps across the terrain. Anything faster than 2mph is likely to damage it.

[Gunfighter]

In light of further suggestions, the following is an example of a "drawing ambush". Here we have two tanks overwatcging each other when the forward tank detects another. Unfortunately he has detected the forward tank as well. I could have pressed the issue, but I back away hoping to draw him into the overwatch fire of the rear tank.

[Gunfighter]

This tactic of using an AI tank in overwatch while drawing an enemy tank in the open is a classic skill. You are using your manned forward tank (which reacts faster since you are at the helm) to dodge and weave, demonstrating before your target into fighting in close quarters. While he is distracted, your AI kills him at long range.

The trick here is setting up this scenario. I was fortunate that my overwatch was already in position when I discovered the enemy.

[Bluewings]

Classic but clever . :)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Gunfighter]

After being on the losing side for 3 weeks, I hope to recover something by posting these obeservations..

[Gunfighter]

My first encounter with Sherman's Human Wall of Flesh was TGIF 38 or 39 (the second of the IVU series). The purpose, I believe, of this wall was two fold:

1) detect the enemy and engage the enemy,
2) pin the enemy on bad ground while you manuever.

I have seen Sherman use this with greater and greater effect. He picks a spot where he can mass and dominate his fire and sends the Infantry out to scout and be engaged by the enemy. Sherman just responds with tank fire, usually silencing his opponents. Unlike other players, who sends out a pair or single scouts; Sherman send the entire lot out of a narrow front, with a short term objective in sight. (See Human Wall Part 3.jpg - is a Forest where the Inf reigns supreme.) As soon as the Inf has pinned and are in a knife fight with the enemy AFV, he starts manuevering his forces who are free from being bothered by tank fire.

This has been a battle winning technique. Sherman's side has won 3 TGIFs in a row. I have yet to see a player counter this tactic successfully. (I know you can pre-empt him, or decieve him to launch into a kill zone of Arty and MG fire - but there is no specific counter that will work if the Human Wall is launched against you..yet)

[ShermansWar]

:red: You give me too much credit. I didnt CO these last few battles anyway.But I'd be lying if i didnt say i gave a plan out. I kinda ran the battle in my sector. the other guys do what they want. i am of the opinion, however, that the success we've had lately is due not to any specific tactic, but an overall combined arms outlook on gameplay, coupled with teamwork. None of it works if the guys you play with arent on the same page.

I used an infantry tactic because thats what the scen gave us, a lot of infantry.I try and identify what our assets are, and then see if i can come up with a strategem that can exploit whatever advantage the scenario seems to inherently hand us.The point is to not tie oneself to one attack, one part of the battlefield. wherever the enemy isnt, then we go there. If he goes there, we go someplace else. He cant defend everywhere. The real key, though, to my mind, is teamwork. It's teamwork alone that allows a commander to get inside the enemies decision cycle. If teamates do not move when asked, then any temporary advantage gained evaporates, and the commander cannot exploit. If even a small advantage can be exploited, then it can be built upon until it becomes an overwhelming advantage.

Your description of the specific tactics employed is accurate, but what does it matter to take a specific peice of terrain if it isnt tied to a larger plan?when i joined the community all i heard was combined arms, combined arms.So thats what i try and employ.Infantry, Arty, APCs, Tanks.Relying on other arms, instead of using tanks for everything frees up the tanks for Schwerpunkt duty. If the scen has no arty, no inf, no apcs, then the tanks will be tasked to perform those duties, but in a manner that divides up the labor and identifies specific tasks, functions, for each.

As you are getting tired of gettin whupped, so i tired of getting whupped by sniper tanks tactics, and lonegunmen.So i tried to come up with a combined arms strategy to counter that, and i think it is fairly effective.
We dont rely on one tank, one thrust, one attack.Steady increasing pressure, until the enemy makes a mistake, or commits,then we try and exploit or capitalize.

To be clear, i think we have been winning because the men i have been playing with have allowed us to exploit percieved advantages by responding to orders/requests in a timely fashion,allowing us inside the enemies decision cycle, and giving us the abillity to exploit, whereas our opponents have not reacted, or reacted Piecemeal.They seek to defeat us on an individual to individual basis, whereas we strive to fight a battle where we wont be defeated simply because one player has been losing his battlesight engagements.Outside of TGIF, the guys i play with and me have won more than a few battles latley, where we have been outshot, and had less total kills, but stuck to our mission as a team, and gained and held the objectives in a more decicive fashion.When we function as individuals, we fail.

That you seek to explore the game, and develop new tactics is exciting, as thats what i play the game for, to explore different tactics and see what works, and what doesnt. Hopefully, after you develop a counter, i will be forced to reexamine my gameplay, and further evolve what i do.
Hopefully i will be abel to come up with something else, but in the end, i think combined arms amd teamwork is gonna be hard to beat if players do it and practice on a regular basis.

[Bluewings]

You can get as much fun by trusting your Co and do what you told , as playing "your stuff" on your own .

I started to get it in 2D but I was reluctant to follow "Orders" for wrong reasons . Now , I changed my approach to Teamwork and I have to say I get even more fun , as well as winning too . I won 8 out my 10 latest battles by making sure everybody on our side was on the same page . Whatever tactics used , whatever map used , Teamwork , quickness of response and awareness did the trick everytime . :)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Lone*star49]

...

IIRC.. it was everything WEST.. and I had to clairify why I was leaving 1 platoon of tanks in Central, but more so, my 2 113's.. but our extreme East was lacking, and they made a great water assult and succeeded without much of a defence (left) on our part of that area.. totally unthinkable approach in our minds. (least mine) Other than that, the call for the massive West drive and assult was the right call..

Well done Red on that one..


LS

[ShermansWar]

Not so. we called for all the INFANTRY west, not everything, and i did ask before the mission specifically who was covering east, but only FXman was there with his scouts, i assumed you would send some tanks over to cover.We called for 2 tank companies west and one center, with a screen east, but i could get no acknowledgement from the players in the east during mission, even as i querried reopeatedly who was covering east.I did in fact ask specifically that we leave armor cental to cover the middle bridge, as that was a concerm from the outset.the other thing was the mass of infantry center that i was afraid was gonna get killed out in the open, and called for it west, but it crossed center and died. The spoiling attack in the center did well to relieve pressure west. IMO, when we can find little shit like this to nitpick on, the team did well.

[DrDevice]

So am I to understand that in the "human wall" example above, that the infantry squads swam 800m of water?

[ShermansWar]

No. It only looks like water, it's really Gin.Your Point would be what?

[Gunfighter]

So am I to understand that in the "human wall" example above, that the infantry squads swam 800m of water?

Assualt Boats, rubber dingy or Motorized life preserver.

[DrDevice]

My point was surprise Sherman...

It is certainly an unexpected route for any unit (save amphib APCs) to come over. I haven't seen the map up close, so I'm not sure how deep the water is supposed to be, but it's a potentially useful bit of knowledge.

If tanks drown, but infantry doesn't that's useful and potentially exploitable by players. As as designer, I want to know about that, as to add appropriate penalty zones to prevent such behavior, if necessary.

It's a curious behavior, and I wanted clarification. Thanks for answering.

[addition] I recently noted (in the our last League game) that infantry units are apparently NOT susceptible to penalty zones that affect vehicles... this makes the issue pretty darned important, as infantry scouts are then all-terrain, amphibious and can go outside "legal" game boundaries. It's something that people will want to know.

GF: they could be on inner tubes for all I know. Maybe little "tactical floaties" on their arms! :lol:

[NEpi]

REMOVED, because it had nothing to do with the topic directly

[ShermansWar]

As an aside, red also conducted a crossing of an even larger body of water on the east side with even more assets than we crossed.I dont think anyone thought it curious, players cross infantry over water on a regular basis.We crossed west, they crossed East.We were probably both hoping the other side didnt think of it, but obviously we both did.as far as depth goes, i think water is impassable in SB due to tile width( anything wider than 2 tiles you cant cross) except for infantry, who can always cross any body of water.I would assume the program was written that way for a reason.Would you also consider making maps with woods as impassable terrain, as they are considered so IRL?Myself, i play the game as it is.

It's my understanding these situations will not arise in SB pro PE.People will find something else within the program to exploit and acheive suprise. Realistically, I dont think we were expecting to catch them by suprise, I fully expected they wood have eyes at the forward wood edge. I think we took it because it was the most direct path to the opposite wood.

[DrDevice]

The woods issue became impractical only in execution with the AAR trouble. (penalty zones hitting vehicles every 30 seconds, rendering the AAR nearly useless)

If it was playable, yes, I would keep the big vehicles out of the deep woods. I think it's realistic, and offers cool play options. But, it isn't practical so we don't bother, save for the Battle Labs series.

Infantry can already be nasty: used as spotters they are hard to kill at range via MG fire, and most players are loathe to use HEAT if the threat of a tank is nearby. Sure, their targeting and weapons are mediocre at best, but they fact that they are hard-to-kill eyeballs makes them very valuable.

Add to that swimming ability, plus their ability to cross penalty zones and minefields makes them even more dangerous.

So please continue "playing the game as it is." I hadn't seen that behavior with infantry, hence I was surprised. If you say it's common, so be it. No one is accusing you of exploiting anything. You used your assets to their fullest capability.

I think is a glitch, and kind of silly, but I'm sure there was a practical reason why it was necessary for the game. I also have every faith the Pro will address such inconsistencies.

[ShermansWar]

I was actually gonna post a sentence that they must have added that ability for a reason, but i deleted, as i'm not sure thats the case. from what i understand, the infantry were a kind of add on, and their behaviors arent thoroughly modeled, so maybe they decided to let them cross water without relizing they could be used to swim across a 2k lake, which, of course, is totally unrealistic.I didnt know they could cross penalty zones, mine always seem to die, i had one died in a penalty zone yesterday.

Also, i have a slightly different mindset than some players. I am an oldwargamer, so i use whatever the game offers and exploit it, as you say. Some former servicemen wish to use the game to recreate SOP, and become frustrated with the idiosyncrasies and the uniqyue heurustics of the game that prevents the recreation of training and battle as thye experienced it.for those looking to use the game as a training tool, these are legitimate concerns.I certainly dont want an unrealistic game, and it is for this reason i refuse to play any other PC game besides steal beasts.However, Once playing, i exploit what the game gives me and dont concern myself too much with what is and isnt particularly unrealistic. when they make another game thats more realistic, I'll play that. I dont go so far as some players, however, who make their bread and butter exploiting the idiosyncrasies of the game, however unrealistic., pushing the program to it's limits, discovering and exploiting things i myself would never think of, or think possible.Some players work at finding odd shit that would never happen IRL and make great use of it.I'd rather put the time into picking apart a map with an LOS tool and seeing if in can time an arty call in premission testing.If i see some player douing some wird shit, and it's easy enough to replicate, i'll try it, but not if it requires any real effort. Routing troops across water is easy.Going to Zoom 8 and seing if there is some microscpic strip of land along a map edge where water was painted in is too much like work.So is figuring out just how far you can depress your gun and still shoot through a berm.

[DrDevice]

I’m totally with you on the facts of the game vs. the reality of things. I try and keep things as real as possible, but I fully expect every player to use the game to its fullest extent. I may think certain behaviors are silly, but they are perfectly acceptable, because the game is built that way, and wishing won’t change it.

There really isn't an alternative. Either we can make it happen in-game, or we can't I'm not complaining that you used it, I’m just surprised that such flaws exist. I've been playing SB for a good 14 months now, and never encountered this. I thought others would feel the same. That's all.

I guess it's a difference between exploiting a broken game issue (like a broken deployment zone, or changing the game code) versus using every tool at your disposal. Swimming infantry is silly, but it's part of the game.

The first is ethically wrong, the second is just playing to win.

[PS-SCUD]

But Dr. D., you have to remember, Sherman is a Marine, and so he would make sure all of his troops CAN and DO swim. :lol:

[Lone*star49]

But Dr. D., you have to remember, Sherman is a Marine, and so he would make sure all of his troops CAN and DO swim. :lol:
...

Indeed.. lol, but my bet is that amphibous type water assults is the main reason they can go across any large body of water, less the assult boats that where not incorperated in the sim, for whatever reason.


LS

[Hell_Hound]

The troops can swim - it's their webbing, boots, flak jackets, ammo, rifles, rations, grenades, helmets, machine guns and rocket launchers that don't. :)

[Kingtiger]

so they are nude when they get up from the water??? :shock:

No seriusly I think its ok with swimming inf. as LS says they have assault boats...

[Poker]

OK ... Nude sprites is a no !
3D is a HELL NO !!!!!!!!
Thank you !

[ShermansWar]

You guys dont really wanna see a bunch of Marines nekked, do ya?

[TankHunter]

You guys dont really wanna see a bunch of Marines nekked, do ya?

For the love of god dont do it man! :exclam:

[sbrocker8]

Well, Sherman, I guess it depends on if they're LADY Marines, doesn't it???

[DrDevice]

Addition/correction: kill penalty zones will work on infantry, but other damage-type penalties do not affect them. So we could drown the little beggars if designed that way.

(I thought kill zones could be passed too: it just seems the ones I saw were lucky. :) )

[TankHunter]

Well, Sherman, I guess it depends on if they're LADY Marines, doesn't it???

I wouldnt mind seeing Catherine Bell in the nude. :mrgreen: :heartpump:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004738/
Is she close enough? :D :wink:

[Ratseal]

Ahem - swimming infantry (line infantry) is unlikely. However, swimming teams of personnel who are heavily laden with military equipment is an everyday event in Coronado, Toulon, Poole etc.

No, I don't want to see them nude either.

[Gunfighter]

No more comments on Sherman's Chinese Wall of Flesh?

Specific Counters? Ways to break combined arms tactics?

To the Best of the Best:

How could Guerilla Tanking beat this combined arms approach? Are there ways to spot and ID this massed infantry threat before it happens?

[TankHunter]

No more comments on Sherman's Chinese Wall of Flesh?

Specific Counters? Ways to break combined arms tactics?

To the Best of the Best:

How could Guerilla Tanking beat this combined arms approach? Are there ways to spot and ID this massed infantry threat before it happens?

I got an idea, but I dont want to tell anyone about it. :twisted:

[NEpi]

i think the weakest spot of infantry is their low manueverability. they don't go anywhere, so you can use arty to get rid of them quick.
there are two ways to counter it:
1. innitiate. it really doesn't matter what exactly. movement will thwart such assault, which is slow and has to include a lot of attention from the human player to orchestrate it and time it properly. moving or even flanking will deminish attention and will leave the infantry out in the cold plains.
2. if counter-innitiative, use depth. they move slowly, so you can wait till they get nearer and kill them off. at this time, you should be able to manuever quite a lot and catch better suiting positions. also, his tanks probably won't move until the infantry are upon you, because they'll still be exposed, and your tanks will be able to kill them. stay TD, pop up only to shoot. the problem with #2 is that the AI never heard of it.

[ShermansWar]

And therein lies the Beauty of "Combined Arms". It is , in fact preferable the assault fails, i'll say that.The whole point is to force the other player to initiate prematurely.I could give 2 shits about the infantry.

Nepi,Why do you think they are waiting till our troops get up to their lines in the first place? If they come out to engage, we engage him, we have a tank battle, on ground of our choosing.Our tanks are well posted, and we pick him apart.Artillerey is useless, i dont space them so you can get more than 1 squad in an arty call.Especially since we have less and less arty in scenarios these days( you can give me more arty but you know what I'll do with that :twisted: ).If they are closer than that is only because a player failed to space them out.

Also, if you notice, they dont ALL go at once, generally, there is 2 or more waves, so when the first wave is wiped out, the pressure can be sustained.If you stay hull down, and pop up only to shoot, then you are again surrendering initiative, besides the fact my infantry are overwatched by tanks, waiting for an enemy tank to pop-up and shoot at them.The tactic Nepi describes is what plays to our advantage the most.

If we can tie the enemy down dealing with a bullshit infantry assault, then we are free to maneuver elswhere. Fixate the enemies attention on one part of the battlefield, while the true attack is elsewhere. If he doesnt bother with the infantry, then we will reinforce it, gradually, risking minimal assets until they have gained a foothold, whilst getting intel, calling arty, displacing his tanks and poppoing them when he does.Either way, we are stealing the initiative and dictating tempo, the True Goals.

He can give ground, and use terrain to his advantage, but then we have taken terrain, and forced him to cover a new area as well. The point is basically, to outwork my opponent. But if you really listened to what Nepi said, what he is calling for is a combined arms approach to counter mine. Thats really the antidote.

My tactics can certainly be beaten, I am all the time, but not by quick fixes, i don't think.Occassionally i'll get overrun early because i was initially dispersed, and the map gave me shit BPs, and i stuck with the wrong approach instead of using a different tact, like a massed early assault myself.Sometimes i just get outshot on the draw.It takes focus and awareness, and i fuckup like anyone else. But if i am playing with guys who are responsive, that dont have to be babysat, then i am free to focus elsewhere, giving minimal orders, while staying on top of things. An unresponsive player will fuck things up, as I spend time in comms, losing a grip on the battle.Teamwork is everything. If there is a bunch of individuals in AA, i will just grab a platoon and let someone else run the show.If there is a group of guys that works well together, then it is a joy to CO, and even my shitty planning can be overcome with teamwork, if we respond in a timely manner.It's not important we have the best plan, but that we have a plan, and are on the same page.Adjustments can be made, if you have confidence in those you play alongside, and are comfortable making those calls.

When leaving the deployment zone, our initial BPs are defensive, chosen specifically to thwart a fast outset assault by Red. The specific deployment is in depth, so that a sniper tank or 2 will not break the position. You may get one in, or 2, and kill more than you lose, but while you man these individual tanks, we will ignore them as long as possible, confident our initial dispositions can hold against an area assault, whilst I work the map and gradually move our other assets forward.The players in their specific areas are given good BPs, if we have the time, and hold them, while not throwing everything on the line.

There is no line to break, rather, it is a grouping of interlocking fields of fire to cover specific avenues of approach.Also, there are no Laagers for enemy tanks to suprise and target.

Like a judo wrestler, I often seek to use an enemies success against him, by using the time he spends working a few single tanks into our rear. While he does so, we move on a broader front, and certainly dont sacrifice inititiative to wait for an infantry asault to culminate. Small assaults, small attacks, constantly, throughout the game, to keep the enemy responding, so that if he plays sniper or guerrilla tank, he is sacrificing initiative elsewhere.It only works if there is teamwork, and I can spend the time in map to keep things moving, and directing forces to respond to emergent threats.

Conversely, if he comes forward and commits, then we have a target to fixate on, and they also have exposed their own flank i can target.
If the enemy responds, we counter attack. If he doesnt, we nibble him up peicemeal.If he attacks En Masse, we bend, but dont break,( as we generally use a defense in depth) absorbing the shock of his attack, and then counterattacking.

It isnt about the Infantry.They are simply one of a number of tools. That the scenario gave us a shitloads of dismounts is a quirk i used. but we employ the same tactics with a single bradley platoon over a broad front, with equal success.The brads and the infantry are expendable, and when they die, we know from where they were killed. If the enemy can get inside my decision cycle, god bless him, I will lose.But Red players play like indivuduals, stuck to their areas,either running out a few sniper tanks, or waiting till they are attacked in their sectors.

The point is to save our tanks as long as possible, so that we have sufficient weight to our schwerpunkt when it comes time for a massed attack. Where that massed attack will be is determined by how the battle develops, my ability to recognize a weakness i can exploit, and the ability of subordinates to respond to commands in a timely fashion giving me the ability to reallocate assets and launch a massed combined assault. If red plays poorly, no massed assault is needed, as we will nibble our way up to the objective, with a sustained pressure approach, waiting for him to counterattack,so that we can launch our own counterattack and bag a bunch of tanks at once.Our flanks are generally protected, and I invite players to attack the flanks and be drawn away from the main battle area, while we work there. But generally, there are specific players tasked with guarding particular flanks.

I chose the Nom De Guerre "ShermansWar" for a specific reason. It is because i admired the combined arms approach he used, his ability to maneuver, his dedication to destroying the enemies will to fight, but especially because of his tactic of using mutually supporting columns. If one columnn gets hung up, the weight of the attack shifts to another column, thus sustaining pressure, and waiting for the enemy to make a mistake that can be exploited. The ability to recognize such mistakes,to make a decison as to where to keep the pressure up, to get your subordinates to respond in a timely fashion,giving them opportunity to get inside the enemy decision cycle is key.Sherman had some good no name, blue collar subordinates, who made him look good.I think the tactics i am using now, the system, is the realization of "shermansWar" as i envisaged it when i joined the community. i just need more guys to play with and Buy in.Hopefully success on the battlefield will do that. i dont need to CO, i am more than happy to follow someone else who is trying as hard to get inside the enemies decison cycle, with a combined arms approach, however different his tactics may be from mine.I dont care how a guy uses his assets, as long as he uses them, and gets the job done.I dont think I'm a better gunner, or even player than anyone else. I think I'm a guy with an approach that works, if he has other like minded fellows beside him.As opponenets evolve their tactics, so, hopefully, we evolve in response.It is a dynamic process.


It Don't always work, i get hit from an unexpected direction i neglected to cover, or i get outshot(usually cause i am in map), subordinates collapse. but we are generally able to recoup if we respond.

Last nights game was a good example. We made a plan, stuck with it, responded to enemy thrusts, and kept our eyes on the victory conditions. We had a few newbies, were consistently oushot, but we were at no point outmaneuvered, and even though we took far greater casualties, we won the scenario, because they enemy fixated on our tanks, as opposed to the objective, and they wondered in bewilderment at the end why they lost, with more kills, while the host speculated that maybe different ammo and other changes might be required to balance the scenario. What the host failed to see, is that the enemy had an advantage, got more kills, and lost nonetheless, not due to any scenario design flaw( it already favored red, and basically handed him the objective at the onset).To have come up with a plan depending on more kills with the better gunners on the other team would have been stupid, and played to their strengths.You can design scenarios so that gunnery is all that counts, but then why dont we all just go to the range and see who's the best?

Instead, we came up with a plan that recognized their player skills, and gave them the objective, but devised a strategy that made holding the objective throughout the scenario untenable, and it worked.Different tools for different scenarios. The infantry isnt used the same way all the time, but it is always used.Kudos to GF for drawing me out and getting me to explain myself. But in the end, if everyone copies the style to counter it, then i have brought something to the game, the much talked about but rarley seen combined arms and teamwork approach.Games being decided by Sniper and Guerrilla tanks are a thing of the past, but even them i have a use for.

[Bluewings]

Once again Sherman, you shine .

There 's not much I can add to what you say but one thing .

When confronted to a wave of Troops , a good approach is to use Troops as well . A well setup squad always has the advantage over a running one . Sure you may not have all your Troopers at the right spot , ready to face the wave so :
One of the tricks is to have PC 's hidden in defilade , ready to take the troops out by flanking coax fire , while dropping ARTY fire missions slightly behind the advancing wave to denie theirs overwatching Tanks to lase efficiently at you while you take the "wall of flesh" out . The point is to cut them off from their support .
Troopers alone , even in numbers , are not such a big deal (unless manned by me :lol: ) .

One has to guess if the Troopers are conducting a spoiling attack while the Armor is acting else where , or if they take ground for the Armor to follow . It can be a hard call to make , but having eyes on the battle field should help the Co to make the right decision .

Another possible course of action is to forget about them and to switch attack to the now unsupported Enemy Armor else where on the Battlefield ! Tanks without Troopers must get intels by themselves and by doing so are bound to get spotted and destroyed .

The last thing a Platoon Commander wants is to have his Tanks tied up with Enemy Infantry , so retreat them from the fight . Always remember you cannot gun every Tanks at once so the AI TC will always engage the Troopers , making himself vulnerable to Enemy Tank fire . When I am in my Tank and up against Troops , I always disengage unless i 'm in deep woods . How many time we 've been blown to kingdom come by an Enemy Tank while firing the coax at Troops ??!

Sherm and I played "Hillsdale" 2 nights ago and what I did (I was Blue) was to taxi the Troops to a safe spot , dismounted them and make them advance far enough , then I took the empty Brads somewhere else on the Battlefield . I had 3 fronts : Troopers , PC 's , Tanks . It worked a dream !

Btw , Combined Arms is ProPE 's bread and butter . Better get use to it ASAP !! 8)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[ShermansWar]

Congrats on your win last night, GF, I see that the 1st CAD has devised a way to counter my tactics. Design scenarios where their are no APCs, and disarm the infantry,drop the arty way down, thus negating the combined arms approach,as their are no arms to combine.Fill the map with woods, negating any Long range gunnery advantage the M1 has.Then make it long enough so that even skillful maneuver means nothing, so even if you take the objective, you have to hold it for another 50 minutes(we had a victory 40 minutes in), thus playing to the strengths of the tank that is better in the woods, in a battlesight engagement. The Leo, with it's TC options that basically give it a second gunner, a great advantage when trying to spot targets in woods, where situational awareness is paramount.Great ammo also guaranteed first round kills, negating any advantage the M1 armor has, leaving the only real difference the leo, with it's quicker reactions.I'm sure it was just coincidence, but that scenario was tailor made to address the difficulties you have been facing lately.It reminded me of playing opfor in a battlelab.However, it still isnt an answer, a counter to the Combined Arms tactics used lately.

I will say i was suprised to see this type of mission, a sniper tank mission, from the 1st CADs, i assumed being a professional military outfit they would be emphasizing a combined arnms approach themselves.reither way, you found a way.Congrats.

[Bluewings]

Just had a good game . Scenario was TGIF 58 .
Sherman and TankHunter were my Team mates , versus Bandit7 , Hector and Duke .

Both team had a fucking go at each other !! :twisted:

It feel good when you win something after a helluva of a battle ! All players were pleased :D .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Gunfighter]

Congrats on your win last night, GF, I see that the 1st CAD has devised a way to counter my tactics. Design scenarios where their are no APCs, and disarm the infantry,drop the arty way down, thus negating the combined arms approach,as their are no arms to combine.
That's a poor way to defeat Combined Arms. The idea behind Tanker's Nightmare was patience. One had to wait for the Light Infantry to be in a position to assault/manuever before committing Armour.


Fill the map with woods, negating any Long range gunnery advantage the M1 has.Then make it long enough so that even skillful maneuver means nothing, so even if you take the objective, you have to hold it for another 50 minutes(we had a victory 40 minutes in), thus playing to the strengths of the tank that is better in the woods, in a battlesight engagement. The Leo, with it's TC options that basically give it a second gunner, a great advantage when trying to spot targets in woods, where situational awareness is paramount.Great ammo also guaranteed first round kills, negating any advantage the M1 armor has, leaving the only real difference the leo, with it's quicker reactions.I'm sure it was just coincidence, but that scenario was tailor made to address the difficulties you have been facing lately.It reminded me of playing opfor in a battlelab.However, it still isnt an answer, a counter to the Combined Arms tactics used lately.
I agree it was a difficult map, made more difficult with the general lagginess of Friday Nov5, (Stumpy's lone, dancing tank was skidding sideways, backwards and forwards). I would have figured the M1 with its silent engine would have heard a Leo on the otherside(or inside) the woods, especially since we all had to wait for the infantry.


I will say i was suprised to see this type of mission, a sniper tank mission, from the 1st CADs, i assumed being a professional military outfit they would be emphasizing a combined arnms approach themselves.reither way, you found a way.Congrats.
You had, infantry, artillery and armour. No much of the other two, I grant you, but in that type of map, you were forced to use your BRDM/HMV to scout for you until the infantry can secure anchors on the objective. But on our side, RED played on its strengths a guerilla tankers (I thought you have already devised a way to sweep center and south with a wall of infantry)

[Bluewings]

(I thought you have already devised a way to sweep center and south with a wall of infantry)

Nooo , Sherman would never do that ... :mrgreen:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[ShermansWar]

We did.we were quite patient, and did in fact wait for our infantry to scout and generate contacts, which took quite some time.we targeted the areas we neede to to take the objectives, and then proceeded to win the local battles to take the objectives. We acheived a victory at about 45 minutes of game, as indicated by the victory message, and the fact we did, in fact , hold the central and southern objective at that time.

The Problem was the next 45 minutes. Having taken the objectives,we could not stay in the open of the objective itself, obviuosly. we occupied the surroundind environs with supporting BPs.Which meant the woods.Except the scenario did not end.over the next 45 minutes, as we tied ourselves to defending the objectives, we were sniped, By your aforementioned guerrilla tactics, until the scenario was not at all about holding the objectives, but became a battle of annihilation.we could not match Blues gunners in the leos in the woods.
If you watched the AAR you knopw very well we patiently and methodically scouted, and did not, in fact commit our armor. most of our armor was intact at the time the game gave us a victory. we did in fact have a material edge as well at that time.
to scout farther west was useless, although we did anyway, and continued to generate contacts, but what would have been the point to try and chase blue all over the map to kill it's tanks when we had the objectives? to say we had arty is facile, as you well know the delay between calls was so long it qas useless, as red kept mioving. the arty was utterly worthless.
Mnay a time we had inbfantry on top of tAnks we stalked, tracked, hunted and brought to an advantageous position to engage, except we had no anti tank weapons with the infantry.To say we did not use our infantry to scout, or were not patirent is not right, and not accurate.we did. On the contrary, red used it's infantry very little, except in the south, and they did in fact seem to be armed.

also, there wasnt enough infantry for a wall, so please dont be sarcastic. . anyway. how do you know what my plan was, anyway?
was I on all when i gave it?I certainly didnt make a plan before the game.
The infantry being unarmed, they couldnt secure anything.Let alone "establish anchors on the objectives." If you watched the AAR,then you know they did that manuever anyway, only to discover they were Wspent quite a bit of time staring at red tanks within 150 meters, only to eventually get spotted and killed.
The more i reflect upon it, and after reading your post, the more i am convinced the scenario seems tailor made to defeat the tactics i use specifically, and turn it into a sniper tank duel, which was in fact what it denegrated into before it was over.
Had the game ended at 50 minutes, we would have won.in a prolonged hunting match in the would with the leos,with it's TC function, and the team you had, we were'nt up to the task of holding the objective after we took it, for the better part of an hour, as our positions became fixed, and red maneuvered against out tansk individually.I dont consider it an adeqwuate counter, as we had no PCs and the infantry were unarmed. It proved only that it would work in a tailor made set of circumstances, , a set of circumstnces that are, to say the least, not typical.It may be possible to win the scenario from the side i played, but not with patient scouting and maneuver.
Better to let the other side take the objective, on a scenario of that length, and then pick him apart as he is tied to defending that shitty terrain. Taking it wasnt such a problem, after we countered the attack in the south. Holding it was.

[sbrocker8]

I must say I enjoy being under Sherman's command simply because of his combined arms approach to things. Before I started playing with 2D I had NO CLUE how to deploy brads or dismounts. Now I can lose all of my tanks early and still remain a threat on the battlefield using just troopers and their rides to call arty and sneak up on the flanks and rears of tanks... Thanks Sherm!

As for maps, I think it takes a good plan and a good follow up to hold a woodsy area with tanks for any amount of time. I have to agree that I'd much rather be gunning in a Leo than an Abrams while in the woods, and that I hate it when top end ammo is used, but hey, improvise adapt and overcome, right?

I can see how having an infantry force with nothing to kill armor would suck. I like to go for the kill when I spot armor in the woods with my infantry, and not being able to simply work the flanks with infantry just sucks.

[Elf`]

The M1 is in the right hands, more lethal in the woods than any Leo, simply because of the speed and ease of coax engagements when the tank has lost stab. It is also I believe, slightly faster on a battlesight engagement, but I cannot substantiate this. The "great combined arms wave" addressed every problem except woodshedding on actual gunnery.......This scenario (TGIF 60) pointed that out in stunning clarity.....

[Gunfighter]

We did.we were quite patient, and did in fact wait for our infantry to scout and generate contacts, which took quite some time.we targeted the areas we neede to to take the objectives, and then proceeded to win the local battles to take the objectives. We acheived a victory at about 45 minutes of game, as indicated by the victory message, and the fact we did, in fact , hold the central and southern objective at that time.
Well, red did not (at least not in the north. I didn't see the entire AAR since I got dropped). We just charged ahead and took North obj. I came in late in the game (BIG THANKS for coming back for me!!!) and didn't hear Blue CO's plan, just followed where he went.


The Problem was the next 45 minutes. Having taken the objectives,we could not stay in the open of the objective itself, obviuosly. we occupied the surroundind environs with supporting BPs.Which meant the woods.Except the scenario did not end.over the next 45 minutes, as we tied ourselves to defending the objectives, we were sniped, By your aforementioned guerrilla tactics, until the scenario was not at all about holding the objectives, but became a battle of annihilation.we could not match Blues gunners in the leos in the woods.
Is there a way for a combined arms approach to hold an objective, even if only 1/3 of your infantry had AT weapons? I thought maybe the unarmed ones would scout while the tanks overwatched, while the AT Heavy infs would form close protection. Still, 2/3 unarmed vs tanks w/o even a Molotov Cocktail - tough call!


also, there wasnt enough infantry for a wall, so please dont be sarcastic. . anyway. how do you know what my plan was, anyway?
was I on all when i gave it?I certainly didnt make a plan before the game.
The infantry being unarmed, they couldnt secure anything.Let alone "establish anchors on the objectives." If you watched the AAR,then you know they did that manuever anyway, only to discover they were Wspent quite a bit of time staring at red tanks within 150 meters, only to eventually get spotted and killed.
9 infantry squads, 1/3 armed with ATs, overwatched by tanks; I thought that the Idea of the "wall" was not only the Inf, but the Inf supported by armor and arty, so that Guerilla tankers would be spotted by the inf as soon as they fired (or before) and dealt with tank fire. I didn't see the full AAR on the south and Blue sent its infantry late in the game. As for "knowing" your plan; you almost always use combined arms.(BTW I am just guessing that you made the RED plan for TGIF 60) And since the North was crap for red deployment, that left you center and south.


Better to let the other side take the objective, on a scenario of that length, and then pick him apart as he is tied to defending that shitty terrain. Taking it wasnt such a problem, after we countered the attack in the south. Holding it was.
I see your point there, rob the enemy of his manuever and initiative becomes yours. Is there a way to retain your mobility given last TGIF's conditions - while holding the Obj?(Could you leave a BRDM on position and set up Killzones and Ambushes for the Guerilla Tankers using the AT armed Inf and the light infs to spot and scout?)

Again thanks for Coming back to get me in the game.

[ShermansWar]

Remember, wall is your word, not mine. 9 squads spread over that map is squat.No, i dont think there was any way to overwatch the infantry in woods.to keep the tanks that close to the infantry would probably deny infantry the ability to get soundings on enemy BPs, #1, and # 2, to be that close where you could watch infantry in woods, wood mean the tanks were so close to the front, you would effectively be scouting with your tanks anyway, as there isnt enough distance between the infantry and the tanks to give any time, any delay, certainly not enough time to get inside an enemies decision cycle.he is already on top of your tanks at that point.

As for holding the objective with a combined arms approach, sure there are ways.But as i stated,effectively, there were no arms to combine. Hell, you can post and fight with tanks, and one side can outplay the other( which is what happened), but i wouldnt call it combined arms.

As for 1/3 the infantry having ATGMS, remember, this is a TGIF game, where i am DLing the scen, hosting, and making the plan, giving it out, etc. i am usually quite friggin busy on a friday night. i had no time to inspect what units had atgms, and which ones didnt.I assumed they all did. Then none of my troops would fire, then other players said theirs wouldnt after i repeatedlty gave orders for other players on my team to engage targets, only for them to belatedly respond to me that their troops had no antitank weapons. Only then, did i check my own troops and notice they had no atgms or zooks. It was well into the scen before I noticed they had no antitank weaponsAfor the 1/3 that did, maybe mine got killed early, and the other players didnt use theirs, or know where they were, or whatever.i didnt know any trooops didnt have HEAT rds until well into the mission, and after i found out they didnt, i didnt know any did until you mentioned it here.i dont think it was mentioned in breif.Either way i didnt come across the 3 squads that had them.

All in all it did in fact feel very much like a battlelab, where it wasnt so much,"Go out and play your game" as much as "Solve the puzzle" .You guys are making the scenarios, you knew what i would do. Between managing the game, and my team, i didnt have time to go over the scen as thoroughly as i would have liked,(my bad) and just tried to look at the map, and come up with a plan, then communicate it to all the team members,whilst running the whole thing.I came up short. As i said, we took the objectives we wanted to, but couldn't hang on.Not saying it was unfair, just saying the scen did, in fact seem well designed to negate my usual approach, and in addition, did seem to favor the leos, as far as them being better in the woods with the benifit of the tc who gives greater SA in that environment, as opposed to the M1 tankers, who kinda had to look through their sights with a limited field of view, where 360 SA was better to have. If you go to F8, then you wind uo trying to get back into gun after you spot the leo and wind up dead anyway.Probaly one of the reasons i play the way i do to begin with is because it is better for me to know where the enemy is, after my inf have already spotted him, when he is in the woods to begin with, so i simply have to close and engage, as opposed to searching for him in the woods.

Concerning setting up kill zones, we tried, but our BPs were approached by stealth. also, our players did in fact lose their aggression after we took the objectives.
the infantry, which had scouted west, at that point became seperated from the tanks, who were for the most part trying to overwatch the objs from the wood edges. the tanks on the woods edges got sniped, the tanks deep in the woods were unable to cover the obs, and got hunted down slowly by the better leo gunners.the more aggressive of our players did in fact wind up playing hide and seek with the leos in the woods, but, unfortunately, we lost the majority of those engagements, which i attribute to red having better gunners, and the leos having better SA in the woods.otherwise those engagements shoukld have broken even, but they didnt. it was where your guerrilla tactics worked, but, as i said, it had to be in a scenario engineered for that approach.

[OilBucket]

The M1 is in the right hands, more lethal in the woods than any Leo
Bullseye Elf, far superior IMO.

[Elf`]

How to stop Sherman. Take all the bazookas away. Take all the arty away. Take all the PC's away. Leave him with a tank gun... SO what we are left with is knock Sherman out so he has an acid dream where armies fight with one vehicle type.... That was a bummer and return to the old "arcade days" of TGIF. I guess the Greeks went thru the same thing...............

[ShermansWar]

Well, you can try and beat me with a tank in a 1v1 game, but i think i do OK.Wasnt just me got beat, please recall.

We did, in fact, take the objective.

Elf, if the coax works so well in the woods, then why didnt you use the coax against the leos who trapped you in the woulds and then whacked you when you tried to move?

OB, what makes an M1 superior in the woods, exactly, in your opinion, when both have A3 ammo, bearing in mind the leo has an extra set of eyes, with it's TC slave gun to periscope option??

[OilBucket]

Oh, forgot to add about tanks in woods thingy. Tanks in the woods is ( That I can recall at moment ) is the only issue I have with this game unless I'm ignorant about something, There's no tank in the world that can move through woods like this game does. Not any woods that I know of ( definitely not in Mississippi and I assume any other woods in the world ) unless its fresh cut-over woods and judging by the height and density of the trees in the game, its not. I ponder daily what the Devs were thinking about this. I'm hoping they have faith in the scenario designers would take a realistic view of this and put restrictions in movement of all vehicles other than infantry in these areas. Moral of this story is, I wish scenarios would be more realistic in the woods being a mix of cut-over or full. With some exceptions of scenarios being all full/cut-over woods (very possible ) would be great. Otherwise the way its been played with cut-over type, is arcadish to me. Having a brutal confrontation in/around heavy woods can be just as stimulating as a finesse game in high-weeds kinda woods, hehe. But WTH, just my opinion.

[OilBucket]

The main reason ( which I cant believe nobody else has mentioned ) why I think the M1 is superior, is in its quietness. I look at it as the " Ninja" of the woods. The " so-called " advantages of the Leo in woods with your above statement I think , is miniscule, at least in this game. BTW, I thought you did a good job of commanding Friday under the circumstances. The time issue kinda threw us off-sync as we're not used to it. And the obvious infantry lack of munitions was totally over-looked by all of us on our side, not your fault there. Not to take away credit for the blue side though, great job blue!

[Poker]

I don't think there's any major differences between Leo's and M1's in the woods ... just a matter of a few tricks of being able to guess where to be and where to look - after that it's a matter of luck.
I have not seen any discussion of woods tactics... perhaps I'm missing something, and what I consider essential aspects of wood engagements are simply my own misnomer ?

[OilBucket]

Tricks is the name of the game Poker. But where to come at your enemy tank is key. And you can do that in the M1 whereas the Leo is a lot more dangerous than in a M1, ( if you have 3D surround sound card ).

Poker wrote
I have not seen any discussion of woods tactics

Actually there should be none if you look at it realistically as far as tank action unless via roads or trails unless there was set-up positions whereas it was done before game initiation as there is not enough alloted time to do such due to time restraints in scenarios we play.

[DrDevice]

The converse of the M1s turbine is the Leo's ability to quickly go completely silent by turning off its engine. A good Leo driver will be able to sprint and drift in the woods and be completely silent while still. This negates the M1's quieter engine, and the M1 can't shut down or start up as fast.

I find the M1 TC position friendlier than the Leo in game: once you learn to slew the turret and use the on-screen guide, you can get the gun laid on target pretty well, and then use F2 to use the GPSE to take the shot. The Leo TC has no auto lead in KW mode, and therefore has a tougher override-style shot.


The wider FOV while searching is just as valuable as the more accurate Leo system of slaving the gun. In real life, the twin-peri system is much cooler, but in game, I tend to prefer the TC in the M1. (The AI TC is dead-eye accurate when slewing the gun, making the peri a moot point.)

All this aside: the TC spot sucks while in the woods, being that getting low to the ground to see under the trees is the trick, and the POV for the TC is so high. I prefer to let the AI TC in those cases.

I'm with OB though: I wish there was a practical way to end the "drive through the whole damn forest" effect. I know that destructible trees is better than the completely impassible alternative, but as OB points out: no tank drives through trees like that.
Pro will solve this, I'm sure, but the wait is long!

[OilBucket]

The converse of the M1s turbine is the Leo's ability to quickly go completely silent by turning off its engine. A good Leo driver will be able to sprint and drift in the woods and be completely silent while still. This negates the M1's quieter engine, and the M1 can't shut down or start up as fast.

True that Dr. D. but , But if I'm in hearing range I can still pinpoint it where the engine was shut off and hone in still. Being idle aint gonna help it a whole lot either, least not what I've experienced. Yes, I hope SBPE will and sure they will the effects of forests.

[ShermansWar]

dr d, you gonna get killed in M1 TC in the amount of time it takes to get from TC to gpse in an m1 in a battlesight engagement.I know of few tankers who prefer the TC in the M1 over the leo.And either way, if you are using the GPSE in the M1, you are looking in the same direction as the gunner. In the leo, the gunner can lok forward and take the shot, while the TC can scan and also take the shot, giving coverage in 2 different arcs in the leo, where as you only have 1 in the M1.Mnay times i have been looking at a leo from the side or rear, only to have the turret suddenly slew and fire. this doesnt happen with the M1, you are basically restricted to what can be seen from the gunsight, and the frontal arc.

Poker, if you have some insights into" essential aspects for woods engagements", please share them . Hey, i showed you mine, where's yours,lol?

[OilBucket]

Actually Sherm, I've seen the M1 do the same thing as you're saying the Leo does so well. Not being contradictory on purpose. And I've heard the complete opposite, some people like being the TC in a M1 better than Leo. And unfortunately, theres an arcadish option to look outside the tank other than the true positions, though it does somewhat cover what the TC can see.

[Elf`]

In wood, the fact that the M1 Turbine cant be shut down is in fact moot. It can be demonstrated that, in a typical BS engagement(50-650m), in woods, the Leo's engine noise is not blocked from outside view. The M1 can idle, and still maintain a strong passive track on a Leo, which can only hear the M1 if it stops and shuts down. This is easy to hear from the M1. The reason the Leo TC does not help substantially in the woods is that the TC sight is even higher in the foliage than the Main gun sight, which is on the turret front. Same applies to M1 main gunsight and TC. Even with "tricks", these things are difficult to account for and require a little skill in placement.
All said and done? the kicker is skill. The faster draw, and more skillful you are at using the incredible cover offered by woods, the more likely you are to win that particular engagement.

[Poker]

Sherman, I have little to offer other than the basics ... keep an ear out, and maintain SA.
I get killed in woods regularly, so i wouldn't rate my tactics as anything worthy of study.

[sbrocker8]

I have to say I prefer fighting from the gunner's seat. I suck at initiating engagements in the M1 TC seat and as far as I'm concerned the only good thing about it is being able to use the .50 cal. The TC seat in the Leo is a little more forgiving for me. However the main reason I like to fight from the gunners seat is the AI gunners in this game are crappy at best, and because the TC usually spots whatever I miss, whereas I miss most things in the TC seat.

I think that in the woods, I'd rather have the ability to quickly shut off engines and then restart within a second or two than being slightly quieter. However I've been in situations in and around woods where I've encountered LOTS of troops in an M1, and having the TC kick in with that big nasty .50 was a nice little reassurance...

[Vacquero]

FFD....FFD....FFD....FFD......FFD.....FFD

[Cobra2]

how come you dont get any info on the number of troops you kill in SB? real bumber. also, a good arty call should be a personal kill. i managed to take out 9 enemy AFVs in a MP game at one time. i had to go through every arty call i made in the AAR to count em. it would also be nice to know if it was ICM or HE. i did kill an M1 with HE once, and i know this because there was no ICM in the sce.

[Bluewings]

As the release of Pro PE is now very close , I can add my 2 cents regarding the TC positions and the ~to my POW~ extrem advantage the Leo2 A4/5 's TC has .

As Sherman pointed out rightly (after I explained to him long ago) , the Leo 's TC has 2 advantages over his collegue in the M1HA :
# he can slew , track a target and fire the main gun from his own Peri who has the same opticals than the ones the gunner use (TIS and/or Magnification) , but he has 'nt got any lead , he must add lead manualy .
# spotting abilities : here we touch a very old debate in between Leo/Abrams lovers ! The former fight better buttoned up while the later fight un-buttoned .
Who has the edge in spotting abilities ? Surely the Abrams 's TC can slew his eyes/bino faster than any peri can , but binos are not stabilized , the Leo 's peri is . Also , the Abram 's TC can hear better what 's going on around his Tank than the ohter TC , being outside .
So he has the advantage . In fact no , not at all . Get yourself in the shoes of the TC who just spotted an enemi Tank .

Abram 's TC :
(1st option) "Gunner ! enemy Tank @4 O'clok 700m , Sabot up , fire at will !"
(2nd option) He dives inside , overide and slew the turret then goes to the GPSE while instructing the gunner of what is going on .

Leo 's TC :
He 's locked on target already , he slews the turret and fire .

It is why the Leopard , Leclerc and the Japanese Type-90 are called Hunter-Killer .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TopKick]

With the M1 TC, all he has to do is hit the overide and put the gun/gunner on target and the gunner does the rest. If the gunner can't identify the target the the A1 TC hits the GPSE sight and does a precise lay and fires it himself if the gunner still doesn't see the target. It only takes a moment or two to do all this. The key is to elevate the .50 barrell slightly and use it as an aiming devise when he overides the gunner and places him on the target. If the TC hasn't moved the .50 out of turret interlock then the .50 sight can be used when buttoned up to place the gunner on target. Repetely pushing the joystick hat switch forward will place the TC facing the gunner's line of sight even when buttoned up and staring through the .50 sight or vision blocks. It's no big deal really, it just takes lots of practice to be fast and proficient in the M1 TC position.

If you set the difficulty realism level to anything but high, the TC will see [ ] brackets in the direction the gun is pointed.

I assume most of this will remain the same in SB Pro PE. We'll see.

[Bluewings]

It's no big deal really
Indeed not , but it is a long deal ...
it just takes lots of practice to be fast and proficient in the M1 TC position
Sure , but the fact still , he (the TC) has to dive inside the turret , to start with ... then ..., etc ...

Basically , the Leo 's TC is in position of hitting the trigger a good 5 secs ~if not more~ before the Abram's TC can .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TopKick]

For American tank crews, 5 seconds used to be the standard time for opening fire on a target from the time of identification until target hit. Whether the firing tank or target was moving or not didn't matter. That time didn't change no matter where the TC happened to be. Two rounds out the tube, if needed, should not have taken longer than 10 seconds. In any case the entire engagement was to last no longer than 15 seconds.

I dont know what the standards are now, or what the standard times are for a Leo crew.

[DrDevice]

BW...comparing the M1A1 to the Leclerc or 90 or Leo2 (A5 or more) is a bad comparison. Since the H/K concept came to prominence, the M1 system HAS embraced it...in the M1A2. The M1A1 is older and a design evolution behind the systems you named. You persist in doing that…and it’s apples to oranges.

The M1A2's H/K ability is more capable than any of the "1st generation" H/K systems you named. The TIS mag is higher (50x) and the overall SA is superior from IVIS or FBCB2 than the Leo2A5 or Type 90. (The Leclerc's system is also a 2nd generation information management system, from what I've read.)

When it comes to SB: I can TC an M1 and take advantage of the superior vision arc vs. the Leo TC peri. Stabilization doesn't matter in SB...my view out of the hatch is not really affected by the motion of the tank. In fact, the Leo’s periscope staying slaved to one spot is more difficult for me to manage than the unbuttoned TC view in the M1. And since I can slew the turret with pretty good accuracy to get the gunner on target, the peri’s advantage is reduced yet again. I can also override an AI gunner (if you are playing TC only, you really shouldn't jump into the gunner's seat) if needed and make the shot much easier than the Leo. I play most of my SP games from TC only positions w/o F8 view, so the “unbuttoned” fight is much easier for me. As you mentioned, the buttoned Leo has some significant advantages, but with an AI gunner: give me an M1 any day to make sure that a critical shot gets done right.

I think we should work up a fully manned tanks game for Leo and M1 TC/Gunner pairs. I'd love to see the Leo vs. M1 comparison for real humans. We need to come up with a format for say, 8 players per side, with only 1 platoon of tanks. 8 guys, 2 per tank. That would really test the mettle IMO. You have no “spare” tank….fight smart, or die fast.

I’ll take your “5 second” challenge, and ask you to back it up with action. I’ll take an M1, as TC, with a human gunner, vs. your Leo and a human gunner. We’ll set up the game with all FMT tanks. We’ll see who comes out with the better SA and the win. :twisted:

So…who’s game? (countdown to SCUD’s reply in 5…4…3…)

[PS-SCUD]

:twisted:

[12Alfa]

I tend to side with BW on this.
Having the CC looking at the target and the means to slew the gunner onto it is a better system as well the ability to engage it him self with this type of targeting system.

I myself like to command outside , so the the M1 style of commanding is what i use, as this is what the commander/gunner type used on the m1

This (Leo2A4) has been the better system, and thous why the M1A2 has gone down this route.

As for what system is best, well thats goin to be solved real soon I would think with SB Pro Pe.
Its all good really guys.

[TopKick]

As long as we regain some manner of control of the .50 cal again ... say like ... slugish input from a joystick instead of the tickling the arrow key, I'll be a happy camper. Well ... and the ability to issue platoon fire commands would be awesome.

[Elf`]

Hey Device If I can have SNAP as my gunner Im game for a fully man sce...

[Bluewings]

Sure , Its all good really guys :)

Neverhteless ( :mrgreen: ) , I stand my ground as far as SB is concerned . ' never been in the real things anyway ...
It is why sooo much discussion took place about why the M1 SEP is not in SB , or at leats not yet . Maybe one day ...
Until then , the Leo2A5 has the edge as Pro PE will probably demonstrate .

Btw DD , having SCUD as your gunner is not an advantage as long as Sean agrees to be mine 8) :lol:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[DrDevice]

OK...we have at least a few crews ready to go. I'll work up a .sce where we can play FMT, M1 vs. Leo. In fact...I'll do 2-3 so we have some variety. My dream group is 4 crews per side on a "realistically" small area. (8 vs. 8) I'll see about making it a bit less for crew requirements, so we don't have to get that many at once, which tends to be difficult.

BTW...I'd be glad to have SCUD as a gunner, but the comment was aimed at him because he's also a big FMT fan. He and Stumpy are a wicked pair, from what I hear. I'd take Puckstop if he were still active, but I think I can come up with a partner soon enough.

Give me a week or so to come up with the .sces, but I think this will make a fun holdout while we wait for ProPE.

[RIPper]

i'd like to join a FMT game... is there anyone crazy enough to let me in his tank? :)

[Bluewings]

DD , I do not play SB 1 anymore . I was talking Pro PE ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[DrDevice]

Suit yourself. We'll go on without you until we have ProPE. Then we'll set it up for the new game too.

[SFViper19D]

Sure , Its all good really guys :)

Neverhteless ( :mrgreen: ) , I stand my ground as far as SB is concerned . ' never been in the real things anyway ...
It is why sooo much discussion took place about why the M1 SEP is not in SB , or at leats not yet . Maybe one day ...
Until then , the Leo2A5 has the edge as Pro PE will probably demonstrate .

Btw DD , having SCUD as your gunner is not an advantage as long as Sean agrees to be mine 8) :lol:

Cheers . :3starSK:

Forgive my question here but I find it tiresome to comb through 50 pages of old post on dial-up but:

Why is the M1A2 or M1A2 SEP not modeled? Too new?

Thanks for your indulgence...

[PS-SCUD]

The U.S. Army has not given eSim a contract to develop the simulation for them.

Therefore, there is both a lack of necessary information, and a lack of motivation to create a M1A2 model.

[Bluewings]

Indeed , if the US Army ask for Pro PE there is no doubts that the SEP would be implemented in no time .

SCUD , there is certainly no lack of motivation . As a matter of fact , the M1A2 SEP is planned for SB2 but Pro PE demands the vehicules to be as close as possible to the real things and guessing the real capabilities of the SEP is a no-no . We need to get it right .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[PS-SCUD]

SCUD , there is certainly no lack of motivation

I think it's called money BW.

[SFViper19D]

Well that all makes sense, thanks for the info.

I bet there would be plenty o' vets to give their expertise to fine tune the SEP ;)

[Bluewings]

I think it's called money BW.
We don 't need money to implement the M1A2 SEP ~ besides paying Dejawolf to make the model~ but rather real datas .
I bet there would be plenty o' vets to give their expertise to fine tune the SEP
Sure :) , but we need more than that ... fine tuning the Tank is of course primordial and necessary .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[PS-SCUD]

We don 't need money to implement the M1A2 SEP ~ besides paying Dejawolf to make the model

I think it's this simple BW:

Making the M1A2 won't sell enough extra copies of SB Pro PE to justify its creation. How many people who won't buy Pro PE now would buy it if it had an M1A2?


In SB2 there is another cocern: Game balance. The Leo2A5 is a better tank than the M1A1, so how do you balance it out? An M1A2 might be desirable.

[SFViper19D]

In SB2 there is another cocern: Game balance. The Leo2A5 is a better tank than the M1A1, so how do you balance it out? An M1A2 might be desirable.

That was my thought. Generally in a sim you want to get as close as possible to real life. Understandable. I just get a chuckle about seeing ppl argue over which vehicle is better in the game and then base their arguements off of real life....and the game isn't even using current models of the vehicles. Leo vs. M1....M2 vs Marder/Jag. If the game has a superior version of the Leo over an older model M1, isn't that a skewed comparison? You kinda have to keep the game in the game and rl in rl.

Scouts Out

[Bluewings]

hum ... Viper is actually correct . As an exemple me in a Leo1A5 would kick TankHunter's ass in his SEP ! :mrgreen:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[SFViper19D]

:shock: lol, oh well...

[TankHunter]

:lol:
Well, considering that me no likes the FCS on the M1, you are correct, well, maybe not. I’ll pop your turret anyway, bub. :twisted:

[Bluewings]

We 'll see TH , we 'll see . Very soon :wink:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Gunfighter]

Sean,

What happend to this Thread's pictures? They were excellent examples of OODA and Combined arms.

GF

[Gunfighter]

They disappear when you are not logged in.

[taskforce-panther]

couldnt get permission???? theres a pissload of games that feature them1a2 on em
Armored Fist is one

[DrDevice]

theres a pissload of games that feature them1a2 on em
Armored Fist is one

Of course there are. The keyword is: GAMES. Not simulations.

eSim could just make a best-guess at almost any vehicle that has public specs. (Like a plastic model - for dimensions for the 3D model)

However, that would undermine the entire intent of this being a training tool, not a game.

The data needed for this company to execute a vehicle for Steel Beasts is significantly more detailed than the crap-ass knock offs of Armored Fist, OFP, America's Army, or any other dime-a-dozen FPS games.