|
Option 2, TG3 seems like the best option. If those BMP2s have ATGMs that's a lot of armor killing ability without a massive need to worry if you lose a few. Even if you lost half of them to the enemy before eliminating their armored threats you still have close to a dozen left to mop up infantry and soak Javelin hits. The problem with a fewer number of better quality units is that each of them will be just as dead when they take a hit from anything designed to defeat armor. I think we'd be far better off with the greater quantity of units and the infantry and other support assets that come with them. We're going to take some losses, lets not make our outcome dependent on keeping a few high-quality units alive.
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:Balls Would you say they are twice as good? We get twice as many BMP2s with TG3. Given the AA and aircraft options we've been presented I don't think it's too far out of line to assume that they may also be getting some air assets. Perhaps a Cobra and an A10? Who knows Our AA doesn't outrange them, so we've already lost on that front until they run out of long range guided munitions to throw at us. How many vehicles of ours are they going to take out before that happens? 6? 12? At least if you lost 12 BMP2s, you'd have another 12 to throw at them. Lose those numbers from TG2 and that would just about be the entirety of the reinforcement group. Lose the same number from TG3 and you still have over half of those reinforcements remaining. If you really think having a few units from TG2 with a countermeasure system is going to make up the difference in numbers then I don't know what to say. TG3 in my mind provides far better offensive capability that won't be whittled away by bad luck or a few casualties. It's got better staying power than TG2, as in most cases whatever kills a unit from TG3, will also kill one from TG2 (unless it happens to be one with ERA). It will maintain substantial offensive capabilities even after significant losses, where TG2 will not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
No, not any longer for 3/5 Though still missing the same for 2 coy. Also, how are weapons platoons being handled?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
  3/5 ORDERS Order of March: Unit 1, Unit 2, HQ Unbutton those hatches, and wait for 2nd Coy to pass before moving out. Then Move following the provided route:  Unit 1 will continue to the indicated destination without stopping, then seek cover and face SE Unit 2 and HQ will break off of the main road at the indicated point, HQ Will set up in this area utilizing available cover facing ESE Unit 2 will continue until the indicated destination, halting where the trees bracket the road and face ESE FrozenLiquidity fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Im extremely apprehensive about moving our tanks especially if the reports of enemy armor on overwatch are true. The one that has solid contact should probably stay put. We might be able to get eyes on with another tank in short order, but would agree that any major movements would best be performed by less valuable assets. I would think we have at least a good minute to continue the beating before having to get too concerned about retaliatory fire. Given that we have clear shots on enemy armor, but their significant armor assets do not have clear shots on us yet, I would expect them to be moving their assets into more suitable positions rather than waiting it out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
3/5 ORDERS HQ Tank No change. Tank 1 (on hill near tower) No change. Tank 2 (currently engaged) Stop missing. More double-kills. If this unit is not currently engaged with any targets at the end of a turn, then please have him reverse slightly to the yellow circle.  Otherwise, stay put and continue to engage enemy units. Call-in Please process the following fire mission from my units - https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3792674&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=10#post465289079 FrozenLiquidity fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Oct 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlX98jpb5zM Brown trousers time for 3/5 Tank 2. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
abelian posted:Hiding doesn't just degrade spotting; it more or less eliminates it. The way the game works, units who are hiding will not spot a tank until it is right on top of them. Our recon units should not be hiding, except in dire emergencies. Pretty much this. Found this out the hard way in one of the previous combat mission games. Tanks can literally roll up on troops that are hiding and still not be "seen".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Welps, I guess #2 will be mostly sitting this one out. I understand that he's hull down for the most part, though the turret may have some sight lines and therefore maintain some combat effectiveness, provided that he can see anything from this position. Being buttoned up on there doesn't help, so that'll need to change. As for HQ and #1, I'm not seeing any sensible moves for them that would be worth blowing their cover, so I think they're best off staying put and making the best of their current positions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
abelian posted:Are you sure about this? It flies in the face of reality. I'd expect a buttoned tank to have good to excellent spotting in the direction that it was facing, but very poor situational awareness. And in the T-90A, the gunner has a thermal sight, but the commander does not. Let me know what you'll find. Our bunker/turret will need all the spotting it can muster.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Hubis posted:this loving game Right then, unbuttoned it is!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
3/5 ORDERS HQ Tank No change. Tank 1 (on hill near tower) No change. Tank 2 (wtfstuck!) Turn out and get that turret pointed back towards the last seen enemy contacts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Holy crap.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Phi, Let me know what kind of movement you have in mind for our Steel beasts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
NastyToes posted:3rd company 5/2 is sitting right behind a small tree. The target command says he still has LOS in front of him but we already shot a tree twice so he might want to move to the right a smidge. I am tempted to do this. I generally trust the LOS indication to be accurate, though that doesn't mean the shot won't hit an obstacle. I am worried about movement of this being seen and having the position compromised. I can't see which positions the enemy occupies may have sight on this though. Otherwise it's a sound move. NastyToes posted:3rd company 5/1 is surrounded by trees and doesn't have LOS on the road at all. 5/1 is in a position to cover the northern flank of the area we've put some artillery on, in case they were to try flanking around it. I don't know if 5/3 can see that from where it is immobilized, but if it is providing sufficient cover, then 5/1 could reposition. Could pull the remaining tanks back into sheltered positions with little visibility if we're simply looking to preserve them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 21:08
|
|
