View Single Post
  #9  
Old July 2nd, 2006, 03:14 PM
Mobhack's Avatar

Mobhack Mobhack is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 5,929
Thanks: 441
Thanked 1,855 Times in 1,219 Posts
Mobhack is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.

Quote:


No they are being used for direct fire, armour protected, close range, direct fire, because they dont have to dismount which is error I am pointing out.

As I said before. This is not a problem with the unit, but with your opponent using an SP-Mortar as an assault gun. All mortars and SP-mortars can fire direct fire over open sights with no set up time. As can any SP-arty.

If you do not like your PBEM opponent doing this, then speak to him.

And Sp-mortars, as I said, need 1 turn stationary to plot indirect fires. Just like other mortars. And other SP-arty.

Quote:

I just play the game as is, I am interested in discussing areas of the game that can be improved (made more realistic). swapping unit 130 for formation 118 is one of them, You do not have to apply these changes of course but you should admit that my point is in fact correct, which I have as yet not seen. Then the discussion can move forward or end.

Your point is your own opinion. If your PBEM opponent is using these things in a manner that you think is ahistoric - have a word with him.

If we see fit to remove the carrier 3in mortar (we may) - you will still have him doing the same thing in 43 onwards, with the M3 halftrack SPM (or the Sdkfz 250 one or whatever).

So - you need to discuss this tactic with your PBEM opponent, if it happens to annoy you. Not us.

Quote:

You are a rarity then. Maybe Im just lucky but my experience is that unit 130 is almost always used as a cheap fast close range infantry killer its Hit value of 9 comparing very well with say the stug 75, a real assault gun, which has hit 5. Ive played 60 or so PBEM
Discuss the use of SPM as direct fire arty with your PBEM opponents in the pre-game negotiation then, if you do not like the tactic.

Some people are simply not bothered by that use of SPM - as it makes them rather vulnerable to AT fires.

Quote:

I asked a question in my previous post which you didnt answer, I would still be interested to hear your thoughts. So Ill rephrase it here
Does restricting unit 130 to the ANZAC OOB post 1943 and replacing unit 130 with Formation No. 118 elsewhere bugger up the senarios?

1) As I said, the patch was in the middle of preapration, and so a large piece of work at that point was not wanted. Patch now released to playtesters and Shrapnel, so should be with the end users in a week or so.

2) Thanks for the offer, but if we are going through the scenarios and all the user campaigns oobs and the AI pick list code, we will do that ourselves.

4) Anything that involves a troll through all the scenarios etc is a large piece of work. For a minor thing like this particular carrier variant (nothing earth shattering), we may well do so but well after the patch is out.

However - as stated above, your real problem is not the units themselves, but some PBEM opponent taking them and doing something that annoys you. So - simply agree with him that formation No. 37 will be verboten till 3/43 when the halftrack SPM arrives. Now there is a simple, if perhaps radical solution to your problem - work it out with your PBEM opponent in the pre-game negotiation phase where you agree numbers of planes, amounts of arty etc. (If he refuses, then simply do not play the guy, if it bugs you so much).

Cheers
Andy
Reply With Quote