![]() ![]() Soviet doctrine for T-54s and T-55s was single engagements to 1000 meters, with platoon volley fire or even company at greater range. ![]() ARVN tankers were superbly trained (to full US standards) compared to the NVA tankers, and it definitely told in tank duels. This last was in the article I couldn't find but described an action to stop the NVA armor from fording or swimming (PT-76) the river near a destroyed bridge. ARVN armored units in good order, using M41A3 and M48A3 tanks, shot up NVA armored forces from ranges so extreme the NVA tankers were screaming in clear they were in a minefield. In general, the forces are more evenly matched in most aspects.Ĭouldn't find the right article, but these should give at least some sense of relative capabilities. It has a feel all its own compared to the other CM games. In this game, this principle is very, very true. The training back in the day always taught that those that spotted and fired first would win the duel a large percentage of the time. The playtesting has made me rethink how best to use my armor assets once again. ![]() Hull down, keyhole firing positions, "Hunt/pause/reverse" fire and move plots, using the ends of treelines to snipe from behind, are real keys. I've played as US with M48s and had them exploding all around me, thinking "Damn, these things are useless", and then played the Soviets thinking I'll set up a nice overwatch and plink away at the M60s in the valley and had my T62s and T64s shot off the hill like so many bottles on a fence. It was either that or leave a lot of smoke plumes decorating the battlefield. ![]() I found in my play testing I almost always had to play like I knew I was facing tanks of much better quality, playing either side. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |