Matrix Games Forums

I`m still playing with the tutorial scenario, among others, while reading and absorbing the manual fine points of C & C. It`s an amazing experience to see the tutorial AI play out differently numerous times,in an intelligent way. Honestly, a few times I thought I was playing PBEM turns[X(].

One thing I can`t seem to get down is the effective use of the NATO on map tracked/leg AA vs those nasty Hinds. The AA don`t seem to want to shoot, even well inside effective ranges with a LOS to the target, while the Red air prioritize the NATO AA threat ( very smart AI! ) as does the AI controlled NATO choppers.) Any hints appreciated.

I had some success when I got my AD unit in the city. It's tough. Tanks and APCs with AD guns can drive the helos off too.

Ive tried this scenario again w/new patch...

The NATO AD unit shows a fire range of 1200M in unit armaments or like 3 hexes...but the Show Fire Area shows say 10+ hexes. Not sure how to interpret this.

thx

Tombo, can you please get a screen shot? Thanks.

Capn, i figured it out. A Javelin team was with the AD unit.

On a different topic...if im using limited orders option, how do i know the number of available orders i have?

ORIGINAL: tombo

Capn, i figured it out. A Javelin team was with the AD unit.

On a different topic...if im using limited orders option, how do i know the number of available orders i have?

Right side. Select "Player" tab. "Orders this phase: X of Y."

ORIGINAL: Richard III
Any hints appreciated.

Sit #1: Two Hinds(4 strength each) attack a Brit Chieftain company (Range 500 meters) with two Rapiers in overwatch at different locations. Both Rapiers are no more than 2km. Results: Chieftain company entirely eliminated with one step of Hinds shot down. How many missiles fired, eight. That is even with the tank company firing....Hogwash

Sit #2: Two Hinds (4 and 5 strength units) attack a Brit infantry company (Warriors), again with two Rapier units overwatching in different locations. Of three 8 strength platoons before the attack, two 3 strength and one 2 strength platoon remain. Six Rapier shots NO HITS. NO HITS from the infantry or their Warriors despite firing for all there worth........Hogwash

The Hinds are way overrated.

Paul,

We have made a few adjustments in the data for SAMs that boosts the low to mid-range SAMs up a bit in firepower and also removed any min range requirements from MANPADs (should not have been there to start with). Along with some AI changes in 2.02 this should have the AD units biting with a bit more teeth when 2.03 comes out in January.

The Hinds are brutes and look awesome in the face of limited AD capabilities. That should change a bit with the update. Of course, the bad guys missiles will be better too.

That would be nice. I like this game a lot, but thought that was excessive.

Cheers

ADA has been tweaked again as well as continuing to look for historical data to back up any actual results that are time period relevant.

Good Hunting.

MR

I made a simple test scn and played it several times head to head, both day and night.

US: 1 x M163A2 Vulcan plt and 1 x M48A1 Chaparral Plt
WP: 3 x MI-24P Flight(4 ship element)

Night: I set up the ADA on the high ground and set them to Hold, then flew Hinds at 'em. At night, the Chaparrals do not engage, even at 1500 meters. Vulcans engage at 2000 meters. I kept the Hinds at 1500 meters stand off and waited for sunrise. As soon as the sun came up, the Chaparrals engaged.

Day: Both units are engaging out to their max range.

A tactic I use when playing NATO in dealing with those nasty Hinds is to move my units so that they can support one another. When the Hinds fly into a nest of ground units close enough to support one another, they can demoralize the Hinds and will even get a few hits in. I have defeated Hinds on several occasions just moving units close enough to one another to provide covering fire for one another.

Jeff,

I missed this post. Can you post your scenario so I can see if the thermal sights fix works for the M48A1 at night?

Thanks.

Got this bug squashed now for 2.04. Thanks for the heads up. I part of the test for fire that was not taking the sensors fully into account.