TI what is it good for?

[Suhiir]

On a related subject.

Anyone here had and direct experience with Ground Surveillance Radar (GSR) ?
From my understanding in any terrain with more then minimal vegetation (i.e. anything more then the occasional tree here and there) the stuff is of limited value.

[thatguy96]

I heard an anecdote from a professor of mine who had served in Korea who said that the AN/PPS-5A units they were using to keep an eye on the DMZ couldn't tell the difference between dislodged ice chunks floating in a river and a truck convoy (which apparently almost started an incident according to him).

[Ramm]

About what time period was he serving there?

Andrew

[Imp]

Actually this IS about the worse " worse case sceanrio" I can think of. A newbie playing as the Iraqi's in the desert against the Americans.

No..... I stand corrected, you could have the map visibility set to 5 for a night battle. That would be worse.

Maybe a nice "balkans" battle in the 1960s might make a better game at this stage for you?

Tried this with visibility about 15 to represent the oil fires & nothing but a wadi or 2 as a terrain feature. Getting a look at the enemy let alone engaging him is nigh on impossible & makes you realise why they stopped. Not a lot diffrent to just lining them up & shooting.

Yug Croatia as in Serbs similar equipment if Serb infantry is a bit lacking.

TI vs none TI. In Europe it is not such a big problem anywhere with cover you just need to exploit it.
Problems.
1) He can see into hexes you cant so you can get caught out, as in he can see through trees you cant.
2) Be very aware of his smoke capabilities as when its popped he can still see so high kill chance engages or bleed his smoke ability are the order of the day.
3) It is hard work would not play several games in a row at especially if visibility is below 40. Low visibility & open terrain is when it becomes a turkey shoot he can take up position with good intel you are to all intents blind.

[narwan]

NATO TI vs WP non TI can be a problem in games where the parameters (points and map size) are chosen to fit the (much more expensive) NATO force (which happens all the time). That means that if you can buy enough TI equipment to cover your entire front line adequately and with some to spare you've either got far too many points or a map that's much too small.

Under such circumstances the numerical advantage of the WP accounts for far less than it should. WP forces weren't supposed to blindly throw themselves at enemy strong points. A specific setup should allow for manouvre to play a significant part.
And compensate the WP by giving them plenty of air points (more than NATO as they employed far more aircraft and helicopters for CCS).

Narwan

[Ramm]

Originally Posted by narwan

NATO TI vs WP non TI can be a problem in games where the parameters (points and map size) are chosen to fit the (much more expensive) NATO force (which happens all the time). That means that if you can buy enough TI equipment to cover your entire front line adequately and with some to spare you've either got far too many points or a map that's much too small.

Under such circumstances the numerical advantage of the WP accounts for far less than it should. WP forces weren't supposed to blindly throw themselves at enemy strong points. A specific setup should allow for manouvre to play a significant part.
And compensate the WP by giving them plenty of air points (more than NATO as they employed far more aircraft and helicopters for CCS).

Narwan

I see what you are saying but it was either Don or Andy that said under no circumstances would the map and unit limit be getting bigger, so TI will always be king. For me I only use the 80x100 and I never have even reached the limit for core. But for a pro I could see how these two things could be a grave disappointment.

Andrew

[Double_Deuce]

Originally Posted by Ramm

I see what you are saying but it was either Don or Andy that said under no circumstances would the map and unit limit be getting bigger, so TI will always be king. For me I only use the 80x100 and I never have even reached the limit for core. But for a pro I could see how these two things could be a grave disappointment.

Many maps, unless you are in the desert (or steppes for Russia) usually have enough rolling terrain and trees to allow for reducing the TI advantage somewhat. Using wingmen and overwatch helps as well. Some players have a bad tendency to advance too quickly, poking around to see what shoots at them. Playing with BTR equipped forces will generally break you of that habit pretty quickly.

[narwan]

For modern games I'd rarely play on anything but a very large map (max size or at least close to it) and with enough terrain features to break LOS considerably. It doesn't have to be close terrain everywhere but remember that 5 or 6 tanks with TI (vis 40 each) can cover the entire max map size in completely clear terrain. There's little fun in that if your on the other side (I play PBEM mostly, rarely against the AI anymore). Those are indeed ideal conditions for TI so assume the enemy has some brains and will choose to fight in terrain and under conditions which if not favorable to them, at least aren't suicidal.

Narwan

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by narwan

For modern games I'd rarely play on anything but a very large map (max size or at least close to it) and with enough terrain features to break LOS considerably. It doesn't have to be close terrain everywhere but remember that 5 or 6 tanks with TI (vis 40 each) can cover the entire max map size in completely clear terrain. There's little fun in that if your on the other side (I play PBEM mostly, rarely against the AI anymore). Those are indeed ideal conditions for TI so assume the enemy has some brains and will choose to fight in terrain and under conditions which if not favorable to them, at least aren't suicidal.

Narwan

Personally, I stop at 1979 or thereabouts - no TI. So tactics count for something.

It is more fun using Chieftains or M60 against the hordes that way than just plinking everything in your arcade-game "see-everything" sights with killem-all guns. Ditto - playing the Soviet Hordes (tm) you can limit yourself to T-5X or T-62 and still have fun while giving the NATO AI a fair crack of the whip.

I can also see what might have happened if 1/51 Highland deployed in 73/4 when I was in the TA (no Milans the TA got them a couple of years after the regulars, just 4x120mm Wombats + 4xMobats). As rear security for BAOR it would have been "hunt the desantniks" or "receive an OMG in the face"... i.e. interesting times.

Andy

[Ramm]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Personally, I stop at 1979 or thereabouts - no TI. So tactics count for something.

It is more fun using Chieftains or M60 against the hordes that way than just plinking everything in your arcade-game "see-everything" sights with killem-all guns. Ditto - playing the Soviet Hordes (tm) you can limit yourself to T-5X or T-62 and still have fun while giving the NATO AI a fair crack of the whip.

I can also see what might have happened if 1/51 Highland deployed in 73/4 when I was in the TA (no Milans the TA got them a couple of years after the regulars, just 4x120mm Wombats + 4xMobats). As rear security for BAOR it would have been "hunt the desantniks" or "receive an OMG in the face"... i.e. interesting times.

Andy

Thank God they didn't Andy Or I would still be playing this game in DOS

Andrew