Dmeek

Well, it ain't a good idea until someone steals it....

To alleviate the map edge issue on the maps I used to design for CMx1, I would simply rotate the orientation of the map 45 degrees. This diamond shaped configuration would keep the map size manageable while making the map widest at the center, where the heaviest action should play out (and forcing both side to consider their flanks), provide adequate real estate for the attacking side to set up and hinder things like edge creeping and that AT gun snugged into the map corner that is impossible to maneuver against. On a more subliminal level, it also made me treat the game area less like a board and more like a swath of terrain.

This begs the question, were Air attacks conducted against an enemy WHILE that unit was in contact w/ friendly forces? I know almost nothing about the Eastern Front and not much about the Western Front but even in that theater, I can’t remember reading of an account where a friendly plane helped dispatch an enemy that was firing on a friendly ground unit. I just assumed that most, if not all, tactical air attacks, took place behind the front lines or prepped a position before an assault, but weren’t involved when the bullets flew. Even gun film seems to show tanks being blown to bits while driving in a column down a road, not attacking or defending a piece of real estate. Personally, I think its next to impossible to differentiate between a green/brown metal box driven by a Russian from a green/brown metal box driven by a German from 1000 feet while flying at 200 mph. That’s why they didn’t try, and concentrated on the metal boxes in an area where they KNEW they were all bad guys. Am I totally wrong? If so, where and when did planes fight side by side with infantry? [ December 17, 2002, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Dmeek ]

The actually think the infantry can be more effective because of the additional commands. I am falling in love with the Advance and Assault commands. It makes the infantry much more effective approaching an enemy at close ranges because they pump out some serious fire during their approach. And if you think the enemy is close to breaking, you can plot you advance or assault well behind the enemy and watch with glee as your unit chases down the panicked foe, guns ablaze and lobbing grenades the whole time. Now that’s what I call fun!

Barry is absolutely correct about a veteran’s (or anyone’s, for that matter) selective perspective when it comes to their recollections, which is why these recollections can be fascinating. The fact that Otto thought his uniform was changed to differentiate his unit from the SS offers a pretty intriguing insight into his attitude at the time.

I just uploaded a small (Gotta Make it before Monday Night Football) quick battle map at the CM Maps Database. It represents a German attempt to clear a road around a wooded, dry creek bed. The Map is not as flat as it looks and the woods should be sparse enough for some decent LOS. I based the map on a picture from Andreas’Beobachtungsabteilung site. I originally wanted to set up Exit Zones for the Germans but couldn’t get themto stick. If anyone how Exit Zones can be put into a QB, please let me know.

I was assaulting a fortified position from a CD scenario. After protecting my flamethrower like the queen bee and carefully plotting every move to make sure the crew and their precious cargo was safe, I was within 20 meters of a cement pillbox, ready, for the 1st time in my life, to actually use a flamethrower against something other than an empty wheatfield. And then time ran out. That sucked.

Well, I lack the tactical knowledge to even think about a PBEM, I can’t color between the lines so modding is out of the question and the everything I learned about the Soviet Army comes from “Enemy at the Gates,” which means any scenario I made would have Jude Law simultaneously sniping Germans and proposing to his girlfriend in a factory sewer. I can make maps, though. I just don’t know if I can male a good one. I left some at CM Mod Database so if anyone wants to check them out, feel free. I do like making maps, though, so if anyone has any feedback, hints, advice or requests, please let me know.

I am having a problem with the drop down menus in the battle set up and editor parts of CM. The game itself works great w/ no freezes or other issues. But for some reason the drop down menus (where you select things like FOW level, quick battle parameters and a host of things while editing a battle) will not cooperate. Most of the time the menus will open but the light blue highlight will not move and I can not close the menu until I hit another menu or button w/ my mouse. Sometimes they will not open at all and sometimes the blue highlight will move but will not align correctly to what my mouse is pointing at. The mouse works fine with every other function of the game. I have just updated the mouse drivers w/ no positive results. I have checked this board and no one else seems to have this problem but all other programs I run work fine. I have the same problem w/ the original and patch versions and have tried all levels of installation with the same results. I am also not computer savvy and might be missing something fairly simple. Any help would be appreciated. (I can only play so many 500 point quick battles w/ small hills and moderate tree coverage before I realize how much of the game I am missing!) Thanks for any help.

The New Jersey village where I grew up is nestled in a shallow, narrow valley whose southern heights command the easiest route between New York and Philadelphia. George Washington actually used this area as his southernmost outpost to check any British movements while the bulk of his Army wintered in the hills of Morristown. (This being Jersey, all that is left to commemorate this is a rusty flagpole in an overgrown clearing.) Either way, I am sure the heights, and therefore the valley would still hold tactical value, so a battle there would be fun. I plan to do the map in “WW2” style, no pesky subdivisions, just fields, orchards, woods, farmhouses, and a few buildings surrounding the key intersection. Then maybe I will ask someone with real scenario building experience, of which I have none, to build a challenging battle for the village. He just has to include a flamethrower so I can torch that bully’s house around the corner.

The recent post regarding SPR used the statistic that claimed only 15% of American infantrymen fired their guns in anger. Does anyone have any specifics on how this number was reached? Personally, I find the idea that any unit directly engaged with an enemy would have only 1 in 7 soldiers return fire dubious. I am no expert, but in terms of CM that would mean only about 2 men per squad would shoot, and you would be lucky to have one machine gun open up per company. I also find it had to believe that infantry divisions that were involved in fighting hard enough to receive well over 200% casualties over the campaign would have 85% of their soldiers just sit there and wait to get shot. It just doesn’t add up. I know statistics can be as confusing as enlightening and I believe this statistic falls into the confusing category. If anyone can tell me where to find more information to prove or disprove this theory please let me know. Thanks. If this has already been discussed, I apologize. I didn't even know how to begin to search for it. [This message has been edited by Dmeek (edited 04-15-2000).]

This is an innanely stupid question, but can you drive a vehicle of the edge of the dam, (or cliff, or steep slope) and if so, does the vehicle become damaged or does it just keep on truckin?

I wouldn’t be so hard on the History Channel. As the channel that my TV invariably turns to when nothing else is on (which is often), I’ve figured out a few things. I don’t think they produce all of the shows they air, but buy them and maybe repackage them a little to fit their theme. That is why you can find a wide variety of shows, from fluffy to surprisingly accurate and balanced programs. I know one Hitler show was preceded by a narrator that explained that some of the historians’ theories were revisionist and not supported by a whole lot of facts. Besides, any channel that has the guts to devote an hour to the history of plumbing and then have three historians debate whether or not John Crapper invented the toilet is a winner in my book.

The fact that BTS allows people to advocate the theft of their property on a forum which they fund speaks volumes on their patience, generosity and belief of free speech. I wish some would extend the same level of courtesy to BTS that BTS has extended to them.

I was reading the newest LD AAR at CMHQ and noticed that Fionn’s post for turn 2 included a graphically challenged but informative map of the battlefield. Fionn, is this something homemade, part of the scenario editor or a map included in the beta demo that I haven’t stumbled upon? Whatever it is, it gives me clearer idea of the battlefield than the 8 view in the game.

I’ve been spending my time waiting for CM by reading and researching related subject matter. I’m currently trying to learn, mostly from web sites, about the much-maligned Sherman. The first thing I learned is that, from raw data sheets anyway, all Shermans are not created equal. A discovery that generated more questions than answers. Here are a few of them. If they have already been answered or are too dumb for a response please ignore. 1) Which was the most common version(s) for the theatre CM replicates? 2) Were different versions placed in specific units for different roles (E.I. infantry support, assault, anti-armor etc) 3) Was the Easy Eight as capable in real life as looks on paper? 4) Was the British Firefly’s gun superior to US 76 versions? Its armor seems kind of thin for a tank killer. 5) Did allied units try to utilize their faster turret traverse speed (one advantage it seems to have over the Germans) by out running the traverse of a German tank and out flanking it? 6) Was German steel superior to the allies (more protection per millimeter) or did sloping armor make that much of a difference (late model Shermans seem to stack up fairly well against at least some German tanks in terms of armor thickness.) 7) Is there a book out there that can answer these, and many other questions I have so I don’t have to bother any of you? As you can tell, I am certainly no armor junkie, but this game has stoked my interest. It's cool to play a game where this knowledge can actually help you win. Thanks for your help.

Regarding how this thread originated and to confirm Moon's point, I was playing LD against the AI when one of my Hellcats hit the Tiger and I received the same "gun damaged" message. Because I am so smart, I instructed my Hellcats to concentrate on other targets and let the Tiger stew in its own juices. The Hellcat commanders must have thought that my idea of leaving a living Tiger on the field was nuts, though, b/c they just kept pumping fire into the Tiger and ignored my clever strategy. I spent the next 3 turns watching my two remaining Hellcats suffer from a serious case of tigeritis as they continued to try and kill the thing while the Tiger slowly tried to back away from the threat (always keeping his front to the hellcats) until a lucky shot finally brewed it up. It was fun to watch b/c it showed some pretty neat A/I for both sides and gave me a good idea how the best orders are sometimes chucked out the window when self preservation is an issue.

I agree with John and Sten. I am not an extensive gamer, but the only really gamey tactics I see CM allowing are suicidal recon missions. If Panzerleader sent that crew into town just to flush out enemy positions than that would be pretty unrealistic. My question is, would all but the most fanatical units ignore such sacrificial orders in CM? I know I have tried to have crews join the attack in Reisburg and they are usually the first to run. I think it would be cool if the global moral of the entire force would drop when they realized their CO was so callous w/ his troops. ie, "If he is sending those guys to their certain deaths just to get a range on that machine gun, then I am not moving my sweet butt from this foxhole." What other tactics would be considered "gamey?" In case I ever leave the confines of AI play and enter the turbulent world of PBEM.

From the looks of a screen shot in the thread mentioned by Ben, it seems as if large building can be butted against each other. This leads me to a question I had while reading Closing With the Enemy. According to that book, a common tactic for US troops fighting in urban areas would be to simply blow their way through the walls of buildings and advance through buildings rather than streets that were covered by the Germans. Could something like this be modeled in CM? It would seem difficult to me. In fact, true city fighting would seem to be difficult to replicate as a whole. Every artillery shell changes the look of the battlefield at this level, roads become impassable, sewer systems become routes for flanking maneuvers, and every closet has to cleared for threat of an ambush.

oops, stupid question. I misread your answer.

What about moving larger guns in the campaign, where the same forces are going to maneuver over a large area?

Playing Reisburg for 1st time. Had 2 US squads successfully assualt one of the 88's. (The highlight of my short and not too successful CM career.) Ufortunately, the german crew scampered into the woods (too much assaulting, not enough shooting) Now I had two healthy squads standing around and staring at the 88. This led me to 2 questions 1) can crews go back to a weapon they had previously abandoned? and 2) can a squad disable a piece of enemy equipment they have control over? I left the 88 alone and entered the town w/ those squads and will be upset if the 88 opens up on them.

I just downloaded this game and am quickly becoming addicted. I searched this question but couldn't find anything. Can a defending squad or unit prepare more than 1 foxhole /defensive position in the set up phase? For instance, can I have a squad dug in in a forward position for ambush /scouting duty and then have a foxhole waiting for them in the mainline of defense that they can fall back on? Was this even a common tactic? Also, I have many other mundane questions that I don't want to bother this forum with, is ther a FAQ on basic game play / functions posted anywhere?

Because I don’t consider myself a hardcore wargamer, and because I just downloaded the demo and have only played one game of Last Defense, my praise of the AI might come from a different perspective. I was the US and won a total victory that probably wouldn’t be a total victory with the revised victory conditions that new game will have. The game ended with the Germans penned up in the woods on their side of the battlefield and my units lodged in the buildings of the village and along the road, repulsing the German advances across the wheat field with their rapidly depleting ammo. I considered it an incomplete victory, with the village held but no control of the field of battle. And although the results were inconclusive, it was the most satisfying wargame I have ever played, computer or board, against AI, a human or solitaire. I think the reason for this is that, CM, unlike almost wargames I have played before, CM rewards sound, conservative tactics, where you spend time evaluating potential threats (I think there are reorganizing in that batch of trees, lets send some mortars over there and see what happens) and planning attacks against a questionable enemy (I think there is only one squad on that hill and lets not even worry if he has reinforcements). Before this, most wargames rewarded incredibly complex solutions that the average tactical commander wouldn’t dream of implementing (that squad on the hill is in heavy brush, behind a low wall and contains submachine guns and is shaken, but not broken, let me pull out my calculator and determine the most efficient use of my firepower points to clear that hex before he receives his 2 Stug III’s on turn 7) I am assuming most real life engagements of CM’s scale resembled two drunken giants grappling for an advantage, not two chess players plotting every move. And whatever leader could get his hands around melee, and somehow cajole his forces into the proper position, would end up the victor (considering the opposing forces were roughly equal, which again I assume was hardly ever the case.) In my brief time spent with the game, The AI acted just like a commander struggling to evaluate the enemy threat, probing for weakness and reluctant to blindly send his troops into an unknown situation. Just as I was doing. The thing that really impressed me was that the German commander seemed to change his plans in mid game. Troops were massing on one side of the battlefield, after a stubborn defense from two dug in rifle squads and an incredibly intense mortar barrage (I couldn’t figure out how to cease their fire, chalk it up adrenaline on the mortar crews ) the emphasis suddenly and noticeably shifted to the other side, on the hill above the wheat field, where the battle ended in a stalemate. Which stunk for me b/c my reinforcements were heading in exactly the wrong direction. I have never seen AI change a course of action so decisively and dynamically before. The move was not a Napoleonic stroke of genius, but it seemed to be sound tactics, and more importantly, it was not a pre-programmed maneuver but a reaction to the AI’s assessment of the battlefield based on his limited knowledge of the situation. If the AI can give me that every time I play a scenario for the first time and plenty of new scenarios will be available I will never grow tired of this game. Just two cents from an amateur.