Joachim

No RL data here - just CM experience put into a simple rule for CM: The bigger the gun relative to the armor the better the chance of a kill given penetration or partial penetration. Read: A Tiger I with its 88mm gun has a better kill chance than a Panther though the penetration probability is comparable.

The game gives the armor thickness and penetration in colors. Armor is displayed in the unit icon in the panel for turret, upper and lower hull / front, sides and rear each. Plus the top thickness. Penetration is marked in the unit info (shown after hitting return/enter). Color ratings: Excellent = Blue, dark green, light green, yellow, orange, red = bad green pen hits red armor = sure penetration (except at unfavorable angles) red hits green = penetration once in a blue moon. The big advantage of "thick" projectiles is the "behind armor effect". Partially due to sheer weight, partially due to HE load in larger warheads. A penetrating 76mm (large HE load) from a T34 will usually devastate the interior of a PzIII - while the Tungsten 50mm of the PzIIIj might penetrate the T34 but not disable the tank.

Full is neither 100% or realistic. Extreme is not necessarily the hardest setting. I'd rather use full as recommended setting. It is very hard for the game to correctly id certain vehicles on extreme. Which does affect the TacAI. E.g. a T34/85 will use cover panic from a JPzIV/70. Yet if it is a mere "StuG?" for the TacAI, the T34 will happily blast away at the front of the JPz... which means certain death. Even if you heard the distinctive 75L70 sound (and saw the front shrugging of hits), the TacAI will ignore your knowledge. Even stationary crack HQs 350m away from the JPz won't yield full id's. Realistic? Well, I've never been there Thus "extreme FOW" does favor players which uses rare variants of standard vehicle types. Given that the German player usually has more toys to choose from, in most periods it favors the Germans. Extreme favors the side with more experienced troops. Given the "1 level penalty" for early war Soviets, extreme will most likely favor the Germans in early war. So if you play the Germans, full is usually harder than extreme.

Guess "compatible" has 2 meanings here. The game runs on widescreen as JoMc67 states. stretched, but given CMx1's graphics, that doesn't matter much. I credit me with a good view on the battlefield but that was never disturbed by this stretching. If it runs - is it compatible? But Schrullenhaft is correct that there is no setting for widescreen in the available graphics mode. If there is no setting - is it not compatible? BTW: My LG W2242T has a "4:3 in Wide"-button which switches between wide (16:9?) and 4:3. 4:3 has 2 black bars on the left and right. That would solve the problem most easily. But I usually don't even press that button - reasons cf. above.

Both options are possible. I suggest you use the scenario editor to test that. There do exist points where 2 opponents can see/shoot at each other standing, but LOS (and thus direct fire) is broken if one side pins. You can conveniently simulate "pinned" in the editor with hiding - the effect is the same. Leave the German squad in a similar spot as in your pic and move the Soviet squad. Start where both can see each other while hiding. Then move the Soviets backwards. You will reach a point where one squad hiding will break LOS. Now if the Soviets would be the first to pin in a position where hiding/pinning does not break LOS, they can crawl backwards to that point. The big problem is that if there is better cover near the Germans, the Soviets might crawl towards the better cover (and die in the process). The TacAI completely ignores cover by LOS break, it considers only cover provided by terrain when planning moves. Having a panicked attacker crawl towards the defenders trench is rather common

Calcs between turns are not related to frame rates. In a huge desert scen (CMAK) with regimental sized forces and long LOS the frame rates where ok but the "blue bar" calcs took ages (named after the small blue bar in the lower center indicating progress). That's when I got really interested in the matter. Did some observations since then, but never took notes. Observatuions suggest the following: In general "blue bar calcs" are done in the CPU, frame rates are a graphics adapter issue. What does CM do during these "blue bar calcs"? Well, the commands are already given and CM tries to execute them. It's like: Move first unit a little bit (e.g. for a millisecond). See if others have LOS. For every other unit that has LOS now, check to perform SOPs (firing, retreating, ...). If another unit does something (ie changes its status from hide to firing), check every other unit with LOS to that other unit for SOPs (which means that other unit is next in line. Doing it that way would mean the calc time is approximately a quadratic function of the amount of units in the scen and a quadratic function of LOS "length". Read: if 10 units on each side take 100 secs, then 100 units on each side take 10000 seconds. 10 times more units gives 10^2= 100 times more cal time. My algorithm is rather simple and works "one unit after the other". But I guess CM tries to simulate simultaneuos effects - which makes it even more complicated.

"Reverse slope protection" only works for pinned inf. Once the men pin, LOS is blocked and the target line might go away (if the slope is big enough). Same thing if the men are behind a wall. Pinning or hiding breaks LOS and thus ends incoming direct fire. In your pic, in RL reverse slope for those 2 units would work both ways - but the Soviets are on a higher level and thus can throw grenades farther. In CM it might work once one of them pins. If it doesn't work, the Germans are too far uphill. What works both in RL and CM is that only one Soviet unit can fire at the Germans. Whatever is behind that Soviets squad can not (directly) fire at the Germans. So if you have a plt of Germans sitting behind that slope and the Soviets come in piecemeal, then you have 4 defending units vs one attacking unit each time - which is what reverse slope wants to achieve. Couple that with 1-2 HMGs 200m back that disrupt the advancing Soviets so they can't perform a coordinated attack across the crest and the Germans should inflict massive losses. If you look at Jasons inf tutorials here (or army manuals) the point of a plt advances while the rest of the plt is covering them. With reverse slope, the rest of the plt can not cover the point.

I like the posts on this page. Well done.

Any unit with 2 men or less (at 100%), ie TH teams, Schreck, ATR, LMG, crews from 2-man-vehicles are stealtheir than squads. Sniper are even stealthier. Depending on respective experiences, troops might run over them without noticing - if you keep the sniper from firing. Gruß Joachim

There were more ATGs than tanks. So the mean ATG never even faced a tank. It was destroyed by arty, inf or just left stranded. Average and means are pretty stupid when describing single incidents. Even for campaigns the ATGs were usually deployed to cover a wider frontage than the frontage the tanks attacked. This is the doctrine of tank warfare. Mass them to outnumber the guns in a small area. Lots of tank kills in CM weren't total write-offs in RL. So RL production numbers for tanks do not equal "killed" tanks in CM. Well.... I miss that stealth in CM. Tanks should not use tactics exploiting borg spotting vs ATGs. Which is impossible, as the TacAI does that and we can't influence the TacAI. So we all are cheaters. No, the game itself cheats!

Incoming from the rear works wonders on morale. IIRC fire from several angles is bad for morale, too. But I think casualties are calculated per firer, so no direct effects from crossfire.

I played the Germans. No speeding tickets but for parking in the wrong place while waiting for the Italians

Yeah, it takes quite some time to know all the err... features of CMx1 to know how to plot vehicle pathes. And then a lot of time to plot the pathes - each time. But if it works.... having dozens of vehicles drive along a single road arriving in good order.... one of my fines moments in CM.

In diesem Hort der Ernsthaftigkeit?

Nope I manet where is the line drawn between "cheating" and "not cheating".

Imagine the following in RL WW2: A well-prepared gun position behind a crest. Used just like a tank uses hull down to cover the parts of the gun below the barrel. A tank approaches within good range. Kill chance very high. But those 3 tanks in overwatch are out of the ATGs effective range. The gun crew expected that and prepared the gun to be drawn back into full cover (ie "turret down") after a few shots. Recoil is low, the gun can easily be pushed or pulled by 4 men as a kind of sled/rails has been prepared despite the wheels being off/turned whatever. Overwatch is far away and thus has a hard time spotting the gun - even when firing. Probability of a first round from the overwatch landing near the gun position is low. MG fire won't hit the pullling crew as they can operate from within the trench. The gun shoots twice, killing the forward tank, then pulls back. 20 seconds after the first shot the gun is in full cover. The gun crew can then decide whether to move to alternate positions or just be trucked away. Ideas for simulating this in CM? (Except for using lots of smoke to cover the withdrawal, exploiting yet another bug.) Next problem: Positioning a gun on higher ground will result in exactly the same game bug when firing downwards as putting the gun behind a crest. Even when putting the gun on the edge the gun still profits 50% from the bug as half of the rounds will be long and in this case this means far too long. Which raises the question: Is positioning a gun on higher ground gamey? If not - where is the thin red line?

Magnification and field of view ain't everything. Some lenses let more light pass thru, and with those you get a better contrast -which helps e.g. in twilight or dusty weather. Events in '45 US forces took Jena, where the Carl Zeiss factory was located in April '45. It was 100km into the Soviet zone. Then Carl Zeiss personnel was moved into the black forest - deep inside the American sector. Most likely machinery was relocated, too. It might have military reasons to go deep into the Soviet zone there. But relocating specialists was rare. Rocket scientists come to mind. But why optics? Just to deny them to the Soviets? Why create a new optics factory then? And why didn't the US reproduce the German aiming device within the optics? First round hits do make a difference. Without knowing the actual optics this is strong evidence that German optics were better and the Allies had not yet caught up.

1. It's a game. 2. Direct HE can kill a gun behind a crest. Even in the most gamey "entrenched behind crest and wall" position. It takes more HE though. 3. Trenches do not have overhead cover vs mortars. So ATGs either lose the advantage of concealment or overhead cover. They are pretty weak in CM anyway. 4. Compare a Pak40 with a Marder or StuG with long 75. Pointwise and combat value. 5. It's still a game.

Gun placement in trees or rough depends on what you will face. If it is direct fire, trees are good. If it is indirect light FO arty, trees are bad. If it is heavy arty, it doesn't matter much. If you won't face single mortars, trees are ok. If you have a small gun, trees do not just protect, they conceal. So the enemy might not even spot the gun while it is shooting. Which will avoid aimed return fire. Soviet FO arty won't hurt single guns as willl German arty do. The Soviet shot pattern is spread too far. I've witnessed an 88 on a street sit out a 82mm mortar barrage. And I've seen futile attempts to kill spotted German guns in trees. A crucial placement of a gun is near a bonus HQ.... abandoned guns are usuallly morale hits. So the plt with the best HQ might end up protecting a gun - or in a reserve position not too close to the gun, except for the HQ.

Well.... I fought competent players who lost more than one vehicle per gun. It depends on the penetration power vs armor fielded - and the situation of the gun. A gun in a trench (with no trees nearby!) behind a small rise will stand a good chance of surviving one minute of 2 tanks vs 1 ATG before the opponent targets area fire from everything else he has. This means 90 seconds or 6-7 rounds. Just make sure the enemy can't retreat out of LOS or throw smoke. Which will usually happen vs 1 gun. But in a crossfire, retreating from one gun will not help. So 4vs2 or 6vs3 is much better. You have to max the number of rounds before the enemy can react - and that means opening up at second 1. So don't wait for the enemy to get into your firing arc. The initial firinc arc set is just to hide the gun and for emergencies. If you want the enemy tank to turn first (using some decoy elsewhere), you can issue a small rotate command to delay firing. But for the turn when you issue the firing command, the cover arc is pretty large as once the gun opens up the countdown has begun. The cover arc is wide enough so the intended targets do not get out of it. 2 entrenched PaK40s vs 4 T34s at 300m should quickly see 2 dead T34s and the guns zeroed in at the remainders next turn. Which should result in 2 more dead T34s before the mortars come in.

Advances in 11/41: E. g. chapter "Final pincer" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow

a) make sure the LOS is narrow, but not to narrow so the tank can cross the LOS before you can fire make sure you can see far enough. Tanks are a bit higher than inf so slight ondulations might work. Yet a good opponent uses gullies to protect the sides of the tank - especially the tracks. c) armor covered arc set to cover the rear of the LOS so the tank can neither cross the LOS but can not back out of LOS . If LOS is wide enough, use a small covered arc and open up at the beginning of the turn to max out the time the gun fires before your opponent tries to smoke it or targets anything onto it. d) trench behind a small rise works well - but might reduce LOS. But never site it on a forward slope - that's a shot trap. e) use a pair of guns - one on both sides. That way one gun always gets side or rear shots. Even small guns work for this (inf gun, light ATG, ...)

1500 pts: a) Jäger Recce '44 btn (with 3xPak40 and 2xlIG 7,5cm. ) StuG Marder TH 5 systems with long 75, 2 with HC. Jäger Recce '44 btn StuG 2 Schreck (reg+green) 3 trenches for the 3 Pak 40. Well placed these will be a match for 5 T34/85. But then there's still the StuG, 2 Schrecks and 2 HC chuckers.

It does make a difference. In dense terrain or thick fog German inf post '43 rules vs tanks. Up to 225m. Even pre'43 the German inf effectively kills tanks at 30m. Soviet inf effectively can not kill tanks. Maybe a lucky Molotov hit at 30m. RPG-equipped THs at 45m. Sappers at 30m. Lucky shots with Ampulomets (250m) or AT-Rifles (vs thin armor). They need tanks. On a flat open field, inf will die vs tanks. Any time (within CMBB). Any nation. On a standard "random" map, the terrain is usually pretty open, even in village or town as the houses lack surrounding cover. But spreading out the inf will present lots of targets and delay the enemy advance. Given enough good cover. If the map is completely random, odds are that the map is too open and inf won't stand a chance. But on hills with lots of trees, the inf has a fighting chance. In woods or a city the inf can even attack. More inf due to the higher inf budget. Lots of inf due to low to reg experience troops (crack is for mech units!). Trade off the advancing scouts on a 1:1 level by opening up at 40-80m. And soon the tanks will lack eyes. ATGs open up from carefully selected positions, best in trenches (usually better than mines) when they have 2 good targets per gun - and Pak40 usually kills 2 targets in 2 turns. But definitely not more than 2 good targets per gun. Püppchen kill, recoilless rifles kill, cheap 75mm IG kill and do work as distraction for the Pak40. But you need a good defensive position - including good defensive terrain for that. That's where inf makes its stand anyway. Now please don't tell me you expcet inf attackin gvs tanks or a ME with inf moving out into the open when they can hear treads in the distance. That would be rare in RL. Inf usually defends vs. tanks. That's its role.

Usually victory is decided how far you move forward or how quickly you reach the map end. Plus fortifications remain where they are - stripped of all supporting inf etc. Just sitting in the blind spots next battle is gamey, but might work. Blinding the fort during battles might work - dust from vehicles works just as well as smoke or dust from incoming rounds.