Jump to content

Cpt. Cook

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Cpt. Cook

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/09/1974


  • Location
    Edmonton, AB
  • Interests
    Military history, vodka.
  • Occupation
    university student
  1. I had a ricochet take out an OT-134. A shot from a 37mm ATG hit an abandoned tank (although I didn't know it yet) and ricocheted, killing the tank beside it. No nearby infantry, no aircraft purchased, no other guns with LOS, and I replayed the turn about a dozen times. I posted about it a while back but I don't recall what anyone had to say. With light tanks there is no reason it isn't possible. Just improbable.
  2. I rarely have these problems and yes, I don't believe or meant to imply it was a problem with your site. Just wondering if I was the only one, which I was! And now it comes up just fine. Crikey. Sorry folks. Nice site, btw. Heh-heh....
  3. Ugh. Well, that's no good. Would you prefer that I send you the scenarios directly for the time being? This site is a temporary solution anyway (albeit already prettier and more reliable than the old one). Scott </font>
  4. This is weird. I just can't seem to bring up the site. I get a new window, normal, but an error box appears and says the attempt failed. It is the correct (i.e. new) URL, and I have tried typing it in manually. Same result. I'm on an iMAc with recent IE.
  5. I am in a pbem, with a Romanian regular recon squad (1941), full strength, not under command (platoon leader far ahead with the rest of the platoon), not under fire, not close to being under fire, not having been under fire. Given orders to move, run, contact, assault, will not move whatsoever. Units are moving around it, and have already moved. This squad will not move. It is beside a cliff, but I have plotted a number of intricate moves for it, as well as simple straight lines to its objective. What gives? I also have a BT-7 that is pausing for long periods inexplicably after beginning to carry out movement orders. Any answers?
  6. I like mines, AP but esp. AT. I don't swear by them--but I like a roll back defense with a few strategically situated MGs and tank hunters. You can rout platoons with one minefield and an MG. Then you hide em and wait until they flank you, and hit their rear. Your unit will die, but may have caused a significant ratio of damage. Wire seems to be too much of a magnet for armor--they roll in and area target the likely ambush spots. Mines don't nec. require support. Wire doesn't cause any direct casualties either. It should though, imagine: "Verdammen sie es! Ich brach einen Fingernage!" AT minefields work beautifully for me, because infantry seem to be so wonderfully effective against immobile AFVs in this game. BTW, nice work Kornstalx!
  7. I am wondering whether or not "good" orders plotting affects targetting and morale. Obviously there is a practical advantage, i.e. changing orders from "hunt" over say 200m to a safe 180m "fast move" and 20m of "seek-hull-down" towards a clear enfilade. This has worked to my advantage as I have learned. What I am wondering is whether or not the AI recognizes this difference and adjusts the ability of units to target and identify enemies, or perhaps their morale or some other variable when "better" orders are plotted. For example, I lost a T-34 which flanked a Pz-IVg with clear LOS using the hunt command--while the tiger was able to rotate 45 degrees, fire twice and kill my tank without a shot fired in reply. I had the T-34 hunting on flat ground towards the cover of scattered trees. The Pz-IVg was in open ground I believe. And yes, I know their is a difference in the optics and profile of both and generally most tanks, and potentially in experience (although I suspect experience was similar--the pbem is in progress). Both were buttoned yet both were within about 300m (easy range IMO). I have never found optics to be much of an effective variable so far but I wonder if what I experienced can be boiled down to this? And yes, it is in a pbem I am losing badly. Furthermore: I have a distinct problem using heavy armor that has been somewhat resolved using light armor (I can't resist directly supporting infantry with it). Probability cancels out ineffectiveness (i.e. lack of shrugging off hits), so instead I group light armor and use it en masse (playing earlier war scenarios). Is this ahistorical? I play smaller scenarios so if I buy heavy armor (or have it given to me) I naturally split it. I find it boring to play with, it always ends up smoking because I want to mess around with it.
  8. I played Antonescu Kaputt or whatever (B&T Stalingrad pack) pbem and had a similar experience. Too bad I can't review the scenario anywhere, it was great. Particularly my Romanian platoon leader knocking out a T-34 with a grenade, heh-heh.
  9. Yes there are disadvantages, mostly getting bogged down in infantry, whether deploying vs atrs, defending or attacking against KVs or attacking trenches (i.e. discovering them at the last second). Key to the discussion may be what consitutes a good defense versus blitzkrieg tactics or specifically a fast moving mass light armor blanket. Also how to deploy light armor against infantry "harassment". It's like CMBO defence with mostly infantry, deploying screens and false fronts to keep your enemy guessing, and shifting the strength and focus of your line or axis. But the fun part are the big pbems in my experience. Part of the interest with me is utilizing armor in a completely different function as I said above: recon and flanks.
  10. Here's where you post if you like playing early war. I like it because: 1) it's more fun to play with lots of crap AFVs you can do more stuff with, like recon and long flanking movements without tearing your hair out if you lose one of say, TWO armor assets. This applies more to lousy tacticians such as myself. 2) points are almost meaningless even if you play small games. Just rack up the DPs or anti-tank teams if you get bored of buying DOZENS of armored cars. Fun! 3) artillery is less of a factor (if you stick more or less to rarity) and you are forced to use it precisely. I use onboard mortars like crazy, esp. the little 50mms. 4) weird stuff. Like tankettes. Any other glee--ridden fanboys out there? BTW, for newer CMBB players, Boots and Tracks has lots of very good pbem oriented early war scenarios.
  11. Thanks. That explains why KVs or whatever can fire unbuttoned then. However... I just had three BA-10s take three other BA-10s at over 800 meters. And they're green. I love early war stuff. Even if they all do brew up like xmas logs or pintos.
  12. I am playing a scenario with a number of these rolling bathtubs, and I am wondering: re: when I give the order to fire unbuttoned they button up during the action phase, and when the orders phase begins they appear unbuttoned.... Do they require the cmdr. inside the tank to fire or am I just seeing things? Thanx.
  13. Tim, B&Ts "Izyium Diet Plan" is set in May of '42 and combines ***spoiler*** KV-1s (2), t-34s (3), t-70s (2) and carriers and the like. The historical background seems solid, but I don't know where they got the info for the force makeup. My opponent looks to have a similar setup to your opponent's setup, but with some of those crappy short-barrel Stugs also. Can't say as I know for sure yet--we are playing pbem double blind. Obviously I am Soviet.
  14. I have played more than one scenario in which trenches have figured largely in my victory as defender. However it is due I believe to the fact that assaulting tanks did not *necessarily* properly target dug in infantry. I think with the new patch this may figure differently. In my opinion it is unrealistic for a commander to attack a seriously entrenched force he cannot outflank, surprise, or bombard to bits. Yeah there's exceptions...those do not often prove the rule wrong however. Anyways, have fun outwitting the common-sense, rational, logistical parameters of the game.
  • Create New...