renaldo1

I really like the way that after the first armour exchange both Elvis and Bil are asking themselves exactly the same question : should I stay and hope to get shots / hits or should I back off to safety? It's the classic "Should I stay or should I go?". I think the line to follow is: "If I stay there will be trouble, if I go it will be double" - I think that's sound advice. If either backs off then they concede a psychological victory to the other. In either of their situations I'd recommend to stay put just to say to the other "I'm comfortable with this. Are you?" I wonder if The Clash wrote the song with this situation in mind? It seems so apt ...

To be clear it is the 50mm PAK38 that I had in mind and not the 37mm PAK36. It is generally the philosophy of "AT guns preferred over armour in order to get higher numbers of assets" coupled with "smaller AT guns with better concealment chances preferred over larger guns and hence relying on attrition damage rather than straight knock-outs". But if the 50mm is also undersized for the "attritional damage" role then I might need to go up to the 75mm guns. But I'd still go that route. I think that 1 Panther = 3 x 75mm AT gun in costs and 1 Hetzer = 2 x 75mm AT gun so I would still get a fair few depending how many AFVs I traded in. Also I'd then take an extra AT gun and much less artillery (just a bit of 81mm). I am eagerly looking forward to what effect Elvis's 120mm mission is going to have. But I don't hold out too much hope for it. Against an attacker who can move assets quickly in any direction without much fear of exposure to the enemy, then called-in artillery is too slow to have an effect significant enough to justify its cost. Sometimes it pays-off - but rarely in my experience. @John Kettler - the Semovente was just an example of what can happen even with MG fire. As I said I also have regular experience of armour spalling with crew casualties with German and US armour. That includes with Panthers. I would expect that if a Panther is vulnerable to armour spalling then so is any Soviet armour. Maybe I need to go up to 75mm rather than 50mm to get it with an ISU-122? I'm assuming that all armour is prone to spalling with hits from ordnance "not quite strong enough to penetrate direct"? Is that right? I don't know the physics of it but I doubt that that effect stops completely beyond a certain armour thickness. Does it? With regards to Elvis's current tactics then there I am with the consensus - counterattacking into woods against SMG troops is going to be interesting to watch but I doubt it will have much success. In my experience as a defender in CM I only need 3 attributes to increase chance of success : 1) Patience, 2) Patience, 3) Calm, happy patience. Of course, Elvis's approach makes for a much more interesting AAR and so I'm grateful for that.

@womble - thanks for the comments. There are 2 reasons why I have some optimism that 50mm guns could have some effect. The first is crew casualties from armour spalling. I'm not sure how susceptible Soviet armour is to that but I'm guessing more susceptible than German or US armour and I've seen that happen plenty in CMBN. In the CMFI demo I've even "lost" a Semovente to MG fire from several hundred metres. What happened is that the MG fire, frontal on to a buttoned up Semovente caused a crew casualty from armour spalling. The other 2 crew promptly exited the vehicle and spent 10 minutes running around in panic before I could even get them under control again. Then they were lost to small arms fire whilst attempting to get back in to the vehicle. The second reason is that I often see that "none critical" hits still have an effect on crew morale and/or response. Very often I see armour taking light hits (relative to frontal armour strength) and then popping smoke and reversing. But they often reverse and turn at the same time leading to them exposing their side armour to the same threat that was previously just faced with frontal armour. Of course we still don't yet know the effect of 50mm shells on 1944 Soviet side armour in CM2. But I would at least expect the chance of crew casualties from armour spalling or partial penetrations to increase once the side is exposed.

If I might add my two penneth to the thread then I'd like to suggest an alternative defence for this scenario. Given that Bil and Elvis will eventually read this thread then I'd like to start off by thanking them both for another very enjoyable AAR. I'm one of the countless people that get much enjoyment from these AARs without usually joining the discussion. So thank you both for the effort and time that you put into it. So my suggestion for a defence is what I would always consider on such a large map with few points to spend - much less (or even no) armour and AT guns instead. Now I know that this idea is not going to get much support from the regular posters so please let me try to give a little reasoning. First let's consider what you could buy as AT guns instead of armour. From the points screens in Elvis's "what I purchased post" and from what I know in CMBN then I think you could replace the Panther and 1 Hetzer with 2 x AT platoon each consisting of an HQ plus 3 50mm AT guns and an extra 75mm AT gun attached to each. To do that you might need to drop the quality level of all guns and the remaining Hetzer. Maybe all at Green with some -1s thrown in. Personally, if I didn't have quite enough points that way I'd consider to sacrifice the second Hetzer for another cheaper vehicle to get the remaining needed. The other option I'd look at to make the points balance and keep the second Hetzer is to reduce the artillery - either in quantity or in calibre (preferably in calibre). So assuming I've got 6 x 50mm and 2 x 75mm and a Hetzer. My preference for guns over armour is to a) increase my total AT assets get better concealment. I don't mind the loss of mobility - I agree with the other posters that are suggesting that as the defender I really shouldn't be moving around too much. And anyway I'd still have the 1 Hetzer and the panzerschreck teams for some level of mobile AT assets. And I would be specifically going for a higher number of smaller guns (i.e. more 50mm rather than take all 75mm and have less guns). Firstly to have more guns and spread the risk of losing them early due to an unlucky spot or unlucky "random" artillery fall. Secondly because I would likely get off more rounds per gun before they were taken out due to being harder to spot. I would want a couple of 75mm guns in just to make the attacker think a bit more about the inevitable "unspotted AT guns" when he got hit by or saw one. I would have used this kind of defence even for "Eye of the Elefant" and I think that this map is much better for offering good places to conceal guns (at least as far as I can see from the posted screenshots). What really helps in the CM2 engine (compared to CM1) is that the relative spotting model really helps AT gun survivability. Not for the whole battle but at least to get off a reasonable number of telling hits. And that brings us to the second big benefit that CM2 brings to use of AT guns (compared to CM1) - attritional damage to armour from lower calibre weapons. In CMBB 1941 scenarios I'd buy a couple of KV1s and just expose them shamefully knowing that everything would just bounce off with no damage done. Very rarely I'd lose the gun on one of them due to an unlucky hit. Now in CM2 it is possible to do considerable damage to strong armour with multiple low to medium calibre guns. Sometimes not getting a complete kill but often enough to take them out of the game. It's often not enough to do that to armour when on the attack - they can still sit and occupy VLs. But on the defence you only need to halt the attacker to win. And there is always a time limit. I tried this tactic against the AI after thinking about this defence while reading Eye of the Elefant. At the time I only had the base CMBN so the best I could give to the AI was Panthers. But still they are nominally impervious to frontal attack from 50mm guns. But with about 12 or so well positioned 50mm guns and infantry support I beat off an attack from about 8 Panthers with infantry support. Ok, a human opponent is different but my basic point is that 50mm AT guns can do damage to strong armour if getting a sufficient number of hits. Consider if Elvis had a 50mm AT gun in the place of the team that first spotted the ISU-122. I would expect to get off at least 4-5 hitting rounds before he could spot, turn and react. What would happen in that time? I'd have a good chance of degrading crew and/or vehicle and taking out some of the squad sitting on it. I'd then likely lose the gun but when I've got 8 guns plus a small mobile AT back-up then it's a trade I'd take every time. Any thoughts? By the way, if anyone is interested I'd be willing to play such a defence against a human opponent if we can find a "conceptually similar" map in one of the other games (I now have all of CMBN, CW, MG, CMFI and GL). And also I'd be willing to AAR it in the appropriate forum. Then we'd get to find out if any of my theory has any merit ...

For the "jump" in ammo at end of turn: I see the same thing in version 1.11 and have noticed it routinely in many games (I can't say "all" games for sure because I stopped "noticing it" when I came to the conclusion it was normal and routine and had rationalised to myself why it happened). So my view/rationalisation was/is: When the buddy aid is finished the ammo picked up is usually very small - probably unrealistically so compared to what the guy was carrying. So I assumed it then took a bit of extra time to collect spare ammo around the fallen guy and this appears a little later. Actually I've often seen it added before the end of the turn if the buddy aid is finished early in the turn. So, say, a 20 or 30 second delay to "collect" the extra ammo that was being carried.

@ agusto - thanks, I wasn't aware of that (I'm not too familiar with the scenario editor). I've had a look into it and agree that (exactly as you say) it gives me just what I'm after. That's a big plus for me on replayability. One question/comment - I'm not too sure whether when I set an existing AI plan to "Not Used" it deletes it completely or just disables its selection whilst retaining its existence. I'd guess it's the latter but just to be on the safe side I'm saving as a different filename each time that I de-select AI plans so as to keep the original safe. So, once again, many thanks for pointing out this feature - much appreciated. ... now I have another idea/suggestion. There are some great scenarios that only have 1 AI plan. That's fine, they're still great scenarios and I appreciate the effort put into them. But what would be great is if one of the top players could take one of those and add a new AI plan in and make that version of the scenario available. Of course I understand that playing an AI set by one of the good players is not the same as playing the good player ... but still it could provide an interesting new challenge. I'm basing on the theory that the best Scenario Designers are not necessarily a 100% overlap with the best "players / AI plan setters" (of course good player and good at setting AI plan is not necessarily a 100% overlap either but I'm thinking that way ...). But at the very least we'd get a new AI plan where only 1 exists now. Of course there may be issues of author rights, IP etc. that need to be agreed upfront but BF could probably broker any agreement on a case by case basis if there was enough interest in the idea (and if they were willing to do so which I also don't take for granted ...). Any mileage in this idea?

Here is an idea that I've been thinking about for a while. But since I have a technical query over on the Tech Support board I'd thought I'd pop over and post it for comment. I understand that there can be up to 5 AI plans for a scenario. Let's assume for this example that there are 3 for a given scenario and let's label them P, Q and R. I play for the first time. The AI uses AI plan P and of we go. Now, I would like to replay the scenario. It might be that the AI picks plan P again. This might not be apparent until some way through the scenario. I've then wasted alot of time to realise this and once I do I think "not much new fun" and stop. This process could repeat several times. Proposal: it would add to replayability if I knew how many AI plans there were and could selectively limit the choice that the AI picked (or in some cases force it). So, for example: First play: I know there are 3 AI plans and I allow to pick from all Importantly is that at this point I don't get told which plan is picked. At the end of the scenario (on results screen) I get told "AI plan Q used" Second play: I click to de-select AI plan Q. The AI chooses one of the other two plans and I play. This way I know I am playing against a new AI plan. At the end, I again get to know which it was (let's say AI plan P). Third play: I click to de-select P and Q so that I force AI to select plan R. Since I've not played it before, it doesn't matter that I know that I am playing R - I know that I get a new plan. Fourth play: I give no selection. This is why it is important not to be told until the end which plan I get. This way I don't know which plan I'm playing even though I've played all 3 before. Fifth play: I de-select P and R because I want to play Q because it's the toughest plan and I've never won against Q before and want to try again. This is an alternative reason to force selection than for third play (which was "know I've never played it before"). Any thoughts?

I have the same issue mentionned by noob with a Semovente where I lost one of the 3 crew. But bailing them out and putting them back in doesn't fix it for the Semovente. Incidentally it was the driver that was the casualty so there's no question about the ability of the other 2 crew to operate the gun. Of course, if they were doing that then I would expect a penalty in time it takes to stop firing and move in the event that they get into trouble - including of course a penalty to stop firing, turn the vehicle and re-fire at a target ouside the gun's limited arc. But I would still expect they could do it. So the question is for the Semovente whether this is a bug or is design intent?

I'd be happy to play a PBEM on one of the DEMO scenarios. If you're still looking for an opponent e-mail me at renaldo380@gmail.com

@stikkypixie, re- your post #19 in this thread: Bad news : at first attempt to test firing off his little remaining ammo, he burned through half the stock of another guy with an MP44 in an adjacent Action Spot. More bad news : when I finally got him “isolated” and he fired off all his rounds, he didn’t switch to any other weapon. So I guess that means they trade rather than pick it up extra. Worst news : once he was fully out of ammo, I hit on the “bright” idea of sending him off as medic to a fallen comrade with a rifle. I was really hoping that since he had no ammo left for his MP44, he’d pick up the rifle. He didn’t. Good news (but not for him) : I’ve just found a volunteer for lead scout in the next mission of the campaign.

Anyone know the latest on this issue? Just happened to me - playing a campaign ... soldier gives buddy aid, trades in his K98 for an MP44 and only 10 rounds of ammo ... doesn't fire another shot in the mission ... next mission (24 hours later) still has the MP44 with 10 rounds ... I have so many trucks and other vehicles filled with so much ammo it's not true, but not a single round of 7.92K amongst it ... very frustrating. In real life surely he wouldn't trade his K98 for an MP44 if there is no ammo available for it either locally where he picked it up nor even back at the supply trucks of HQ?

I have just updated to v1.10 via the patch. I have played turns in v1.10 of 2 PBEM games that were started in v1.01. In both cases the artillery (81mm and 120mm mortars) now uses the aircraft sounds rather than mortar sounds (I was mid-barrage in both games). I haven't installed any sound mods (or other mods) to any of the versions. Is this a known issue? Thanks.

My twopenneth on this issue: I play only WEGO and I am completely happy with the current re-supply method from point of view of general principle and the time it takes. In fact I even positively like it and would like to play some scenarios where needing to re-supply becomes an important factor and becomes a challenge in itself (location of supply trucks, enemy overwatch of route to get to them etc.). I would, however, suggest 2 changes that would seem to be reasonable from a “reality” point of view (of course coding time might be a problem): 1) I sent a scout team from a squad to a truck to collect mortar ammo and take it to the mortar team. There was no mortar ammo bearer team in this scenario to use. I didn’t want to send the mortar team themselves since they were busy firing. I didn’t want to drive the truck near the mortar team because it was too easy a target. I think my choice was reasonable for real world? Of course, what I discovered was that even in the same action spot as the mortar team they couldn’t share the ammo. So I lost all the rounds collected since I couldn’t even put them back in the truck. Surely it should be possible to collect ammo in this way for “other” teams? 2) When a truck is on fire I can understand that no-one will collect ammo from it. Of course, sometimes a truck carrying ammo even explodes and all ammo is destroyed. But for a truck only knocked out by small arms fire why shouldn’t I be able to enter it and collect ammo from it? Maybe a small amount of ammo might be damaged by whatever damaged the truck. But realistically a knocked out truck will have most of its ammo cargo intact in the back and just as easy to acquire as an “active” truck.

I hope that 2 screenshots are visible. In one, you can see the orange hue of a set-up zone. When I "face" the gun in the same direction as the sandbag wall during set-up, then rather than placing it in the centre for maximum protection it places it at one side (in same position as you see it in the second screenshot which I'll come on to later). I achieve the set-up shown by "facing" it perpendicular to one edge of the sandbag wall and then issuing a "cover arc" so that it rotates to be as shown. I then cancel the "cover arc" command. The gun stays happily set up as shown while I position my other forces. Then I hit go and the game saves and I send it to my opponent. When I get a return file the gun has moved to the position it "wanted" to be in before I "tricked" it in to being in the position that I wanted (second screenshot). Since the game is now underway I, of course, can't move it (within the action spot). Just to be clear, all of this is happening within the same action spot. My question is, is this a known occurrence and planned to be fixed? Either by a "better" automatic lining up of a gun with a sandbag wall or by not allowing the position to be re-set after the player has set it up?

Thanks. So I'll give it a try and report back.