Rinaldi

I don't think I've been intimidated by Panthers for a long time, but every so often they will pull off something like this and remind me there's a reason to fear. https://imgur.com/a/HNTnnEY

Noticed in QB and Scenario editor when dates set to July 1943. Main formation affected: Auflkarung 43 for Heer/Luftwaffe. Appears to affect any formation that uses light armoured cars, however. PSW 222s spawn dismounted with crews not on map. Have been able to reliably recreate it. Looks similar to a bug I reported last year in CMBN:

I'm about halfway through the first battle, definitely taking more casualties than I consider comfortable, but your men are, to put it politely, less-than-ideal. Once I got the HMG set up in the cottages on the left I had no trouble blowing the Soviets out of the first tree line. I realized about 10 minutes in that the troops aren't skilled enough for subtle tactics. I'm moving in with entire rifle companies and pouring fire on. One company, one objective, etc. The scout cars are doing yeoman's work supporting the infantry while I husband the armour for the final attack. Already lost a few. It's a great little campaign.

Poking some fun at a PBEM opponent who has gotten textbook BCO (Big Cat Overconfidence) syndrome.

This took far longer than I would have liked to finish up, but I think it should be an entertaining read. Was certainly entertaining to play after the first 15 turns or so, at least - read it here: https://rinaldiaars.blogspot.com/2021/07/cmbn-aar-cut-off-at-kovering-what-if.html

Thanks for the response there George, had been wondering this myself.

A3s had better fire control tends to be the consensus. Glass cannons, I expect a lot of players will come to like the A3s when they're in good battle positions.

Great find. Nasty pic. Some people can imagine my chagrin when we were stuck doing route recce in G-wagens whilst on exercise (in another life, it seems at this point), and we were watching Coyotes prance about. We thought the grass was greener. Then I got familiarized and chance to crew with some active guys after a few summer rotations. We heard the MILEs go off a lot. When you're expected to do less sneaking and peeping and more fighting for information, you're going to get shot. A lot. It's a fine balance. Less info, more survivability, or kicking over the hornet's nest. God forbid if you're a peeper and you get caught, though. I imagine its why most recce battalions tried to ride the fine line between the two. Lots of light skins, under armed cars, etc coupled with squadrons of heavier fighting vehicles or, in the case of the Commonwealth forces, straight on assault companies of motor infantry. Recon is a lot more nuanced than drive forward until someone gets pissed at you, and its an operation that never stops even once you've gained contact. Wish more people understood this.

Bro...do you actually play CM or? I'm asking this in good faith because you have me conflicted.

Some of these guys don't even play CM, or at least you'd think so with the quality of hot takes we see.

Mea culpa, but victory will be all the sweeter when all the naysayers are forced to come back hat in hand, right? Silver linings.

Not going to lie, I had convinced myself you were cooked a few turns ago. Definitely premature.

You must have missed what sparked the discussion: https://imgur.com/FIB5gco - someone clearly thought there was something strange about the line of sight when I pulled this off. The view from the turret was shown here. Pretty clear line of sight, in my view, even with the technical steps that need to be taken to prevent our CPUs from exploding. Let me be clear; I have no idea what the gooblygook people who posted before yourself and Ian are are on about. Some people speak with authority on the game with a particularly ill-found confidence.

I certainly won't be complaining about the LOS. That little BP and what happened in the next couple of minutes broke @Trasher's will to continue.

Bahahaha

?

https://imgur.com/FIB5gco Presented without comment.

Gun depression is not modelled in game in the strictest sense, but it will become apparent as a large negative time addition to engaging a target after acquiring. Most often you'll notice this when fighting infantry with armored vehicles in close quarters - that's been in game since the Market Garden module. EDIT: I want to clarify this is strictly noticeable at extremely close range, this was an addition in MG to better represent the difficulty a tank (of any era) faces in fighting infantry in built-up or close in terrain. It was meant to even the odds for light infantry when conducting close attacks on armour. Soviet-era tanks are squat with a low centre of gravity and a longer or comparable barrel to NATO counterparts. As a rule they had worse gun depression as a result. Again, not modelled in game unless something has changed beyond my knowledge.

A potato with jumper cables can run this game engine if you dial it down low enough - your rig is fine.

Phenomenal book. Re-reading it as we speak. Bit hard to find in paper format but iirc it was published in a CAF manual in full, so the curious can likely find it via archive.org or similar.

L I T

From an AAR I've been making of 'Cut off at Kovering What if' that has been quite literally months in the making - I have been far too busy to put the finishing touches. As frustrating as my inability to get back to Canada for x-mas is this year I am (secretly) looking forward to the free time to put a ribbon on this one. https://i.imgur.com/DmS3l8c.mp4 Scenario is initially a frustrating bit of rompo pallo for the Allied attacker, too little frontage, too little cover and too many men. Once you get stuck in though I find the Germans begin to unravel swiftly.

They look much higher poly, definitely the latter.

Nice

The point of hull down is that it forms a battle position. Its only one part of the formula of breaking an enemy targeting solution. The other one is time. Why should we take anything away from a 'test' that doesn't mimic a battlefield condition where a competent player repositions a tank in BP frequently? I also enjoy the casual ignoring of @Pete Wenman's results. It's okay Pete, the reasonable people see you.