Jump to content

General Liederkranz

Members
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

General Liederkranz last won the day on September 11 2018

General Liederkranz had the most liked content!

About General Liederkranz

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah, I wish they could cower down inside. And if they're my bunkers sometimes I wish I could MAKE them do that by Hiding, when there's a lot of small arms fire coming into the firing slit.
  2. An anecdote that illustrates, to me, how rapidly bloody things could get, from Hugh Cole's official history of the Bulge, describing an attack by the 87th Division: "While moving over a little rise outside Jenneville, the leading platoon met a fusillade of bullets that claimed twenty casualties in two minutes." Even if the platoon was at full strength to start (39 men), that's 50% in two CM turns. Even more if they were at reduced strength to start. That level of casualties would be pretty shocking even in CM. Obviously it didn't happen constantly--he says the whole battalion lost 132 men that whole day--but it certainly could if commanders (players) press too hard or make mistakes.
  3. Do you know how many companies they committed? I believe it was normal for CW battalions to put two companies into the attack and hold two back. If that’s what they did here, then these casualties would amount to more like 50%. And maybe more in some platoons.
  4. In my experience (mostly under 4.0 though), grenades will kill a wooden bunker, but it’s variable. Sometimes a squad will exhaust its entire supply with no effect, other times it’s easy. I’m currently playing CMFI “Ramparts of the Palikoi” under 4.1 and the bunkers don’t seem too vulnerable to small arms. One did show up as knocked out after several 81mm mortar rounds and a metric ton of .30 cal hit it. Others survived all that just fine What does seem weird is suppression. It’s not clear to me that suppressed bunker occupants actually fire any less than unsuppressed ones (and of course they never cower or pin). It’s also unpredictable what suppresses them. Sometimes mortar hits do but not usually. MG fire that scores penetrations on the firing slit doesn’t seem to. Only actual casualties reliably cause suppression. I don’t think any of this is new since 4.1 but it is just confusing.
  5. I don't remember scout teams ever taking too many grenades -- 3 or 4 seems about what I'm used to seeing. AT teams though tend to grab almost all the grenades, even if they have a better weapon like a bazooka.
  6. Do you mean the number doesn't change from the beginning to the end of the turn? As I recall, for some reason it's always been the case that grenades used at any time during the turn are deducted from the unit's count as soon as playback starts. I don't know if that's always been true of demo charges though?
  7. This is excellent. It looks like some other small things have been fixed too--I notice there are no more extra "assistants" in CMFB VG squads, and the anachronistic M1919A6s in the CMFI Troina campaign have been replaced by M1919A4s. Like with the SVT fix, it's nice to be reminded that the developers are noting problems reported on the boards and fixing them, even when we don't know it.
  8. That's what I do, at least with CMBN and CMFI. But it only works if you already owned the games before the 4.0 upgrade, which was 2 years and 4 months ago. If you're a new player since then, your only choice is 4.0 and the attendant bugs.
  9. Also Brens/BARs/Bredas firing single shots instead of bursts at ranges over 150m or so.
  10. Are you sure about this? I seem to recall distributing AP ammo to squad LMGs and shooting at Soviet armored cars with it (this was in CMRT, of course, not CMBN).
  11. I agree that using a larger-scale wargame to generate scenarios could be more interesting than just translating from a tactical-level game. I know some people were doing something like this with "St. Lo" in CMBN a few years ago. I was recently playing "Last Blitzkrieg" from MMP's Battalion Combat Series and keeping notes of interesting engagements to game out in CMFB. To my mind the problem with doing this with most board wargames is that success is normally dependent on stacking up enough attacking units to make 3-1 odds, so the only information available to build a CM scenario would be "three battalions attack one." By contrast, BCS (maybe like Berlin '85, which I haven't played) models attacks as essentially one battalion on another, and the variables you need to manipulate to win all translate nicely into CM: unit type, troop quality, amount of artillery for each side, posture (deployed vs. hasty attack/defense), availability (and type) of armor or AT support, terrain, strength levels, and fatigue. Of course, if the attacker is doing his job, most BCS attacks would be lopsided in CM terms, but this is usually achieved through combinations of these advantages, rather than just by vastly superior numbers.
  12. For what it’s worth, I also caught a fraudulent charge (Amazon) a few weeks ago on the card I used to buy SF2.
  13. This drives me crazy too, so I now only play the Commonwealth on v3.0. But then I miss the better infantry spacing and recombining squads and corner peeking from v4. So I also end up mostly playing CMRT. It helps too that attacking Russians tend not to have much off-map artillery.
  14. I don't know exactly about CMBN campaigns, since I haven't played through them, but it depends on whether there's a combination of lots of fortifications on one side, and lots of off-map artillery on the other. Therefore, generally any campaign that involves you making lots of set-piece attacks will be much easier. The Troina Campaign in Fortress Italy, for example, is much easier with the bug because several of the battles are big US attacks. The Germans will get out of their trenches and run around when you shell them with your copious artillery. The first battle in the Soviet campaign of Red Thunder is similar. A human defender can mitigate the effect by using "Pause" commands, but the AI can't do that--and that's the only opponent you can have in campaigns. On the other hand, the effect is much less noticeable when there isn't much artillery, or there aren't many fortifications. There are plenty of scenarios like this, where the bug would have almost no effect.
  15. It would be neat if in addition to radio contact being lost when units move, C2 links also broke when the HQ team fired their weapons. It would add an incentive to keep HQs with tight covered arcs. I've always thought it was a little gamey to order my platoon leaders and their radio operators to lay down fire while *simultaneously* calling in artillery. This would get even more interesting if combined with a command system like the one @LongLeftFlank suggests. In other words, if the limit of units available to be commanded decreased when the intermediate HQs were moving, firing, or suppressed.
×
×
  • Create New...