SgtMuhammed

Not with the "we-go" system so successful. Making CM real time be a step back. Ok not a step, it would be like falling off Everest.

Units that arive between battles are assumed to be doing just that, arriving. They haven't had time to dig in yet. You will notice though that if you don't move them then they will be dug in during the next battle. Even if you set the time to be two battles with the first at dawn and the second at night I think it is still assumed that there are only a few minutes between each battle, an hour or so at the most. You can set trenches and such along the length of the map as fallback positions and they will wait for that part of the map to be exposed. Troops, however, will be moved to the current battle window. I am not sure about foxholes placed in the editor. One of the biggest wishes I have for coming versions of CM is more powerful editing tools for designers. Scripting, better obsticals, etc.

Like an earlier discussion I am beginning to wonder how much the abstracting in the game lends itself to seemingly strange results. We don't see footprints in the snow but maybe the program does. We don't see that one frightened solder fire off a burst when supposed to be in cover but the program does. I don't know if these things are actually happening but it is well known that there is a good deal of abstraction in the game. One thing that pilots have noticed throughout aerial combat is that when people on the ground look up at low flying aircraft their faces stand out like a neon sign, even in what you would think was pretty good cover. Again this could be a random factor build into the program that doesn't readily show itself on the screen. BTW, the U.S., at least, did have the practice of stacking aircraft on call to support advancing ground forces. They started it at about the time of the Normandy breakout. One thing about AI targeting. I think it prioritizes on the basis of threat and value. While an empty trench is easy to see it is no threat, and since it cannot be destroyed, no point value so it is not shot at. Trucks, on the other hand, present no threat but have a point value. Without more valuable targets they will be targeted. I agree that there are some pretty quirky things about the aerial spotting process but I have really begun to wonder how much difference there is between what we can see and what is really happening.

This sounds like the most likely explaination. This was about the time most of the western Allies begain to try to beef up their infantry AT weapons. The U.S. was developing the Bazooka at the time as well.

U.S. maps tend to number in feet. But yes it is possible for two hills to have the same "name" but it is very unusual. Actually not all hills even get a number. It seems to be only the ones that really dominate the terrain around them. I've seen lots of maps with two hills of about the same height but only one of them will have a number.

Maybe one of your guys forgot to Em-nu his rank and it is glinting in the sun. Air does seem to be able to spot the strangest things. I had an instance where they bombed a bunch of guys hiding in a wheatfield while ignoring a line of dug in tanks in the open.

Didn't they also take Berlin and invent Carmex?

I made a North Africa Scenario with BB. It is based on the British action just north of Robaa where they captured their 1st Tiger. Let me know and I will send it to you.

Forgetting that German Rockets don't fire everything in one shot like the Russians. Turn 1 preplanned barrage on suspected enemy positions. Turn 2-3: Advance and occupy said position, finishing off some enemy scouts. Turn 4: Witnessing the most accurate rocket fire I have ever seen fall on my own guys.

The big question on all of these seems to be whether or not the game takes into account gun elevation. While I know that the guns don't have their real elevation and depression limitations, I wonder if the engine still puts them in realistic firing positions. What I mean is that while the overall slope of the hill might be 10 degrees or whatever, the tank would actually have to find a flatter place to be able to fire from or it wouldn't be able to depress its gun. If firing into a valley it would actually have to find a place facing a little down hill. If this is the case it would make a big difference in what we see on the screen and what is actually happening deep in the bowels of the program. Remember that in real life taking a hull down position doesn't mean that you have to find one of the gross terrain features to hide behind. Small dips and variations can give the needed cover even if they are too small for the engine to display. I know the game takes these into account for infantry so I would assume they are factored into armor as well.

Where do you post reviews on B&T?

No, you don't have to give them any orders. They will do it on their own. I don't think they will throw grenades till they are out of molotovs.

The 75 was a revised version of the 75 arty piece (the old French 75) with new ammo. I think it would be classified as a medium velocity. Kind of in between the 75 short of the PIV and the 75 of the Sherman.

There are a couple SCW battles posted at the Scenario Depot.

Yes, it is very interesting that the official Western version was pretty much the Russian one, T34s blasting Tigers at point blank in a swirling melee, until the opening of RUSSIAN archival material. Maybe there are different archives for Russian and Western historians.

Since Matt covered the technical aspects of your rantings I'll stick to your flawed sense of history. No the Russian 76 couldn't regularly penetrate the front armor of the Tiger at any range. This is the reason why they charged in to achieve close range flank and rear shots. As for Prokorovka, there were very few Tigers actually present in the fighting and even fewer actually destroyed. Instead there were a whole bunch of missidentified Pz IV's and a Russian propaganda machine that wanted to put the best spin possible on a fight that was actually a fiasco for them.

Just finished an OP and ended up in the final battle facing 3 Tigers while I had about 25 T34s and T70s. The AI did his usual trick of spreading out to cover his entire front so one of them was isolated while the other two were able to support each other. I charged the loner with two platoons and destroyed him with the loss of two 34s. The other two were a different story. I lost 14 T34s and 3 T70s before finally taking them out. One Tiger took 10 penetrations to his rear and sides before finally going down (I was sure it was dead at least twice only to have it start moving again). The beasts are tough but if you can pay the price they can be dealt with. The 34/76 can penetrate the Tiger but you basically have to put the barrel against the side of the tank.

Try to use cover to give you time to develope the battlefield. Of course this is not always possible but it usually pays off. Scout around. Pick a good looking route and mass there. Don't dilute your effort or you will not be able to achieve a decisive breakthrough. On the other hand, if it is not possible to make a good approach march you might consider massing as close as you can at a single point and hitting as hard as you can. This is an all or nothing approach but often there just isn't any choice. In such cases you often have to hope for that lucky shot that turns the tide. Of course a good plan often produces its share of luck. It also helps if you can detach a force as a diversion/flank attack. If you can give it enough firepower to fool your opponent into thinking it could be your main attack it will hamper his ability to react decisively to your real attack and may catch forces in the process of shifting fronts.

*Shameless self plug* If you want a happy face from your ST why not try "If Only" at the Scenario Depot.

Put a coffee ring on it and you'll get my vote.

If any of you have yet to experience a Russian tank charge from ground level I would advise you to try it with this one. You get an entirely new appreciation of how neat this game is to look at.

Just starting 3rd Battle vs AI as Russians. WOW!!!

One thing I have noticed about the ST, and this also applies to the Churchill with the spigot mortar from CMBO, is that against a point target, like a tank, they tend to be deadly accurate. When I order one to area fire I will get spreads of several tens of meters. If I tell it to shoot a tank I get a direct hit every time. Pretty interesting when you consider that it is a low velocity, high tragectory gun. One I had even managed a hit on a speeding T34 at over 800 meters. Even Panthers have trouble with that one.

You can use the same trick to put guns in buildings.

Points: 2500+ (I like big fights) Everything else: Random Computer purchase of forces for both sides. Improvise and adapt!