SgtMuhammed

That's the problem with everything about Kursk, they all focus on Prokhorvka and the SS. I am personally more interested in 2 Panzer and the north but no one else seems to be, well other than Ponyri.

That's not a bad idea actually. As a suggestion for CMAK I would suggest adding some sort of a strategic map to show progress during an OP.

I want to see the "News Reel" version of the game where all the films are in black and white and are full of dramatic images of tanks and things crossing streams and pushing through hedges. Of course they would all end with the player's troops waving to the cammera after another well earned victory. Of course it would have to have the annoying voice over to be complete.

It was formal as well as informal practice in nearly all armies. Companies could be assigned various mixes, which can be modelled in the current game, and platoons often found themselves with a mix of models, IIIs and IVs or just different models of the same basic tank. Two things I would love to see is the ability to assign command. This would let you build mixed platoons and could hopefully prevent other units from stealing assets (machine guns, mortars, flamethrowers, etc.) from each other. I would also like to see a company commander tank. As it is you can call an individual tank a commander but he really isn't. I would also like to see higher echelon command bonuses effect lower level commanders. A good company commander can balance out less gifted platoon leaders.

HE can damage an AFV but more importantly it can make the crew think it is damaged. For example, during the after battle assesments during the Battle of the Bulge it was found that many German tanks that had been "knocked out" by U.S. artillery actually suffered little damage. Usually it consisted of jammed turrets or thrown track and busted drive sprockets and road wheels. As hits by AP rounds varried as to how much the crew noticed them (some crews said they never heard them while others heard them quite distinctly) a hit or a near miss by HE will often be more dramatic. Imagine the following: A PzIV is advancing and comes under a sharp artillery barrage. I piece of shrapnel lodges in the turret ring and jams the turret while dirt thrown up by the barrage blinds the sights. A near miss throws the track and tilts the tank into a shellhole. The crew suddenly finds itself blind, stunned by the tank being tossed about like a toy, and unable to move. As far as they are concerned the tank is dead. The commander gives the order and, during a lull, the crew escapes. If the vehicle is recovered later it can be fixed with only a couple hours work but the crew, while under fire, had to decide on the basis of what they could sense whether or not they had a chance. AFVs only look invulnerable.

Very valid point. That is why I think it is helpful to review the briefings in a scenario as well as the scenario itself. While some don't read them, well written briefings can really set the mood for a good scenario. Designers don't seem to mind criticism about their battles I don't see why they would mind about their spelling. (Side note: don't be too hard on those who butcher another language. If you want a good laugh just look at any phrase book.)

Looking good. Can't wait for the finished product.

Tank hunter teams. They work really well, the ones without molotovs that is.

M.D. You're right, that is one ugly mod. [ June 22, 2003, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

I don't know if they ever wear out. Someone ran some tests running a bunch of guys over one and they just kept dying.

I don't know if they ever wear out. Someone ran some tests running a bunch of guys over one and they just kept dying.

I don't think it was modelled.

Played a winter scenario vs the AI. The game ended without a shot being fired. Looking at the map I found all the computer's infantry huddled around one clump of trees completely exhausted from slogging through deep snow for the entire game.

I was about to ask the same thing. Maybe Model made that link up after all.

They were used extensivly during the Battle of the Bulge. Often they were what stood in the way of arty units being overrun by German infantry as each battery usually had one or two attached. As noted earlier they were rarely used in their intended role for the simple reason that the Luftwaffe rarely made its presense felt in the west. The American 90mm AAA gunners had it even worst as they were rarely used in the ground support role (or you might count that as having it better, you want your war to be boring). I'm not sure why they were left out of CMBO but that was the only major gripe I had about that game.

Scenarios with max sized maps normally require max size forces to go with them. As a designer it is a pain in the but to take the time to research and then convert and produce a map that will only see 30 percent of it used. Filling it up, on the other hand, leaves one with a game that quickly becomes overwelming. The best way to do it is to design your own. Look around you and approximate the area in which you live. As long as you aren't trying to be historical then it doesn't really make that much difference.

I love flight sims, absolutely love them. Got nearly all of the Janes series (even WWII fighters though it sucks) as well as EAW and BoB, and Mig Alley. Even bought a brand new joystick for them. They are all collecting dust since I bought CMBB. I just got MOOIII for father's day and love it. Now I am playing PBEMs and designing scenarios in between sessions of MOO.

Too bad the real Patton had a voice more like George Jefferson. Dissappointingly nasally is how I have heard it described. I want ship units so you can recreate the DAK firing on the RN during the taking of Tobruk.

Thanks for all the responses, well the ones that made sense anyway. Now I have a whole new batch of bookmarks to sort through.

That's one of the big reasons I would like it if they made minefields a kind of paint on feature. So many points would get you so many square meters of medium density minefields. If you make it bigger the density goes down, smaller it goes up. Adds lots of tactical possibilities for both sides. Do you risk that the minefield in front of you is low density and just made to get your attention or is it a deathtrap? Can you trust your flank to a few mines you know the enemy will spot and hopefully be to scared to cross? Things like that.

I like the command limitation idea. I would also like to be able to assign units to new headquarters. Put mortars under control of their platoon HQ or assign machineguns to specific platoons, stuff like that. I hate trying to fire a mortar barrage only to find that command has been ursurped by some other HQ.

In the game they clear the whole thing. Even clearing a lane though takes much longer than is portraid. In actuality it would take about as long as a typical CMBB battle, depending on the density. (There's a suggestion, variable density minefields.) Of course if they had then clear lanes then the AI would have to deal with entry and exit angles, width of the breach, the possibility of the enemy reseeding the field if it wasn't secured, etc. They don't get a lot of the glory but engineers do a heck of a lot more on the battlefield than they are given credit for.

They probably meant a rash of black eyes and head cuts from trying to keep your eye on the gunner's sight while the tank is bouncing around. Just a guess though.

Then again they could already be factored in in the morale and combat modifiers that HQ units give.

A squad or two of pioneers can collapse the sides of a tank ditch rather quickly and can lay a surface minefield in a matter of a few minutes. Actually I would agree with you on the time factor were it not for the fact that time is already greatly compressed for engineers. How long does it take CMBB pioneers to clear a minefield? How long does it take in real life? Even without being fired at finding, clearing, proofing, and marking a minefield by hand takes a really long time. We are talking nearly an hour for your typical single CMBB sized minefield. Especially when each mine has to be found (a regular minefield, not a daisy-chain or surface laid) checked for anti-handling devices, dug up, and then made safe.