Bullethead

Tiger said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seriously you can not sit there and just say "well you shouldn't have let that enemy infantry advance there in the first place". That's very patronizing, pretentious, and as far as the game goes this is something fairly common, esp with the map sizes in CMBO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, we obviously think about battles in different ways. Over the years, the USMC has brainwashed me into thinking as follows: the enemy is no better than I am and operates under the same set of physical laws as I do, and that there is always a solution to every problem. Therefore, all battles are an even match and the winner is the guy who best employs his units. And because I'm supposed to know the best way to employ my units because that's my job and what've I've been trained for, the only way I can lose is if I screw up. Because I lose some battles, I must accept the fact that I screwed them up. This enables me more easily to do better next time by finding and correcting my errors, which I believe are the main cause of my defeats, because I KNOW such errors exist if I lose (and even if I win, for that matter). Does this philosophy always correspond to reality? No. Naturally, sometimes it's just your turn in the barrel, even if you choose to believe otherwise. However, this philosophy is a lot better in terms of long-term tactical improvement, and a lot closer to the truth IMHO, than starting from the position that you did everything right so the problem must lie with the game system. Anyway, from that POV, what's pretentious and patronizing about pointing out a simple fact? If the enemy is advancing to flank you, he is going to keep on until he achieves his purpose unless you stop him. So if you don't want him flanking you, you have to do something about it. If you don't, then you shouldn't complain about him being there, because you shouldn't have let him do it. Simple as that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Where the hell is someone supposed to back up to when these situations develop Bullethead? Off the map? Sorry, don't have that luxury.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Being able to maneuver is usually more important than being able to shoot. So if your units don't have sufficient elbow room to maneuver in all directions if needed, then you either put them in the wrong place to start with (or are using gamey map edge hugging) or were driven into a corner a result of your errors earlier in the game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tartgeting infantry 498m away on an unexposed flank is something that needs to be looked at, esp when given move orders in the opposite direction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now with this I tend to agree. Not just for tanks, but for all units. It REALLY pisses me off when grunts, for example, open up on something halfway across the map which they have no hope of hurting. It's just a waste of ammo and it gives away their position. I would like to see units think more in terms of their sectors of fire in relation to your whole force. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Lorak said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any ambush marker that is not targeted for a turn will dissapear, ones that are targeted will remain as long as targeted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless the ambushing troops are low quality. These guys seem to lack the discipline to keep focused on an ambush marker for any length of time. Quite often their markers disappear between turns even if they were targeting them. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Tiger said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the main thing being asked about here is whether or not the previous fix for tanks to have them "remember" recent armor threats nearby, is broken or not. This was added in patch 1.04 or 1.05 IIRC. Targeting infantry units 400-500 meters away when there's a nearby tank threat that your unit knows about (i.e. engaged for a second or two, etc.), is a good indicator it may be broken.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do not believe this is broken at all, based on my experience. I set up a test scenario for this very purpose. I had some Panthers in front of a hill. I sent some grunts out into the open on one end of the hill to get the Panthers pointed that way. Then I had Shermans come around the other end of the hill to try to get the Panthers in the side. The 1st time I popped a Sherman up, the Panthers had rotated about 30-45^ away from the Sherman. The Sherman thought this was still too close to being aimed at him, though, so did the smoke-popping retrograde thing. But he was in sight long enough for the Panthers to spot him and instantly turn to face him, hulls and turrets both. They had guns on him way faster than they would have without the hull turning Because I was deliberately playing stupid with the Panthers to see how easy it was to kill rotated tanks, I didn't give them any orders. The Sherman had disappeared about 3/4 through the turn and all 3 Panthers were still pointed at his last known position at the start of the next turn. As the next turn progressed, however, 2 of the Panthers eventually turned back to blasting grunts, 1 at at time. But the 3rd Panther, which had had the best line on the Sherman, stayed pointing there for this whole turn and partway into the next. It looked just like the Panthers were working together in a coordinated way, with 1 guarding the others as they slaughtered the only available targets. I was quite impressed with this AI behavior because I'm so used to seeing AI units in other games act like they are the only thing on the map. Anyway, I think this "remember where the tank was thing" is working just fine. Now as to your specific situation of targeting grunts 400m away on a flank is a problem.... I have to ask, WHY is there 400m worth of unsafe LOS on your exposed flank? That's just asking for trouble. How do you know there's not an ATG over there, too? Sounds to me like you have maneuvered yourself into an overly-exposed position that you need to get out of ASAP. Drop some smoke on your exposed flank, pull back, and seek another route to the objective. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-13-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally I hope that we don't see BTS having to do still more reprogramming on CMBO but crack on and put it into CM2. I think it's something that we can easily live with in the meanwhile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think we should all go on suggesting improvements and let BTS decide whether they go into a CM1 patch or are saved for CM2. We get a better product either way. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

To those who dislike the hull rotation thingy of 1.1.... All I can say is, it's a very poor workman who blames his tools. In my (admittedly limited) experience with 1.1 so far, it seems very clear to me that the only way hull rotation can kill you is if you are not using proper combined-arms tactics to begin with. OTOH, if you ARE using proper tactics, the hull rotation thing offers a very definite advantage. It's all a question of geometry. The ONLY way it's AT ALL possible to turn away from something on your front to something on your flank is if you have something on your flank to begin with, or fail to notice it moving to flank you. Being in this position means you have ALREADY been enveloped. If you have allowed this to happen to yourself, you have committed a gross tactical blunder worthy of instant death regardless of whether your tank hull rotates or not. So you should seek to correct your tactics instead of blaming your troops. If you are on the attack, you should never advance without some form of flank security out a bit ahead of your tanks. The purpose of these forces is to clear out potential flanking ambush positions before your tank moves into their kill zones. In the process, of course, they will also sweep away such flotsam and jettsom as vehicle crews that some gamey SOB might try to distract your tanks with. OTOH, if the potential flanking positions are too far to the side to actually walk grunts through without unduly diluting your schwerepunkt, you should use a smokescreen to block all distant LOS to your exposed flank. Guess what? Not only will this smokescreen block the LOS of any ATGs on yonder ridge, it will also block your tanks' LOS to any gamey crew sorties from that same area. If you are on the defense, you should certainly know that the main tactic of the attacker is the envelopment. That means he is going to try to move stuff up onto your flank, as surely as the sun rises. You have 2 main options to defeat this tactic: smash the flanking force BEFORE it reaches your flank, or fall back to your alternate position BEFORE you are enveloped. If you simply sit in place and allow yourself to be enveloped, you are playing directly into the enemy's hands. And if you have chosen your defensive positions so poorly that they are not only amenable to envelopment but also do not allow you to fall back if needed, you should feel fortunate that you survived the battle to be cashiered in disgrace. Using either of these countermeasures will naturally preclude the use of a gamey flanking force of crews. So by using proper combined-arms tactics, you eliminate the possibility of the type of gamesmanship you fear in this case. You should be using proper tactics anyway because they are what you need vs. non-gamey players. Don't let your knowledge of unit prices in QBs entice you to let your guard down after counting X kills. You never really know what the enemy has until it's over. Now put your rifle over your head and doubletime around this bloody assembly area until you drop bloody dead ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

It's my understanding that smallarms fire stops (more or less) at its intended target. Thus, if you have more friendly troops on the far side of the target, they will be safe if they are far enough away. How far is that? It seems to vary with the visibility conditions and the quality of the firing units. Smallarms fire seems to be modeled somewhat as an area weapon and the situational variables seem to change the size and shape of the area affected. At least that's my conclusion from observations. However, while I can't give you a general rule, I can give you 3 specific instances apart from mistaken identity at night where you can get friendly fire small arms casualties: 1. MG Grazing Fire When you fire an MG at a target, all units between the MG and the target are subject to the fire. Thus, if you have your MG shooting from behind your own troops, or your troops cross its LOF just when it fires a burst, you can lose some guys. 2. Negligent Grenading In very close and confused firefights like in dense woods and buildings, friendly troops sometimes toss grenades into each other when they miss their intended targets. Also, it seems sometimes grenades can roll downhill back into the unit that threw them uphill. 3. Negligent Shooting This seems only to happen to low-quality troops in low-visibility situations. If you have a green platoon with its squads close enough together to provide mutual support at night or in fog, you often take casualties every time they fire, even if their direction of fire is perpendicular to the line of the platoon. Example: a zook team triggers an ambush set by a green platoon at night. All squads open up with their LOFs not crossing each other, and the zookers die w/out firing a shot. But a quick headcount afterwards shows you lost maybe 4-5 guys to your own bullets. It seems green troops at night spray rounds in all directions, sometimes even towards the enemy Problem is, this is wide open to gamey exploitation. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I'm more concerned with antipersonnel fire into smoke. You should be able to fire HMGs through smokescreens to set up crossing barriers of grazing fire through which the enemy infantry must advance. You should also be able to fire mortars into or behind smokescreens. I'd do both of these with the same these features as with on-map mortars and TRPs. With the TRPs, mortars can use them provided they don't move after the set-up phase. Same thing with the smoke. If the HMG or mortar hasn't moved, it should be assumed that it has pre-ranged data to shoot at out there where the smoke is likely to be. And they should be able shoot there without need of HQ units. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Like Jason Cawley says, most of the force of the explosion of the shell should go into the building, not back at the shooter. Also, I have another fundamental problem with this sort of situation. That is, would the shell's fuze even have been armed at that short a range? ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Hedu said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is not a troll, and the game/demo I remember wasn't as good as CM, but there was a first person (kinda) game just like this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you mean "Muzzle Velocity" ? That was in that time frame, was WW2 on the same scale as CM, but had the 1st person viewpoint. You as overall CO first created the plan on the map, then had to carry it out and help in the difficult parts by assuming 1st person control of your various units, either in a vehicle or as an individual grunt. That was a game where I just had to say "if only...." as I deleted it from my HD. Cool concept, poor execution. The whole thing was based on an early 2D-cum-3D shooter engine like Doom's or Duke Nukem's. So your vehicles' armor worked like armor in a shooter, gradually being whittled away by repeated hits. Plus it had that type of engine's inherent limitations, like the inability to handle big outdoors environments such as your average WW2 battlefield. To get around this, in MV you could see terrain forever but units only appeared at like 200m range tops, even across open fields...... ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He may have refered to my posts as well in the "Chicken Little" comments, but its not that big a deal is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tom and Bruno- Sorry if I offended either of you with that "Chicken Little" stuff. I have nothing to say in my own defense except that at that time of night, it seemed to me an appropriate description for the sheer number of strident of posts, none of them based on personal observation, that I was seeing in that thread. As you can see, describing such posts takes a lot of words, so my tired and booze-soaked brain searched for some shorter way of saying it and settled on "Chicken Little". Now, refreshed and sober, I could perhaps think of a less offensive term, but because the situation no longer seems to require it, I won't bother In any case, as Tom says, I think you accomplished your primary mission of focusing the CM community's attention on this issue very well. You certainly caused me enough concern to lose some sleep putting it to an immediate test and then writing up a big post of observations. So far, and as expected given BTS's track record so far, observations indicate no real problems and, in fact, some improvements. But that doesn't mean that problems won't become evident later, or won't arise from other changes in the future. Drawing attention to them, or their possible potential, is a good thing. So don't stop doing it. Maybe just in the future don't do it so loudly ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-11-2001).]

Stalin said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now that's a great tactic! I guess from now on I will take a small gun with area fire to kill my TCs during the first turn before driving my tanks into combat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not so simple. Shock wears off in a turn or 2, after which the tank goes back to turning its hull along with the turret. So you have to time your TC assassinations carefully. Do it too soon and you lose the "benefit" before you need to use it ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks BH for the no BS post<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No problem I do however have a few little detail questions about this hull rotation thingy: 1. Rotating when Hull Down I'm talking about cases where after rotation the tank is still hull down to both the target it turned to face and to stuff it was originally facing. In such a case, why would it rotate? The BMG is still blocked, so is it because there's still enough of the hull showing to make a difference? I'm curious because I think rotating the hull makes the tank easier to spot than just turning the turret. If so, then it seems to me that hull rotation is disadvantageous in this case. It provides no more firepower in the new direction and armor facing is largely if not totally irrelevant, but it increases the odds of the enemy reacting to the tank before it gets its shot off. OTOH, if the enemy movement outflanked my cover so that I wasn't hull down to it now, I'd for sure want to rotate to face it. 2. Facing Targets Squarely I've read in a number of secondary sources that the Germans, at least, were trained not to face directly at the enemy but to remain slightly at an angle to them. This was so their armor would gain a "sideways slope" benefit, which I know CM's penetration model takes into account. But it seems to me that tanks are turning to face the target squarely. If it then moves a little bit somewhat later, they just turn the turret slightly to track it, so they get a bit of angled armor that way. But they don't create this angle initially themselves. Should it be that way? Thanks. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Apparently like many others, I didn't get the beta patches because I felt there were already enough better-qualified people stirring that pot. So I come in here tonight with the intention of getting the final 1.1 patch and am immediately confronted with a huge thread saying how tanks are acting crazy now. Hmm, thinks I, I'd better read this before I install 1.1. But after plowing through it all, it became obvious that it was pretty much unsubstantiated paranoia. I mean, BTS's official testers have been doing a good job all along, so I couldn't see them letting something this major slip by. However, I could see the possibility for maybe a little gamey exploitability, so I decided to see for myself just what was happening. In the course of this experiment (which I by no means offer as definitive but at least it's more data than some of the Chicken Littles have) it appeared to me that there is little, if any, real cause for alarm. Provided, that is, you don't do put or leave your tanks in stupid positions to begin with. By a stupid position, I mean a position in which you have enemies simultaneously on your front and flank. IOW, you are the victim of an L-shaped ambush. When you are in this position, you are offering your flank to somebody regardless of which way you're facing and will usually die. Which is why real soldiers go to great lengths to create L-shaped ambushes and lure enemies into them--they are very effective. Knowing this, it's stupid to walk into such a trap. If you do, you have only youself to blame. What people seem to be fearing with 1.1 is which leg of the L kills them. They are concerned that their tanks will face to the flank and die from the enemy to the front. But how is that any different from dying to the enemy originally on your flank? Oh, but you say the units on my flank aren't AT weapons. Really? How do you know, until the game is over? And if you can't tell, how is your TC suppose to know? Now consider the more rational cases. Here, your tank is somewhat to the rear providing long-range covering fire support to your advancing grunts. Your grunts are not only ahead but also somewhat to the flanks. They clear flanking ambush positions before you move your tank forward. Thus, your tank only ever has enemies to its frontal arc. It is true that your tank's hull will rotate to face its target, no matter what that target is. However, if all targets are in the frontal arc, this rotation keeps the front armor facing them all. Thus, no problem. It is only when ranges are very short (say 200-300m or less) that such a rotation will reveal a flank to one of these enemies. But why is your tank that close to the enemy if it's daylight? That's getting into infantry AT weapon range. IOW, any bad effect of this feature can be mitigated by using proper tactics. Enough generalities, time for specifics. In my test, I made a 300m long hill. On the hill were US grunts, behind the hill were M4A3(75)s. 300m in front of the hill was a depression with Panthers in it. The Panthers began the game hull down but I later moved them up into the open. I was playing this hotseat so I could properly orchestrate it. I was indeed able to get flank shot kills on the Panthers. I did this by getting them fixated on the grunts, which I had charge forward towards the US left flank of the Panthers and then, once the Panthers had turned to face them, sending Shermans around the US right end of the hill to shoot them broadside-on. Getting the Panthers turned far enough took several turns, enough to allow the surviving grunts to advance about 400m diagonally to arrive more or less at the longitude of the Panthers but on the opposite side as the Shermans would appear. All this time, the grunts were within 200m of the Panthers, in the open, getting shelled and MG'd to death, but not heading directly for the Panthers. It took 2 full platoons to get a handful of shattered remnants into the proper position, forming a 90^ angle with the Panthers and the Shermans. It also took me allowing the Panthers to sit there in this stupid position and shoot at them. Is any of this going to happen in a real game? Not just no, but HELL NO! So it's not something I'd worry about at all. The only thing I saw in my brief test that gives even a little support to the Chicken Littles is the well-known AI philosophy of "out of sight, out of mind". If a threat disappears, after a while the AI will stop worrying about it and go on with other things. Early in my experiment, I popped a Sherman up before the Panthers had turned much. Seeing Panthers almost facing it still, the Sherman did its usual disappearing act back out of sight. But it was up long enough for the Panthers to turn and face it. Then when it didn't reappear, one by one the Panthers turned back to the grunts. However, the Panther that had had the best line on the Sherman kept looking for it well into the next turn, like it was overwatching for its partners who were busy killing grunts. Thus, it was 2 turns before I showed the Sherman's face again. By that time, the grunts had moved far enough for the Panthers to be fully rotated. But don't forget, that only happened because I was doing the stupid thing of keeping them in place. If you can't react to a situation in 2 turns, you should expect to die. Another little tidbit: shocked tanks don't seem to rotate their hulls but only their turrets. So if you're still scared about this, just shoot your TCs Hope this allays the fears of the Chicken Littles. But if you still have your doubts, test it yourself. Try to find a case where hull rotation kills you and your tank was in a tactically sound position and being given tactically sound orders when it happened. I don't think you can. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

jasoncawley said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a former artilleryman, I have to disagree somewhat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was in the arty, too <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A pre-registered TRP, before an engagement, is often chalked on the gun. The battery and the FO both know exactly where it is, and not just as "the direction the battery is now firing". With other FFEs, the battery does not know that/whether the shooting is hitting the desired location.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gunners know they're hitting the DMPI, or are at least close enough, when they're told to start shooting FFE. Otherwise they'd still be doing spotting rounds. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the FO wants to hit a TRP, he just gives the registration point, and the battery puts the guns on the chalked directions and fires. When he instead calls to drop 150 and continuing firing for effect, the battery commander quickly figures what that is in mils based on where he is (or remembers what that is), calls a new deflection or quadrant, and the guns adjust to it, and then fire. The first process, in practice, goes smoothly "in parallel" for all guns of the battery at once. The second doesn't, always. Unless they play the back and forth game of battery head calling the new coordinates, each gun responding with ready when on it, one of the gunners or AGs will screw it up and adjust the wrong way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disagree. When FFE starts on a non-TRP target, the battery honcho has just spent the previous few minutes doing all the dope change calculations for the spotting rounds. He knows where he's shooting, has all the data at his fingertips, and is all ready to provide quick shifts of that FFE if needed. If he can't do that, he's not doing his bloody job. Same goes for gunners who can't turn their wheels the right way. OTOH, with a TRP he set up hours before (and Lord knows what combat emergencies have driven it out of his mind since then), or maybe didn't even create himself, he has to look the data up. The gunners buy him some time by laying on their chalk marks, but the honcho isn't as well placed at first to do quick calculations if the TRP FFE needs moving. So to me, there seems no justification for having any time difference for adjusting FFE from a TRP or from a non-TRP. The benefit of the TRP is that the gunners can start shooting it as soon as they turn their wheels. That doesn't affect the time the honcho needs to figure a shift from that point, though, unless beforehand he sat down and pre-figured all the likely shifts from that TRP and had them all ready to go on a cheat sheet. This can happen in peacetime, where there is almost always a bunch of downtime available during shoot-exes due to checkfires for one reason or another and FFE shifts are uncommon. But it's a different story in wartime, where guns are either shooting or moving 24/7. Regardless of all this, don't forget the small size of even the largest practical CM battlefields. From the battery positions, none of them are more than 200-300 mils wide, so there's not a huge difference between calculations for any point on them. Especially because CM doesn't take ground elevation differences into account. So it's not like the battery is switching between targets several miles apart. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

First off, thanks for the patch However, I have a problem with the below: BTS said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* Fixed bug so you cannot get TRP bonus when adjusting fire, unless you are within 20m of TRP (was 100m due to bug).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How does the existence of a TRP make any difference at all, at any radius from the TRP, to the time it takes to adjust on-going FFE? I can't see why it should, regardless of whether you're talking non-TRP FFE moving towards a TRP, or TRP FFE moving off a TRP. A TRP is simply a bookmark. It marks the place you interrupted the process of calling for fire between the 2 stages of spotting rounds and FFE. When you use a TRP, you are simply picking up where you left off, going into FFE after a delay from doing the spotting rounds. But the over-all process is exactly the same whether or not you have a TRP--the TRP is just a pause in it. Therefore, to gunners and FOs, there is absolutely no difference between FFE anywhere on the map and FFE on a TRP. Thus, adjusting the FFE from either type of location should have exactly the same time delay. As I have mentioned before, because the process of creating a TRP and the process of adjusting spotting rounds elsewhere on the map to get the MPI on the DMPI are exactly the same, you should be able to create in-game TRPs everywhere you have gone through the spotting round period. This is because non-TRP FFE locations are recorded in real life just like TRPs, so you can go back and hit them later without having to do spotting rounds again: IOW, exactly what you do with a TRP. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The first we-go I saw was in Johnny Reb II, in C-64.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> C'mon, guys. Y'all've forgotten your roots . We-Go has been a staple of war boardgames since Christ was a corporal. Don't you all remember the movement "impulse" charts where if Unit X's speed was 5 hexes/turn, then it moved in impulses 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10? And how you had to write down all damage sustained during an impulse and then apply it after everybody had gotten their shot off that impulse? People so easily forget that back in the days of cardboard, we had wargames with more features than PC games have had until, well, CM. Sure, the number of possible outcomes was limited by the number of sides on a die, but in all other respects boardgames had PC games beat for detail. Boardgames were actually computer games using the chip between your ears. This chip, of course, is crippled by painfully slow I/O peripherals, so full-featured boardgames took hours to resolve even 1 turn, but only in the present time have PC games been able to combine the boardgame's feature set with a computer's turn resolution speed. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Madmatt said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>June, July, August 44.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Either I've been drunk a long time, or this is a change from the original The very first thing I did when CM arrived last summer was set up a collection of targets for 14" guns. But the only time I could find them was June. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Guy w/gun said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's cool to be on the deck of such an OLD ship. Two WWs! Wow!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup, we really got our money's worth from that old tub, reciprocating engines and all . I liked how some of the guns had both Swastika and Rising Sun kill marks on them. Did you see that dud German shell that came aboard during the duel with the batteries at Cherbourg? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By the way, what class of BB is the USS Alabama??? Loved that one two!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> South Dakota. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Dittohead is indeed correct. In CM, the 14" FOs are only available in June 44. However, to find the actual 14" naval artillery, you have to go to Pasadena, Texas (more or less part of Houston). There, at the San Jacinto Battlefield Memorial, moored in beautiful Buffalo Bayou, you will find the old battleship USS Texas, complete with all 10 of her 14" guns which actually fired on the Normandy and Cherbourg areas. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Excellent work. Now where is it? ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

The US AI sometimes underestimates German tanks. Take it from me, this is usually a much worse thing to have happen to you . I had an unknown type of German tank behind a spur that had already bloodily demonstrated that nothing could advance around the end of the spur. Finally, after much hard frontal fighting, I drove the enemy grunts from the crest of the spur. My surviving grunts up there got a clear view of the German tank and reported it as a PzIVH. So naturally I ordered all my tanks to go kill it, some by going over the spur, some around the end. I figured I might lose 1 Sherman but could then press on to regain lost time. But it turned out to be a Panther... Had to make a serious revision to my over-all plan for the scenario after that turn.... ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Jasper said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've been trying to think of some scheme to fit between 'area fire' and 'taget unit' and all I got is a headache. So I was planning on posting "here's a solution", but I ain't got one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you're not fully understanding CM's philosophy on this score. The key thing is that a player doesn't have constant hands-on control over his units. The player gives orders once a minute that express what he wants his units to do. However, during that minute, each unit reacts to its surroundings and, while it tries to follow player orders as much as possible, it will often deviate from them in the interests of self-preservation. CM's spotting system is an integral part of this process. Depending on range, time under observation, visibility conditions, enemy unit activity, and friendly troop quality (and probably other factors), what you and your units know about enemy units improves over time, usually in the course of a turn. For example, an enemy unit can go from invisible to spotted but identified only as to general class (armor or infantry), and then be identified more and more specifically (from infantry to AT team to elite bazooka team, for example). As this new info comes in during the course of a turn, your units will take it into account and adjust their behavior. So, in your situation here with the grunt squads screening the AT team... At first, the tank probably didn't see anything. Then it probably saw all the enemy units as "infantry?" Eventually, however, it was able to determine that some of these units were AT teams. At that point, it decided to kill them first because they posed the biggest threat. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

No problem ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Alex said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Making the Bungalow a small flag might work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, I'll do that for sure in the next version. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was also thinking that if the middle Gerpanese setup zone were moved further away from Garrisson Hill it might make the AI think twice about going all the way around....I recall you're mentioning that part of the reason that the Japanese never got the hill was that the attacks were unco-ordinated allowing the Brits to just defend one sector at a time. Perhaps if the Gerpanese battalion entered one company at a time at 5 or 10 turn intervals. Or even start with 2 each and have the third enter late.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, I agree, this should probably be changed as well. I'll be considering how best to do it. Thanks for the report. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

When and how you use it? "When" is before the enemy gets too close, or you get too close to him. "Too close" is a relative term. The lower limit is when you can't shell the enemy without taking some yourself. The upper limit depends on what the effective ranges of the enemy weapons are. How is simple: always in mass. Bring a heavy volume of fire onto the target for long enough to do the desired job, whether this be mere suppression or utter destruction. Shifting your fire all over the map every turn is a waste of ammo. You need to keep hitting the same target until it's no longer a problem. How long that is depends on the size and type of arty employed. Offensive vs defensive use. Offensive: Artillery conquers, infantry occupies. 'Nuff said. Defensive: Stock up on TRPs and put them in all the best enemy avenues of approach, as far forward as possible. Put snipers out to watch these TRPs. Then break up enemy attacks before they reach your main line. If you have sufficient ammo, you can use curtain barrages on both attack and defense to screen a flank or deny the enemy the ability to shift forces flank to flank. What caliber do you prefer and why? You have to take into account many factors of each type of arty available: firepower per shell, number of shells that come with an FO, ROF during FFE, default impact pattern sizes, and delay time. In general, the smaller the tube, the more ammo you get. Mortars usually have about 1/2 the delay time and a MUCH higher ROF than guns, but slightly wider patterns. Rockets have VERY wide patterns, extremely high ROFs, extremely high firepower, and about the same delay as guns. German and Brit arty has a higher delay than corresponding US arty, and US arty has more ammo than Brits, who have more ammo than Germans. But besides all this, the choice in large measure boils down to what country I'm playing, because your choice of arty should be made in appreciation of what your cannonfodder--er, grunts and tanks--can and can't do. The US has 60mm mortars all over the place. These things are excellent for rapid suppression of enemy MGs and infantry that suddenly start causing you problems. So you really don't need arty for this role. This allows you to focus on heavier, slower stuff. I find the 105 to be the best all-round, because it has plenty of ammo, a decent ROF, and is powerful enough to hurt everything on the map and even the map itself. Which is good because US tanks suck. So you have to consider US arty as an important anti-armor weapon. The Brits aren't quite as well off. They have 2" mortars but these are pretty much a waste except against halftracks. This means you probably should get some 3" mortars to provide rapid suppression. But Brit tanks also suck, so you also need more powerful stuff for anti-armor use. And the best buy there is the 25pdr. It's not as powerful as a 105 but it will still hurt armor and it has a lot of ammo. The bigger stuff is generally too slow and doesn't have enough ammo to be really useful. The Germans are the worst off for arty. They have no light mortars, their guns have very little ammo, and their rockets fire such wide patterns that you can't use them within 500m of your own line. Fortunately, their tanks can usually take care of themselves, allowing you to concentrate your arty on the anti-personnel role. For this, the 81mm seems to be the best thing they have. It has decent firepower, comes with a lot of ammo (although it uses it up very quickly) and has a short delay time. Anything else you can think of that would be useful. Don't use your biggest guns to lay smokescreens. You had to pay the price for their firepower so use it to kill the enemy. Make smoke with mortars--you get it faster and it works just as well. Meanwhile, your big guns are nuking the enemy behind the smoke. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.