Dschugaschwili

IIRC, over open ground move, advance and assault are equally fast as long as your troops are not tired or worse. So if you can get to your destination without getting tired along the way, you don't need any more time with assault. Dschugaschwili

I remember reading about a 30% reduction of effective armor for weak spots, but I don't know where this number came from. So don't expect a small AA gun to KO a King Tiger from the front even with a weak spot hit, but killing a Tiger with a Sherman is certainly within expectations. Dschugaschwili

Basically, you try to keep them in command and wait until their morale is back up. Canceling the order (and maybe giving a new one) works if they don't come under fire again during the next turn, otherwise it probably doesn't. Dschugaschwili

With infantry, decide how much close range firepower you need depending on the map parameters. Then choose the type accordingly. And try to use the company/battalion discounts wherever possible. You can also get some support weapons cheaper that way. In combined arms games, I usually max out the armor budget. On the defense, a heavy arty module and a couple of TRPs can work wonders. Pay some attention to the rarity values. Units with rarity greater than 30% are rarely worth it. Feel free to experiment. If you're unsure, you can take a computer pick from a previous game, think about what you didn't like about your force in that game, and try to correct these things when buying your troops manually. Dschugaschwili

I remember that Steve once mentioned something like being able to buy "a battalion of infantry with a platoon of medium tanks". This was quite some time ago, so the design may have changed since then. Dschugaschwili

If he carelessly parks a M10 next to a large building, you can also area fire at the top floor to get a treeburst-like effect. Dschugaschwili

Doesn't even have to be area fire. Firing at a seen enemy in a house hits the back of your assaulting squad(s) just as well. Dschugaschwili

It is not valid, since the computer's memory contains ALL data unencrypted... </font>

It is not valid, since the computer's memory contains ALL data unencrypted... </font>

The exported file would have to contain the same information as the encrypted file. This is already a security risk because cryptoanalysis is much easier if you know the plain text. And the exported file would contain information about both sides' units, which is obviously not acceptable in an ongoing PBEM game. So the argument is certainly valid. How do you cheat that? By hacking either a savegame file or the game executable. If you know how to do it, fine. Remind me to not play against you in that case. Dschugaschwili

The exported file would have to contain the same information as the encrypted file. This is already a security risk because cryptoanalysis is much easier if you know the plain text. And the exported file would contain information about both sides' units, which is obviously not acceptable in an ongoing PBEM game. So the argument is certainly valid. How do you cheat that? By hacking either a savegame file or the game executable. If you know how to do it, fine. Remind me to not play against you in that case. Dschugaschwili

All those I-want-it-all-in-one-game module haters should relax and think about the CM development for a while. Suppose CMBO had come out with only German and American troops and without winter terrain/units. Would you still have bought the game? Remember that lots of people played the two (later three) scenario beta demo without an editor for many months before CMBO was actually released. Ok, they didn't pay for it, but it was much much much more limited than anything Battlefront is going to release. Now imagine that Battlefront had said: You can have the game 6 months earlier, but with only Americans and Germans. I'm quite sure that the entire forum would have shouted: Do anything you want, but give me the game ASAP! Also, few people complained that the TCP/IP multiplayer mode was missing at first. In short: as long as the modules are reasonably priced, I don't see anything wrong with this concept. Dschugaschwili

All those I-want-it-all-in-one-game module haters should relax and think about the CM development for a while. Suppose CMBO had come out with only German and American troops and without winter terrain/units. Would you still have bought the game? Remember that lots of people played the two (later three) scenario beta demo without an editor for many months before CMBO was actually released. Ok, they didn't pay for it, but it was much much much more limited than anything Battlefront is going to release. Now imagine that Battlefront had said: You can have the game 6 months earlier, but with only Americans and Germans. I'm quite sure that the entire forum would have shouted: Do anything you want, but give me the game ASAP! Also, few people complained that the TCP/IP multiplayer mode was missing at first. In short: as long as the modules are reasonably priced, I don't see anything wrong with this concept. Dschugaschwili

This still doesn't make the outspoken minority representative of the silent ones. Many silent ones (including me) do not have a shelf full of WWII books at home. They don't scream "my life is ruined" if the Panther's front upper hull armor slope is off by 0.5°. They wonder why there are dozens of infantry formations that are essentially equal except for the name. They only get confused by a dozen PzIV versions when four of them would be quite enough from a gameplay perspective. They bought CM because of the depth of the gameplay, not because there are 900 unit types in the game or because the cross-country speed of American half-tracks is modeled accurately. Many of them don't even care about the game setting as long as the game seems balanced and is fun to play. It's no wonder that the silent ones are silent most of the time. They don't have the knowledge necessary to participate in a discussion about armor failure of high hardness plates against large caliber shells. And they don't care anyway. They will complain about invincible über-tanks in certain time periods because the game doesn't appear balanced then, not because some gun/armor is under-/overmodeled. And they will take a look at the CMX2 demo, be impressed with what Battlefront has accomplished, and then buy the game. All because the game will be fun to play, not because they will have tested the penetration capability of the Sherman 75mm gun against the PzIV front plate to see if it matches their books. As a member of the generally silent ones, I can only say: Steve, please give us space lobsters anytime. Dschugaschwili

This still doesn't make the outspoken minority representative of the silent ones. Many silent ones (including me) do not have a shelf full of WWII books at home. They don't scream "my life is ruined" if the Panther's front upper hull armor slope is off by 0.5°. They wonder why there are dozens of infantry formations that are essentially equal except for the name. They only get confused by a dozen PzIV versions when four of them would be quite enough from a gameplay perspective. They bought CM because of the depth of the gameplay, not because there are 900 unit types in the game or because the cross-country speed of American half-tracks is modeled accurately. Many of them don't even care about the game setting as long as the game seems balanced and is fun to play. It's no wonder that the silent ones are silent most of the time. They don't have the knowledge necessary to participate in a discussion about armor failure of high hardness plates against large caliber shells. And they don't care anyway. They will complain about invincible über-tanks in certain time periods because the game doesn't appear balanced then, not because some gun/armor is under-/overmodeled. And they will take a look at the CMX2 demo, be impressed with what Battlefront has accomplished, and then buy the game. All because the game will be fun to play, not because they will have tested the penetration capability of the Sherman 75mm gun against the PzIV front plate to see if it matches their books. As a member of the generally silent ones, I can only say: Steve, please give us space lobsters anytime. Dschugaschwili

Given that friendly fire is enabled at night, you were probably lucky that they didn't fire. You may have taken more casualties than the enemy otherwise, especially if your squads were quite bunched up. Losing half of a platoon to friendly fire while shooting up an enemy unit standing right inside your platoon is nothing uncommon. Dschugaschwili

The forum grogs can't complain about over-modeled StuG front plates and the like. Dschugaschwili

Ok, ok, I was going from memory when I wrote the above, and I forgot about tall hedges being essentially the same. My bad. Dschugaschwili

Apart from the already mentioned unit differences (so no King Tiger vs. Super Pershing matches) the bocage terrain type is also missing in CMAK. Dschugaschwili

I don't have CMBB in front of me right now, so I don't know if the date allows for it, but the Germans get one plane (Henschel, I think) with a 75mm gun. This one will seriously mess up any armor if there's not enough AA protection around. Dschugaschwili

The Germans also get extra points in the infantry section. And this imbalance is there in all versions of Combat Mission, not just CMBB. Dschugaschwili

undead reindeer cavalry, JasonC: since you disagree about the "platoon vs. 2 MGs" battle, what about you play one against each other and write an AAR afterwards? Dschugaschwili

I got good results with the German 75mm gun halftracks in this role lately. Better firepower, but no carrying capacity. If you are careful enough to keep them alive, those halftracks can give you the mobile firepower that your limited armor budget does not allow you to buy. Dschugaschwili

Quick! Lock this thread and start a new one before we have another forum crash and I lose my three digit member number. Dschugaschwili

If the player retains control of the units I'd suggest suddenly assigning those units the "should exit for points" flag with their exit zone to the rear. Of course, in that case the player could first use up all ammo and only then exit the units. So the victory points gained for exiting would have to be tied to time of exit and/or ammo level at exit. But I think it could be a viable way of doing a "soft" removal. Dschugaschwili