Conscript Bagger

Well, duh, there's your problem--you've got sailors manning your tanks!

Okay, thanks--I think I've mostly gotten what you mean. I suppose it's just hard to conceptualize without seeing a game that puts it all together.

I missed the whole CC thing; I think I was wrapped up in TIE Fighter and Aces of the Pacific back in those days... so your comparison is unfortunately lost on me. Good point about the variable time/warning, though I think most players expect something to happen in their games anyway (but I agree the timing could still hamper a surprise maneuver). I don't know what to do about the "seeing everything" issue. One "solution" other games have used is to force the player to assume a unit's POV in order to direct its behavior. Some vehicle & flight sims have this, where you jump from one platoon to the next, having direct control only of the particular unit you're "riding" at the time while the AI takes care of the rest. However, I'm not personally enamored of this system to begin with, because the player still ends up doing it all, and I would not want it in a CM-level game, at least not without a more savvy AI. What do you mean by "post-event evualuation"?

I would draw a distinction between the amount of tinkering a player can do and the amount of tinkering a player must do in each turn. The latter is tedious like you said, and good SOPs and AI will be necessary to avoid it. But if you remove the player's capability to affect the next turn, then the time scale is too fine. Why have one-hour turns if it always takes three hours for your orders to go into effect? Maybe a variable time scale is needed, where the amount of time represented in a turn is different depending on the situation? And/or an impulse system, where high-initiative units (veterans, recon, HQ) can receive (and execute) new orders every turn, while conscripts, disorganized units, or those engaged in combat get fewer opportunities.

My tankers would agree. "Yep, that's the gun that killed us right there."

Wrong again! There's a fourth type: those who skim. Where did the 7 figure come from, anyway? Now that I'm googling around, I'm only finding sixes.

Joachim, you only listed 6 men. Further down the page at your link it lists (2)loaders, so one must be for the 75.

You can get good results for tighter urban boards if you halve the scale (assume 20m hexes instead). Then you're not dealing with the airport-runway streets and "every building a Grand Central Station." I made a map where one section is a 1:1 conversion of an ASL city board, and another is a half-scale conversion of the same board (rotated). IMO, you have to look closely to see that one board is represented twice on the map. Also, don't be afraid to break up the buildings, especially the smaller 1- or 2-hex buildings. The designers said they often represent clusters of smaller buildings instead of a single 40x40m barn or whatever. I've never tried going the other way, but a double- or triple-scale rural map might be nice.

Are you giving the AI force a bonus?

I think each hand grenade symbol represents several "eggs"... like 3 or 5? But they do disappear if a squad throws for a while.

Not specifically... but Oddens is not a bad place to begin a search. Multimap gives you the scale you're looking for, but without much topo information.

Try here: http://mapy.mk.cvut.cz/news.htm It's mostly E. Europe and Russia, but there's a smattering of other stuff too.

Like this?

Gah - brain fart. I misread Tree's reply. Good question about the proportional improvement. I suspect it's a flat bonus no matter what the original chance was, but I don't know. But since he says he only tested first round hits, that means the discrepancy starts out bad (the original 18.75% vs 16.5%) and grows even faster than I thought. [edit] that's funny, I edited this post, but it didn't put a tag in - maybe this time it will. [ February 03, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Impudent Warwick ]

Statistics ain't my strong point, but I'll try anyway: If it takes more shots to hit a hull-down target, which it should given the lower To Hit percentage, then the firer is getting an aim bonus on subsequent shots (though I don't know how much of one, nor how many shots it applies to). Then the test only gives an average, and it does not work for any given shot (because earlier shots have lower percentages than later shots). My own hypothetical: 1. If the aim bonus is 4%, and it is added to each shot until the target is hit... 2. If it takes an average of 4 shots to hit a hull-down tank, and 2 shots to hit a hull-up tank (25% and 50% from Tree's hypo example)... Then: I. Chance to hit target at all Hull down 1st shot 19% 2nd shot 23% 3rd shot 27% 4th shot 31% (Avg 25%) Hull up 1st shot 48% 2nd shot 52% (Avg 50%) ************************** II. Chance to hit turret Hull down 1st shot 19 x .75 = 14.25% 2nd shot 23 x .75 = 17.25% 3rd shot 27 x .75 = 20.25% 4th shot 31 x .75 = 23.25% (Avg 18.75%) Hull up 1st shot 48 x .33 = 15.84% 2nd shot 52 x .33 = 17.16% (Avg 16.5%) Most hull-up hits would occur before the aim bonus has accumulated much, while most hull-down hits happen after. But the chance of a turret being hit on the first or second shot is very similar whether hull-down or hull-up. In this case, hull-down would be an advantage to the Pz IV, since even a non-penetrating hull hit can cause shock, track damage, etc. In fact, the most advantageous way to fight the Pz IV would be shoot-and-scoot in a hull-down position, which "resets" the firer's hit chance for each engagement. With the long 75mm's greater accuracy, the Pz IV should win first-shot fights. But, I have probably missed some basic mathematical concept. Now I shall await my comeuppance.

Indeed, don't gloat. You didn't "win" anything - nobody ever disputed the 42's effectiveness. The question was which infantry tactics could counter it, and Jason showed you in his usual clear, though chilly, way.

Wouldn't it make sense, then, for the company HQ to be divided into two groups so that the CO and the exec can't both be taken out by the lucky mortar round? </font>

Thanks, that clears it up for me.

Well, if you're relying on that link for your treeburst statement, I couldn't find any confirmation that trenches are susceptible. Jason's post just says foxholes are. [edit] In fact, after a third reading, he says trenches are not susceptible to treeburst (relevant parts bolded below): [ January 22, 2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Impudent Warwick ]

Duly noted. Thanks.

Does anybody know if trenches are exposed to air-/treeburst arty, or do they include overhead cover?

You're pretty humorless for one who takes humor so seriously!

I'm surprised that the enemy is even getting shots off from the wire - the last I knew, wire areas were like open terrain for cover purposes. They ought to be cowering in the mud under your defensive fire. Maybe the attackers are fanatics (or at least have a Jedi CO)?

"A few hundred meters away" would put the Lt. in some other company's defensive zone. But you can already do what you're talking about with on-board mortars - in fact, they are really even more flexible than that. If you have TRPs, your on-board mortars can fire at them even without LOS from anybody, so long as the mortars haven't moved from their original position.

You raised good questions to prove your point, but this was uncalled for.