Pak40

Yes, In a recent game I used a Veteran FO call down artillery and it came down right on target. Later in the game I repositioned the FO to target another area but the spotting rounds came down way off target. I then reset the target but they still came down way off. I reset again and they still were off although a little bit closer. I finally got fed up and just let the artillery run its coarse. I'm stumped as to why the Veteran FO was able to call down artillery on target the first time but couldn't get it right the second, third or fourth times. I've seen this sort of thing happen more than once, although it's not common.

Well, maybe you're right, there is some sort of correction but I've seen plenty of regular and even some Veteran FOs lay down some unaccurate artillery. And this is even after I manually corrected by retargeting my intended area, which the manual states is correct way to correct artillery. This leads me to believe that there is no correction automatically done by the FO. Why would the FO call down a FFE if he knows it's off target? He should halt the FFE and adjust again. The current system just doesn't make much sense. In my mind a typical request for artillery goes like this: 1. FO calls for artillery and gives coordinates 2. Spotting Rounds fall 3. If spotting rounds are off target then step 3b, otherwise go to step 4 3b. correct the original spotting rounds and wait for next spotting round. If it is also off then repeat step 3b. 4. Fire For Effect This method may take a bit longer because of multiple corrections to the spotting rounds but otherwise you're just wasting rounds. I'd rather my rounds land on target than off - I'm willing to sacrifice time for accuracy.

Honestly, I don't think that CMBB's artillery model is more realistic than CMBO's model. The FOs in CMBB don't do the job that their supposed to do after the spotting rounds fall: i.e. correct for the main barrage. For example, if your spotting rounds fall 5 seconds into the playback of your turn, then 30 seconds later the main barrage will start falling with no corrections. In real life the FO would have corrected the coordinates BEFORE the main barrage or called the barrage off entirely. It shouldn't be left up to the player to correct for the FO. After all, does the player correct the gunner of a tank? No, the tank makes it's own corrections(bracketing) so that it's second shot has a better chance of hitting the target. The same should be for the Forward Observers.

Another thing to consider is that the 76mm gun of the KV-1 isn't exactly a high velocity weapon. Sure it's higher than the KV-2's gun but still rather slow when compared to many other AT guns. Of coarse, I'm going from memory since I don't have CMBB in front of me at this time. Anyone care to post the muzzle velocities of the two guns?

Ironically, the same accusations have been made against The Black March which is another great autobiography about a German soldier's exeriences on the East Front.

I suggest making the length of the game longer like someone else suggested because quite frankly, battles in poor conditions always took a lot longer in real life. Use the move command as much as possible to avoid tiring your troops. The attacker should use the the lack of mobility to his advantage because the defender will be constrained by the same mobility problems. For example if you pin point your attack in one small area then the defender will have a hard time repositioning his troops plug the hole. Obviously this will work better on medium to large maps where the visibility is low. The lack of visibility wont betray your attack until it hits his front line and by that time it's too late.

Actually, the German 37 was much better than the Russian 45 at that stage in the war. Once the Russians finally improved the ammo for the 45mm gun then it was much better but by that time the Germans were commonly fielding the 50mm Pak38 which outclasses the 45mm. The Russian 57mm had great penetration but were very rare. The Pak40 at this point had the same rarity and was clearly the better gun. More common were the Russian 76mm AT guns but they lacked punch for their size. The German Pak38 had much more punching power than any of the Russian 76mm guns. And here's the capper: The German 88 AA gun was often used as an AT weapon all throughout the war. The Russians never had anything close to that power in the first two years of the war. So, yes, I was correct in saying that the Russian AT guns were basically crap when compared to German guns.

Troy, keep in mind that Russian AT guns are pure crap compared to the German guns. This is true throughout the entire war. You might have better success playing as the Germans.

It is very very hard to get any use out of these units in the Citadel scenario. The best luck you'll have is getting some rear shots by the ATR units. The tank hunting units usually are spotted before they can get close enough to use their hand thrown weapons. Putting them on the edge of the ravine is the best place - you might get lucky enough for a German tank to roll to the edge of a ravine exactly where one of your tank hunters are located. They will usually still be cut down quickly. These units are better used in urban situations where they can hunt tanks by using the buildings as cover.

I think the magazine reviews speak for themselves. You will not find a more realistic representation of tactical WWII combat. hint: Replace some of the CMBO graphics with user made mods and you'll have some sharp looking battles. CMBB graphics are good out of the box.

I saw 4 copies at CompUSA this evening. CompUSA doesn't seem to be trying to rememdy the problem.

Those are just gamey tactics against the AI. I think most here are concerned about gamey tactics against human opponents.

One more bad thing about CC3 when compared to CMBB: Which game better represents the tank battles that took place on the Russian Steppes: CC3 with it's whopping 500 meter wide maps or CMBB with it's 6km by 9km map size? no brainer. CMBB is clearly the better choice.

Kingpin, The so called "Campaign Mode" in CC3 is nothing more than a bunch of operations strung together to seem like a campaign. The operations within a "campaign" have abosolutely no relation to each other. Also, the time elasped between the campaigns is so long that you should recieve fresh reinforcements after completing one of the operations, but you don't - you're stuck with the same injured units from the previous operation that took place months before. HORRIBLE!!!! I could have desisgned a game better than this! FYI - A true campaign mode should have battles that are all strung together or related in some way. For example, CC2:ABTF had a wonderful campaign system where all battles and operations were fighting for a single cause. The CC3 Campaign, on the other hand, was way out of scale for it's tactical battle scale. How could a Barbarossa battle that took place in 1941 possibly be linked to a Kursk battle in 1943? These are two very different Campaigns that took place on the East Front, but Atomic Games is trying to mash them into one single Campaign. It doesn't make sense nor does it feel like there's any continuity in the game. Eric Young, a former Atomic employee, was a major designer of most of the CC series. Even he has admitted that CC3 was the worst of the series. In fact, I think he called it a "pure crap". Eric Young Quote [ December 18, 2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

I mostly agree with Scipio. There should be a way to add fifty meters to a fire mission without a major time penalty. If the FO says "plus fifty meters", then the battery adjusts the guns however many degrees. The amount of degree is already known for set distances such as 50 or 100 meters. It should make no difference if the intended target is out of LOS of the FO: fifty meters is fifty meters. Also, the allowable area for adjusting is way too small. Obviously guns of all calibers could make quick adjustments for several hundred meters in any direction without having to totally recalibrate(rotate the entire gun). I'm assuming that artillery guns are traversable like anti-tank guns. Rolling barrages gradually increase in distance for way more than 50 meters, so we know that increasing or decreasing gun elevation can be done without major recalibration.

It takes a little longer to setup an ambush for a group of units but you have much greater control of the distance and exact locations of the ambush. I'll take the longer setup any day over the old system.

OK, thanks for the explanation. I'll check the LOS now that the second battle has started.

All four units are Veterans. That shouldn't matter anyway.

All squads in this platoon have LOS to the platoon HQ but the squad closest is not in command. Is this a bug or can someone explain this to me?

I think the Germans used the MG38 in all of their tanks & armor because the round barrel fit better.

read the letter to all wargamer.com users: Wargamer.com

Knowing that some will come at some point. How are you going to change your plans? </font>

Panzer Commander by Hans von Luck is an excellent source for German recon tactics, especially in Africa. I was going to write the same thing. The U.S. used the Calvalry units primarily in a mobile fashion. Either they were used to get to an objective quickly and hold it until help arrived or they were used on the flanks of other units to protect that flank. In either case they were usually placed in a situation where they could use their speed to their advantage. The only exceptions to this were cases where calvalry units were placed on the front line in a defensive posture in the Ardennes. The U.S. relied heavily on aerial recon for operational level information. Piper cubs were the recon workhorse.

I'm assuming you're Jager... Don't you see that you just perpetuated the very thing that you're complaining about??? You told us that there are reinforcements on both sides and that it comprises a large portion of the overall forces. The only thing that you didn't state is where the reinforcements are coming in. Now I know that I'm going to have to alter my attack and defense based on these facts. [ December 11, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

Christ! I can't believe you just publically posted these spoilers for all other RD tournyment members. Most of us arn't even half way through the battle but now everyone knows that we can expect some reinfocements. In the future please wait until after the next round has started before posting spoilers or just write to the tournyment moderators.