Pak40

Good job. It's nice to see somebody's doing some more artillery research. It would be nice to see how much an 81mm FO differs without a LOS to the target. I think someone said that the barrage area will be a little larger if the FO does not have a LOS to the target.

Guy w/ gun, I'm sorry, I still don't see how this command is possible and if it were it would gobble up tons of processor power. Hypothetically, let's say you could order an AFV to go hull down. You would HAVE to specify a target relative to your AFV. If you didn't specify a target, the AI would be confused. It would probably drive your tank around the map until if found a "hull down" spot that was relative to all visible targets. Then you'd have a lot of pissed off CM players complaining that their tanks are being killed while looking for the perfect "hull down" spot. Not to mention that the command is totally unrealistic. In real life there is no way to determine that location A is hull down relative to location B, unless you are phyically at location A. And since you are asking the the computer to find a hull down location before your unit actually travels to it, then you are, in effect, cheating. The best way to find a hull down position in CM is to get down and dirty: go to level 1 and examine your target from suspected "hull down" locations AND examine your suspected "hull down" location from your target's vantage point. These are two excellent methods for dertermining hull down locations that any WWII tank commander would have loved to have had.

Back and too the left...

I was going to explain this same thing, but you've obviosly got all the bases covered. Guy w/gun, could you please explain how these hull down commands work? BTW, there is a "dig in" command for vehicles in the setup of some scenarios (an option that the scenario designer can specify). This will make that vehicle hull down for the entire scenario although he can't move.

This is a common problem for attackers. Most people either use mobile MG units such as the MMG Carrier(British) or Halftracks (US and German) OR they embark the MGs on whatever transportation is available. Armored cars and tanks make great transporters of these units if you dont have the normal means such as halftracks or carriers. In a typical situation, I send my squads forward to the next available cover. If the enemy isn't spotted yet, then I will probably have them wait for the MG units to catch up before moving them again. This ensures that my MG units wont fall behind too far. I've noticed a lot of my opponents rushing in the beginning of a battle and as a result there is a big separation between squads and MG units. In most battles you should have more than enough time to move slowly in leaps and bounds, letting your MG units catch up. But this depends on the situation at hand and your strategy.

There are two different 88mm AT guns in the game. One is a true AT gun (with wheels)and the other is the anti-aircraft version (without wheels). It sounds like you have the anti-aircraft version which is a non-mobile gun. If I'm wrong and you really do have the AT version, then it could be because the gun is too heavy for the crew to push. I havn't had any experience with the AT version of the 88, so I really wouldn't know.

CatGuy, I think the .30 cals were organic to US paratroop squads (1 per squad). That's why CM models a paratroop platoon with 3 LMGs. I also remember reading something about the LMG in David Webster's "Parachute infantry". I'm not sure why the US paratroop squad is separated from the 3 man MG team and the German squads have their MG within the squad. Steve, Charles, Maddmatt, Kwazydog? anyone else know?? [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 03-08-2001).]

I seem to remember something about the shape or size of the MG 34 being better suited for fitting into tanks. Perhaps it was the shape of the barrel or something like that.

Sounds like a semi-historical scenario to me. Or you could phrase it "Fictional engagement based on historical actions of...."

you're lucky if you got a tank to even shoot off that many smoke rounds. They usually retarget any visible enemy. I don't know of a way to spread the smoke out in the same turn. Tanks are generally poor smoke generators. Their smoke is meant to only block LOS of one enemy at a time. It's best to use offboard artillery such as 81mm to smoke an area.

I too had become totally outraged at CM for the exact same things. I'd yell and scream that it had to be a bug or bad AI programming. Only after I quit screaming like a child did I realize upon further review that there were either logical programming explanations or real life explanations of why my mortar team quit using smoke (the team decided that an enemy unit was a better target); or when my tank decided to stop in middle of a fast move to engage another tank (13 second delay penalty for new orders). I read these boards every day and there is always someone screaming "bad AI" or "bug". 99.5% of the time it turns out that there is something logical in the programing that caused what they are seeing. If these people would only take the time to re-examine their footage then they would realize that they're not seeing "bad AI" or bugs. Thank god there is all of this "randomness" in CM. Otherwise this game would seem like every other computer game in existence: PROGRAMMED AND PREDICTABLE. Charles did use fuzzy logic in his programming which would lead to any "randomness" you are seeing. He could better inform you as to why he used this type of programming but I think it's because of two reasons: 1. There are lots of things in combat that are random/luck. For instance, a man 20 feet away from an explosion gets killed while his buddy is unharmed 5 feet away from the explosion. 2. Humans are involved. Humans do stupid things, especially when they are scared ****less on a battlefield. Judgement gets clouded, orders get misinterpreted, and others are just plain stupid. I've never been in combat, but I've read lots of 1st person accounts. From everything I've read, I'm willing to bet that there's A LOT MORE "randomness" and stupid human decisions than "once in a blue moon". Believe what you want to believe, but I'll settle for randomness anyday over predictability. Even if it does make me mad every once in a while. [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 03-07-2001).] [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 03-07-2001).]

Hey hey now Col. Squirrel, I was just trying to poke a little fun, hence the use of the smiley If I was seriously upset I wouldn't have used it.

Get the spotter first. Since it only has two men it will die fast. This will leave plenty of time to take out everyone else. The HQ is probably the next best bet. If you have an entire platoon or larger then I would spread the fire out. Maybe one or two squads on the leader. the rest of your men firing on the others.

Here's a couple of tips for setting up an AT gun on the offensive. 1. Have your jeep/truck turn away from the enemy before your AT gun disembarks. That way, your gun is already facing the correct direction and wont have to rotate to face the enemy. Don't order the jeep/truck to rotate at the end of a move (the AT gun will disembark before the jeep rotates), instead order the jeep to make a very tight 180 turn at fast speed. 2. If you want to get your AT gun into position without the enemy seeing your move, then smoke the area with offboard mortars. Then move your AT gun into position and hide before the smoke clears. This takes some practice and luck but can be done. hope this helps.

You're kidding right? Please tell me this is a joke meant to irritate the veterans of this board

I'll explain it for you: The cat was trying to take at shot. Since it has a better chance of hitting a target while not moving, it decided not to rotate the hull. It considered taking a shot ASAP higher priority than rotating the hull. This seems perfectly logical to me. For every inch your hull rotates, the gunner has to rotate the turret the opposite direction. This presents a problem when trying to aim at a target. Unfortunately, the Panther got his shot off before your Hellcat. If he was at the end of a movement order, he definitly would have come to a complete stop immediately. From my memory, that's how CM works.

Colonel, I think jd is correct. Try to remember if you issued the "fast move" on top of existing "Fast move" orders.

nice artistic look. Can you make a Picaso version?

sounds logical. So I wonder what the cause is. Is it that the rounds were sloped differently or that tungsten itself is a smoother metal causing them not to "stick". Or maybe the allies liked to coat the rounds with grease for some odd reason Anyone know the reason?

I think most graphics adapters will have 3D settings that can be toggled on/off. The fog setting is one of them. Check to be sure you have the latest drivers for your exact card and look for the fog toggle options.

I did a quick search but didn't find anything. Does anyone know why the tungsten round for the US 76mm has worse penetration than the AP round at 60 degrees? just curious.

What CavScout said. AT guns and tanks should be behind your infantry but within LOS of the ground that the enemy will attack over. Another technique is to drop lots of smoke (use 81mm offboard or 75mm ofboard) between his infantry and Stugs. If you time it right when his infantry are attacking, you will block the LOS of the stugs but your infantry will have clean shots at his infantry. Another option(if you're American) is to use M8s and M18s. Actually use these in an offensive roll (even if you are on defense). The vehicles are fast and can fire well when on the move. When he shows his stugs, release your M8s or M18s all at once. Drive towardsd his Stugs, being sure to avoid his infantry. You may need to take a flanking route to do this. The real key here is to NEVER STOP OR GO SLOW, only go FAST! His Stugs have no turrets and will have a hard time locking onto your tanks. The M8s will need to get flank or rear shots but the M18s are deadly anywhere. Keep both M8s and M18s away from 20mm or 37mm AA guns.

Steve, This precisly why BTS made the QB generator point value for the attacker 50% more than the defender. It ensures a "equal" game with either side able to win. A 3:1 ration would mean that the attacker would always win. Where's the fun in that? The 3:1 ratio was a gauge devised so that commanders could almost gaurantee a victory within acceptable losses. I think the ratio is supposed to be changed to 5:1 if it is an assault on a fortified position like Omaha or the Siegfried line. In other words the ratios WERE set to gaurantee a victory, just as the outcome in CM. Obviously, in real life it did not always work like that. There are so many variables that change the odds: terrain, cover, troop quality, visibility, commanders, etc... In most cases the defender has the advantage of surprise, not the attacker. The defender can remain hidden until the attacker is in the killing zone.

I don't think roadblocks have any cover or concealment bonuses. Do a search, I've seen this talked about before.

Also, did the recoiless gun have to be weighted down with anything? Probably not because there's no recoil like a typical WWII AT gun. [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 02-19-2001).]