Pak40

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Harrison: I'm not sure how to interpret the "German Destroy" victory conditions. As the British do I need to inflict a certain number of casualties to win or can I sit back in my buildings and let the Germans come to me? Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the "Destroy" victory conditon applies to both sides. In other words, whoever kills more of his enemy is the winner. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

"'Move', not 'Walk', where have you seen this BTW, you are playing CM I hope, simulates a slow move, but not the British Army tactics at the Somme. This has been repeatedly stated by BTS, and it simulates a slow movement across the battlefield, incorporating duck&cover, stop&shoot etc.pp. Maybe you just want to get your facts right next time, eh?" I was merely stating my opinion. I'm so terribly sorry to have upset you so. Although I put a good amount of time on this forum, you see, I don't have all day to read every thread about every subject. So EXCUSE ME(John Belushi fasion) for not having read one of the previous threads and getting my "facts" straight. And about the whole "walk" / "move" thing - The graphical representation on the screen is that of soldiers walking upright as if on parade. This is a little misleading in this day and age of WYSIWYG. The "sneak" command has the same graphics, I think; but at least the word "sneak" conveys an image of soldiers taking cover where as "move" does not. See the confusion?

I agree. There should be a run command for all MGs. Im not saying that they should be able to run as fast as a squad or for as long a distance but it is obviously within reality that a 5 or six man team can run with a .50, .30 or MG42 HMG. Speed penaties should further apply as more crew members are killed/wounded. Acutally I think the WALK command is totally useless in CM. Nobody actually walks on the battlefield. You're either sprinting, jogging, sneaking, or crawling. But this is a whole other topic that needs its own thread.

1)what Terence said. 2) I think I can explain this a bit better. The enemy AI adheres to the same spotting rules like humans do. In the case of your spotter, either the AI discovered the true identity of your spotter or by chance decided to take a few shots at an "infantry" unit and got lucky. In my experience if a spotter is sneaking or crawling in the woods then he wont be seen(enemy being at least 100m away). But you can't have him sneaking and crawling around within LOS for too long, otherwise he will be spotted. The Truck situation: This was either by chance or the AI heard the trucks or saw them near there. Maybe it even had a TRP but that's unlikely. Anyway, better on your trucks than on your infantry. 3) I've also had a tough time defending in th e bocage, I'm not really sure how much cover or protection it provides. But, I'd bet that infantry in foxholes placed in the bocage is a tough defense. I think that's really what the bocage became infamous for: dug in infantry.

Good work. Thanks for the info.

Smoke is very usefull, but needs to be done properly and timed well. Don't use onboard mortars or tanks to make a mass smoke screen. They usually dont have enough rounds to effectively make one. They are only good for blocking the LOS of one MG or AT gun. To properly make a mass smoke sceen use offboard mortars. It's cheap, fast firing and plenty of smoke rounds in a massed area. The smoke, however, will only last 1.5 turns typically. Use smoke in 4 different ways: 1. Smoke the open ground which your men will have to cross before reaching some sort of cover. This is effective if your enemy is on the flank. 2. Smoke the cover which your men will move into. This should put up a big enough screen so that the enemy never sees your men moving into the cover. When your men get to the cover, hide them so that they are not seen when the smoke goes away. Then bring up supporting tanks etc. to launch your assualt. 3. Send scouts ahead to "find" some enemy forces. Once you determine where the main enemy forces are, drop smoke on top of them. They will be blind and your infantry and tanks will be able to move into position. I like this tactic the best, especially if I need to get some tanks in to position. 4. Use smoke as a bluff. Drop it in an open or semi-open area but have your men sneak up a different route using as much tree cover as possible. He may see a couple of your sneaking men but he will suspect your main attack is coming from the smoked area.

1. Usually belt fed, fired from the bipod. I think the ROF was too high to accurately fire it from the hip. Yes, another man handeld the belt. 2. From what I've read the BAR was a very well liked weapon by the GIs. It served the support roll very well although not as good as the MG42 which had a much greater supressive firepower. The BAR was liked so much (and needed so much) that most squads picked up an extra BAR when they could find one. In 1945 two BARs became standard in every squad. The only differce that I know of between the BREN and BAR is that the BREN had a larger clip and that the clip was loaded from the top which is more convienient when prone. The BAR, however, was complemented by semi-automatic rifles which gave great firepower to the squad as a whole. The BREN and MG42 didn't have that luxury. 3. Two main things kept the BAR from being as good as the MG42: limited to 20 round clips and no quick change barrel. I don't think your friend is correct when he says 20 rounds is enough to maintain supressive firepower. It's good but not enough. The pause between frequent reloading gives the enemy some breathing room. I've read a couple of accounts where the BAR was fired so much that the barrel started to warp from the intense heat, hence the need for a quick change barrel and a larger clip size. 4. The MG42 lmg was superior to the BAR. The increadible ROF was great supressive fire. But it had some faults: It wasn't very accurate because of it's high rate of fire, the bipod has it's faults. It wasn't as mobile as the BAR(The BAR could be fired from the hip decently, I think.) The MG42 needed lots of ammo because of high ROF. A member of the squad was used to feed the belt.

Also get "Parachute Infantry" by David Webster (I think) who was also in E company 506th PIR. It's a very good read and gives an excellent point of view from a private in the company. Ambrose used these memiors for "Band of Brothers" and I think helped get them published, since they are both LSU press books. Other books of similar scope: Company Comander - I think we all know this one by MacDonald Donald Bugett has three great books: -Curahee (I have the republished version titled "Screaming Eagles") -Seven Roads to hell (the most detailed personal account I have ever read) -Road to Arnem (I think I have this title correct)

"1) By looking at the scenario editor I gather that the game does know the elevation of each square of the battleground. A display / plot of these elevation levels would already make a huge difference." The game does know the average elevation of each sqauare. You can print screen when in the scenario editor (with the elevations) turned on. However, for large maps you will have use print screen two or more times and then paste them together.

Wilhammer and John, I had done some Artillery tinkering also. I was more concerned with the difference of FO experience. Here's what I found. Using a Regular, Veteran, and Elite 105mm US FO: Time of arrival of rounds is decreased with a more experienced FO. Regular: ~2 mins Veteran: ~2 mins (sometimes less) Elite: ~1 min Damage or accuracy of the round didn't seem to be affected. I didn't check for time between volleys. [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 11-30-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: How about an army of flamethrowers against an army of lawyers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No good. The lawers would sue before the game could be played. [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 11-30-2000).]

"Even with that much time we both felt rushed and our strategy suffered from it." Don't forget that you can both pause the action thereby eliminating the timer for that turn. And I assume the pause feature works in setup also. "what I think Freyland is trying to say is that there is a subliminal sense of urgency when playing over TCP/IP. Even if you're using an unlimited timer." While I do enjoy taking my time in reviewing the movies and carefully plotting my next moves, the "sense of urgency" you talk about actually gives a more realistic flavor to CM battles. Let's face it, our real life counterparts in WWII did not have all day to plan their tactics. Good snap decisions were crucial for a company/platoon commander to have. Therefore, being rushed may not be desireable to most gamers but it is slightly more realistic. Damn, Steve, you beat me to it!!! [This message has been edited by Pak40 (edited 11-30-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freyland: I certainly am unable to appreciate the nuances of any situation I am not directly watching during my 60sec of film. (yes, I can watch the film again, but then I lose valuable time I need to make tactical decisions, another one of those things that make Turn-based games so enjoyable). Jonathan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So don't play against people who insist on using a timer. What's the big deal? PBEM is good but it is so fragmented because you generally only play one turn per day (depending on you and your oppenents schedule). There is no fluidity to a PBEM game unless you do the rapid fire PBEM method. TCP/IP helps you feel like the all of the turns you are playing is ONE entire game, not just a bunch of fragmented turns spread out over 20-30 days. Close Combat with its real time engine had that feeling of fluidity which gave it a feeling of reality; but, as you stated, real time wargames are only possible when dealing with a platoon+ size force. TCP/IP is definitly a step forward for CM. It gives you the option of using the timer and it gives you the option of converting back to PBEM. What more could you ask for?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I really like the air pump from Dig Dug. Wouldn't it be great to watch your Dig Dug team inflate a Panther until it exploded? Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL, Priceless!!! The beauty of the Dig Dug Unit is that you can tunnel your way underground and pop up right next an enemy Panther, In full 3-D! Kind of like stealth mode in the 1940s.

Remember the smart bomb butten in the old Defender video game. Wouldn't that come in handy in CM?

"I'll pay even more attention to this and see what happens, but, again, I just keep seeing ht's at ranges greater than 300 m getting blown up." Doc, I too had seen some light armored vehicles getting knocked out at these ranges and originall suspected .30 mgs, but upon further examination of some of the replays it was a lucky shot of a grenade launcher by a US rifle squad. These rifle grenades are hard to sight during the action but it's possible to tell when squads use them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: I don't think that scattered trees would help the vehicle move. If a broken trunk got caught in the tracks it'd maybe bind the suspension, maybe cause the track to snap. Also, there's the possibility of "high-centering," in which the vehicle drives over a tree stump, and the stump raises the vehicle so one track is off the ground (if you've read Team Yankee it happened in there. Not sure how realistic, but it makes sense) And, lastly, just having all that loose crap underfoot (undertrack?) should decrease tracion, just like loose gravel makes cars skid out. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously, big trunks and stumps would hinder movement, but any driver could drive around those obstacles. I'm talking about branches and roots - these would definitely give some traction to a vehicle, especially roots. Leaves might decrease traction but I don't think twigs and branches will. and BTW, if you've ever been stuck in mud or snow then you'd know that putting gravel under the tires could actually aid in getting you out. Kitty litter helps too

"I think everyone thought that moving fast and moving through rough terrain made bogging more likely. " Actually, CM models this realistically IMO. Think about it: if you're driving your car through mud, you want to keep moving. In other words, the car's momentum will get you through the mud. If you go too slow, then your car will sink into the mud and your tires will possibly dig a rut into the mud and get you stuck. The biggest sin would be to step hard on the accelerator and make the wheels spin. Keep your car moving at a good constant pace and then you will never need to press the accelerator hard in order to gain speed. Scattered trees would actually aid a vehicle. Branches, roots and debris would act as a catch for the wheels/tracks.

Which battle between XXX Corps and Germans on Hell's Highway?

Pill boxes were often placed on or very near streets. Did you ever see or read "A Bridge too far"? Remember the infamous pillbox on the bridge? If BTS were to disallow pillboxes being set on roads then we could not accuratly portray such engagements.

Hypothetical situation which I don't think CM models: Suppose a .50 cal round went down the barrel of the panther and either struck the round that was loaded or richocheted inside the tank?

You might want to make a test scenario yourself to test the benefits of the TRP. make a simple map where your mortars and spotters can see a TRP. have some tartget the TRP and others target a different area. compare the two.

mine are: "F**cking P**sies!!" as one of my British squads breaks after only one the soldiers get shot. or "Yea, bitch, take that!" as an AP round slams into my PBEM opponent's tank. or "Damn, I didn't realize the ground did that." After zooming down to ground level after spending the last several turns in bird's eye view.

This is one of the major faults of the CM Operation system. In Any operation that you play, the defender will be pushed back from the area that he sucessfully defended in the previous battle. There is nothing you can do to remedy this. Setting no mans land to zero might help but you will still be pushed back.

"Use Operations instead of battles to give you more flexibility with reinforcements if specific areas are not needed for them to arrive. Good for predawn or dusk to night battles." Be careful when designing Operations: they arn't good for object oriented scenarios such as capturing a bridge. There are no Victory Flags in operations. Therefore, the computer AI only moves towards the opposite(enemy's) side of the map, not towards objectives. Battles, however, have the advantage of specifing objectives. For example, if the objective of the battle is to capture a bridge, then you can place Victory flags on or near it. This tells the computer AI that the bridge is important and it will try to gain control of the bridge area. Another bad thing about Operations is that the front line is always straigtened and the defender is ALWAYS unfairly pushed back from gound that he successfully defended in the previous battle. It's very frustrating to play as the defender in an operation. Setting the "no man's land" to zero helps but does not solve the problem.