RobH

Teddy - I suggest you read this thread River Crossing for discussion on ways to cross a river. As you will see there are some very different schools of thought as to whether to use smoke or not and other techniques to assist with crossing a river. Different players obviously have success with different techniques. In the end it is what works for you that counts! Rob

The fifth in the series of AARs from Round 4 in the Rugged Defense Short-75 and Panther-76 Tournaments and accompanying movies is now available on the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament AAR website. Also, read all about the Tournaments themselves from the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament website. In this battle AAR, Vandal concentrates his attacking force of 2 x SS Infantry Battalions and 8 Tiger I Lates into a true German "Iron Fist" to try and blast his way up the road and into the town. Broken!'s defending British Paratroopers have other ideas though and literally rip this "Iron Fist" apart with a combination of highly effective artillery strikes, reverse slope infantry ambushes and 17 pdr AT guns. By Turn 18, the battle is over and the German "Iron Fist" now barely a limp handshake ! This is the same map of course as for the previous AARs but you will again see another entirely different style of attack and defense in this battle. Thanks Vandal and Broken! for another very instructive battle! There is a lot many of us can learn from this battle as I know both of you have already done. Previous AARs from the recent Rugged Defense Tournaments have already been covered in the following threads: Barleyman vs Buckeye Buckeye vs Me262 Me262 vs Barleyman Hodo vs Vandal This is the last of the Round 4 battle AARs where the defender wins. The remaining 2 AARs will show different approaches for the attacker to win. One AAR is from the Short-75 Tournament, the other from the Panther-76 Tournament. These remaining two Round 4 AARs will be published shortly. As previously, any discussion on the AAR is most welcome on this thread. Rob

Teddy - sending low ammo squads forward is more a way of desperation to expose enemy locations than doing them any damage. I think you can normally expect squads on low ammo to fire about once per turn only. This is supposed to simulate scrounging or finding a bit of ammo here and there. Yes, they will also use grenades but very infrequently. They are certainly going to get themselves killed once they meet enemy troops, since they cannot defend themselves adequately, and thus they they will lose morale though the loss of men. But they do not lose morale just because they are on low ammo as far as I am aware. The problem with HTs is they are very vulnerable in CMBO. They can get taken out very easily by arty, HE, AP, MGs, bazookas/Piats and enemy infantry units. The HTs will also go into automatic AI controlled reverse if they see a significant threat to themselves like an AT gun. Thus an HT rush is almost certainly doomed to failure with a good defender. As soon as some HTs are hit, there will be a big traffic jam with other HTs reversing, their human cargos will be rapidly depleted in numbers as the HTs are hit, the infantry will panic and rout away and will thus lose C&C to HQ units and you will generally find there is a large mess of eliminated units around the place extremely quickly. You are very welcome to try an HT "rush", but with an effective defence, I doubt very much you will get very far and certainly not to your objective. HTs may be useful to get the troops up near the front line quickly on a large map so long as they are out of LOS, but the grunts themselves should assault the objectives with the HTs staying well back to give some supporting fire if appropriate I would suggest. Rob

tecumseh - RD Tournaments are open to all RD players. Announcements are made through the RD CM YahooGroups email list and this BB. There are none currently planned but I am sure something will happen once CMBB has been around for a little while. There is no standard format for these Tournaments. One was based on QBs, another on pre-designed maps. I am sure most players will say they enjoyed them. Who knows what the next one will be based upon ! Rob

tecumseh - None of the players in these tournaments had any idea what units their opponents would pick apart from within the rules parameters of Short-75, Panther-76 and a couple of other limitations or force service arm restrictions imposed for a particular battle. Had they played their opponent before, they may have had some idea of the type of force he would pick. Thus Vandal would have had no idea Hodo had limited arty or indeed that he would pick PzIVs as opposed to Panther-76 AFVs. Hodo does explain he preferred the PzIVs because he felt they were less likely to bog in the damp ground, which is a perfectly legitimate reason although means they will be very vulnerable to anticipated anti-Panther-76 AT fire. The only reason I can suggest for grouping all the spotters together is that they do have excellent LOS for most areas the enemy is going to advance from. Vandal obviously knew his ambushes would be sprung very quickly and presumably wished to call down the full power of his arty on the attacking forces - which he did indeed do very well on his left flank and in the centre. Unfortunately, although continuing to promise me his AARs for both his battles, Vandal has simply not responded to any of my emails since June. Maybe he has had some problems, but without any contact, it is impossible to know. There is only so much one can do to cajole players into writing a promised AAR, even though it need be only very brief. All the other players completed AARs, some very detailed, and I am very grateful to them all for making these battles such an interesting learning exercise for all CMBO players, especially where English is not their first language, such as Hodo. If Vandal reads this thread and would care to contribute, then I am sure everybody will welcome his insights into the battle. The final results of the Short-75 Tourney are on the Rugged Defense site and it was a very close run couple of battles indeed. The final of the Panther-76 Tourney is still in progress. AARs will be published for all the final battles in due course after completion of the Round 4 AARs. Rob [ September 10, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Robert Hall ]

The fourth in the series of AARs from Round 4 in the Rugged Defense Short-75 and Panther-76 Tournaments and accompanying movies is now available, rather later than originally intended, on the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament AAR website. Also, read all about the Tournaments themselves from the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament website. In this battle AAR, Hodo attempts to storm the town with a Battalion of armoured PanzerGrenadiers. However, he certainly receives a few nasty surprises from Vandal's defending British Paratroopers. This particular battle is very interesting to watch from the perspective of seeing just how effective a successful forward defence can be in destroying and disrupting the forces of an unwary attacker. It also shows extremely well just how difficult it can then be to withdraw those forward defenders once they have succeeded with their initial shock effect on the attacker. This is the same map of course as for the previous AARs but you will again see another entirely different style of attack and defense in this battle. Thanks Hodo and Vandal for a very instructive battle! There is a lot many of us can learn from this battle as I know both of you have already done. Previous AARs from the recent Rugged Defense Tournaments have already been covered in the following threads: Barleyman vs Buckeye Buckeye vs Me262 Me262 vs Barleyman The 5th AAR in the series should hopefully be published in about a week. As previously, any discussion on the AAR is most welcome on this thread. Rob

Yes, the 4 remaining AARs for Round 4 are coming shortly and then there will also be the 4 Round 5 Final AARs also, one of which is still in progress. Apologies for the delay, just been a little busy this last couple of months. Glad you find the AARs instructive, that is what they are intended to be!

Privateer - I had similar sort of problem to you with a new PC I built recently. Only thing was my crashes were more serious and I crashed during Windows installs - except I then actually managed an install of the product but had random crashes later on. It turned out my 2 RAM DIMMs, although new and bought from the same place at the same time were incompatible together. If I used just one of them, either of them, I installed Windows fine and had zero crashes. If I put them both on the MB, then I got those random crashes back. To finally test it out, I installed my 2 DIMMs onto a colleague's PC. After 4 attempts with Windows stalling at different places each time at startup, we used just 1 of my DIMMs and perfect. So a possibility is your RAM DIMMs were incompatible together.

The third in the series of AARs from Round 4 in the Rugged Defense Short-75 and Panther-76 Tournaments and accompanying movies is now available on the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament AAR website. Also, read all about the Tournaments themselves from the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament website. This AAR completes the trilogy of games between Barleyman, Buckeye and Me262. Thanks guys for some really excellent AARs. None of the attackers won in this Group so it is really worthwhile to learn from the defenders in these three battles to see how a good town defence can be created. This is the same map of course as for the previous AARs but you will again see another entirely different style of attack and defense in this battle. One point of note is just how flexible Barleyman keeps his defense, moving it around continuously to meet perceived or real attacker threats. This AAR again really does show just how difficult it can be to get a foothold into a well defended town and is an excellent example of how to keep your defence fluid and reactive to an attacker's moves. Thanks Me262 and Barleyman for a very interesting and informative exercise for us all ! Enjoy this battle! There is a lot to learn from it as from the previous ones. The 4th AAR in the series should be published shortly. As previously, any discussion on the AAR is most welcome on this thread. Rob

Shapeshifter - I can respond to your question by saying ALL towed guns are allowed in a Short-75 battle under Fionn's Rules except the small and medium Flaks. Therefore there is no limit to the size of towed gun you can purchase for a Short-75 battle. By all means purchase the 76mm/17pdr AT gun for your Short-75 game if you really must but you will find it is generally overkill for the tanks you will be facing and the 57mm/6pdr will be much more cost effective for you and will penetrate all the tanks you meet. Again, there is no limit to the size of Howitzer towed gun you may use. The 105mm limit only refers to offboard arty from FOs, not from towed guns. Regarding vehicles, there are tables in the Rules which tell you specifically which armoured vehicles you can purchase for your battle. Some of these vehicles will have guns larger then 75mm but they mount primarily HE guns rather than AP guns. Hope this helps, Rob

Olle, I guarantee you the Word file on RD is free from virus and I did try saving it in rtf format but it was 3 times bigger than the Word file so the Word format won and I am more comfortable with that. The reason there will be a pdf file is to cater for all users. Rob [ June 19, 2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Robert Hall ]

Just to let everybody know, Fionn's Combat Mission 'Balanced Force Rules' have been updated on Rugged Defense with all known omissions/corrections made and a Word 2000 document version has been made available for download. A pdf version will be available for download shortly.

In light of there still being no "official nomination" for this Tournament from Edwin Vos of Rugged Defense by the stated deadline of earlier today, I will fully support and endorse the earlier nomination of Broken! as the representative from Rugged Defense, although I appreciate all players in the Tourney will be competing "on their own behalf". All I can say is Heaven help those who have to meet him on the CM battlefield . He is certainly one very tough CMBO player! Best of luck Broken! Rob

Any of the AARs with Fionn playing on CMHQ are highly instructive but you do need the earlier versions of CM to watch these. Alternatively try the current Fionn/The_Capt AAR here or the ones currently being posted on Rugged Defense CM Tournament AARs. All the above contain movies which i think are essential to learning from the AAR itself. Rob

Let me just say to everybody I rate Broken! as a CM player of exceptionally high ability and he knows that ! I am not denying and have not said he should not represent RD. My understanding was the laddermasters themselves were nominating the representative from their respective ladders - as is demonstratively being done by some ladders - even though those nominated are then acting on their own behalf as it were. If the ladder players themselves are to nominate players, then I feel that should be done by the players on the ladder, not by one player from the ladder. Again, no disrespect to Zahl, but one ladder player is simply not enough to nominate a player to represent that ladder. Rob

With respect Winecape, there is no official nomination from Rugged Defense as yet for this Tournament. Edwin Vos, whose site is Rugged Defense, has not been contactable for the last couple of days to put in a nomination. Broken!, whilst having the highest current win percentage on RD is not currently near the top of the ladder and therefore it is premature to have him as the RD nomination unless Ed officially nominates him. Neither can I nominate him nor can anybody else from Rugged Defense nominate anybody else. That decision rests solely with Ed. It may be Broken! will be the official nominee from RD since he is an excellent player, but there are also other excellent players on the RD ladder too. Please keep this post open until Ed confirms who the RD nominee should be. No offence in any way is intended to Broken! and I hope he will understand his nomination by a member of the RD CM ladder is a little premature. Rob

Hehe! Yes, this map is deliberately meant to be extremely difficult for the attacker to successfully complete his attack in the time-frame allowed of 30 turns. The map makes no pretensions at offering a "balanced scenario" within the time constraints. All contestants played the map both as the attacker and the defender and they were allowed to chose their own forces according to the Tournament Rules. Thus any inherent advantage the defender may or may not be perceived to have, should have evened out when the defender simultaneously played his attack battle. The AARs where the attacker succeeded and won the battle within the time-frame allowed are being left to the end ! Rob

The second in the series of AARs from Round 4 in the Rugged Defense Short-75 and Panther-76 Tournaments and accompanying movies is now available on the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament AAR website. Also, read all about the Tournaments themselves from the Rugged Defense Combat Mission Tournament website. I had hoped to make the AARs available in sequence so each player had one of his AARs posted before the second AAR from any player was posted. Unfortunately, not all the AARs have been prepared as speedily as I had hoped, so we are moving on to the second of Buckeye's AARs for now, this time playing Me262. This is the same map as for the previous Barleyman vs Buckeye AAR but you will see an entirely different style of attack and defense in this battle. In fact the Allied defender, Me262, has considerably more infantry than the German attacker, Buckeye, and has obviously compromised by reducing his forces in other areas. We really do have a special treat for you with this AAR. If you think there will be very much left of this sleepy lakeside town on a cold, damp, foggy, December morning after this battle is over, you have another think coming. This battle may appear to start slowly with little action for the first 10 turns, but you can be sure it literally heats up very quickly after that. This AAR really does show just how difficult it can be to get a foothold into a well defended town and is an excellent example of how to keep your defence fluid and reactive to an attacker's moves. Thanks Buckeye and Me262 for a very fiery and destructive battle as well as an instructive one ! Rugged Defense had well over 300 downloads of the first AAR posted a couple of weeks ago. Go here to read the thread about the Barleyman vs Buckeye AAR if you missed it and need some background to the battle itself. The RD server was overloaded with the demand for the movies and thanks to the generous offer from Battlefront.com and CMHQ, just the AARs themselves are now being hosted on the Rugged Defense website while the movies are being hosted at CMHQ. Thanks Steve and Madmatt for arranging this and helping us out. Oh yes, enjoy this battle! There is a lot to learn from it. The 3rd AAR in the series should be published in 10 days to a fortnight. Rob [ June 02, 2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Robert Hall ]

MadMonkey - this explains it all together with the various options you have for selecting your forces Force Selection Guidelines for playing CM on a Custom Map. Rob

The answers are "No" and "No". So play on a custom map created by the scenario editor not on a QB generated map, then you can choose your own size and scale or alternatively, use a map from the Scenario Depot. Using your own map also allows you to increase the points above 5,000. If you want to know how to play on a custom map go to Force Selection Guidelines for Playing on a Custom Map. Rob

Hehe! Fionn! I sent him my copy of the v1.03.exe file so I know it works . It appears he needs a copy of the CM CD dated BEFORE the date the v1.03 patch became available. Probably some additional security introduced on later CDs I expect to do with dates and versions. And you, like me, will be using one of the original CDs so we cannot test the exact situation out. Rob

That's a bummer! Suggest you post this new info on the Tech Support forum and see if anyone can help you re that aspect with a definitive answer. Alternatively find someone near where you live with an "old" CD . The email thing is strange too since neither of us seem to be able to communicate with each other and I do not have problems with others either. Is you email address on the forum correct? I know mine is. Rob

JJ, Strange, I have not received your email but go here and let me know if it works. Unzip it into you main CM directory and create a new shortcut to it to run it. Since it is labelled v1.03 it will not overwrite your current version. I would strongly suggest taking a copy of your CMBO Prefs file before running this old version as it may otherwise become corrupted. Rob

Scheer - Go to Force Selection Guidelines for Playing Combat Mission on a Custom Map at Rugged Defense to see the different ways it is possible to play on a pre-designed map. Unless you trust your opponent though, you will have to use a 3rd party to buy the forces for you both. I'll be quite happy to do that for you if you email me your respective forces.

Splash - I do not believe your comment "Given that the scenario is designed for the attacker to lose" is probably quite what you meant to say, or at least it does not come across too well . I want to make it very clear the scenario was NOT DESIGNED for the attacker to LOSE, it was designed to be an extremely difficult win for the attacker so only the best attacking players might stand a chance of an attacker win. Certainly, I did not expect many attackers to win. There is a lot of difference between our two statements. If all players thought they had no chance at all of an attacking win, as your statement seems to imply, that is not condusive IMO to a good battle. The map and battle - remember players were choosing their own forces - achieved my aim in that the winning attackers - IMO the players who played the scenario most effectively as attackers - all went through to the final so I think it was acknowledged these players clearly "deserved" a place in the final through superior play. Rob