Ron

In addition to the aforementioned muzzle velocity, another factor making the Firefly a potent cat killer is target size. Both the Tiger and Panther are considerably larger than the Firefly, and consequently in CMBO, much easier to hit. This is readily apparent at longer ranges, 1000m or greater, and flies in the face of historical accounts. CMBB does a much better job at modelling long range gunnery, and the Tiger and Panther are truly to be feared at range. After countless games I can't recall the Tiger being vulnerable to small caliber weapons as much of an issue, though I am sure it has happened. What I would keep in mind regards the Tiger and its potential enemies is its *lack* of accuracy at range and very slow turret traverse. You will need to identify potential threats, like the Firefly and Hellcat, early and engage them on your own, read favourable, terms and not assume you will have the advantage at range. Good luck. Ron

Glad you enjoyed it von Khan and found it useful. CMHQ has some articles and AARs that may prove interesting as well. The links are CMHQ Articles and CMHQ AARs Good luck. Ron

Great work, I really like the design! A very interesting read also, especially liked the "Quotes" section Ron

Update: I have finally completed AAR 2 and uploaded it. Hope it is interesting! Ron [ March 09, 2003, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Update: I have finally completed AAR 2 and uploaded it. Hope it is interesting. Ron

Hi Teddy, Yes no question playing *larger* battles adds new elements to the game and allows you to do things you wouldn't otherwise be able to with smaller ones. However the basics are still the same really IMO. It is especially rewarding if you can arrange a third party to generate a custom map as the QB maps are too limiting in size and shape. Well I think also the Germans are easier to play in some respects as they have more specialized (and effective) units and much more variety to choose from to maximize their force. This is in regards to QB purchases. The Allies, especially the US, can't really compete in that area, though the British can to a certain extent. Either way each side has its strengths and weaknesses and can be used effectively if you work at it. Yep Priest had assembled a juggernaut alright! Hopefully this weekend I will make the time to complete the AAR and post it, even if I have to get up early lol Ron

Thanks for the kind comments SpineRipper. That is funny, I played several hundred games of CMBO before ever considering posting an AAR! Obviously I have lost the brashness and cockiness of youth! Anyways I have uploaded the next ten turns of AAR2, to turn 22 now. Ron

A quick update: I have uploaded the next ten turns of AAR2 to Turn 22 now. Argh, I wish I had completed it earlier as I have lost some of the *flavor* of the battle, anyways I hope some of it is interesting. Teddy, if you have any comments, suggestions or thoughts on the battle(s) feel free to post them as I would like to generate some discussion. Thanks and take care. Ron

I have updated the AAR site by adding the first 12 turns for AAR2 and included the movie file for Turn 12 to get a view from the other side of the hill. Hopefully I can complete the rest soon, thanks for the interest. Ron

Hi Teddy, Yes it is a beautiful morning! Thanks for the interest I have not been able to finish the second AAR as of yet, however I decided to upload what I have finished, the first 12 turns, and am including the movie file for Turn 12 to get an idea of the picture from the other side of the hill, as well as whet the appetite for what's to come I guess! I have not edited it so it may still be a little rough around the edges. Hopefully in the future I will be able to complete my notes and finish it as the two games were really quite interesting IMO. Take care, Ron

All games underway: Rear Guard Action vs Seahawk - Turn 1 Hosszupalyi vs Wellsonian - Turn 6 The Beast vs Sgt CDat - Turn 4 The Christmas Battle vs Nollof - Turn 3 King of Debrecen vs Cyrano - Setup Congratulations to the designers for the fine scenarios, they all look to be great battles! Ron

Not sure what the problem is John but it is working fine from my end, and from the traffic others have still been able to view it also. Perhaps some settings on your browser? Ron

RSColonel_131st: Not really sure how it wouldn't be applicable to CMBB. Yes, improvements were done which have made some things easier, others more difficult and altered the pace of battle, but IMO the principles have remained the same. Principles such as locating and identifying the enemy, sensing opportunities, setting up attacks, being one step ahead of your opponent etc haven't really changed as it is still *CM*. Edward Windsor: Done. Ok I will take another look at the email exchange and try to put them in context. The basis for the games was the original thread linked above where Priest gave his views on *how* to win the armour battle within a battle. I had other thoughts and was curious what he had to bring to the table. I will be busy the next several days but hopefully will find the time to finish assembling my notes for the second AAR as the British. It was quite different from the first and very interesting also I believe. Ron

Glad it was enjoyed, thanks for the comments. I understand it is hard to try and follow a battle, especially without the movies to see things for yourself. I will try your suggestions in the next AAR and may edit the current one also. Ron

Because I don't need it. It isn't "You get what you need"; it's "You get what you don't need." Past Christmas's and Birthdays have tended to bear this out. Ron

Hi Joe, Season's Greetings. I am glad you liked it. You will enjoy the second game also then, as the Brits with their tin-boxes will need all the deviousnous they can gather to overcome the iron Hun. I am involved in ROWIII which is due to start soon, once that is finished I would gladly accept a game. Ron

I played a couple of CMBO ME battles versus 'Priest' this past summer after some discussions on armour tactics. Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking? has the background ideas/issues. I finally got around to posting the first after-action report at Priest-Ron AAR and will post the second if interest is warranted. It is a bit lengthy and I am new to web page stuff so all comments and feedback are welcome. Plus I hope to generate some more discussion on different approaches to tactics and strategies. Enjoy. Ron

I played a couple of CMBO ME battles versus 'Priest' this past summer after some discussions on armour tactics. Attack - whats harder? Defending or attacking? has the background ideas/issues. I finally got around to posting the first after-action report at Priest-Ron AAR and will post the second if interest is warranted. It is a bit lengthy and I am new to web page stuff so all comments and feedback are welcome. Plus I hope to generate some more discussion on different approaches to tactics and strategies. Enjoy. Ron [ January 04, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Now this is a prize worth fighting(and dying) for! :cool: Ron -------------------- RoW III, Tourney III, Section I --------------------

The same holds true for CMBO. I have used that more times than I can remember and as you noted it is useful not just for assaulting buildings, but in general. Ron

Just curious, any resolution found with your problem? Ron

For CMBO there are a couple approaches if you discount the "flatten everything in site" method which would be ideal but obviously isn't always possible. I would always try and get 2-3 to 1 on the defender in a building. You will need to selectively choose your assault location and/or protect the approach with smoke to minimize flanking fire. Once committed to going in I would use a combination of Fast and Move for your troops, never Sneak as you want to GET to the building not be stopped just before it by fire. My preferred method is to have one squad Fast move followed by two squads with the Move order, that way suppressive fire is provided on the 'way in' against the defenders that reveal themselves. Realize that troops using Fast move will take more casualties, many times much more. In combination to the above, I like to have, if possible, an AFV giving covering fire in support. You can do this quickly and at the same time as the assault without wasting ammo by area firing into the building. Once your troops get close the AFV will cease its main gun area fire, hopefully suppressing the defender and then switching to it in the process. Another alternative is to use HTs to run the assaulting troops up to the target building. That way your troops are protected going in and the HTs will provide suppressive fire. I have had success with many methods, just have to make use of the assets you have. You will take casualties however no matter what you do unless as noted above you flatten everything beforehand. Hope that helps. Ron

If you have tried all the things Schoerner mentioned and definitely don't have an overheating problem to the best of your knowledge, then I suggest try obtaining a spare video card and switching that in temporarily to see if the problems persist. IMO it does sound like a heating/hardware issue and not a software/driver one. Ron Edit: Just had another thought that may be worth trying, check the integrity of the RAM you have installed and maybe even take one stick out temporarily. Let us know how it turns out. [ October 20, 2002, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

There is no question "We aren't in Kansas anymore" when it comes to attacking and defending in CMBB. Even in CMBO winning as the Attacker wasn't a foregone conclusion as some want to believe, the QB point ratios were balanced in most cases and I felt confident of being successful as the Defender in an Attack, while in Assaults it was a more chancy thing. In CMBB a whole lot of things have changed that require an adaption from the player in order to be successful as well. The default point ratios may not be approriate at all times and it is up to the players to decide on something more *fair* to have a balanced and enjoyable game. Over the weekend I played a custom made armor Attack over gently rolling steppe as the Russians. I was alloted 3600 pts and the Defender 1200 pts. We had played a couple Attack/Defend QBs before and had agreed this ratio would make for a good game. Looking at the map I felt there were several covered avenues of approach that would allow me to traverse the 2000+m of map to reach the objective of 3 low hills in the German rear. Along the way was another objective in a small village. I selected 7 platoons of T-34s, 2 platoons of SU-152s, one platoon of T-70s, one platoon of SU-76is, 2 x M17s, one company of infantry and 2 FOs. All were a mixture of Vet/Reg/Green. One FO was radio equipped for on-call support. The other was to prep barrage one of the small hills in the rear, I felt the village was safe to ignore for now. All in all I felt I had *enough* to wither the storm and reach the objectives. Well I was in for a suprise. My prep barrage went off beautifully, I found out later it knocked out an 88 Flak, but as I began advancing I began losing tanks at an alarming rate! Then the company of infantry got pinned and couldn't advance either. Area firing at the low hills and visible trenches accomplished nothing it seemed. To make it brief the game was over by turn 12 and I had only got to within 1500m of the the low hills in the rear. I had one T-34 left, the rest of my armor were burning wrecks strung out behind it and the company of infantry, while still in good shape casualty wise, were badly shaken from all the HMG fire. The result was a Total Victory for the Defender. Was it fun? Yes. Was it realistic? I think so. Did I learn a lot? Yep! The Defender had purchased 3 88 Flaks, one 88 Pak, one platoon of infantry, 5 HMGs, several AT Rifles and Trenches, and a platoon of Nashorns(2 AFVs) which never even engaged. IIRC he also purchased Air support but I don't remember seeing it. The 88s wrecked havoc on the Russian armor between the ranges of 1500 - 1800m. The AT Rifles and HMGs were situated further forward and did their jobs of buttoning the AFVs and pinning the infantry. On my part, I had overlooked the absence of smoke for the Russian armor and the long delay in the FO doesn't relate well to a fluid battle. I never got any positive contacts on the AT guns until after several turns of them engaging and after I had brought forward the SU 76is. I am unclear what was the deciding factor in finally spotting the AT guns, I assume it was because the SU 76is had cupolas?, as my tanks were buttoned for the most part. In the end I had KO'd 2 Flaks and caused a handful of casualties with area fire, which was pretty ineffective my opponent told me. I can hardly imagine what will happen when Relative Spotting is implemented! Ron

There is no question for an experienced player the outcome of a battle against AI is a foregone conclusion nine times out of ten. I wasn't really expecting to be pushed top the wall by the AI, though a tougher challenge would always be welcome. What I was questionning was the wisdom of the AI leaving the two T-34s unused in the corner of the map. Is it a bug? Does something need to be tweaked a little? I don't know, but it is one thing for the player to handicap himself, something else for the AI Ron