Ron

Hi, I'll offer some suggestions that have been successful for me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>30 turns. No intel. 3000 point assaulting force versus 1500 point defensive force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a large battle for only 30 turns. To carry out an assault of that size properly I think 35-40 turns would be more appropriate. There is still the time pressure but it won't be rushed as with 30 turns which I feel is. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Basic force composition: roughly how much to spend on arty, armor, infantry, transport for the infantry, etc.; also, what basic types of armor (tanks, assault guns, etc.) and troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would go with lots of infantry and artillery, you will need the quantity versus the quality. You don't need the best 'type' of infantry, creating a large volume(many sources) of fire is more important. Max out on the arty, I would get one 81mm FO for smoke and the rest in the 105 to 155mm range, mortar FOs can call in fire quicker. Load up on infantry support vehicles as well, scout cars/MG carriers/HTs, again you want a large volume of fire. I would get mostly infantry support tanks also, only a few regular tanks to deal with enemy armour as he probably won't have many. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When to call in arty in relation to the start of the game and the progress of your scouting or adavance. Move the FO's up behind scouts for clear LOS, putting them at risk, or leave them in safety in the back, slowing arty response time and accuracy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless the map is really restricted, you should have good observation points of the objectives from your start line, if not then secure them. I would place most of my FOs with that in mind as well as in relation to likely enemy positions and your own avenues of appraoch. I wouldn't have them anywhere near your forward troops as they will probably be taking fire. Only move them as required, transported on-board mortars can give you some quick point suppression. If you have a lot of arty then you can prep fire certain locations but keep in mind the effects of arty will be largely wasted if it isn't followed up by infantry. I rarely call in arty when I don't have LOS. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Recommended type of scouting (composition, speed, etc.).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I read the scouting ideas on the main forum with interest. I guess it comes down to different styles/philosophies. I never scout so far ahead of main body to put them out of reach of the main body's firesupport. Generally against a good opponent all you will run into is his forward elements which are more than capable of dealing with your scouts. It's also no good to then react because your opponent will have repositioned elsewhere. I will, however, have a few scouts a little ahead to discover barbed wire and AT/AP mine concentrations. Since I'm attacking my force will always be stronger upon contact. I have a plan at the start and I usually follow thru with it because of superior forces at the point of attack. Here's a generic example of an attack against a village/town in the center of the map. I will concentrate leftcenter or rightcenter and have a light screen on the other flank, you don't want to attack everywhere but only give the appearance of doing so. Plan ahead your avenues of approach, support fire, jump off points, repositionning of forces etc. The key is too always have a large volume of fire able to overwhelm the enemy upon contact. If the terrain isn't in your favor then use smoke to make it so. Keep moving forward, softening up postions with arty/area fire and following thru with your attack, you will take losses but it is important to press on and not get bogged down. ^^^-> VV |||-> VV ||| |||___^^ |||___||__^> Excuse the poor attempt at graphics Say in this example, I would have 1 company left consisting of 2 platoons forward/1 back plus the bulk of my support, 1 company center consisting of 1 platoon forward/2 back plus support, and one platoon right acting as a screen/feint. The enemy orientation initially will be towards you, by securing the flank first before assaulting the village you will have gained a large advantage. By putting pressure on the center while securing the flank you will prevent your opponent from repositioning his forces/reserves. That's just a general outline, the details and more importantly the proper coordination are things you need to work out yourself. Hope that helps. Ron

Another option, and it wouldn't suprise me if people are doing this already, is to have a third party generate a map, remove the Flags and place the player's preselected forces. That way they won't know each other's force composition or the map beforehand. Sounds like something worth trying. Ron

Thanks for the compliments Jeff. That's a pretty perceptive analysis, I think I will refrain from sharing any tips with you like I promised earlier, I may very well need them in upcoming battles I've never really given much thought to How to play opposed to actually playing. I think Fionn is adept at that with his AARs. I found his Sunken Lane piece to be very enlightening. However I'll add a couple cents worth anyways. Really it seems to me it comes down to destroying or neutralizing your opponent's forces. How you do that, as others have said, is dependent on the different variables in the scenario, everything from terrain, equipment, the changing situation to the psychology of your opponent. I don't think there is one sure way. Though I agree there are certain techniques that work. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Without the ability to dig in, the defence is not the superior form of warfare but rather a forfeit of the ability to choose when and where to fight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We're talking a Meeting Engagement right? In my experience a well supported defense in a ME is damn effective at stopping an attack as not enough force can be brought to bear and followed up without sacrificing elsewhere. You aren't giving up the initiative by defending, afterall you choose that location for a reason. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, I place a more decisive role on reconaissance, using individual men such as sharpshooters to recon ahead and find the enemy positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can't say I have ever used Sharpshooters that way. I agree getting good intel is important but it can also be accomplished by simply occupying terrain with good observation and determining the enemy's likely avenues of approach beforehand and keying in on those. Somewhat more difficult on a larger map so you may have to force his hand a little. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another point is that your opponent can definitely do the same thing to you. If you're setting up an attack, your forces are in many cases more concentrated at your launching points than his defending forces (atleast mine often are). So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you can send out sharpshooter recon, you better believe your opponent can too. If he finds your troops, you're going to be the one on the receiving end of an arty strike. And because your troops may very well be more concentrated than his, his strike will likely be more devastating than yours will.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, it's not like your opponent will be standing by idly, awed and paralyzed by your tactical brilliance. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think that winning the tank battle is key to winning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While infantry may be the Queen of the battlefield and artillery the King, tanks are definitely the Joker. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>AT guns generally turn and take aim pretty slowly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Try using the 6pnder or 50mm AT guns. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So his AT guns protect his armor, his armor protects his troops, his arty protects his troops, and his troops, arty, tanks and AT guns kick my butt....As you can see, his strategy works well. It is synergistic in that each of his units protects his other units. He has defense in depth so that, even if I do overcome his infantry, I still have to deal with his reserves and his covering force and his rear-guards. Very difficult to attack this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lol, what more can be added to that? Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>109 Gustav: Ever go fishing in Alaska? 20 minutes in the water, even in the middle of the summer, and your next of kin gets a visit from a priest and state trooper.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, born and raised in northern BC, living on the north coast now, so yeah cold winters and frigid waters aren't entirely unknown. If that 20 minutes in the water is a fact then a few people wouldn't be around today, including yours truly. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>tss wrote: I think that the effects of cold could be better simulated by having the affected troops have enormous amount of fatigue from the start and prevent them from recovering it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree completely, the real debilitating effect of cold is the enormous mental lethargy experienced. The human body is suprisingly quite adaptable. OT but I remember hearing of a study(British?) from WWII of surviving crewmen from lost ships in the Atlantic. It reported the survivors were mostly older, experienced men, mentally tougher than their younger counterparts. Interesting I thought. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve Clark wrote: I understand where all of you are coming from and how far I need to go to reach that understanding. Bear with me please.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that's what it comes down to, that is the player's understanding of the period. You have to remember CM portays realistic tactical WWII combat, that has always been the designer's intent. I don't forsee the scale changing for CM2(why would it?). The tactical problems, like secure Hill 123 or take Village A etc, may very well be the same but the solutions will be different due to terrain, equipment, changing technology, training/C&C among others. History has shown that. You don't have to play the whole Barbarossa strategic campaign to get a feel for it, afterall it was made up of small tactical battles that CM2 will simulate, right? Perhaps for you these differences aren't enough, it is just more of the same, that's fine. For the people interested, there is a world of difference, it isn't "BTS hyperbolism and non-answer", lol. That isn't some form of elitism but simply different strokes for different folks. BTS has never claimed to be making games for non-wargamers. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>GriffinCheng+ wrote: CGO has a review up some time ago, iirc, the review is somewhat mixed. Since I am in the work-place now, I cannot do any search for ya.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually the review(10/6) was very positive giving Europa-Universalis an overall rating of 4.5 stars. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John wrote: Pzgr.39 had no problems with the standard Sherman's armor, frontaly at any range according to combat reports, Ie, an 76mm Sherman was KO'd at 1800yrds by an PzKpfw IV, the round cleanly penetrated the glacis thru to the crew compartment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Something I overlooked in my previous test, the M4A376/Easy8's upper hull armour is 64/47' while the M4A176's upper hull armour is 51/47'. Running the test again, using the M4A176 in the same conditions, shows the MkIV has no problem penetrating the upper hull of this Sherman. It's then more of a toss up which one comes out on top. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have had results go both ways. But any hit by either, tank frontaly, should kill the other, an L/48 bounce on a Sherman should be a very rare occurnce as the L/48 penetrated the stock Sherman 75 & 76 to over 2000m with no problems & the Sherman 76 could do the same to the PzKpfw IV. The question I'd ask is what was the crew quality for both AFVs?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, from my experience in CM the Sherman76 is the far superior system as the L/48 seems only able to penetrate the Sherman's turret at long range, rarely, if ever, the hull whereas the 76 penetrates the MkIV easily. I tested a Regular MkIVH against a Regular Sherman Easy8 at 1500m, flat open terrain, both stationary with initial HC of 14%. I ran it 10 times, not enough I know, but confirms my playing experience. M=miss, K=kill, R=riccochet 1..Sher..MK ...MkIV..MM 2..Sher..MMMMK ...MkIV..RRMMM 3..Sher..MK ...MkIV..MM 4..Sher..MMMMMMMK ...MkIV..RMMMRRMR 5..Sher..MMK ...MkIV..MMK 6..Sher..MMMMK ...MkIV..MMMMM 7..Sher..MMK ...MkIV..MRM 8..Sher..MMK ...MkIV..MMR 9..Sher..MMK ...MkIV..RM 10.Sher..K ...MkIV..R MkIV: Total shots:34 Total hits: 11(10 riccochets off hull) Kills: 1(thru turret) Easy8: Total shots:35 Total hits: 10 Kills: 10 I'm curious where the MkIV's kills were located in Steve's test. Ron

Here's the CPX update page for anyone interested. http://www.geocities.com/cmmc_gm/CPX/cpx.html Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Surely as "objective" as the "I always play Germans but CM has to strengthen them because I suck crowd."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As opposed to "I only play the Allies but CM has to give them their historical material and manpower advantage because I suck crowd."? And "Amerikaner sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln." Surely you've discovered the key to locked threads now? Ron

BTTT

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If I have time I will try to investigate changing hit probabilities for subsequent shots (although this will probably be tough to do since you can only check the hit chance on a turn boundary and typically tanks fire more than one shot per turn).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had taken note of this earlier myself when doing some tests. IIRC the increase was from 3-5% per subsequent shot, the one I made note of was a Sherman(76) whose HC went from 18% to 45% after firing 8 shots at 1500m. As you noted, you are limited by the end of turn boundary so don't know whether the second shot %increase is the same or smaller than the last shot's at the end of the turn. Someone earlier also asked about the HC against a moving target. Initially when I did the tests I let the AI control one side, it didn't work out the way I wanted so had to go hotseat but I did observe a couple things. I was checking a Nashorn versus four Shermans(AI) at 1500m. The AI would advance one or two Shermans, sometimes behind smoke, leaving the rest on overwatch. The Nashorn would target the advancing Sherman(s) while blind to the remaining Shermans on overwatch who would invariably then KO the Nashorn in short order. However a couple times the turn ended and I was able to check the Nashorn's HC on the moving target. IIRC it only increased from an initial ~20% to ~26-27% after a turn of firing. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These aren't your OLD positions are they?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No they are definitely where the US troops setup for the start of this battle. The Germans lost a lot of ground during the previous day's battles. Their old positions are several hundred meters further ahead. Ron PS I should add that we skipped the night battle and the foxholes were not there during my setup phase. [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 10-12-2000).]

I'm currently playing the Carentan op by email. It is the last battle(#9) and I set up the Germans to defend the city. On my first plot I was checking some units forward of the main line when I noticed foxholes right beside them, this being the time foxholes are 'created' I wasn't too suprised. Then looking further afield I see more and more foxholes, just created, ones I don't have any LOS to but are still 'there' and can be seen by me. So I know now where my opponent setup, his areas of concentration and likely avenues of attack, effectively ruining this last battle and the op. In my mind this is intel I shouldn't have and is something I hadn't noticed before in the previous battles. I still have the save files if BTS is interested. Has anyone else noticed this? Ron

If you can limber any 88 after it's been emplaced let us know. Ron

A faster turret won't save your Panthers from my dead-eye dick Piat teams! Where's that file! Ron

In the same vein as ASL's previous test I checked the following also. BTW flat open is the same as pavement when checking the %hit chance. Firer Target 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m M4A376 MkIV - 51% - 27% - 13% - 5% Firefly MkIV - 51% - 30% - 17% - 9% Tiger M4A1 - 51% - 27% - 14% - 7% Not a lot to choose from. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tom, there is a German targeting bonus in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's misleading because the gun's velocity has the noticeable impact on the % hit chance not some 'German targeting bonus' which doesn't exist. Your comparison would be more revealing with the Sherman76(793m/s) versus the Tiger(773m/s) rather than the regular Sherman(619m/s). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only question in my mind is whether this bonus is sufficiently large enough to reflect actual battlefield conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I question also if the difference IRL was that small. Good post. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CavScout wrote: No, but I do suspect the intentions of those who want historical equipment for the Axis but none of the historical material and manpower advantage for the Allies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The historical equipment modelled is in the hands of the designers, it is up to them to make it as realistic as possible. The players have no control over that except to voice their opinions. The players however can recreate historical engagements. There's nothing stopping someone from giving the Allies the manpower and material advantage they think the Allies should have and playing those scenarios, the tools are already there. So what's the beef? And a final note from the FAQ: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Allies had so much of everything, how can you balance scenarios? The battles in Combat Mission are relatively small compared to the Western Front as a whole. With a battalion or less per side, it's is not unrealistic to have a local conflict in which the Axis might either outnumber the Allies or have better equipment (like heavy tanks). Although the Allies had a seemingly endless supply of men, vehicles, and other materials, this was often not apparent in the front lines. Because most equipment, supplies, and reserves were shipped from the USA, shortages were common in front-line units. Losses and lengthy advances only aggravated these shortages. Air support too, although massive, couldn't be everywhere all the time. Therefore, there are plenty of battles where the Germans can stand up to the Allies, and even outnumber them. This reality of ETO combat makes it fairly easy for us to include battles which can be called balanced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ron [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 10-07-2000).]

Yes there are the variables of terrain and flank security among others. In my example I had scouted the enemy already and advanced in a manner advantageous for my armour. Good points though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Overwatch is a must. That is, when moving 1 (or more) tanks, you must have other tank(s) covering their move. In our current game, I recommend sending the Mark IV’s out in front, with those nasty Jagdpanzer IV’s back one terrain feature covering their move. The Mark IV’s turrets are quick, allowing them a good chance in a sudden gun duel, while the Jagd can penetrate any allied armor from a distance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree overwatch is a must but there is also the question of survivability. I would lead with the tougher AFV, in this case the Jagdpanzer IV. In a recent unnameable pbem game as an example, a Jagdpanzer IV leading 3 MkIVs of mine advanced on 3 Shermans. On contact the Shermans targetted the JgPzIV, scoring several riccochet hits. Meanwhile the MkIVs got into action unmolested and by the end of the turn there were 3 burning Shermans for no loss. Ron

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CavScout wrote: If arty was as ineffective as some seem to believe, I have to wonder why using artillery would stop a tank advance? Reading some of the After Action Report, 38th Cavalry Recon Squadron we see report after report of tanks being stopped by arty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Posted earlier and seems to answer your question: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WO 291/1321 The accuracy of predicted fire. "It is estimated that broadly speaking an A.G.R.A. firing at 12,000 yds with all guns concentrated will deliver about 2/3rds of the shot not very far from uniformly into an area 200 yds by 200 yds, the remainder being scattered rather thinly beyond these limits." If one assumes say a 4x6 m "foot print" for a tank a roundin needing to land within 5m to have a chance to damage the target that menas a 14x16m vulnerable area - or 224 sqm area out of 40,000 or about a .5% or 1 in 200 chance of an artillery round landing in the vulnerable area of a tank. If we need an actual strike, then the probability becomes 20/40,000 or 1 in 2000 rounds would actually strike a tank in the beaten zone. Now the nature of artillery and tank combat mean that the noise and concussion from artillery will play havoc with both intra and inter-tank C2. THis effect of preventing effective comms in and near teh beaten zone is teh factor resonsible for many instances of artillery 'disrupting" tnak attacks. The occupants of teh tnaks being unable to communicate in teh midst of a heavy baaarrage. Thus one reads often of the "disruption" or "scattering" of armored attacks by artillery but rarely of vehicles being actually hit. Now what we would today call "operational fires" the massing of Brigade and division sived arty units against armored spearheads did cause significant actual casualties, but these are tyopically not tactical "call for fire" situations CM deals with, but diisiona nd Corps commanders acting on recon about concentration of enemy force well before an actual attack. So from the British War office data, aand a litle first order analysis, an actual hit on a tank by artillery is a VERY remote possibilty. The "effect" of a round acting adversely is less obsure, and teh general effects of disruption and C2 problems were endemic in even harrassing bararages. Paul Vebber<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jochen, CM does model target tracking, subsequent shots do have a higher chance of hitting. However at long range there is a point where %hit chance doesn't increase anymore regardless of the number of shots, IIRC at 1500 it is ~40-45% depending upon experience. Also if you have an infantry unit down range to spot you won't have to move the target. I ran something similar awhile ago also, thought I would repost since it seems to be a hot topic at the moment. The tests are of Veteran AT guns in woods versus Regular stationary tanks at 1500m. I ran them 50 times, the tanks never returned fire as they didn't spot the AT guns, with the following results: 88Flak vs M4A3(75) Hitchance - 15% 278shots/87hits avg. shots 1st hit - 4.1 avg. shots per kill - 5.56 1st shot hits - 16% worst case for 1st hit - 11shots 5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38% Pak43 vs M4A3(75) Hitchance - 20% 190shots/53hits avg. shots 1st hit - 3.56 avg. shots per kill - 3.80 1st shot hits - 18% worst case for 1st hit - 10shots 5 or more shots for 1st hit - 28% 17pdr vs PzIVJ Hitchance - 18% 177shots/51hits avg. shots 1st hit - 3.52 avg. shots per kill - 3.54 1st shot hits - 24% worst case for 1st hit - 16shots 5 or more shots for 1st hit - 24% US76mm vs PzIVJ Hitchance - 16% 203shots/53hits avg. shots 1st hit - 3.90 avg. shots per kill - 4.06 1st shot hits - 12% worst case for 1st hit - 10shots 5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38% Vet.Tiger vs Vet.M4A3(76)(1500m/50x) Tiger Hitchance - 16% 255shots/73hits avg. shots 1st hit - 4.15 avg. shots per kill - 5.21 1st shot hits - 14% worst case for 1st hit - 11shots 5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38% Sherman(76) Hitchance - 18% 305shots/116hits avg. shots 1st hit - 2.85 1st shot hits - 21% worst case for 1st hit - 8shots The Sherman(76) KO'd the Tiger twice with weak point penetrations and damaged it's gun once. So for both the Tiger and 88 Flak it took on average around 4 shots to hit the target with a veteran crew. More tests would give more consistent results as there was a large variation in each group of 50. Ron [This message has been edited by Ron (edited 10-06-2000).]

Jeff, I think most of the info I posted earlier came from this website, slow loading but LOTS of info. http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt5.htm