Joachim
-
Posts
1,548 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Joachim
-
-
Well, then they could pay others to pick the low hanging fruits of CM:WAR, CM:SiS, ...
-
That would really hurt my purse.... I'd rather pay 200$ flat. CMBB is about one of the best investments I made. Especially when comparing it to a single green fee over here...
-
Well, splitting reserves would have contradicted doctrine - and definitely AGC would have been even worse off with less reserves. If AGNU might have been saved.... maybe.
But the general assumption of OKH was that "Iwan was spent". And don't even dare to question that assumption... err... "fact".
Changing from stand fast to a withdrawal does not work late. You've got to plan it in advance. Dig a 2nd line, move backwards step by step.... not an easy task, but the German army should still have been capable of doing that. For a successful withdrawal/mobile defense cf. von Manstein's "backhand blow" after Stalingrad.
-
Many people have a problem with economic formulas. These formulas are often linear - until inifinite.
Like in:
"If the price is zero, demand is infinite"
Well, yesterday I was on the driving range to practise. The ball machine was out of order, so range balls were in 2 large baskets, for free. 3 people were there. Surprise: None of them used infinite balls. Yes, more balls than usual. But: Limited time.
So there is always a threshold, long before you reach inifinity. The big thing is to correctly identify that threshold. In BFC's case, the threshold is their market size.
If they give away their product for free, people still have to play it. Which means installing it and then spending time to learn it. Read: A few hours before you really start to enjoy the game (if you aren't addicted already). That time has some cost to the players. Even leisure time is not "for free" - it is pretty restricted and thus valuable.
Thus a short formula for the cost of a copy of CM:BN is:
Time needed until you get fun out of it + direct cost for your copy + some hardware-related costs.
Thus the price (as in: Total cost of ownership) will never be zero (except if BFC pays money for people playing it
) Which saves one of the most important economic theories. But shows that the application of economic theories is non-trivial. If you don't really understand them, you should be careful.
And don't get fooled by people who might know better than they say - but actually do earn their money by selling you web 2.0 (or sub-primes, CDOs, whatever).
For every successful company like Microsoft, Google or Facebook, there are scores of companies that failed. Successful companies in the IT industry are not successful only because they used web 2.0 or adopted new models or whatever. Google Buzz, Google Wave, .... grand scale failures. Done by the people who did Google. What did they do wrong? They were even for free! And thought to have a much larger market than BFC.
Well, they did not know their market (as there was none before). BFC think they know their market. Dunno, if they really know all of it. But their objective is to be successful on that part of their market that they know. That is enough to keep them alive. They might try to widen the market.
But let's face it - their trial on new markets is selling CMx1 for a low price. Which by far beats that guy from the article who says they should sell their first module of a new series for a cheap price.
Ah yeah.... I like good strategies. And I expect them from good wargamers.
-
If there is a non-zero risk that a large movie company sues a startup company because the movie studio states that the combo "war" and "ride of the valkyries" belongs to them the startup company won't risk getting sued. Legal expenses will eat up its budget long before the end of the lawsuit.
The movie company knows that it will win in a lawsuit. One way (a verdict) or another (money runs out for the opponents). That increases the probability of getting sued for the small company.
Now what would you do as a small startup company?
I'd reduce that risk. However small it might be.
-
Hit both at the same time:
AGC will be destroyed as planned.
But the forces hitting AGNU and its reserves might be destroyed. Which will see a weakened Soviet front facing AGNU, allowing the Germans to shift their reserves plus elements from the frontline of AGNU towards AGC.
Numerical example, counting men only, no equipment (not historical, just to show some point):
Assume Soviets had 1.2 million men in front of AGC and AGNU each. AGC is 600.000 men, AGNU is 600.000 men, reserves are additional 200.000 men.
Attacking vs AGNU+reserves yields odds of 12:8 or 1.5:1. Germans dug in, reserves hit quickly with most of the attackers still in the defensive belt. Issue in doubt.
Attacking vs AGC yields odds of 2:1. Pretty safe.
Attacking vs AGNU w/o reserves yields odds of 2:1. Pretty safe.
When reserves from AGNU arrive in center: Attacking vs remains of AGC plus reserves yields odds of 1.5:1, battle behind defensive belt, Germans in disorder. Pretty safe. (Assuming both sides lost 200.000 men before the reserves arrive)
So attacking like the Soviets did would mean highly likely success on both fronts while attacking simultaneuously would yield a risk - and even in the case of success should yield more losses for the Soviets.
You can try this in CM in a battle vs the TacAI with two group flags, separated by distance and some hills. Some reserve forces slightly behind the southern group of flags.
Attack the northern group, capture a few flags there and the TacAI will send forces from the south. You'll usually easily waste those moving forces if you already established a defensive perimeter around the captured flags.
Now try the same scen attacking both groups of flags simulteaneuosly. Most of the reserves will hit you in the South, while you are still attacking, lots of forces (especially MGs and mortars) in open ground, no defensive perimeter established.
Then compare the losses in the AAR. If you play it a few times, the results should favor the delayed attack in the South.
-
Rights to "Ride of the Valkyries"? Well, Richard Wagner is dead for more than a 70 years, which means the copyright should have vanished long ago. Getting some new copyright from putting it into a movie shouldn't work. But I dunno what US courts say about that....
-
@DT: Some pool is in ROQC. 3 men as reinforcements per battle, and whatever you get from a die roll.
@Little Jack:
You don't need to edit the headcount. Any unit that is not full strength is out of the next battle. So if a 10-men squad lacks 1 man, you lack the entire squad. Your tank lost its TC and didn't get a replacement for him. The tank gets a pause. Tough, but that's the way it is.
IIRC the missing units still count for your core force value.... so if you lack several units, the next battle might be really tough. Well, ROQC is about keeping your men alive....
-
Well, I probably would have chosen option 1 too, but it's worth noting that the Soviet didn't really embrace a "don't worry, anything goes" attitude in this regard.
I mean, they could have said that 76mm AP rounds could penetrate German 80mm plates (maybe at "short" range) but they didn't. They didn't in the fire test reports against catured AFVs (Ferdinand, Tiger I and II side armour), they didn't in their how to pamphlets.
Telling gunners that 76mm penetrates 80mm plate would lead to gunners opening up early. Which would result in disaster and the word would spread the field manual is plain wrong. The trick is to tell that it can be done, but needs thorough planning and execution. That leaves enough local scapegoats if it goes wrong - and leads to heightened awareness of the ATG front crews.
@DT: Well, the infantry might be right. Maybe one reason why the heavy tanks were used behind mediums later on?
But the concern of the Tiger commanders is pretty much a luxury problem. That amount of fire would usually disable other tanks and kill their crews. And still those tanks did attack.
-
Immo'd tanks receiving incoming are likely to bail in CM.
Immo'd+gun damage causes the crew to abandon. That's why trucks etc. bail when immo'd from bogging.
__________________________________________
Regarding Soviet Field manuals on fighting Tigers further above:
Assumptions about Tigers:
a) Rumors say it is damn tough to kill attacking Tiger hordes.
Soldiers are unwilling to fight Tigers and are prone to getting away alive.c) Often attacking tanks are mis-id'd as Tigers though they are only PzIVs.
Assumptions about Stavka intentions:
d) Even Tiger hordes must be fought - fighting them will delay them, strip off accompanying infantry and buy time
e) It is better to lose a btn fighting with some noticeable effect than the same battalion surrendering without a shot.
f) Morale must be kept high
g) Any ATG front must be placed carefully to maximize its effectiveness. Sloppyness should be avoided.
Imagine yourself as the one who is responsible to write a field manual on fighting Tigers, imagine the assumptions were true. Now what do you write:
1) Yes, our guns can fight and kill Tigers. You provide examples and detailed plans on how and where to hit the beasts. But of course the gun front and its supporting elms must be placed carefully (read: if the gun front fails, the local commander it is to blame.)
2) Comrades, run!
3) Something else.
What are the effects of 1) to 3) for the war effort, what are the effects on your personal career/health?
Well, I think I would choose option 1. It would help the war effort - vs a Tiger btn, but even more vs a PzIV or StuG btn. And my job in the HQ would be a bit safer.
And finally the big question:
Is a field manual which says Tigers can be fought effectively real evidence? Or would it look just the same if Tigers could not be fought effectively?
-
Well... first shot at the tanks from 4-800 yards. Several hits. "Failed" "not a fair hit" "old holes", "previous cracks"....
The likelihood of a shot hitting an old hole is rather low - if the glacis sports just 1 old hole. Not enough data to make up valid statistics, but conspicious.
Then finally at 2-300m the 76mm beats the glacis. Sometimes.
1 our of 4 hits on glacis #3 yields " 1. One rd penetrated glacis. After partially penetrating, rd turned and penetrated vertically. Photograph 24.". The best result.
2 other shots on glacis #2 yields " 1. One rd failed to penetrate. Depth of partial penetration 1 5/16". Photograph 21. 2. One rd penetrated through old hole; not a fair hit." So even the "best plate" never penetrated "fair" in the test had an old hole...
Conclusion: "Neither one can be be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther in one fair hit on average quality plate."
(Quotes from URC's link to Isigny test)
-
ROF is influenced by experience. But I never tested that. Even the ROF values are just from Chris CM database.
Dunno if a bonus affects ROF. But it would fit the scheme.
-
I interpret the 'fast' as pertaining to the unit's ROF, not the speed the crew can push the gun across ground.
The ROF of the guns are good for guns, but don't compare to the mortars.
76mm M1927/39 Reg Gun has a ROF of 8 (on par with the Zis2)
The mortars are 11 (82mm) and 13 (50mm). Quite a difference.
But I briefly considered ROF, too. Just because it couldn't be speed.
-
No (medium) gun is as fast as a mortar. It is much heavier in RL. CM models RL.
Thus most medium guns are "very slow". The transport class 5 guns should be slightly faster than those with class 6, but none can compare to a mortar.
And I fail to remember a medium gun in CM with a standard ammo load of 60.
-
the whole idea was deeply ideological and while many nazi actions and policies were direct results of their ideological views, many of their actions were directly opposed to their ideology. the whole agricultural field (and directly related to it the labour/manpower questions) was one of the most glaring examples of such policies. they were supposed to create a racially pure Germany and bring forth utopistic romantic agrarian lifestyle. what they did was bring millions of foreigners into holy German soil, most of whom were of racially undesirable stock, and modernize agriculture (or outright destroy it by massing resources into industrialization). in that light i think the most questionable aspect of the plan was where to get the millions of extra Germans to do the farming after the 20 million Slavs were dead.
there's of course a whole political aspect of it. Nazis weren't that popular and IMO it wouldn't have taken much to change history so that we would be playing historical Heer vs Waffen SS Combat Mission scenarios as the highlight of WW2.
Nazi ideology was not coherent.
For Poland there were two models:
a) Baldur von Schirach (IIRC Reichsjugendführer (Nazi Youth leader)) intended to build German "Wehrdörfer" (fortified villages) occupied by German farmers, used to subjugate the surrounding Polish villages. German farmers would actually do some farming.
Himmler (Reichsleiter SS) advocated just killing the Polish elite. It would be enough for Poles to be able to read&write their name and learn that it is their highest pleasure and duty to serve their German masters. Germans would probalby not work on their own in this model.Both models competed. Himmler slowly won.
Both had direct access to Hitler. Both presented their models to him. Still there was no clear decision. Both had to constantly lobby Hitler for his support for their model.
A more well known competition is Himmler vs Göring. Himmler wanted more men. But Hitler did not trust a single sub-leader. Himmler wanted more men. The Wehrmacht didn't want to give them away and Hitler needed the Wehrmacht to control the Waffen-SS... and vice versa. 5th Viking might be "nordic" and thus fits racial doctrine. But Himmler ignored the racial principles when it came to manpower for the Waffen-SS and thus his personal power. Göring had his LW divisions, his rivalry with the navy and his own airborne PzDiv to compete vs Himmler. Pure inefficiency. Why not a single plan, with decisions from a strong leader? Because that leader feared rivals from the lower ranks.
Which leads to a decent management problem in the Nazi structures. There were many organizations with overlapping and/or competing tasks. While the Wehrmacht (and Waffen SS) usually gave their sub-leaders free reign to accomplish the objective as they would see fit ("managament by objectives") the party organization relied on weak sub-leaders ensuring the power of their leader.
1 We are the "Herrenrasse" (market leader)
2 Our Rasse (products) is superior
3 Our leader (CEO) is superior
4 We will win once and for all (we will remain market leader forever)
5 Anybody not believing in 1 to 4 is an enemy (will get fired)
Imagine a company with the principles in brackets. How long will it remain market leader? Which type of managers will you see? Strong, charismatic persons in the middle management? Or one half disillusioned old hands bypassed by the other half of bootlickers?
How long will that company remain market leader?
-
I don't recall any one using logistics difficulties to justify operational errors, if that's what you mean.
Woot?... We missed an opportunity to whine? Gotta whine about that!
I did not mean any special reason or occasion to whine. Just a tendency to whine about anything.
-
I just find it curious that the Germans almost constantly were whining about supply making their job just about impossible, and pretty much no matter where or when you look in the war, the Soviets weren't. And they were doing it with a bigger force. (Albeit one that, unit for unit, demanded less logistical support.)
Somebody whining about the status quo might result from
a) a real lack of things
striving for perfectionism c) a national tendency to whine anyway.
Some model:
Which side complained at your Lauban campaign?
Which side performed better?
Which nationality were those whiners?
BTW: IIRC the US Army was great at whining, too.
-
I think the optics advantage is noticeable in long range engagements, the T-34 85's fired but failed to register any hits at the initial range of 1500m. The Tiger on the other hand reguarly hit and killed so by the time the T-34;s were getting close to effective range (1000m) they had been heavily attrited. I do seem to remember, in the dim and distant past, CM saying that only high quality units could take advantage of sophisticated optics, as for Zeiss, they were known for producing superior optics well before WWII.
Kanonier, you have better luck than me, when my T-34's are hit, by a Tiger, they raise their hats quite frequently!
Well... if you didn't repeat the test, I'll counter with single incidents from CM, too
I got several vehicles shoot up at ranges beyond 1500m by SU85M/SU100. First or second round kills.If your T34s moved, they won't get any bonus anyway.
And I remember that part about vets or higher taking advantage. Never noticed it, but never did controlled tests.
-
Just tried a veteran Tiger v's 15 Veteran T-34 85's (late model 44's) in an August 44 meeting engagement. Initial ranges were 1500-1600 metres and the Tiger destroyed 10, before retiring when out of AP. Repeated the exercise with a more realistic 1 v's 3 at 850-900 and had the Tiger KO'd once and the T-34's all destroyed four times, oh the Tiger suffered a crew casualty in one encounter. So, as I said the German advantages are explicit, the Nashorn example is bogus because the Borg spotting kills it, not any superiority of Russian equipment or negation of German. I did manage to win Hornets nest easily by forgetting about shoot and scoot (only one aimed shot) and using carefullt timed hunt commands that allowed 2-3 aimed shots, then relocated below the ridge line. I lost one Nashorn but shot apart the Russian armor, using the mortars to fire a smoke screen to cut the Russian force in two helped. I also remember initial engagement ranges were 1900m and yet I was still killing the KV's.
Well. Looks like you used good tactics within CM with the Nashorn example. Why didn't you use smoke and rushed the T34m44s forward vs the Tiger? That would negate their disadvantage a lot. Maybe not necessary in RL, but a workaround in CM. (OTOH I still doubt T34s tried to duel it out with Tigers at range in RL. And it is SOP to fire a few rounds max and change the firing position. Firing single rounds, keeping the range for a single target when relocating a few metres, while the Tiger has to memorize 5 if the T34s don't bunch.)
Just like your workaround with replacing shoot&scoot thru hunt. In RL the Nashorns wouldn't forget ranges by temporarily reversing to cover. In CM, they forget them once the target is moving or LOS is broken. That really hurts long range gunnery. Which should be better for German equipment (hitting, not pen). Yet it isn't. I still fail to see a difference between different optics in CM. No German advantage there. Yet I bet there is a reason why the US advanced to Jena (Soviet sector) and relocated the optical works from their to their own sector.
It is a shame that CM campaigns was dropped as that could have led to a whole new dimension being opened up, especially regarding the mobility of some units.
Yes. That would have balanced a few things...
Oh and the behind armour effect of a 75 L70 seems perfectly adequate, again one Veteran Panther v's 5 veteran T-34 85's at 1200m, result a slaughter (even had some of the T-34's suffer catastrophic kills). My final point, imagine the howls of outrage from the majority of CM gamers if the German 75 L48 was as nerfed, v's the T-34 as alot of people here believe the 76 is v's the Stug.
Try 75mm vs the side of SU85/SU100. 45m@0-20° armor, gun hitting from 2 to 4 o'clock. If you're lucky you score a crew kill with a pen. HC, L4x AP, L70 AP - no matter. Repeat with 85mm or 88mm. That reliably kills with first pen.
-
In the end it is total write-offs that count. If a tank is not "fit for purpose" but can be recovered by its owners, he will fight another day. If the general objective (e.g. a breakthrough) was achieved and the tank will fight again 2 weeks later - what does it help to the defender? It takes 50 tons of steel and lots of work to build a Tiger but just some parts to repair it.
Only if enough tanks are not "fit for the purpose" so the mission fails and/or the tanks can't be recovered... that's what really counts.
It might be less costly to attack somewhere else and force the Tigers to relocate to the rear, destroying the vehicles in the abandoned workshops than to attack the Tiger btn head-on. There is a 3000km front. There are a few hundred Tigers. They can't be everywhere. There is no sense in giving the Tigers lots of attention with everything near. Keep that stuff vs those tanks it can kill. The trick is to fight the support and the supply lines of the Tigers.
What's that CM scen with IS2s vs KTs? That is the way you fight Tigers if you need to. Make sure they are without much support, trying to get to their depots. Any KT no longer fit for the purpose won't make it home. and several will just break down without seeing a fight.
Neither strategic effects nor breakdowns before a battle are modelled in CM. CM has a knack about fighting fair on the battlefield. Strategy is the art of not playing fair. And it is impossible to put the strategic effects into a tactical wargame. Not if you want it somewhat "balanced".
Re German HV guns and better optics: Pair a vet (allied) T34/85 and a vet Tiger. Check their hit chances vs each other. No big difference. Similar velocity of the guns - and velocity is the most dominant variable regarding accuracy (the next is target size). Especially vs moving targets. German tanks might spot a bit better. If they have a cupola. But once borg spotting takes over, that doesn't matter much. So some German advantages are negated, too.
Ever tried Hornet's nest? Did Hornets/Rhinos work in RL? Did you manage to score a German victory? Not even vs the dumb AI? Why not? What is the problem in the model there? Some negated German advantages?
Re Bad behind armor effect of 76mm? A serious hurt to the Soviet war effort in CM? Well, a 75mm gun ain't much better. Even L70.
CM is a model. That means it is an approximation. Yes, it fails in several scenarios. Live with it. StuG front or Tiger side armor is something you can avoid in CM. Certain other "features" affect '41 to '45.
It is an entirely different question from a purely academic POV. Lots of the stuff dug out above is pretty interesting.
-
Michael Green's Tiger Tanks, page 74, asserts that a glancing hit from a 122mm shell could produce concussion enough to disable a Tiger's turret mechanism. So whilst we can glibly talk about penetrations or lack off perhaps we should accept there were many ways to disable tanks or force a retreat in RL.
Unfortunately perhaps CMBB does not allow for a great range of results. Gun damage, immobilised, dead, or not. Crew hits I think are restricted to one.
Nope.
Partial pen from JS3 (ie 122L48), maybe using HE due to ammo shortage, vs flat front of Tiger I resulted in 4 dead crewmembers and an abandoned Tiger. Range was 100-200
Just one example I remember. But it proves "it exists". Not how often it happens.
Killing Tigers with 76mms in CMBB in '43 works. But you need higher odds than available in QBs.
IMHO the "rarity" models the production numbers over time of a given tank. Not its percentage in the tank fleet. And it does not model its combat value for a given period. It is a simple model that can't fit all purposes. Games do consist of simple models. Period. Simple models do not represent RL for all possible parameter sets. Period. Live with that.
Killing Tigers in '43 was tough in RL. You needed to do everything right. If those "hundreds of T34s lost" stated by BD6 were score by Tigers, than it meant 10+ dead T34s per dead Tiger. I guess 10 T34s in CMBB should suffice to kill a Tiger...
It is not just the weapon, it is the man who shoots: You need a good plan in RL and the same in CMBB. If you try it beer&pretzels you will fail. You need to play a perfect round of chess - or have lots of luck. And you need a map that either offers lots of LOS blocks - or a map large enough that distance covers while going around. I doubt Soviets tried to rush a Tiger thru its frontal firing arc from the march. IIRC Soviets had even a SOP to go around StuGs when encountering them. Why attack at the strong point of the enemy?
You play the weakness of the enemy and the strength of your own weapons. T34s are fast. They can go around in a wide circle, out of effective range of the 88. That's a CM map at least 5k wide and the Tigers are restricted to the centers. Overwhelming odds of T34s outgunning the flank protection of the Tigers. Then closing in from both flanks, maybe throwing some smoke in the process, diverting the Tigers, whatever. Well beyond the scale of CM. Well beyond the limited commands of CM.
The whole thing will put CM to its limits. It is not like that stupid "5 Shermans vs a Tiger" movie.
-
When I looked at my initial result, posted previously, I noticed that this time I had only taken side shots when the side of the Tigers was at nearly a zero angle of deflection. Allowing the Tiger to present even a modest side angle and the Paks were far less effective, especially targeting the turret. Final point, although low velocity and less accurate the 76mm HEAT rounds had a high chance of a mobility kill (50%). The entrenched Paks were invisible to the Tiger till point blank range, and a dug in Maxim made sure most Tigers were buttoned regularly. So in reality, the Paks would die after 2-3 volleys but they would draw blood from the heavy armour at the tip of the wedge, just as the accounts suggest.
Oops....
CMBB favors exact plans and tactics. Strict fire discipline. It is tough to plan, but it often works.
The employment of Tigers is a no-brainer to many. If you buy one Tiger as a lone tank then your armor is always concentrated. You spring your trap by bringing the only Tiger into a firing position. Using a lone Tiger is easy in CM.
The enemy can buy 2 or 3 T34s for the same amount points - but they are often spread out a bit. It is much harder to concentrate the firepower of the T34s and spring a trap with several tanks. You need timing and a good view of the battlefield. Which is hard in CM.
@BD6:
Remember Lauban J5/6? An exact Soviet plan, taking no gambles but only safe bets, strict fire discipline, coordinated weapons, picking single targets wherever their own overwatch did not work for them. Vark's example at a larger scale. The result were lots of dead German '44 era armor mostly dying from T34/85s and some ISU122s and at least a 2:1 kill rate. Chess on a CM map.
And if you actually did remember J5/6 - why? Because it was a normal battle? Or unusual? If a trap for Überarmor works, witnesses will remember it as outstanding. Those occasions that did not work will be "normal" (and see less Soviets live to tell)). Eye-witness accounts are biased by their own memory (psychological aspect)- and by numbers of people that live to tell (statistics).
Yet those 2 examples from Vark or me are no proof that CMBB's model is correct. They just weaken evidence claiming that the model is incorrect.
The actual "proof" on the model being off is the official comment above:
The model is a single formula, not a table. It is almost impossible that a single formula can model the real world which has so many variables in it. If the result of the formula is off just 5% at the worst point (which still means a rather good overall fit!) it might be the decisive millimeters ... from "low chance to kill" vs "none". Looks like 76mm gun vs 80mm armor is the most prominent point of being "off".
A nice war story on extreme statistical bias of "returners": The USAF wanted to up-armor its bombers and checked returning planes for bullet holes. Additional armor should be applied to areas that were hit hardest. According to the evaluation, the area around the fuel tanks needed no additional armor as almost none of the returning planes was hit there.
-
I have read plenty of accounts of Germans standing off at longer ranges in the - apparent - full knowledge of the shorter range at which Soviet fire became effective. Trying to get a flank shot on an ArtSturm with a 76mm seems to me to be rational behavior.
Just standing off in itself is no evidence:
Any hit does damage. At least it wears out the armor. There might be weak points in the front, gun damage, track hit, whatever.
It is harder to outflank a StuG (with a yet unspotted gun/vehicle) and get side shots at favorable angles if it is further back.
Superior long range gunnery and penetration:
- My hit chance is reduced to 75% at long vs medium range while the enemy hits only half the time or even less
- My kill chance is still 100% if I hit while the risk of repairs due to of enemy fire is reduced from 50% to 25% if he hits and his chance of a pen go from "low" to "once in a blue moon"
I'd do the basic statistics and geometry (probably figured out by HQ in a manual) and go for long range anytime the enemy lets me.
What would you do? Just rely on some armor plate and close in if you don't need to?
-
Stationary vets do a good job while moving cracks will often fail. Tank hunters need support to max their effectiveness.
A successful pic is at the bottom of the link, all 2-men-icons are vet sappers. IIRC a total of 4 demo charges was available, 2 for each of those 2 halfsquads closest to the road. IIRC those are in command of a bonus HQ. German tanks on hunt or MTC, all soviets opening up at the same time, some as decoys. The main actors are unsuppressed. Note that the MGs enforced the tanks buttoning up and there was no German inf around. Also note that the tanks target the MG and plt HQ to their front, not the sappers. Read: Everything well planned and executed. All necessary ingredients at hand.
Somewhere in the page is also a lone TH vs massive odds that unsurprisingly dies quickly.
Soldiers are unwilling to fight Tigers and are prone to getting away alive.
countdown at the end of a game
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Well, try a test row.
Play H2H, Hotseat
a) Kill only a regular TC of a Tiger. Then ceasefire
c) Kill only a regular TC of a PzIVf. Then ceasefire
d) Kill only a crack TC of a PzIVf. Then ceasefire
e) Kill only a regular TC of a PzIIc. Then ceasefire
f) Kill only a crack TC of a PzIIc. Then ceasefire
Then kill the 3 different tanks with different experience, with different crew kills. (Give the targets no ammo and immo them to achieve an abandoned tank with no crewkill). Of course. That's 18 more scenarios. Try one case if ko'ed yields different results form abandoned. If yes - how much. Does it matter if a crew kill happens while the crew is in the vehicle vs after bailing?
Then the same with guns and mortars.
Now on to inf.... check the cost of the squad, the amount of men, yields losing a rifleman in a squad as mayn points as losing the SMG/LMG?
Well... lots of work ahead.