Joachim
-
Posts
1,548 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Joachim
-
-
"Knüppeldamm = Knueppeldamm". If you don't have the "Umlaut" "ü", use "ue", just like the military did (at least until 1988 when we still had the WW2-vet telex machines).Originally posted by Hans:Thanks Joachim
I thought they might have picked a term from the French or Latin for it
'der Knu:ppeldamm' is der knuppeldamm exceptable without the umlaut?
Picking words form Latin or French was cool, but increasing an army of 100.000 to several millions would soon see fancy words replaced by common words. Just to make sure everybody knew what to expect when driving on a curduroy road.
It is different if the fancy word is already in common use.
Gruß
Joachim
-
I guess it is the appropriate military word. IIRC I read it in a few books. We don't invent separate names for the military - keep it simple!Originally posted by Hans:Thanks Brent, hmmmm I wonder if their was a specific German military term for that?
@Brent:
It would be "Horn vom König" or in correct grammar "Horn des Königs" (Horn of the king).
King and Kaiser are slightly different.
(King of Prussia but Emperor of Germany (more exact is "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" - starting with Karl dem Grossen (aka Charlemagne) in 800AD).
Gruß
Joachim
[ April 07, 2004, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
So especially if you have two rows of houses the houses are traps. Once you know this, you will set up accordingly. But once the neighboring houses are rubble, you can move thru walls.
If your AT team is at least veteran or regular but in command, it is able to move thru the sewers (if the scen parameters allow for it).
The sewer move command only works when you are already in the lower level. You can not use it as a 2nd command (e.g. for a unit in the upper level it is move to lower level. Next turn issue the command "enter sewers". A sequence "move to lower level. Use sewers" in one turn is not possible.)
There is a risk that the unit gets lost in the sewers. Try short moves only - like entering an adjacent building.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Bringing a Pak to a ME is something many players don't expect. Just ask SergeiOriginally posted by JamesT73J:I've found (in my admittedly limited experience) that the Russian tanks aren't great on their first shots from long distance. I suppose this might be the optics modelling.
My hassle with PAK weaponry is getting it moved around, although if there's one thing I've learnt about heavy tanks, people tend to think they're invincible and start touring the map with them, thus providing you with lots of opportunity to shoot at them.
In the meantime I have to work on the other problem of this game eating my life.
Just checked some guns...
500m, side shot
T34-40 T34-41 T34-41 KV1-39 KV1-40 KV1-41 KV2
(cast turret)
Italian 47mm seldom very rare very rare none none none none
Hungarian 47mm very rare very rare very rare none none none none
Hungarian 40mm seldom seldom seldom none none none none
28mmPzB very rare very rare very rare none none none none
GE 37mm ATG none none none none none none none
PzJgI OK OK OK none none none none
50L42 OK OK OK none none none none
My favourite in this test is the Hungarian 47mm. Worse than the PzJgI gun, but at 250m it starts to penetrate KV side armor ("seldom").
At 30 points (+30% rarity = 30pts) it is pretty cheap. Transport class 4 fits onto a Kübel.
PzIIIg at 84 pts (+5 Rarity) is better than the PzJgI which is penalized (base cost 56 pts) by 40% or more rarity
So I'd center my force around a vet or reg PzIIIg plt (no PzIIIh - their turret is weaker which is a severe disadvantage. Search for "Pz IV hull down". Same applies here). Add an inf Co (Recce sounds fine). I'd rather invest in an IG than in a radio for the spotter. Several ATGs (the 28mm PzB is good, the 50L60 is better, the captured 76mm is all you want, no need for 88), AT teams and 1-2 FlaK. Transport: 2-3 Kübel or 1 Kübel and a 251/1.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Hmm... there are three kinds of people. Those who can count and those who can't.Originally posted by Impudent Warwick:Joachim, you only listed 6 men. Further down the page at your link it lists (2)loaders, so one must be for the 75.
I listed only 6 men. But it's a quote... And the crem number on that page says 6 men. Plus what you found: "Commander, driver, loaders(2), gunners(2)
M3: 6"
Probably the radio operator doubled as loader for the 75mm. Given his place in the front, this would make sense.
OTOH On War says 6 or 7 men. Guess the 7th would be a dedicated loader or MG gunner as there is no other job left. :confused:
Gruß
Joachim
-
I'd make pretty sure (at least some) AA is in place before the air support arrives. Same goes for ATGs (or TDs) before the armor arrives. This way you might force players to keep their armor in reserve waiting for more... or use it to gain an advantage before the enemy gets his. This might balance it a bit more.Originally posted by gambler:Hans, since I don't have CMBO I wouldn't be able to playtest your scenario. If you mean mine, then I'll pass it along once it's more polished.
Joachim: I wasn't pleased with the rate of reinforcements (too quick) in my first game so I didn't pay too much attention to the tactics. Combining "Extreme FOW" with this certainly led to the recon group having an important role, as well as securing high ground. I did notice that the enemy was having me for lunch but that may have been because they got Tigers and both groups of Stugs within the first few turns. I'm thinking both sides should get one full company of Infantry with decent odds of arriving (20-25%) to provide support weapons and a higher level HQ that can be moved where needed, a few platoons of different infantry types, a couple pioneer platoons all at about 10%. Armor companies (including anti-tank) will range from 3-8% dependant on rarity in the area, and the rest (air support, artillery spotters, flamethrowers, sharpshooters, mortars, MGs, AA, ATG, etc) at 2-4%.
This way the battle will most likely be infantry heavy, with a small amount of armor and a couple of goodies to play with.
Add a few higher HQs or wpns plts to your reinforcements. Eg Reinf 1 is HQ+1+4 plt, Reinf 2 is plt 2, reinf 3 is plt 3. Reinf 2 should arrive first (in most cases), plt 3 is rear guard of the Co.
Gruß
Joachim
[ April 06, 2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
There are plenty of crewmen to stay in place. 7 men in a tank means little room to move for everyone. Tanks are not built that the crew has a convenient compartment where everybody roams around freely.Originally posted by MikeyD:"Given the restricted space in the crew compartment, I don't think the turret loader/gunner can assist in loading the hull gun."
The Lee has a seven(!) man crew! yikes! So there's plenty of loaders to go around.
"The driver and radio operator occupied the front of the hull. The 75 mm gunner sat on the left of the gun. The 37 mm gunner, gun loader and commander were in the turret. " Grant at wwiivehicles.com.
Seems to me the 75mm gunner had no separate loader and with the loader located in the turret it is much slower to reload the 75mm than the 37mm gun.
-
The PzIV has just 50mm frontal turret armor. A 37mm gun will penetrate at reasonable ranges. Same goes for PzIII without 70mm frontal turret armor.Originally posted by SpitfireXI:Your right, so I guess my question is how do you kill German tanks with a 37mm gun?
50L60 will usually bounce from Lee frontal armor (exception is Tungsten rounds, but there aren't many). So the German PzIII has the same problem. The 75mm gun of the Lee can hurt the PzIII frontally. So the PzIII is inferior to the Lee in a H2H slug-it-out match.
PzIII and PzIV side or rear armor is pretty weak. A 37mm has a good chance to penetrate. So flanking is a good tactic.
Tanks are not meant to sit there and blast away. This is not the M1-Abrams in Iraq! There were only a few Übertanks in WW2, and their Über-Status was limited to a few month. Use all of your tanks like you would use the weakly armored marders or 75mm armed M3 HTs.
If you wanna see the weakness of the PzIII, play Frühlingwind as the Axis. Plus your only decent Lee-Killer is the Marder... a hammer with an eggshell.
Gruß
Joachim
-
Is it Axis vs Allies or GE vs SO? If Axis unlimited, has anybody ever checked it a Romanian or Italian 4.7cm ATG is available and whether its performance is comparable to th PzJgI's gun?
Gruß
Joachim
-
Try to get something with 5cm guns or bigger. Remember that full plts are cheaper than 4 individual tanks. IIRC you pay 20% less for all tanks but the command tank. This means you pay 3.4 tanks but get 4 plus maybe a bonus for the commander.
ISTR that recoilless rifles are pretty expensive with rarity on. Maybe drop it for something else.
A PzJg1 is able to kill T34s. It is fragile, but it might work if it gets first shots. The trick is to divert the T34. The diversion tries to catch the attention of the T34 in second 30, then comes the PzJg a few seconds later. He gets of a few shots and retreats immediately next turn if the T34 ain't finished.
And then there is hail fire. Concentrate lots of fire on one Soviet tank - it just might panic.
-
It is also a good idea to replace QBs vs the AI. Using statistical formulas or good guessing, you can balance the whole thing but use some less common equipment (or equipment seldomly picked by the AI).
It would be interesting if AI forces coming in in driblets would improve AI tactics. No more buching up of infantry, tanks spread out in plts that...
Gruß
Joachim
-
Given the restricted space in the crew compartment, I don't think the turret loader/gunner can assist in loading the hull gun. 3.7cm use pretty small cartridges and thus can fire more often. Probably the 7.5cm crew is just busy re-loading. If the target is that big and need some 7.5cm ammo, a few additional 3.7cm rounds won't hurtOriginally posted by SpitfireXI:No, not hull down and in the video I can see the 75mm fire but then stop so they can fire three more 37 mm shots. Anyway I can make them stop wasting time with the door knockers and concentrate on the real gun?
. They might even help in getting the range correct.
-
If maps already have flags and setup areas, the QB will use them. So if you change the roads, add those, too, and no gentleman's agreement is needed (even better, you don't need to check that 300m rule manually while setting up).Originally posted by Noiseman:The one modification one has to make to randomly generated maps of this size is to make sure both sides have road access to the central victory flag area. Also both sides have to be on the honor system to start within a preset distance (say 300m) of their map ends because CM will set huge setup areas on imported QB maps. I'll actually get around to playing a scenario of this type one of these days...
-
Well, I'd like million dollars every time an Axis opponent agreed to lower ammo levels! It ain't gonna happen.Originally posted by REVS:Flamingknives wisely wrote
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> REVS, you're mistaking the tactical level, which CM represents, to the operational or strategic level. (again?) You could always agree that German forces have less than full ammo or less than full headcount in all your QBs, or simply play scenarios.
</font>
-
Several thougths on this:Originally posted by yacinator:do u only play battles that u can win?
He who runs away lives to fight the other day.
He who does not fight achieves the greatest victory.
Negotiating the terms of surrender or retreating is part of the game. It may minimize your loss.
Ending a game (and admitting defeat), then starting a new interesting battle is often better than playing a few more boring turns.
In real life wars, fights to the last man are rare. If you stand no chance and are still able to retreat - do it. If you are outgunned and in an unfavorable position you will inflict a few casualties and die. If you retreat and fight again, you will probably inflict more causalties in the future than you could now.
"1 hell of a fight" is for movies.
Starting a lost battle still demands that you concentrate on minimizing your loss.
Gruß
Joachim
-
0,084985835694050991501416430594901 km? :confused: </font>Originally posted by Sergei:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:
12/423.6*3 km
-
Maybe dead units are hiding.
Gruß
Joachim
-
As I like those huge scens, I did one myself. "A Big One" (fictitional, 12/42, 3.6*3 km^2, about 10000 points, 70+ turns) available at the proving grounds. 60+ AFVs and a btn+ of infantry for each side. Axis Attack is followed by an Allied counter attack.Originally posted by Bogojugolev:Does anyone know of any other scenarios built to this scale (70+ AFV's per side, multiple battalions of inf, kilometers of battlefield, etc) that have reasonably good play-balance?
Gruß
Joachim
Edited to add a "," and a "^2" after Sergeis following post.
[ April 05, 2004, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
Sven,
which Panzer IIIs are in the scenario?
Gruß
Joachim
-
Interesting info - the employment does not suggest that on board use makes much sense. Add the small amount of tanks available and you know why they are not in CMAK.Originally posted by 752ndTank:None of the rocket launchers in the 752nd Tank Battalion were ever jettisoned. Armored fighting in the Northern Apennines during the winter of '44-45 was very static and indirect, so there was no reason to fire a rocket salvo and then quickly move up to support a direct attack with the 75mm. The launcher itself had to be installed by an ordnance company, and it was quite a time-comsuming project. Not to mention the fact that jettisoning the unit ran the risk of damage, and there were only 8 rocket tanks in the entire MTO at that time.
When the 5th Army broke out of the mountains in April '45 in the push to Bologna and the Po River, the rocket tanks were left behind. They were great for use in static conditions, but were totally ineffective in a rapidly moving front. It took a crew of 5 men approximately two hours to unpack the rockets, load the 54 tubes, and wire the launcher. With this kind of time investment, plus the digging of trenches to gain maximum elevation and range, the rocket tanks could only realistically be employed in static situations.
Bob
Gruß
Joachim
-
We could do the "Review challenge thread". Challenging anybody would request at least 3 reviews per challenge .Originally posted by Hans:Oh no! Not another challenge thread, however this one would be for cultured gentlemen dedicated to fellowship, erudite discussion, astute comments and fine play and not under aged simpletons with performance anxiety unable to control their mental fatigue! (just kidding boys)
Hmmmm have to look at where marker 3 is, after so many scenarios individual markers fade......-I presume you want to move the marker within the German original set up area...is it the one in the NW corner (going from memory)
Hmmmmm Shermans vs Panthes, 75mm ATG and Nashorns, hmmmmmmm
Don't know if its NW. It is the one in the town. Can't hold the town until turn 17 against a human player putting his main effort there.
Guess that reinforcement marker is no good for replayability.
Gruß
Joachim
[ April 03, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
It's a from German translated doctrine so this is no proof they realy used tracked vehicles. But it increases the chance.Originally posted by eichenbaum:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />German Offensive Attack Tactics:
"The artillery forward observer travels in his armored vehicles with the first wave, while the artillery commander of the supporting artillery units usually travels with the tank commander. Assault guns normally also accompany the second wave..."
Nils </font>
-
If I am allowed to adjust the ammo of the Panthers to "lots of AP", move reinforcement marker 3 to where I want and 4 times increase the experience of an AFV (ie I can make 4 vets or 2 vets plus 1 crack etc) - I'll accept.Originally posted by Hans:Oh excuses eh, well then I'll back slap you even harder, call you a son of the soil and challenge you to a Melfa PBEM. You get the fabulous Germans I get the Allies with +75%? :}
BTW - this is not another challenge threat, is it?
Gruß
Joachim
[ April 02, 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Joachim ]
-
Originally posted by 752ndTank:
Interesting info. Any explosives experts out there that know about different effects of blast and direct hits/heat to ignite explosives?Given that rockets create kind of blast to propel them forward and the way they are stacked on launchers, I guess they should not explode on blast effects.
Gruß
Joachim
. They might even help in getting the range correct.
Assault and Advance Operations
in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk
Posted
Gruß
Joachim