Joachim

The "close defence ape" would be great! I'dlike to know whether it is attached outside the turret or does it jump out of its box inside the turret, attacks any soldier and theh jumps back. How is it trained? Which weapons does it use? Is it able to run towards the 'zook wielding GI and kill him before he can fire? Or do you mean the Nahverteidigungswaffe or Nahbereichswaffe (Nbw)? It has a rather limited range and won't harm Bazooka Joe 100m away... which is a pity if you use it in CM. Apart from that the Panther is a nice toy. Just like the PzIV it should be frontally hull up vs. potent enemies. Though not historically correct, it is a nice overwatch for Tigers doing (relative) close combat.... OTOH JPzIV or V are better suited for that if you are that gamey. If I have to buy Tigers or Panthers only, I'd go for Tigers till 6/43 , indifferent till end of '43 and once tiger killer AFVs are affordable I'd go for Panthers when expecting armor. The bigger blast of the 88 is a reason to buy Tigers when expecting an infantry force. Gruß Joachim [ March 09, 2004, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

Ooops... I almost forgot... The AI sometimes has the nasty habit of first setting up, then assembling its forces and then moving to the nearest flag (from its board edge or setup zone). Forcing the AI to deploy in 3 setup zones might ruin the party, as the AI will slowly hunt with the tanks while the grunts run thru the snow and get tired. When they finally move out, it will be in one infantry bunch and up to three armor packs. Given the low number of tanks, I'd guess it will be a single pack. And the human player will (almost always) predict the direction of the attack. To prevent this, you might try the following: a) use only a single bunch of flags. use dynamic flags (the AI does not choose on its own, but if the human player plays it blind, the uncertainty will still be there) c) make sure many flags are the same distance from the Soviet board edge d) have impassable terrain between setup zones for the AI version, forcing the AI to have several armor packs. e) Allow the AI more turns than a human f) give the AI some targets he can see... then he moves out towards the target. But any decent human player will hide... maybe use a Soviet patrol (HQ + 1-2 halfsquads) initially in the rear of the Stützpunkt. The AI knows some targets but once the patrol is slaughtered, it looses the borg spotting advantage from them. This also adds some options for the human player in the first turns. He must know where the patrol is (at least approximately) to destroy it, however. And you should set the objective of the attack: Is it to bypass the stongpoint or to destroy it. If you want to bypass the strongpoint, then the map should be deeper than Jason suggested and maybe more German reserve forces. Maybe an "exit scenario" for the H2H version. But the AI needs flags in the rear to move there, exit scenarios do not work for the AI BTW: I'd like to test that scenario. Gruß Joachim [ March 09, 2004, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

The best way to fight Shermans with IIIs and IVs is at range. Use the III slightly ahead of the IVs, make sure they are placed so they get additional slope (just behind the crest of a hill. The steeper the slope, the better. They are just the bait. They won't kill at range. At a certain range, they will be impenetrable from Sherman fire Once they draw fire, bring in the PzIVs behind the IIIs. They should be able to kill at ranges beyond 1000m. TacAI or AI will not override the targets set on the IIIs. So your weak armored IVs stand a better chance to survive. Make sure the IVs are not hull down. CM has a penalty for PzIVs being hull down . This tactic even worked on the Frühlingswind scen (CD version)... with Marders instead of PzIVs. Or try to flank with the PzIIIs, get the Shermans to turn and then kill with the IVs from the side. The bigger the gun and the thinner the penetrated armor the more likely is a KO. Gruß Joachim

In general, I like JasonC's idea. What I would change: "all regular" etc.: Add some variety like a QB would. "1 TRP" Real Arty TRPs work for several hundred meters - especially on flat open terrain. I would add more to compensate for CMs short range TRP. If I had one TRP already zeroed in and 2 days left, I'd make pretty sure I knew where all exits from the gullies are in relation to the TRP. Add some brush/scattered trees along the village. Give the Germans a points bonus to correct the points for "dead" fortifications bug. Edit the Ammo for the 37mm PaK to have at least 1-2 HC rounds each. Give them 1-2 TRPs each for first shot hits with the HC rounds. Or attach them to bonus HQs (stealth +1 combat +1 morale +2). The crews know that they are the prime AT weapons and responsible for their comrades, so they should have high morale. HC for the IG should be standard anyway. Consider giving additional small arms ammo to the Germans. Fire discipline will still be an issue. MGs, casualties and Ammo: You can simulate two things re MG ammo when ammo level is above 100%: a) Only prepared positions for MGs have lots of ammo. A moving MG with casualties loses ammo. MGs are primary weapons. If possible, a commander will make sure that they are completely manned. If necessary, ammo bearers are shifted from other squads. I would strongly suggest you give them full 6 men per team and 157 points of ammo. The reinforcing PzGrens should have additional ammo, too. Add 2-3 tank hunter teams. They act as local reserves for counterattacks and to attack tanks that break thru. Use 2-3 additional LMGs as outposts on the flanks. Maybe split one or two squads into 2 LMGs and several tank hunter teams. Allow the German player to set up in the gullies the Soviet player will use for his apporach. Just to allow for some nasty ambush. Don't use totally flat terrain. Some slight ondulations should be ok. Use the slight slope (?) setting in the parameters (1.25m per elevation level) Consider making parts of the gullies' slopes impassable to vehicles (as slopes, rough or wet ground. The latter simulating slippery snow on the slopes). Consider having wet ground in the gullies to simulate snow drifts. Consider wet ground scattered all across the map to simulate snow drifts. Gruß Joachim

On a given distance, advancing is more tiring. Gruß Joachim

There are static ops. These do have flags. For assault and advance ops, the AI will just advance. It's goal is to reach the board edge... So usually it will move out. Hey, it even counterattacks on the defense in some ops. Read most posts about ops here on the board (search), then play around with it yourself. Do not set up a complicated op and then play around. Start with something small! Gruß Joachim [ March 01, 2004, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

Odd...it shows for me. </font>

The equivalent EPA of the Bundeswehr was 5 years, too. 3 year olds were distributed on Fridays: "Take what you can carry". The chocolate was good... the chewing gum too... the cookies were ... hard, very hard... never tried anything else.... IIRC my sister used the chlor (?) pills when she worked in Marocco ahhh...memories.. Gruß Joachim

Isn't that the old "Spotter in truck targetted at 1500m" issue? Gruß Joachim

The perfect tactic for learning micromanagement and an interesting short game. Not a perfect setting to learn offensive tactics or coordination. But coordination usually depends on micromanagement of each and every tank. Gruß Joachim

Teh IIIL need side shots. Show StuGs at range, flank with a pair of IIILs on each side. I doubt German tanks would attack a significant amount of KVs frontally. The trick is to be the operational attacker but to defend tactically: Grab some terrain essential for the enemy and force him to abandon his position. OTOH this could happen in a counterattack after soviets seized terrain important for German defense. A nice example is "Action at Manuchskaya", but you have combined arms forces (the German inf is used for recce, and to clear the woods, Arty kills Soviet ATGs, the tanks do the real killing). Though "Ausnutzen" is a valid idea, I doubt it demands to use a bad situation. It makes sense in immediately pressing home any advantage, but PzIII vs KV is not an advantage. Much the same like T34/76 vs Tigers.... look at this debate to find alid tactics for CM. My setup: Large map with long LOS yet covered lines of communications (distance=cover). If you are the attacker: Probe for weak spots, grab a weakly defended flag and then defend it vs the AI counterattack. You'll need some combined arms to do this. Pure Armor won't do, Armor on both sides will do (which is exactly as the scen mentioned above...). Gruß Joachim

The way I've understood bonus is that it simply multiplies the selected force by that amount. Eg. Two StuG's times 150% => three StuG's. Let me know if I'm wrong. If you want the AI to have more points than you, simply set the budget to 1500 points but only buy 1000 points worth of stuff yourself. </font>

No ****. </font>

Interesting... Seems like the equivalent to the 50+20mm armor of the PzIII series. I wonder how often that "Vorpanzer" actually was used. Gruß Joachim

The funny thing is that I did have some flak plus SPHT. But the jeeps can be, and were used for, BORG spotting with a FO. In 2 minutes I lost 3 soft skined vehicles. With them out of the way the StuGs can be BORG spotted for his AFV that were hidding behind a high hill on my flank. That's what really pissed me off. </font>

Yes, I am aware of Seanachai's antics. Although I agree with what has been said in reguard to it being a waste of pts. It sort of indirectly worked. You see all I had were StuGs. Turretless armour is at a big disadvantage in this situation. I didn't bother hunting the jeeps down with them, but the jeeps were bees in a bonet so to speak (they were destory later by MGs and Mortors) Because of the jeeps I couldn't employ the StuGs effectively for fear of being sidesmacked by some of his AFV that he later brought up. I ended up lossing 3 StuGs this way. Mind you he spend so much time and energy on these maneuvers that it cost him most the the objective flags. Only one wasn't in control at the time the game crashed. </font>

Existence: A panzerfaust is man portable. If the HQ had transport to bring it along or any ammo supply to its positions, they might have gotten hold of a faust. Use: The HQ consists of Officer (more often a sergeant, sometimes a corporal) Plt Sergeant (a corporal or pfc) Runner 1 Runner 2 a) The runners aren't as valuable as the commander. The plt sarge is usually an experienced NCO. You get experience by taking risks and surviving. c) The officer has to lead. In crucial moments you have to lead "from the front." d) What is worse - the loss of a Plt HQ or a tank on a rampage in rear areas, cutting off communications... e) How can you persuade your men to use a faust when the officers and NCOs don't lead by example? f) Officer was fresh from the Hitler Youth g) The tank was stripped of infantry support and approached a hidden position. Guess who gets the first shot. Even if it does not hit, I doubt the tank would stand and fight as it won't be sure how many other faust-wielding men are around. i) A lone tank is lost... not only in Russia. Gruß Joachim

Can't see the benefit. Evacuating that chassis is nearly impossible. Stupid Finns. Yet Sergei shows the obvious use for this weapon: Soviets attack. Gun fires. Soviets postpone attack to night, reducing the effectiveness of tanks. A perfect weapon for delaying actions of otherwise ill-equipped infantry. Gruß Joachim

If anybody thinks a tactic is gamey, he should inform the opponent when the opponent does it for the very first time. Then it is still time to stop the tactic... if the scenario is big enough. With such a lot of forces and the few successes you had in actually killing something, I doubt the first two turns of your tactic had a big impact on the overall outcome. The timing of the complaint - after loosing the last tigers aka after probably loosing the last serious long range tank killer and thus the game - is a bit weird and it definitely smells... Gruß Joachim

Some other thread mentions that most of the (rather small) turret front was covered by the gun shield, resulting in extra 30mm protection for most of the turret front. The remaining areas with only 50mm total armor were very small. Gruß Joachim

Well, works with just about any command, but that's an important point: by delaying the order, you can guarantee that you can also order the vehicle to reverse out of harms way, if it's about to face a deadly duel. Sadly, this also works for the enemy, who has the chance to direct all of his guns to fire at your tank at the following turn: unless the reverse order activates at lightning speed, the peeking tank risks being turned to swiss cheese. </font>

a) Try variable rarity. It might make PzIIs more expensive than other tanks now and then... Play bigger battles. A 1000 pts ME armor does not allow for many tanks. The AI likes buying in plts. So guess which plt it can afford. A 3000pt battle may give you a better mix of units. c) Give the AI a bonus... after all it is the AI and desparately needs it. Plus the increase armor budget might result in decent tanks. Don't even bother below 50%! Gruß Joachim

I once saw a picture of an 88 in Italy on a hilltop. Long range to a valley entrance. Probably beyond retaliation range. Let loose a few shots, then run away. If this works vs the US with fast response arty, I guess it works even better vs the Soviets.. As the tanks are heavier, you need a bigger gun. Terrain where you can see for miles. Probably sited well behind the friendly lines. Maybe even out of light/medium mortar range. Prepared positions with lots of TRPs. So exactly on those maps you mentioned. Imagine "CMBB: Hornissennest" with 2 trenches, 10 TRPs and 2 of these guns. Impose a limit on the range of 82mm FOs - they can only hit the eastern 1.5 km of the map. Allow for a German infantry outpost line 1 - 1.5 km ahead of the ATG to watch out for on board mortars. Usual disclaimer: This is the ideal position. But no plan survives contact with reality. And if in need, it will be used like a normal ATG. Gruß Joachim

Actually, one of my previous posts (the one with the code section) also proved this lower bound, and also that the expected hit probability must be somewhere between that lower bound and the hit probability against a hull-up tank, but the exact value is dependant on other accuracy constraints. Dschugaschwili </font>

IIRC you can toggle this off... So make sure it is "on" Good scenarios should mention it in the briefing. Gruß Joachim