Joachim

Off topic.... Depends on statistics. Assume a city with 1 m inhabitants. Say 300 crimes a day, of whom 30 are prostitution and 50 (soft) drug related. Allow prostitution and soft drugs and there are 220 crimes left. But as you offer a safe haven, you will attract gangs that will defend their turf. You will see more forced prostitution. Red light districts see people running around with cash that are less likely to go to the police after pickpocketing - as their wifes might have different ideas about prostitutes than the law. So expect thieves there. Say 50 (reported) cases a day for these crimes attracted by the "scene". That still means 30 cases less a day, i. e. an overall decrease in the crime rate. So you can't compare the crime rates of the Netherlands to those in the UK. You gotta compare Amsterdams red light district to other Amsterdam quarters (ie areas with similar/same laws). Any you have to compare the detailed crime rates where types of crimes are included. Gruß Joachim

I'm already moth-balling my old PC which can run CMBB - just to ensure it still runs when CMC comes out. Meanwhile a new err.... old additional graphics adapter for the new machine will function as backup.

300 points? IIRC the Panther is 200+, the Jagdpanther 200+, the 88 around 100. So I guess the casualty level was well above 10-20%. More like 50%. The Jagdpanther and the Schreck should be worth approx 300pts - that's what you could spend. Gruß Joachim

Try to actually have some targets like vehicles or bunkers in limited concealment. Then friendly fire is much rarer. But I'd rather model the airstrikes with the casualty level below 100% and thus go straight to your intended battle 2. Airstrike effects are too random.

PzIVfs vs Shermans in late NA battles. PzIVs in flanking position. PzIVfs suffer from cower panic - despite lots of HC. So it is not just Matildas. It is a HC/AP bug. But I ran only one test scen.... Gruß Joachim

IIRC that ain't so. Points for crews are rather 6 pts per man. Which is a lot compared to inf. But small crews (2 or less when bailing or total, dunno exactly) profit from the stealth bonus of small teams like snipers or THs, thus are harder to spot and even harder to kill. The last 2 men of a squad will (on average) go down quicker than a 2 men crew. So sending a 12-pt HT crew on a dangerous recce mission has a lower expected loss than sending a halfsquad. Gruß Joachim

The trouble with the T70s is that you don't know whether it is just buttoned or the TC is really gone. I'd safe the MG ammo for the inf. It will be needed vs those odds.

He who defends everything defends nothing. If you hold 1 flag, contest another and do some lopsided carnage like killing 2 tanks, you will win if you keep your forces intact. Jason's advice is sound, though I think the arty will not be enough to cover your troops falling back - not if a tank has LOS and you have a single HQ to rally and the map is rather open. Once you open up, prepare to die in place or win. Smoke might help you to relocate, but I wouldn't use the scarce rounds for that. Spread your squads into halfsquads. IIRC they will have the LMGs in one half. That one can fire long range if necessary while the assault team conserves ammo. Halfsquads break more easily, but more targets mean less incoming per target and thus less suppression (on average). Works only if there is enough good cover and your HQ can command a wider radius. Forward halfsquads should be in command as they will bear the brunt of incoming. I'd use the arty on the approach of the enemy. In a place where it does kill. That means treebursts for 75mm. To maximize the effect, consider whether it fires parallel or vertical to the approach route. There is no sense in rounds falling to the left, right, front or rear of the approaching column - you want everything on a target packed into your arty's beaten zone. As the pattern is pre-determined, you need to find a place to match it. If you found those places, you gotta make sure there is a densely packed target. Have the MGs in LOS towards the exit from that cover. MGs pin forward elements. Most crawl back into cover. FO targets. Main body catches up. Rounds land on AI traffic jam. Gruß Joachim

And in turn 13 or 14 you will see the panicked survivors heading towards the houses.

Dushkas are better - the rate of fire kills even vet HTs. 4 of them on an M5 are even better. But they were pretty restricted in the OOB of those battles.

I found that ATRs are overrated. Though I could not get enough of them as Soviet in '45 vs hordes of halftracks, they were less effective than expected/hoped. Vet/crack HTs are hard to kill as the crews seldom bail. But if the ATRs are the only thing that is stealthy and has a chance to kill HTs it feels good to return fire with them. But they do annoy and irritate the enemy. And this is what makes them valuable. The enemy will usually spend lots of points (in ammo) on killing them. Killing a 2-man team is tougher than killing 2 men in a squad. I remember a German ATR in a PBEM (NA '43) that succeeded in penetrating the side of a Lee. Maybe it hurt a Stuart. Enemy advance stopped. Massive incoming towards the general direction of the lone team in rough ground. Several turns till it went down. Reserves in place when the advance was resumed. That team probably did not hurt anybody. But it was the decisive unit. And I had laughed when I saw it in the scen's OOB (Tebourba gap or sumfink). Thought about those stories when I read that Tux bought one. Now it looks like there is another story.

Tux, Bert, quoting myself from this thread: "Otherwise identical" meant same hit chance, same (suspected) kill chance etc. Note that most likely these calcs are not done for the real target but for the "expected" target as it is id'd at that time. Ie if your T34/85 targets the front of a hull down "StuG" that actually is a hull down JPzIV/70 you will see the hit and kill chance for a hull down StuG. 85mm kills the StuG, but not the JPz. So FOW brings in a random factor, too. But then again it depends on which PzIV you use - 80mm front hull or 50mm front hull? Are they already fully id'd? In '44 the AI assumes 80mm front hull for not fully id'd IVs, in '42 it is 50mm - the armor of the most common PzIV of each period. If 80mm front hull, then hull up will reduce the kill chance but increase the hit chance, both most likely affecting the target routine but most likely in different directions. So without knowledge of the code or some answer from Charles, there is just guessing. But I firmly believe in the effect of points value on target selection - all other things equal, of course. My games usually saw PzIIIs leading with the HQ a bit back, then the PzIVs - with the HQ a bit back. Gruß Joachim

John, Jason is correct in pinning units with MGs. But most of those tips are for attacking across the open, not for MEs with the target way behind the flags. Pin with HE, keep suppression with MG, finish off once close. But I doubt Tux ever wants to get in effective rifle range towards the ATGs. If you are the attacker, you have the numbers. If you pin all enemy units with one of your units about the same points value (read: for an enemy force of 1000 pts you use 1000 pts worth to pin them), you still have significant forces maneuvering towards the enemy for the kill while the enemy does not shoot back or maneuver as he is completely pinned. In an ME, you have a draw as all of your units are occupied, too. The risk of those ATGs leaving pinned status for a short time while there is a valuable target is too high. From my experience, ATGs or Schrecks do exactly that. They remain pinned while they can't do anything, no need to risk your life then. Seems that this is somehow modeled into the game. The same with pinned inf once something gets close. 81mm IRL.... yeah... but this is CM.... Gruß Joachim

John, IMHO the ATGs are the most valuable targets for a lone mortar here. Priority to the one in trees as a mortar is best suited to kill that one. Given the ranges towards the ATGs, HMG fire won't cause much effect and might not even keep those guns pinned if they are vet or in command. Cover mainly consists of houses, which provide good cover vs 81mm from above. So I don't expect targets like bunched up inf in trees. OTOH once the armor and ATGs are gun Tux is free to maneuver his tanks and blast direct 75mm towards inf in houses - which has a bigger punch. Or use the tank MGs to kill inf in the open. Gruß Joachim

That 2nd gun ain't in good cover. And close counts with HE - but only vs soft targets. Some direct area fire towards a spot nearby might work fine. Just make sure the ATG can't see the firer. Read: Position the tanks so they can't see the ATG, but some spot about 5m away from it. As the ATG is on a forward slope, targeting a point behind it might work. The spread will see a few rounds fall short. If that gun is near (<10m) that 2-story house, hoping for a lucky "treeburst" on the outer wall might work.

Killing StuGs is not an idea associated only with attritionist theories. The ultimate goal of maneuver is to kill. No need to wait with that till you do a big maneuver. Given that the defender usually has the overall odds against him, maneuver helps him to achieve local odds, thus achieving lopsided kills. If repeated several times, the overall odds will dwindle. Note that not just numbers count, but position, too. If you pop 3 T34s into the flank of 6 StuGs you have local odds of 3:0 for a few seconds. Shifting your tanks, concentrating on smaller parts of the enemy force to achieve local odds and then fire, hit&run - IMHO that is maneuvrist. Whether you score 1 StuG, 10 or 100 does not matter for the theory. In one of the examples linked above, I attacked just 2 Panthers - with the 10 tanks I had.

Ooops... typo int he post above ...I just fear that even if maneuver wins we can't judge.... Q: Why can't I edit my post?

I exploited the AI target routine often. Cost is a factor. Bringing up well-armored, pricey assets that are hard (but possible) to kill mixed with less armored, cheaper assets (with a bigger gun) did work. As did having plts with one non-HQ tank being of better quality. Other factors: Hit prob, kill chance, sticking to targets (as in: higher hit prob), limited borg spotting during a turn. 2 otherwise identical targets approaching while no target is fully acquired yet will lead to the more expensive one receiving incoming.

While URC points out a nice maneuvrist approach to smash the attacker, I question whether the attack is really attritionist if the attacker splits his forces as described. Given the available forces (or points) per map size, it is pretty uncertain if it is possible to stage a hard-core attritionist attack anyway. Please don't let these comments disencourage you. I just fear that even if maneuver wins here we can judge regarding superiority of theories. Which is far beyond the scope of a game anyway. Yet the example here might show aspects of both theories, what works under whcih circumstances and why - which is the more interesting part anyway. Gruß Joachim

It's still a good trade-off: Immo'd vs ko'ed. The enemy might even spend too many resources to get that easy kill. 122mm rounds hurt anywhere. And there aren't many of them.

Your green PzIV is not in such a good position as you describe. If there is another 122mm chucker, he can just plaster the surroundings with 122mm. Area fire works well vs. Panthers, even better vs PzIVs. Targetting the 2-story house can even destroy the tank with "treebursts" - gun damage will do. Shooting at the houses will first blind the tank in the dust and smoke, then have it sit on a plate. Add that houses are not good cover vs direct HE once they drop, you might have a HE magnet there. I'd guestimate the position of your spotting HQ if a barrage from a single tube stops during the turn. And that HQ is there, too.

Ahem.... IMHO the terrain is not well suited for maneuvrist defense. It lacks depth of terrain and covered lines of comms. Examples for maneuvrist defenses with appropriate terrain are over at http://the-battle-of-lauben-campaign.foren-city.de/ Due to end of campaign, the forum is open to the public. Battles to look for are - B3 (or B2/B3, A2/A3, B2/B3) phase 3. Yes, it is the same terrain as in the B3/B4 battle from phase 2. For a maneuvrist defense, possession of the woods was key. - J5/6 phase 4 - with attritionist elements in the defense. No covered lines of comms available to maeneuver and stop German inf in the center, so I had to use some static troops. Yet often some elements of the forward line tried to shift if possible. - B3/4 phase 2 after turn 45 - Soviet side reports in http://the-battle-of-lauben-campaign.foren-city.de/topic,463,-phase-2-spotreps-all-fighting-commanders-to-report.html Regrouped remnants of Soviet forces hit the German flank in the thick fog. Last pic "Posted: 26 Sep 2007 22:30" shows an overview. 80m viz. Note the woods and the road thru it. Covered lines of comms, shorter lines of comms. Perfect terrain. A3/A4 phase 2 - Soviet reports in link above and http://the-battle-of-lauben-campaign.foren-city.de/topic,506,-small-counterattack-in-a3a4-to-recapture-a-bridgehead.html The latter was a linear defense behind a river, outposts and mobile reserves. In phase 2 the thick fog allowed for maneuvres out of LOS, in phase 3 and 4 the terrain as key. Select the German or Soviet forum, then *battle planning phase X, then the map name, e.g. http://the-battle-of-lauben-campaign.foren-city.de/topic,630,-phase-3-a2-a3-b2-b3-bielau-area.html Note that most maneuvrist battles happened on larger maps - the originals were 2x2k, the glued maps somewhat larger, like 2x3k. Also note that maneuvrist defense often happened on operational level - ie threatened areas were reinforced by the defenders. Though with all those HTs around, points in the mentioned battles might have been CM attacker odds. (I haven't seen all battles of the campaign, there might be others that were maneuvrist defenses.) Gruß Joachim

Well, you only stated the arty part. Within the context of the PBI probing anyway this thing finally makes sense. Now it doesn't even look like a revolution anymore.

FOs may pick their targets - but those targets are not out in the open. For your concept to work, you need someone to get them into the open. And this is done by the PBI and the tanks. Which have local COs forward and down. FOs and those must cooperate. The procedure might be easy - but this cooperation is not. Who leads? Arty FO or local CO? Which consequences for the other?

Again I read from your post and the examples that proper arty use is a command and comms problem. The massive amounts of tubes were directed by higher ups (corps, army) while getting the enemy out of its holes without conduction a major op is small scale front line HQ (btn, rgt, maybe division). what the higher HQs did was massive use of arty at their disposal and then massive use of inf at their disposal without much local coordination. The correct application of the theory would mean either a) giving good access to large amounts of tubes to local COs. Well.... guess there would be abuse that would well exceed the available supplies implement a parallel system of FOs working together with the local COs. Well.... "parallel commands" ain't a good idea. c) borg. Which might work today, but not then. d) attention to detail from higher HQ. Ie the HQ picks an area under special supervision. Some risks, but possbily the best (read: least bad) solution. As stated, I like the idea. I only see the involved risks for failure.