Spook

Run your scenario(s) then a few more times, shifting your forces on each run to some sufficiently "covered" region, and check if the pre-game barrage still follows. Three scenario runs would likely not be enough for BFC to discern some "trend."

"Easy" line of sight in the later cases? Try creating some map in the editor that uses more significant LOS obstacles, like sizable woods, that your troops can hide in or behind. Load the map in a QB, get your troops into or behind the obstacles out of ANY potential enemy LOS, and see how that goes in multiple replays, shifting your troops around to behind a new sizable LOS obstacle each time.

Actually, quite simple, and maybe perhaps a bit gamey, is to use the "line of sight" command or L hotkey. Drag the line anywhere over the map, from some unit, to some crater or shellhole image. If it's really a crater (large or small) per game definitions, it'll be stated as such on the LOS line.

Roads don't cancel the detriment of big craters even to tracked vehicles, which I've seen too in recent scenario play. Although perhaps I'm just expanding on your point. In sum, if a player doesn't "plot around" a large crater, just taking a movement path right over it instead, that'll turn out as a hassle later on.

Craters do provide some cover. HOWEVER --- something I've learned in CMBB play only just recently --- the big craters are also a BIG impediment to movement, slowing down either foot soldiers or vehicles quite a bit. When "crater-hopping" while advancing, so to gain some cover benefit, be mindful how your movement paths are when going over the craters.

Yep. That, and the changing of the time delay to initial movement by how many waypoints are set, certainly allow more possibilities in "timing" for troops to start off on a task.

That reads as if dental hygenists aren't to be feared. Ha! I always fail a "morale check" in facing a teeth cleaning from a hygenist. Though it can cut the other way. One time, while one of those damn pointy dental picks poked my gumline, I smacked down hard on the dental chair armrest. The hygenist recoiled and said, "Are you going to hit me like that?!" :eek: I replied, "No, but I'm going to hit SOMETHING!" What always impressed me about Nick Fury, as an agent of SHIELD, was that as a WWII veteran he could go through several following decades, all the while still smoking his cheroot cigars, and never seem to slow down. [ September 26, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

I will concur with Steve as that while the AI isn't overly "inspired" in attack, it can surprise on occasions. On one play of that earlier Yelnia Stare demo scenario, as the German defender, it surprised me as that the T-34's came up near the crest -- and then WAITED for the Soviet infantry to close up too. As long as Soviet infantry remained by the tanks, my German tank-hunter teams couldn't get close enough. And the tanks, staying with the infantry, in turn were effective at suppressing the German MG's. Mutual support. It doesn't always happen that way. More often, the AI attack can be uncoordinated and thus be defeated in detail. But at the least, AI infantry is reasonably attentive to using cover when trying to close in. A scenario using reasonable covered terrain, low visibility conditions, and a good AI manpower advantage could thus still be quite interesting.

I waited in great patience for you to come back, MrSpkr, and state your recognition as to why bocage got the chop. No more. In order for BTS to continue using bocage, did it finally crack that time-space continuum anomaly known as the "Bocage Asymptote"? This being, as that while bocage is a wonderful obstacle to impede movement, it is still not recognized as "covered terrain." Therefore, CM cybersoldiers, no matter how much you yell at them, don't see the benefits to seeking cover along bocage. They'll run willy-nilly away from it, or even across it into enemy fire, seeking whatever other "cover" seems nearby. But I understand your pain. Because I know your true intentions for the stuff. In CMBB, neither side would have tracked vehicles that could cross, could they? So, you create a scenario map, place objectives, completely surround them in bocage, import to an online QB, and then as defender, tell the attacker he can have a 3:1 point advantage. Knowing that the other gamer geek will likely spend on armor and lots of it, it's hard for you to suppress your evil grin, isn't it?

The "Van" is in pursuit.....

I'd venture to say that "gerbil-toy" was probably one of the more benign choices, but that was instead used on these BF forums ages ago.

If it got in, I'd bet for now that it still has a HECK of a big rarity factor, though. (Which has meaning only when the rarity option is toggled.)

So what the hell are you talking about, Michael? (..places bet..)

Intimidated by Soviet armor? Not in any special way. After a PBEM game of CMBO two years ago, in which my 12 Sherman "Ronsons" and three TD's went up against TEN King Tigers, it's hard to match the kind of dread which I had going into that game. But after killing six of the KT's, for the loss of three Shermans, by game's end, the lesson was confirmed: tactics, tactics, tactics. "Killer" tanks don't obviate tactics. (Except perhaps on a flat open map area with no terrain.) The inclusion of German optics in CMBB ensures that late-war heavier German tanks & TD's, with veteran crews, will always be a concern at longer-range duels. But I'm with gunnergoz & Commissar to a degree. I look forward to trying out the plethora of Soviet tanks and assault guns, especially from 1943 onwards where radio installation will be more common. T-34's moving around like light tanks. Heavily armored JS-2's with the profile of a medium instead of heavy tank. And the ISU assault guns with a heck of an HE wallop (even with their limited ammo load). And in terms of a gun with raw penetrating power, the Soviet 100mm ranks among the best. Properly handled, the CM Soviet armor will be formidable indeed.

Yeah, right. That's what was said also of every eventual member of your "Cess-ring."

I've been doing that all my life already. BTW, to take up MrSpkr's earlier advocation, on one of your other threads, consider me now "chilled" as I now bid welcome and hope you enjoy the CM community here. I suspect, though, that you'll soon be a denizen of the "Peng" threads.

I would also reserve judgement on "effect from multiple armor penetrations" until more play is done from the full game, as what others here have also advocated. Yes, in the Yelnia scenario, I've seen the German 37mm make multiple penetrations on the Soviet T-34's while the tank crew remained "OK." Similar with the Soviet 45mm's against Panzer III's & IV's while taking flank shots. And...on one occasion in the Yelnia game, I saw one T-34 knocked out by a single 37mm FRONTAL hit. Anway, here's some of what was included in the BTS "New Features" section to CMBB, specific to the reworked penetration model:

For what it's worth, Fly Pusher, some of your initial comments are now the latest quote in my signature block.

Wow. I feel like I've become a CM Peng Cesspool resident by being called bad & evil. But it must be true. Otherwise, what else has fed my recent inclination to playing Grand Theft Auto III? Just for bookmarking's sake, Richard, when time will avail you later on, the game's distributor is Shrapnel: Shrapnel Games And the discussion forum is: BAG forums It's worth looking at, although my own recommendations on the game system are a bit mixed. It's continuous real-time (like Close Combat) in play, although one can pause anytime. It's also evolved, as a game system, in giving a reasonable treatment of Napoleonic combined arms (infantry/cavalry/artillery) on the tactical level. The command & control element, however, is notionally covered IMO, but fans of that game system don't mind that so much. In the meantime....I stake out the door waiting on the CMBB order to arrive.....

I dunno. Steve Grammont's outlook seems instead to latch onto military vehicles instead of frilly sports cars. Maybe he's angling to get a T-34 or JS-2 delivered from Russia.

....making you a Scotsman?

Given your demonstrated interest in Napoleonics, Richard, have you ever given the Breakaway Napoleonic sequels to Sid's Gettysburg! (Waterloo & Austerlitz) a try, or visited the Breakaway forums also?

"Offices" in front? So the Russians in the picture are racing to get to their cubicles? (couldn't resist)

I didn't limit to smilies. One could put "just kidding" or "(j/k)" as another version of a humor disclaimer. Anyway, most seem to be taking this thread in humorous light, and hopefully it stays that way. But the original post could've quite as easily been offensive to some other posters, and it indeed appears to be to a few. It's a time-honored tradition, here at BTS and other wargamer forums, for Canadian wargamers (and others) to speak poorly of Canadian customs.

Spook, why don't you check the times of the posts in the two threads. You'll find that the one that was padlocked was posted at 9:59 am; the one that is still open, at 9:55 am. In other words, he didn't 'recycle' a padlocked topic; it looks like his sin may have been simply double posting. Everyone needs to just take a huge chill pill here. The guy is a newbie and obviously a bit puerile, but you guys are really overreacting. Steve</font>