jgdpzr

And that is the part I was addressing.

There has been much discussion about this (understatement). First off, sending those two T-34's on such a mission is tantamount to suicide. And as soon as the Tiger sees the Russian vehicles and starts to target them, the AI operating the T-34's recognizes this and responds accordingly (gets the hell outta there). Now, you are probably thinking, "but that's how the Russians did it!" To an extent, yes. But, they would not do so in isolation. What I mean is that in most instances there would be other units supporting this endeavor. ATR or light guns, for example, may open fire to button the Tigers, thereby reducing their ability to target the onrushing T-34s. Smoke may be used so as to impede the ability of the Tigers to target the Russian tanks. Similarly, a HE barrage may be called down on the German positions just as the T-34s are to get into positions (difficult to do though because of the fire delays involved with Russian arty). Finally, the Russians may "demonstrate" with other tanks to the German front, thereby occupying the Tigers. Remember, having multiple firing angles is just as important as engaging from the proper range. The point is, the tactical AI will often interject self-preservation manuevers if it believes that the risk warrants such behavior. To keep this from happening, you need to support such flanking manuevers as much as possible. If you can limit the Tigers' ability to target your tanks, you increase the likelihood your tanks will(successfully) execute their orders. Similarly, using shoot-n-scoot tactics in which the exposure is limited also helps greatly--use the speed and mobility of the T-34 to put it into positions it can succeed, not to just close in for the kill.

No, this is not modeled in the game. I suspect the abstractions MickeyD points to explain why. The engine has limitations and without modeling every particular object in proximity to any vehicle, this type of thing couldn't be calculated on the fly.

Do you mean the IS-2, Terrapin?</font>

Don't be insulted when this is moved to the General Forum. Put me down for a hearty recommendation of Laphroaig. You can do a search in the general forum and you will come up with numerous threads on this very issue. Oh yea, welcome to your new obsession.

I don't care if there were no Brens on the Eastern Front, I WANT MY DAMN TRIPODS!

Wow, I'd have never thought the taper amounted to a 20mm reduction. That's quite a squeeze. More interesting information regarding Otto's unit. Good stuff, thanks again!

Barry, I've visited your site before and I think it is fantastic. Thanks for sharing this with us, and thanks for coming here to further comment on it. Also, since you are a miniatures gamer, you might find Combat Mission more to your liking than the average computer game. This is a tactical simulator like no game before and provides a sense of immersion that should be particularly appealing to someone with a background in miniatures gaming. Your eyes may be opened to what a computer game can really be like. No hexes here, my friend, just a completely immersive 3D battlefield that lets you get down and dirty with your troops. Wargaming paradise, pure and simple. You should try the demo at least, but be forewarned, the demo pales in comparison to the real deal. Now, I have a question. In your post here you state that Otto's unit received the taperbore 50mm, while on the site you say it is the 75mm taperbore. I'm just curious as to which is correct. I'm not near my resources and I can't recall off the top of my head whether or not there was a 50mm taperbore. Another reason why I'm curious is because I've recently had occasion to play around on one of the very rare 75mm taperbore guns and I was wondering if this was the same type of piece you are referring to here. Thanks again for putting the work into your site. It really is great! Edited to add: Looks like page 17 answers my question. That looks like the 75mm taperbore gun I've seen at the Patton Museum. [ December 06, 2002, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

Steve, You are most welcome. We had a blast! And seriously, if you ever need some legwork at the museum, don't hesitate to contact me. I'll even bring a tape recorder. BTW, I'm still sticking to my plan to sample a different Belgian ale each visit to the taproom. Although the fact that Sierra Bigfoot has been flowing freely has necessitated the presence of a designated driver in the event of such samplings. That 10% alcohol content makes moderation a frustrating necessity. Cpt. Kloss, Good show, man. Showing some class by admitting your error.

According to Anthony Beevor, IIRC, many German squads at Stalingrad were self -equipped with captured PPshS. They found it a survival imperative. Their inclusion, IMO, seems a no-brainer for 1.02. Along with Captured Panzerfaust teams for the Soviets.</font>

I have to echo what others have said. My take on the situation is that, inherently, tactical-sized engagements favor the Germans. I think the most telling reasons for this are their superior C&C as represented in better artillery response times, and the use of three-man turreted tanks well-equipped with radios. After the widespread introduction of the longer 75s (L43, 48 and 70), the Germans pretty-much kept ahead of the curve in the tank vs. tank department. The importance of this qualitative balance of armor is exaggerated in tactical games because almost every battle has them. Further, the quantitative advantages enjoyed by the Russians are not always going to show on a CM-sized battlefield, since some of that advantage equates more readily to the ability to form more combat groups with tank support, rather than to arm the combat group on the board with more tanks. As previously stated by others, the Russians' advantages stemmed from things that are largely not directly a part of a tactical simulation. Namely, better operational capabilites as the war progressed, simpler logistical trails for heavy assets (primarily tanks), and of course better resources both human and material. We also cannot forget about the advantage of fighting on friendly turf, although the situation in the Ukraine proved that was not always the case. Finally, the differences in artillery doctrines really play a part here. The Russians relied on massed, exremely heavy artillery fire to prep positions when on the attack and interdict when on the defensive. While this has a direct negative bearing on the tactical simulation (primarily in poorer response times for Russian artillery), the benefits of this are only accounted for if the scenario designer chooses to further reduce the number of or fitness of German troops at the start of an engagement. In sum, I suppose the Russians should have the ability to field more troops and support units, should start with better ammo stocks, and possibly could have better fitness ratings. Other than that, the chips must fall where they may. Generally, however, the game seems to model my understanding of the qualitative differences between the two sides quite well. I have long heard/read about the dramatic disadvantages of the T-34/76 (primarily the two-man turrets and lack of radios), but I must admit I have never had this hammered home in a game quite like CMBB has done. All is not lost for the Russian player, though. For example, unlike in the west, the Germans encounter SMG squads that are more than their match at knife-fighting. Tank-busting aircraft are more affordable and can be absolutely lethal (although I'm probably more aware of this in terms of comparison with CMBO than in terms of comparison between the Russians and Germans, after all, the Stuka is a real sombitch to the Russian player). I am also sure that the cost structures will eventually work out well for the player once he/she masters the subtleties of command of Russian units.

Tero, Sounds to me like the 20mm may never have been spotted by the KV. Obviously, those little buggers can be really difficult to spot. Do you remember anything that would have indicated it had been spotted prior to the KV just sitting there? Steve, That S-tank is a sweet little ride, eh? Bet your weasels would look good with picket fences as well. BTW, did they let you and Charles play around in the stacks in the museum's library? And since you and Charles have now seen proof of the existence of the Panther II hull, when are we going to see said vehicle? I want a Panther with a 100mm glacis, damn-it. FIX OR DO SOMEFINK! And before you claim I am being unreasonable, it's OK if you don't include the schmalturm.

If you've played CMBB, you will discover where the Stug REALLY shines: combating Soviet tanks. Why is the Stug more effective against Soviet tanks (mainly the T-34) than the Sherman? Because of the difference in the ammo used by the T-34 and the Sherman. The Russian 76 fired a blunt nosed AP round that worked well against sloped armor. However, it's effectiveness against face-hardened steel plate was not as great. Contrast this with the performance of the US 75. Having a ballistic cap, the round fired by this gun faired well against face hardened plate, but was not as effective against sloped RHA (rolled homogenous armor). So, what you see happening in these two games is that the gun of the vanilla sherman poses a considerable threat to the Stug, while the gun of the T-34 fairs much poorer. Not surprisingly (because of the numbers produced), the Stug was credited with more tank kills than any other German AFV of the war. Similarly of no surprise, the greater number of these came in the East.

After looking over the scenario in the editor, I hereby acknowledge that my victory was indeed tainted by the fact that, inexplicably, I didn't have it on default setup. Although the setup I did face wasn't that much different. His infantry was deployed similarly, except there was a squad deployed on his far right, directly in the path of my advance. However, I didn't have to face that bunker situated in the corner of the church, and only one ATG ever had LOS to any of my units. This certainly made a difference.

MikeyD, As I said, I must have had the benefit of poor force deployment by the AI. I know his bunker(s) were a total non-factor, as was his second ATG. Also, he opened fire with the one ATG I did encounter right at the end of a turn, thereby allowing me to put considerable firepower on it with the start of the next turn. Question, what was it that stopped you if you tried the same approach I did? Did you encounter bunker(s), both ATGs, or what? Just trying to figure out what kind of a break I must have received. I'm scratching my head because I really only did the obvious things and prospered, while others have had lots of problems with the scenario.

I am not trying to brag, but I got a major victory on the first go. I must have been lucky, because, honestly, I didn't find it that difficult. I setup a strong fire support base in the woods (mgs, IG, ACs) and loaded everything else on my far right flank. I pinned/smoked the enemy units in the town, and advanced/cleared his left flank and then rolled up the line. I was fortunate in that only one ATG ever had LOS on my vehicles (in the woods on his left flank) and it was taken out the turn after it appeared and before it could take out any vehicles (it was in the path of my entire manuever element so it quickly bought it). The other ATG was on the other side of the map (his right flank) and was never engaged. I can't remember how many bunkers the enemy had, but they/it were on the side of the map I didn't engage. I remember I did take one out from behind near the very end of the battle after I had cleared most of the town. It was to his right of the town, just far enough so as to not have LOS on any of my units. One of the keys for me was placement of the IG. I placed it in one of the corners of the zig-zag placement zone so as to have LOS to as much of the town as possible. I used it to level every building it could see before my assault-proper began. It was the big killer for me, I remember that. The other key was adequate suppression. My support base was in good position to suppress each enemy position in front of the advance of my manuever element, thereby facilitating a fairly rapid advance. Because of terrain (and careful use of smoke), I never had to worry about enfilade fire into my advance. Since my experience seems to differ from many people's, I must have gotten lucky with how the AI setup it's troops. I can't remember if I used default setup or let the computer pick it. I usually leave it as the designer sets it, so it would have been as such.

I'm willing to bet it's a driver issue. I'd suggest running one of the 30.xx series drivers. I forget the precise ones BFC advocates, but a quick search should turn that up.

Thanks!

Ah yes, but doesn't that make it easier for the fascists to kill your men?

Just to stem any potential confusion here, Unt. Buchbinder's men plied their trade while the overall commander (me) was operating under extreme FOW (the only way I play). But ya know, I can certainly see how an all-seeing Sherman 105 could reach out and touch so many Germans.

I believe that changing barrels was/is a very quick operation for a trained crew. Don't think it should take more than one turn.</font>

All impressive numbers. But anyone have an infantry squad wreak this kind of carnage? Unt. Buchbinder was one bad ass mofo!

The short version: Luck! Longer version would require a full analysis of many factors: angles involved, suppression levels of guns, etc. The game can punish the unwary, but once you learn some of the subtleties of moving and supporting your AT assets, AI controlled-tanks become far-less daunting.

Last night, I fired up a quick battle that I thought was going to be an armor slugfest. Only problem was, I left the AI with random force selection rather than toggle it to armor. So, the enemy sent a battalion of nothing but infantry at me. I had a trenchline in a reverse slope position (I was defending) in which I placed a couple of Luftwaffe infantry platoons. It became quite humorous watching a huge writhing mass of brown clad Russians top the hill and then get chopped to pieces. At battle's end, all of my squads in those two trenches eventually succumbed, but each had bodycounts of 50+. Then I checked Unt. Buchbinder's squad at the far end of the trenchline. This squad started the battle with two casualties, but by the end had amassed an astounding count of 132 casualties! Now, I've seen huge arty and a sturmtiger take out that many casualties, but I have never seen a single (particularly an attrited one) infantry squad with that kind of total. Anyone else experience such a phenomenal bodycount? [ November 21, 2002, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

A boarder Wargamer focus might eb a good idea. THere was a name for the Avalon hill convention for wargameing where teams send players to complete in tournments. What was the name of that and is it still going on? something like "origins" or something? A wargamer convention where there could be tournements for both CMBB and CMBO would be very cool Maybe sometime next summer? Maybe some place more central to the US then Vega? (like right in the middle of the us? Maybe St Louis? (just a guess at a central location) OR maybe near some armour Museum like nearby Fort knox? just a few idea's -tom w</font>