jgdpzr

This seems logical and I do place my HQ behind my units. What I find though is that they simply seem to move faster. The specific senario that made me decide to post was this; HQ + SMG platoon. I "HQ click" to select the unit, advance to building (45m away?) Enemy in building vaporised the HQ becasue he *ran* past the platoon, way ahead of them. ?</font>

I agree with this. Along these lines, the value of the Sherman is also greatly shortchanged in CM, IMO, perhaps to an even greater extent when reliability and the ability to 'transport on treads' are considered. The logistical tails of units operating T-34's and Shermans were so much simpler than what the Germans had to deal with, particularly those supporting the schwere panzers. However, as you allude, the game doesn't directly factor these things in. It doesn't care that the Tigers and Panthers had to generally be transported via train to railheads before closing the relatively short ground to the front on their tracks, while the Shermans and T-34's could travel kilometer after kilometer on their tracks. In the game, all tanks start out 'on the battlefield.' CM places a hugely exaggerated importance on tanks' anti-tank capabilities. Not only because of the diminishment of logistical factors, but also because most CM games attempt to be somewhat balanced--a situation that was probably more the exception than the rule in RL. To get at the issue of logistics, you really need a game of operational or larger scale. However, you can bet the real commanders we try to emulate DID factor these things in, even when actively engaging the enemy. Some may have gone to an extreme in their emphasis on logistical support (Patton's claim that the US army didn't need a better tank than the Sherman springs to mind), but they certainly had reasons to appreciate the Sherman and T-34 that fall outside of the scope of the CM battlefield. One thing that CMBB adds that somewhat mitigates this is the ability to start battles with casualties. I wouldn't mind seeing them take it a step further, however, by implementing a system that separated infantry and armor casualty levels, in essence creating a random vehicle-specific casualty factor that would be a direct attempt at estimating mechanical reliability. Ideally, this can vary according to vehicle and time period. For example, if you are fighting a battle in June '43 as the Germans and you buy a Panther, there should be a very high possibility that said vehicle will not be there when you start the battle. Sure, such random factors may frustrate players, but the same can be said for those German commanders at Kursk relying on the availability of Germany's latest wonder-weapon. And, I can guarantee you that after playing enough battles, you'd come to appreciate the fact that those T-34's you were supposed to bring to the party were actually there.

Think of it like this: The big guns fire ONE round at a time, while the smaller guns fire clips of around five rounds. It's similar to the choice of guns/ammo according to the hunting target. Solid shot is not used against ducks, is it? Same deal here. The guns and the way they deliver ammo simply are not congruous with firing at generally low-and-fast-flying aircraft. The heavy calibre AA guns are intended as high-altitude interception weapons, relying on mass and target-prediction to fill the sky with puffballs of shrapnel through which enemy bombers (usually) must navigate.

Very nice, thanks for sharing your fine work with the mod sluts.

Kudos to the designers! Great work, endless thanks!

Steve, HMMM, so is it safe to say your opinion on the matter boils down to GIGO? BTW, tried that Corsendonk Monk's Ale per your recommendation...tasty! Gotta love those tiny Belgian bubbles. I also saw a dunkel heifeweizen (sic.) on the coming up list at Rich's. I'll toast one for you and Charles.

With the more robust infantry model found in CMBB, I find I am enjoying the smaller, infantry-heavy engagements in the 1000-1500 range. This wasn't really the case in CMBO, where some of my favorite scenarios were the huge, sprawling armor-heavy battles.

Not so much coincidence as the German Military intel. service being absolutely awful. Probably the single worst element in the entire German military establishment.</font>

LOL. It looks like a frigg'n tool shed with a turret! </font>

Post deleted because I misunderstood the original question. [ November 04, 2002, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

Tigers, Panthers, piffle! You guys surely jest. After all, it has been scientifically proven that Bob Semple designed the most gorgeous AFV of all time. I'm sure one of our Kiwi friends can find a better one, but here is a link to this beauty: http://mtg.ipx.pl/inne/nz.htm

As Jussi said, you must change the force mix type to "unrestricted" when you are setting up the battle. This removes all point restrictions from the various categories.

Actually Rune, the battle quite fit the bill for the mood I was in. "Self," I said, "get down to that basement and brew up some T-34's, and for the hell of it, take a spin in this here newfangled Teeger I keep hearing about." The battle obliged quite nicely. Sometimes a 100 to zero spanking is just what the doctor ordered.

Yep, it does.

I agree, the scenario author may have been well-advised to have indicated it should be played as the Russians if playing against the AI. This was one of only a couple of battles I have won 100% to zero. Although, the battle sure was the tonic for those 'Tiger is wimpy' complaints from CMBO.

Sorry, double post. [ November 01, 2002, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

Ouch! That's harsh. While I don't doubt there are those amongst your angst-riddled crowd, I hardly think it to be a 50/50 split. I guess I'm with Abbott, give me realism anyday! And the changes from CMBO to CMBB are definitely headed in the right direction. Suppression is paramount for manuever now, just as it should be. Good thing CMBO is still around for those who don't like the greater fidelity of CMBB. [ November 01, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

What you are experiencing is very typical. Your assumption that an armored spearhead was a sound tactic is very accurate. However, it may be somewhat misleading. What it meant was that having tanks in the vanguard of your forces was advisable. It did not mean, however, that they should saunter out by themselves, ahead of accompanying support on a CM sized map. Think of it like this: View your entire CM force mix as the vanguard of a larger (imaginary) force behind you. In this sense, the tanks are in the right place--up front. However, this doesn't mean you have to actually lead with your tanks on the CM battlefield. The CM battlefield represents the actual cutting edge of operational manuever. Use the complimentary elements of the combined-arms team to mutually support and protect each other. Usually, this means moving in bounds until contact, using less-valuable assets for reconoitering the enemy (infantry and/or ACs depending on the required pace of the advance are such examples), using infantry for close defense and to hold objectives, guns for flank defense, artillery to overcome enemy strongpoints/AT assets, etc. Before long, you'll get the feel for how each asset compliments others. A couple final tips for armor survival: Go hulldown whenever possible, use the new shoot-n-scoot tool and use oblique angles (example: advance at a 30 degree angle to expected targets rather than head-on).

No statistician here so I'll let the numbers grogs fight that battle, however I do believe the culprit here is the manual targeting bit. If Warren, or someone else (OK, I'll admit I'm too lazy) could run this same test sans input on the targeting, I'd like to see the results.

Having spoken with a couple of playtesters, I am of the opinion that BFC DID solicit and utilize input regarding historical accuracy, as well as feedback on bugs. Also, there are admitted limitations to the game engine that do create some less than optimal results. However, to call these limitations 'shortcuts' is not accurate. If you wanted a game without these 'shortcuts,' we'd all still be waiting for CMBO. Finally, the developers do answer questions. Fact is, Charles and Steve have historically bent over backwards to respond to input from testers and board members alike. They (well, guess I should include Matt in this one) just get a little tired of answering many of the same old questions that board members can research doing searches, while at the same time dealing with people wanting the latest patch yesterday. One thing to keep in mind, is that BFC is not your average game developer. Having ONE programmer does limit the speed at which things can get done. And before people start clamoring to hire more programmers, keep in mind that the unique structure of BFC is one of the critical components of their success story and why so many of us find this game so damn special.

BTW, in my tests I was using late model PzIIIN's IIRC, which were all that were available since I was also trying to get T-34/85s. I'm not an expert on PzIII modification history--it could be that earlier models were much more vulnerable--and the tungsten rounds were probably added to give the PzIIIs some chance vs. T-34s.</font>

Yep, your interface is sweet. Great work, thanks!

Everyone talks about Arras and Rommel (and your account is dead on), but the 88's death-ray ability as an AT-gun was actually discovered earlier by the German "volunteer" Condor Legion in the Spanish Civil War. That's why the 88's in France '40 were packing AP ammo in the caissons. </font>

First off, there are multiple types of 88, and the different types had different rates of frequency. The most common was the 88 flak gun (there were actually a couple of different models of these as well, IIRC). This was a medium flak gun designed to shoot at high-altitude bombers. At the battle of Arras (I think that was the one) during the blitzkrieg of France, the value of it in the anti-tank role was discovered as Rommel (once again I think) used a line of them to backstop his armor being overrun by thicker-skinned Matildas. They succeeded where no other German gun could, and their legend in the AT role was born. They were used similarly in North Africa. Then, in Russia, it was discovered that there too the guns were often the only thing available that could defeat the armor of the heavier enemy tanks (especially the KV series). Understandably, they were then assigned to field units to act as heavy anti-tank assets. I am not sure of the ratio of distribution, but I would hazard that a large percentage were detailed for this work, rather than setup in AA batteries. In the early war, I am sure this distribution was also influenced by the fact that the Germans had yet to have a tremendously pressing need for strategic AA defenses by this point of the war. Flak mounted 88's as ATGs continued throughout the war as dictated by the circumstances at hand, although in the later years dedicated ATG 88s (L71) were developed and fielded. However, I am sure the numbers of the latter never came close to the flak mounted 88s. Long-story-short, the flak-variety were fairly common on almost all fronts on which the Germans fought. [ October 22, 2002, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

This scenario was the first in which I really played around with shoot-n-scoot tactics, and they did wonders! I had three routes of advance for my infantry, with the bulk being in the center. One platoon, supported by the HTs and then the PIIIs worked my (German) left flank up toward and into the aviary. Two platoons leapfrogged along the trees on the right map edge, and eventually advanced to the objectives in the Russian rear. The rest of the infantry pushed up the center, with primary duties being fire support for my movements along the left and right flanks. I used the PIVs to great effect, taking out all three T-34s in a span of a couple of turns. The trick was to use the gap between the woods near the German right and the wall on the far German right. This was a great keyhole and they easily dispatched the T-34s without taking much fire at all, thanks to the wonderful innovation of shoot-n-scoot. I think I ended up with a Major Victory.