xerxes

I think mg dropped his lit TNT and it rolled under his bed. He's now furiously attempting to lay his hands on said TNT before his entire house is abruptly remodelled.

Planes definitely cause passengers to bail. Makes a lot of sense if they want to survive.

foxholes in CMBB definitely do get spotted before thier occupants are spotted. I'm not sure of the frequency but it certainly happens.

most excellent.

German tanks quickly pop smoke when they feel threatened. They wil reverse out of there also.

I'm almost always wrong in predicting what my opponent will do, in fact, I've stopped trying. I assume I'll be wrong.

Are all CMBB tanks like this? Do some have "netural steer" modelled?

Outlier indicates a data point outside the "normal" distribution. This incident was probably just from the far tail of the distribution. Not really an outlier. When your tanker or AT guns screws up it's frustrating, quite understandably.

Band of Brothers CMBB games: Axis wins: 212 Allied wins: 245 Draws: 87 This is a good mix of scenarios, ME QBs, attack/defend QBs, just for fun games and tournament games. Some QBs are all random parameters, some are agreed parameters. There is certainly no axis superiority here. I'd say the numbers are close enough to call it balanced.

There were certainly plenty of local attacks carried out purely by infantry. Pure tank attacks from the soviets also occurred at a local level. Pure tank battles happened after the Soviet infantry was stripped off. I think scenario designs are biased AGAINST depicting the pure arms attacks that the Soviets launched. Combined arms are certainly a more optimal approach, it's just didn't work out that way all the time. Now at the beginning of an operation combined arms were certainly the goal, but as a battle progressed that did not always continue to be the case. [ January 13, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

Same in CMBB.

Keyhole.

Concentrate your firepower. (and the corollary, try to stay out of the way of your opponents concentrated firepower.) Easy to say, hard to do. [ January 13, 2003, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

Why would anyone want to browse multiple sites rather than just 1 site? It would be a waste of my time. It would be even worse if people started to spread out reviews over multiple sites.

I think MG's TNT went off in his hand before he was able to chuck it. Fear the PanzerWerfer!

I see no advantage of multiple sites but lots of disadvantages.

I'm more concerned you can't have snow on the ground without snow in the air in a QB. Sorry to drag this off-topic. No, on second thought, I'm not.

Which scenario was that Coldmeter?

Sneak significantly reduces minefield casualties. Unless the unit it broken and running screaming for mommy, it will chose to (wisely) to sneak through a minefield that's been identified.

Remember, higher quality units spot much better then lower quality ones. Also, HQs have the binoculars, so they get an additional long range spotting bonus. On the attack, my inclination would be to have a 1/2 green squad forward "overwatched" by better quality troops. Using extra HQs as spotters is also good. On the defense with EFOW it's pretty easy to pull back, I'd go with higher quality squads forward. Generally I want to have enough firepower to eliminate enemy scouting units.

What Rune said.

Design is art. It's art by virtually any definition. And yes, it is protected by copyright law. Whether you like this or not is totally irrelevant but you do come off sounding rather ignorant.

Trucks and jeeps die like flies from mg fire. It's the players choice as to expending these assets. (I wouldn't do it)

1. Check the map carefully, there are almost always approaches that are out of LOS of the bunker. Avoidance neutralizes a very expensive defensive asset. 2. ATRs, cheapest way to take out a bunker. 3. Small caliber/high ROF guns/afvs 4. Get infantry behind the bunker. Attacking frontally is almost always costly. Onboard mortar smoke is the most efficient way to go to blind the bunker while you close.

Try defending in the op "gamblers fallacy". The ai does quite a good job attacking on that one, surprised me when I was designing it.