xerxes

Bah, 1/2 my current games are Poles. Sure they don't have the equipment range of the brits but the Polish shouting is cool. They still get the excellent cromwell. But a little more nationality customization would be nice, I'll agree with that. I want to try the Romanians in CMBB. -marc

"Naval gunfire is more realistic I had to laugh at that one. I think Flak Wagons are more realistic then Wally's Wall Of Flame. At least if you don't have any AP rounds, Flak wagons behave pretty much the way they should. - marc s

You all think it's bad when you're plotting moves all by yourselves. Try it as part of a multi-player rumble! I'm in the BoB Bocage Rumbles as part of a reinforcement. We had 4 players coming in on a single dirt road. It looked like the worst rush hour tie up that you ever saw. Vehicles stalling because someone didn't send in their move, trucks careening off into the ditches, reversing back onto the road and setting off chain reactions. It took a couple turns to go 60m. Would've been faster to get out and walk! -marc

Very cool replies on the funky weapon systems. Thanks!!! I assume the Panzerjäger Bren will be included in CMBB. I want my Schrappnellfaust too! :eek: -marc

Hey, that T-34 looks very interesting. Inaccurate but at closer range it would certainly make an impact. T-34 rocket launcher

Great pic there Wreck. I do believe I found a photo of something similar just the other day. :rummage: :rummage: Aha! It's labeled Dresden. I think that was a German city attacked by a horde of wasps manned by some drunk brits or something. It's all burning. So, there's proof - waspish walls of flame are not gamey! _____________________ But seriously now, creating a wall of flame is gamey as in it abuses well-known modelling weaknesses in CM. Whether that's bad or clever is entirely up to the two players in the game. Gamey doesn't equal bad, anymore than historical equals good. They're just different, and people often prefer one over the other. And just like an electrical fire and water, gamey and historical don't mix. -marc

Having played lots of CM one wonders what types of weapons that could have been and would have been useful in WWII combat. Things I'd like: 1. A manportable high blast one shot HE (like a faust but designed for use against infantry). 2. A bren carrier with twin .50's 3. A bren carrier with an integral zook weapon system. (basically a very fast short range AT system). 4. Larger caliber mortar carrier. 5. An allied squad with multiple integral LMGs, heck an ami squad with 3 BARs. 6. Direct fire, multiple rocket, large caliber, afv. 7. I was going to mention something like the Skink but it really was built. -marc

Skelly, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think ladders are useful for matching up with players of similar skill and having fun games. Ladders/ranking in CM, or any other computer game, are weak devices for determining who's best. That can only be reasonably determined in tournaments (multiple tournaments). - marc

A nice summary though I have to point out ladder play and historical can go together. -marc

Thanks for the comments. In my testing scattered trees seemed to help a lot at avoiding FB targeting. Obviously your vehicles need to be spread out so one bomb doesn't take out multiple vehicles. I think hiding afvs is useful so they don't try to fire at the FB and get themselves spotted. And yes, I've seen infantry in the clear get straffed and torn up badly. It seems like a number of scenarios with jabos don't have the German AA assets, too bad, I'd even promise not to use them as AT guns. Question: If there's just one FB does he always approach from the same direction or is there any pattern at all? -marc

Heh, this isn't a unit selection discussion! Bad wolf, down. Seriously, picking AA assets is the way to go in a player pick but since most everybody bans JAbos it's not really useful. What do you do in a scenario is the question. I'll do some testing myself when I get a chance.

I've been wondering what determines the chance of friendly jabo fire. I also really wonder what the best anti-jabo techniques are. Mastering the jabo defence would be one of the keys to playing Germans in a clear weather scenario. I've been thinking of hiding my armor in scattered trees till the Jabos leave. I even thought of smoking my own armor to protect them. I've also noticed jabos seem to have a single approach direction. I'm thinking putting your armor directly behind a large building opposite the Jabo approach path would keep them safe. I haven't tried any of these but I'm thinking there must be some tactics that work. Nobody ever discusses anti-jabo techniques, too bad, since I've grown to think it's a core skill of a German player in a clear weather scenario. -marc

Scenarios aren't as balanced as a ME? Well, yes, of course, they couldn't possibly be. But perfect balance is only achieved if both players are "good" (or both are "poor") force pickers. Otherwise the QB ME is balanced only right up until the first move occurs. That's not a battle balanced in my book. Not to mention that against a Swamp, the midrange CM player will probably pick some AT assets. Oops, points down the drain from the get-go and the rest of the game is an exercise in UNbalance. And so what if the scenario isn't perfectly balanced? Does that make it less fun? Not to mention, players strategy and tactics far outway "balance" in a double-blind scenario. The knowledge and skill in avoiding thw wrath of Jabos is worth infinitely more than having an extra Panther on your side. Go peruse the BoB game histories, check particular scenarios and you'll find there don't appear to be many clearly unbalanced scenarios. Somehow I think if Swamp played scenarios he'd still be winning at least 90% of his games.

I totally agree Holien. The tension when you are pretty clueless about the enemy force and disposition and when you have to make do with what central command has given you makes for a great game. We have a lot of Scenario gamers over at BoB. -marc

The top TH players are certainly extremely skilled, but please, most of the them are force selection game mechanics (which isn't a dig, that's just what most TH players like). How many computer pick or scenarios are played there? (subtracting the ones I've played). 2%, 3%? -marc

Recommending sending cash in the mail to a single address, tsk, tsk, you really should know better moon, cashiers checks only! -marc

I've had the same problem, I had to move my afv completely out of sight of the very well positioned vickers so he would'nt waste all his HE firing at a darn mg when I had more important targets. I also used ambush just to get him to stop firing. -marc

agreed, tactics are interesting, unit selection is boring. -marc

British Paras. Church VIIs. Wasps. And plenty of those really cheap 4.2 inc mortars... Don't forget: - 3" onboard mortars - Cromwell VIIIs with their 95mm gun I know what you mean jeff. It's funny when you play a brit scenario and you have to make do with the more normal: - 25lb FOs (they're awful) - brit rifles (they're maybe more awful) - bren carriers (what the heck are these good for? They can't carry a full squad and have no firepower) - white scout cars (fast, paper thin, one weak mg) - cromwell IV, V, and VI (actually these are pretty good) Funny thing is, it's a lot more fun playing the "normal" brits. Your tactics and strategy better be good. -marc [ February 07, 2002, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

I also find if you make the A.I. defense and limit him to infantry he(it) does better. The a.i. tank management is way too agressive. -marc

The one improvement I'd REALLY like to see with FTs is the ability to conduct limited indirect fire. For example, if the enemy goes flat behind a stone wall they can't be targeted, not directly or as an area target since you don't have LOS. The FT should be able to area target over the wall, probably with some added inaccuracy to account for the lack of relative spotting. That would help FTs greatly and I believe would be highly realistic. -marc

I'm amazed at how many people parrot the FTs are useless line. They are very useful if used correctly, they are dead if used incorrectly. For example, a couple turns ago in a recent assault (fortified) I'm playing (attacker -30% strenth, defender has to max mines/wire) I bought engineers because we'd set it up to know there would be loads of mines. In addition we agreed that the defenders would be green volks smg companies. My artillery does a good job, but he's got LOADS of smg squads and I can't arty all of them. In a central woods I push him back and then encounter wire, with smg squads entrenched behind the wire. All of this in woods. I'm pretty much out of arty, I have no long range (100m) shot on him so my options become: 1. advance rifles within 30m to get LOS (against smgs that seemed a little stupid). 2. abandon the attack in this area (problematic for other reasons) 3. bring up the FT just outside his LOS and area fire. 4. Bring rifles around into the open to get LOS at 60-100m. Option 3 seemed the only viable one, so I've taken it, area fired and routed one smg squad who fled into the open and was cut down. Thinking I'd repeat I nudged over to get just close enough to the other smg. Lordly, lord, little did I guess he had a hidden FT that got tired of waiting for me to show myself and he area fires right next to my FT. Catches my FT and the supporting rifle squad. Fact was. The FT was my only efficient option, it worked beautifully. His FT was the only way he was going to stop me from doing it again and clearing his strongpoint. His FT did that job. There, FTs in offensive and defensive roles (all within 40m of each other). Both FTs worked great, both saved our respective bacons. If one of us had been missing the FT, one of us would have been cooked. Heh, imagine my surprise as I watched my FT crawl into position to take out the 2nd squad when a gout of flame spews out of the woods ruining my little german BBQ party. -marc

That list is beyond clueless.

Far from true. Pfft. If losing 2 engineer squads makes you lose the game rather then losing two rifle squads you were doing rather poorly anyways. You don't drive the enemy from the field by worrying about knockout points. -marc

Getting that kind of streak depends on being extremely good at the game. Swamp's obviously one of the best CM players in the world. That kind of streak also depends on playing under limited circumstances. I think Swamp's primarily a TCP/IP/player pick/QB/ME player. Player pick QBs have a strong structure to them. Not to take anything away from his skill, but that type of streak playing scenarios would be virtually impossible to achieve. And yes, I'm sure he could easily and reliably beat me at a TCP/IP/QB/player pick/ME. -marc