xerxes

Wow, I've never encountered, or even heard of that approach to defending. (seriously) Want to try a battle? (I normally do TH ladder games but if you're not into that we could just play one). -marc

Dragon's Teeth: American troops move in on the Siegfried Line. Attempting to clear out the preliminary defences, the 101st mechanized supported by engineering elements assaults the outer ring of the Siegfried line near Malheim. Heavy fortifications are expected, this will be tough and slow going. 3000 pt Assault -30% attacker strength, Farmlands, moderate woods, small hills, March '45, fog. Americans: Combined arms (regular quality), mechanized. No naval artillery. Germans: Infantry, low quality, must spend at least: * 250 pts on antipersonnel mines * 75 pts on antitank mines * 100 pts on wire * 100 pts on roadblocks. Arty limit of 150. -marc

That's cool Pilgrim. I didn't mean REALLY historical, just something like you described that has a historical "flavor". You should post your market garden and Ardennes descriptions. -marc

I think you meant to type "no", those miskeys are a bitch aren't they? -marc

Does anyone play quasi-historical QBs? I've been trying this and really like it. For example: Liberation of Moutiers Briefing: The crack Free French 30th Battalion has the task of liberating the town of Moutiers. Moutiers is heavily fortified and held by a Volkstruum company. Late last night they were reinforced with elements of a newly formed SS group. Settings: 2000pt assault, german defending, town, moderate woods/hills, snow, small map, 30 turns. German: (combined arms, green) Must buy 1 company of Volkstruum. Remainder can be Volkstruum/SS and/or fortifications. Allies: (combined arms, french). All purchases must be crack or elite. Balanced purchase (50% of the points in each category must be purchased[inf-support-vehicle-armor-artillery]). No more than 3 of any armor/vehicle type allowed. Arty limit of 155 for both sides. __________________ Has anyone else tried this type of QB? -marc

Only confirmed kills are listed, artillery won't get many of those, but it certainly is effective! -marc

Germans don't have a wasp equivalent. Defensive flaming of locations that the attacker would like to use is a valid tactic. The only problem occurs when VLs are flamed. For example taking a wasp and flaming a circle entirely around a VL would create a VERY unfun game. -marc

The whole map is playable. Anyone who cries "gamey" about some using the entire map is in reality, truely being "gamey," it's just a different game they're playing. -marc

Creating a truly effective target selection algorithm is extremely difficult, it requires not only target and shooter characteristics but also elements of distance, mobility, and the tactical situation. The change I'd like to see is the addition of Hysteresis in target switching. That would lessen the "too many targets" syndrome that occurs. While amusing, it can also be irritating if one is not in the mood. -marc

That 3" had LOS on that flag you held in the woods. If my 3" had followed orders and dumped on your inf my glider squad would have made it in to contest. Your hetzer was playing with ubersmart TacAI. Great game btw Paul! Photo finish. -marc

Putting a reverse after the hunt command is generally a good armor conservation idea. Don't want to leave your butt hanging in the breeze to get wacked. -marc

Hollywood was just ripping off a well-known "gamey" tactic used in the world's most popular tactical simulation of WWII combat. They really should come up with their own "gamey" tactics, those hollywood types are supposed to be creative. -marc

Given that visibility, you are at a huge disadvantage against german smg (obvious). The only thing I could see to do is to flank their position with ALL of your infantry and armor and hit one portion of the german line with everything at once. Then backoff, flank and hit from another angle. The LOS makes flanking exceptionally easy. Flamers would be really nice in such an assault. Course you didn't know the weather. -marc

What happened was petro dropped 1 turn of 105s, my troops broke and ran forward into his smgs. The withdraw command (or any other command) was not an option. I don't sit under heavy arty barrages unless I'm in buildings. -marc

I don't see speculative HE fire against buildings as gamey. Didn't commanders order HE fire against positions that they thought might be occupied? I still think gradual rubblization (with the necessary dust/smoke) would improve realism, and would eliminate the abuses that graves pointed out. -marc

But placing them in a terrible location (i.e. plain ground in front of great defensive positions) isn't bad. It basically says you have to take and hold the defensible positions that can fire on the flag in order to win the game. Taking those positions should be the attackers goal. But yes, I could see "gamey" placements like clustering them all in one location, placing them in a corner of the map, etc. There would have to be some restrictions on flag placement, but I think these could be pretty minimal. I was thinking of having the attacker place a couple flags but the attacker would put them in absurd places that the defender can't possibly defend. I'd also like to see much better ME flag placement. One flag in the middle of the map seems a little goofy. I'd like to see a better spread of flags. Maybe having both players place a couple flags in a ME within a central "flag placement" location would work. I'm uncertain about how this would work out. -marc

I think one of the things that makes assault/attacks/probes favor the attacker is the flag placement. Basically the defender is FORCED to defend some artificial location when in reality they are trying to hold the general area. The exact hill, copse of woods, whatever is irrelevant. How about an option where the defender gets to place the VL flags? The only restriction would be that the flags couldn't be too close together. Probes would have more of the smaller flags, assaults would have the fewest flags and mostly the large ones, attacks in between. There would have to be some other restrictions on placement but defender placement would allow the defender to choose where to defend which is part of the natural advantage of being a defender. -marc

Graves has excellent points. I also think "rubble" should have multiple states, the existing rubble is too flat. (imho) Rubble provides better concealment than the original building in many cases. -marc

It's also interesting that the graphical depiction appears to be more accurate than the label (as Jagdwyrm saw). Is this a consistent effect? If it is I better start doing some identification training. -marc

MisIDing vehicles and other units is a really great touch in CM. I've gotten burned badly thinking a nashorn was a hummel. Funny thing was, my priest seemed to know it before I did. "What are you doing? Fire at the Hummel! Don't run! Get back there!" :thunk: Crackle, hiss, "1st platoon reporting, that Nashorn just waxed our Priest, what were you thinking commander??" -marc

More of them do fit in a building but I was more refering to tactical flexibility. For x points you can buy 3 platoons of more expensive infantry or 4 platoons of cheaper infantry. The extra platoon has the ability to cover a different approach or probe a different area. Also when you scout with a 1/2 squad, you have much less at risk when there are only 3 or 4 men in the squad. If a 1/2 squad triggers an ambush it will probably be eliminated regardless of size. The smaller scout squad has gathered the same information as the bigger scout squad with less loss. Bigger squads will suffer more casualties in an arty bombardment. Bigger squads have more staying power in a prolonged firefight. Also the Platoon leader is proportionally cheaper with big squads. So, to me, it's a tradeoff between the advantages of raw firepower/muscle (big squads) and advantages of flexibility/risk reduction/recon (small squads). My tactics benefit from the latter. It probably depends on ones playing style as much as anything. -marc

Cheap is good. I used to buy more expensive (type and quality) but I've since gone downhill. Quanity beats quality in my mind. I like the german volk (I go for the company because I like the volks rifle too) and german regular infantry. The brit/polish paras are cheaper than regulars. If I have an extra single platoon to buy I like the motorized or other german squads with long range firepower. I also prefer the smaller size (7-8 man) squads (brit glider, volks, etc.) for their greater deployment flexibility. -marc

VT shells are supposed to always go off in the air, but they don't. I'm not sure about exact %'s but maybe around 1/2 hit the ground in CM. This confused me about what artillery was hitting me until I tested and found out that they don't all go off in the air. -marc

Myth has a ctf gametype that provides very interesting strategic issues (which would be much the same with your map). Basically scouting is absolutely key, you have to know what's coming towards you and what defensive positions there are. Using a light screen to clear away enemy scouts is a good idea. Sharpshooters in hiding are very hard to flush out though. Using your force mainly as one mass for a big push is an option but artillery and a flexible defense makes a single thrust a risky proposition. Ranged armor is useful to quickly deploy fire power into another area of the map. Infantry is required for scouting and any significant assault. A feint in this type of game would be a useful strategy. Not even remotely historical but a great deal of fun and challenging. This might even be a "replayable" map. -marc

It sounds very interesting, standard QB MEs have very boring flag(s) placement(s). Yours sounds infinitely better. I would make the map asymetrical though. -marc