xerxes

I use MTC with a covered arc when I might encounter enemy infantry. If I'm in danger of longer range mg fire I'll use MTC with a Hide. That way when an mg opens up on them they'll stop and hide and try to break the target lock of the mg. After that I'll use an advance command to get them to the nearest cover. I don't think use advance as a standard movement is a good idea. The troops tend to push on even if they're getting chopped to pieces. Move is dangerous because if they take fire they start running and become more exposed.

No matter how you price things their will always be an optimum set of things to purchase. There is nothing BTS can do about that. As for mortars, it's a good idea to keep some in reserve with good overwatch to take out any guns that appear. Guns are extremely vulnerable to HE fire.

I'm familiar with American company nicknames. Does anyone know typical Brit/German/SA/Italian company names would be or where you could find such names?

I think a detailed troop lists is a must IF it makes sense for the scenario. A commander should know what troops he has under his command. Of course, if friendly forces from a different command wander into the battlefield detailed information might not make sense. Enemy disposition should also be included. Downright inaccurate isn't a very good idea in my opinion unless there is a strong reason for it. Vague is generally better then misleading. Many players really like the "historical drivel" btw.

If the firing unit isn't "facing" the target they do have to rotate to fire. MGs do this more slowly than infantry and you can use it to dash across an open space. Works even better if you move a "target" to distract the enemy first. Make sure you have EFOW on, you'll see the behavior of defenders not acquiring a target before it can make it across a clear patch.

Engineers with satchel charges are also very good at this sort of thing. They can hurl their satchels just out of LOS and still get most of the damage. If you're going to push forward, using the satchels to suppress first is very effective.

You only need to sneak the last couple of meters once you've ID'd the general location of the enemy. Now a clever defender won't sit still, they'll hit your first scouts and then reposition or even worse, hit your flank as you engage. Woods fighting is a real art. If you want a scenario that features intense infantry woods fighting try: Chekovnya Woods

Infantry in heavy woods is certainly a tough nut to crack. Here's a couple of approaches. 1. Concentrate your force against a flank in the woods position. 2. Use suppressive fire on enemy infantry just out of LOS. 3. Sneak forward an entire platoon. Then open up. Sneaking FTs is also very effective. Ideally you support the sneaking units by using #2 to keep the enemy from spotting the sneakers. 4. Use small short range mortars with a double command range HQ. Sneak the HQ into LOS and then indirect fire the mortars. Combing all of these techniques can be very effective at dislodging infantry in woods.

I would really like to see tall stone walls (8-10'). A "casbah tile" that looks like a bazaar and acts like rough/scatter trees would be very cool. I bet someone could mode that up.

If you start the surprised side off in a "panic" state they'll take (depending on experience) minutes to recover. Green troops will still be "pinned" after 4 minutes and still not be spotting very well. I find this simulates surprise quite well in that the defender can't move or target his units until they get out of the panicked state. Vets recover morale very quickly so this doesn't work as well for them. Of course it really depends on what effect you're trying for in a scenario.

I'd be very interested in your scenario Panther Commander, I like the East Africa theatre. Pls drop me a line when you've finished it if could. thanks. vmclz@swbell.net

Absolutely post it! Sounds like a great challenge. Just make sure to note that it isn't playable head to head and that it may be unwinnable.

8 x 8 would be really nice. There's nothing like working with a big team in real time. Simulates the chaos of command quite nicely.

Take out the truck, the mmg can definitely do that. Then the gun or whatever will be disrupted and be an easy target.

and in browsing the unit lists the allies really don't have anything comparable to the Italian paras. In closed terrain the Italians will be great defensive infantry. The balance between 2 "up-close" and 2 "medium range" squads makes an excellent platoon.

Ugh, I hate those gamey Italians! airborne players.

Sometimes squads will be hesitent to attack the PB from the rear. You just have to let them sit until they suck up the courage (or unwrap their grenades, whatever it is.)

Infantry can take out pb's from through the rear door. 75mm rounds through the door will knock it out also. What's changed is the totally unrealistic capability to knock out PBs from the front with small caliber HE. A good thing since that was rather ahistorical. PBs are now a very serious defensive fortification and make a QB attack signficantly harder then in CMBB.

Botto: Do you know of good online sources for information about Italian battles in East/North Africa?

I like the depot, I could lose some of the obnoxious ignorant reviews. Personally I'm done posting scenarios there. Some form of registration for reviewers would be a really good thing I think. A good reviewer (Dorosh comes to mind) improves the depot, sloppy reviewers hurt it. Players who are scenario junkies and who write reviews will probably take a couple of minutes to register.

I got the email after I recieved CMAK in the mail. That's some fast snailmail to beat an email! Too bad I can't open it until this weekend since my kids are giving it to me as a b-day present.

So if we pay more, we get the changes we want! I think the cabal idea really has some serious merit. I'd think there would need to be more like 10 members in it to make sure we get to three members playing though a particular scenario in a reasonable length of time. Given a cabal made up of a diverse set of the CM population and obviously very interested in scenarios I think the bias issue would be moot. We could even exclude scenario designers from membership in the cabal (or limit the designer to half the positions or something). A member who is a friend of the scenario designer should obviously exclude themselves from rating that particular scenario.

In playing the demo I started fooling around with the tank dust temporary screen for infantry. Very interesting little tactic but probably of limited use due to enemy AT guns.

"." means I realized that this discussion is fruitless but I realized that only after I had made a post. There are some serious deficiencies in how CAS operates in CM but friendly fire isn't one of them. The deficiencies have already been discussed in the context of CMBB and until we get the full CMAK game it would be impossible to test out which of these have been fixed.

Having VPs for destroying/perserving certain structures (designated by the scenario designer) would be a great tool because it would allow scenarios in which the objective is the destruction of a pair of bridges (for example), or capturing a bridge intact. It opens up a range of really interesting scenario goals.