L.Tankersley

Ok, I'm tracking you now. I don't know about a "large chance" necessarily (I think 300 meters in combat conditions is pretty far to expect a first-burst hit) but I agree guys wouldn't be buttoning and unbuttoning willy-nilly like they can in the game. Just one of many artificialities created by the turn boundary. A better solution might be to require buttoned-up vehicles to STAY buttoned up for some minimum amount of time (say, 30 seconds). If you issue an order to unbutton and you've been buttoned less than the requisite time, the order is queued up and at some point during the turn you'll unbutton again. You might even tie the minimum time to crew quality (that might be overkill, though).

I'm not saying MG modeling in CMBO isn't flawed particularly wrt to inability to engage multiple targets or suppress an area. But your original post implied that tank crews should suffer casualties pretty much whenever they came under MG or mortar fire when unbuttoned, and that because they don't players unrealistically leave their tanks unbuttoned. That's what I don't buy.

I don't know about this. It doesn't take long to duck down into a tank. It takes a little longer to close a hatch, but not much, and while you're doing it you're not very exposed. Even while crew exposed, a mortar round would have to hit pretty durn close to have a decent chance of injuring a tank crewman. As far as MGs are concerned -- if you drive your tank up within 10 or 20 meters of a strong infantry force, maybe you're right, but in my experience the tank crew will usually have buttoned up autonomously long before then anyway. It's not all that easy to hit a partially exposed target with the first burst from an MG at any signficant range, and if you don't hit, the guy is probably going to duck.

No. You drag the waypoint behind the tank, and while it is selected hit the 'reverse' key to change it to a 'reverse' waypoint. Then it's just like it was a reverse waypoint all along. This is another reason to plot multiple "tophat" style maneuvers at once - it gives you more waypoints to play with. You want to keep them close together (keep the path lengths at or less than the distance you can drag a waypoint) to maintain maximum flexibility. This can help offset the inflexibility you get at turn boundaries with no pending orders.

More likely, it's just a rectangular shadow added to buildings as similar shadows were added for vehicles in CMBO.

Once you have LOS to the target, accuracy should improve (and your countdown should run quicker, but I can't confirm this for sure). I'm not sure what your question is about adjusting fire. Given the artificialities already present in the artillery system, I don't think it's gamey at all.

I prefer to issue orders for both hunt and reverse in the same turn. If you don't do this, then your tank is going to be sitting in an exposed position unable to move for 13 seconds (or whatever your command delay is; 13 seconds is about par for regular crews). I will often issue orders for two or more hunt-reverse sets at the same time. If you're hunting forward at a predictable time every turn, your opponent can anticipate that. The hunt command can sometimes be problematic, too, as the vehicle will stop immediately and engage any suitable target while on a hunt leg. If you want to be sure you reach a given spot, consider using the move or fast commands. Unfortunately, since there is no way to order a pause in the middle of a movement (as in, "move fast up to the crest line, wait 15 seconds, then reverse back here") you will often reach your overwatch position, then start to reverse and THEN see the enemy. While executing a reverse order, your tank won't stop to engage and often you'll reverse out of LOS before you can fire.

Shift-P cycles between 4 options for path display. Personally, I'd like to see a "Lead" command.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: Has anyone noticed that in Panzer Leaders post on pg1 (the one with the soviet assault guns advancing through the artillery) that there appears to be 11 or 12 explosions on the screen at the same time. This means either: a) three FOs were targetted at the same spot, or FOs have more (or variable) guns under their control. Something that one of the beta testers (KD maybe?)said on the forum makes me thinks it's . Huzzah! More firepower! Regards JonS<hr></blockquote> Maybe you can purchase both battery and regimental-level artillery formations.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: AH is no more; MMC now does their stuff. They just released a "historical study" or whatever they called it, about Guadalcanal (maybe not "just" but I never saw it before). paper map and a dozen scenarios, nearly 100 bucks.<hr></blockquote> MMC = multi-man counter, a counter representing more than one man (duh) MMP = Multi-Man Publishing, the new ASL developers for H*sbr*. I had forgotten about the HASL Guadalcanal module. The "Historical" modules do typically come on paper maps. They're usually based on actual maps/aerial photos of the battle area and as such are not geomorphic (and not the standard 10x40-odd hex size). They also usually have somewhat larger hexes IIRC. There is also a lot of research (no comment here one way or another on its quality) and specific rules covering the battle, TO&Es, special terrain features and so forth. I see the historical modules as a bit of an aberration - if you're very interested in the particular subject matter, then it's probably worth plunking down the $$. Otherwise, not so much. I haven't got Guadalcanal, but I have the A Bridge Too Far module that I believe was released at about the same time. It had two unmounted mapsheets and 4 (?) countersheets IIRC. I think the price was roughly $50 US. I don't feel it was particularly out of line with other board wargame prices.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Oh my God, I was at a hobby store today. The latest ASL modules are 90 dollars Canadian - no mounted maps, just paper, and a dozen scenarios. That's it. Perhaps 100 or so counters. What on earth are they charging all the money for?<hr></blockquote> ...what ASL modules are these? I'm unaware of any official (AH/MMP) modules fitting this description. I think they're charging the money for "profit for the shopkeeper."

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cos: Must of been using jet fuel in that jeep.<hr></blockquote> A friend of mine that was in Desert Storm used aviation fuel in the pickup truck he was tooling around in.

You should be warned that CMMC is not for the faint-of-heart. When Andreas says to mention how much time you can/want to commit, he means it: give an honest assessment. CMMC is a lot like war: long periods of inactivity and quietude punctuated by brief (or sometimes not-so-brief) maelstroms of panic and frenzied action. And that's not even counting the occasional battle played out in CM itself. A significant amount of dedication is required to make CMMC pay off. If the above hasn't frightened you off, though, sign up and be welcome!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cauldron:<hr></blockquote> 1) The perimiters are indescribably bad, two infantry platoons for example CAN lead to the enemy achieving an end board result in a campaign even when Panthers and the like are still very much alive There are some fairly well-recognized problems with certain types of CM operations, this being one of them (if I understand your point aright). If you're looking to recreate Red Barricades or KGP in CM, then you're going to run into some problems. Standalone scenarios, however, are quite doable (and you could probably do operations if you're careful about the type of operation and size of no-man's land). 2) The reinforcements number only 5. This is VERY limiting and leads to a hoilus bolus addition of forces, frequently nothing like what the designer is wanting. I can't think of any official ASL scenario that uses more than 3 or 4 reinforcement groups per side. It's true that CM just sort of plonks reinforcements down in a blob instead of letting you set them up just how you want them before they enter, but if that's a real problem for you have the reinforcements enter a few turns earlier to give the player time to get them organized. 3) The lack of flags or some sort of "focusing force" in campaigns is extraordinary. One of the major reasons campaigns are not as popular as battles is because they are hardly catered for. I have to give the computer (AI) 25% more forces just to achieve what a non- expert human could. The AI also reacts in predictable ways and in many cases ( esp campaigns) is practically useless. Here I feel compelled to echo an earlier comment and say that I find ASL's AI to be quite a bit less capable and more predictable than CM's. ASL's AI just sits there. Here's another way to look at it. If you want to tweak the "victory conditions" in CM, go ahead. Just ignore the engine's built-in scoring system and make up your own rules. We won't tell on you. Promise. If you want to decide that victory depends solely on which side controls a key building - knock yourself out! [ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: L.Tankersley ]</p>

Keith, I got home late last night so didn't have much time for CM. I was going to go with "Toulon" but whenever I open it I crash to desktop. So I think Gottendamerung is it but I need to finish my setup. Not sure if the Toulon file is corrupt or if it's just my machine -- it's been a bit flaky of late. And that's "revue."

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: As for SPW-251/9s, as halftracks they can't use "hunt", ...<hr></blockquote> That's not true, is it? I'm pretty sure any vehicle with functioning gun armament (non-MG) can hunt. [Pity I can't think of any armored MG-armed vehicles named after dogs - then I could say "that dog won't hunt."]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: [Lots of stream-of-consciousness ramblings about all sorts of things only tangentially (if at all) related to the topic at hand.]<hr></blockquote> Dude, you are all over the map. I can't make out what you are arguing about, only that you seem to want to argue with someone about something. I'm guessing you're just a troll, but perhaps English isn't your native language and you're having trouble communicating effectively. In the latter case, let me suggest that instead of spinning the discussion off onto new topics and confrontations every time you post, you simply state what it is you have to contribute to the discussion along with any supporting evidence you may have.

I haven't read this entire thread, it's too tiresome, but one item strikes me. Some folks seem to be arguing that if the Churchill's 95mm howitzer 'c' round was as effective in reality as it is in CM, then the British would have used these tanks in an AT role, and possibly even produced them in lieu of their 17-pdr armed tanks. This seems ridiculous to me, for the reason that the 95mm howizter had nothing like the effecive range of the high-velocity guns the British actually used in an AT role. People go on and on about how the German high velocity guns coupled with their superior optics could achieve kills at ranges of many thousands of meters. There's no way that 95mm gun is going to be able to compete at engagement ranges prevalent in real life. It might be able to hit the broad side of a barn (that pretty much being what it was designed for) but hitting a tank on the move at long range is something else again. Yet another byproduct of the distortions that are imposed by CM - the results may be realistic in a "what-if" sense, but CM doesn't always present the most accurate (in a historical sense) situations.

bump

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Germanboy: The Canadians also set up a radar CB observation battery after Normandy, in 1944, AFAIK.<hr></blockquote> The gamey bastards!

A thousand meters of open ground is a hell of a long way. I'm playing a QB now where the hill and tree settings are both one notch above minimal. Trees are extremely scarce, and there is basically one large (but very low) hill in the middle of the map, with everything else quite flat. I'm attacking with a mixture of US paratroop and glider infantry reinforced by 4 Shermans (well, 2, now). I don't have 1000m of completely open ground to cover, but this map allows lines of sight to extend that far in many areas. IMO, the key to big smokescreens is to use mortar FOs. They have lots of ammo, a high rate of fire, and a quick response time. Onboard mortars and direct-fire guns with smoke ammo can help out but they are mainly useful against known point targets because of their inability to target more than one point per turn, or to target spots out of their LOS. I echo Stixx's comment about adjusting fire to deliberately inject a short delay, extending your period of fire. OBA mortar smoke seems to last about 2 turns or so (I have the impression that the smoke from larger caliber shells lasts longer, which would make sense, but I can't confirm that as fact). Using heavier artillery as a smoke source is probably not cost-effective, I would say. My approach was to hide my assault force behind whatever terrain features were available (a large building, a copse of trees, and a shallow depression), use an HQ in the upper level of a building to direct smoke from on-board mortars (I have something like 10 60mm mortars with this force), have the tanks fire their smoke shells, and use an 81mm spotter for OBA smoke. I targeted the on-map assets (tanks and mortars) on a line in front of what I considered to be likely defensive positions, and used the 81mm to plug the gap in the middle. The first turn after the 81mm smoke started landing, the assault force was up and moving forward. On subsequent turns I adjusted the targets to extend the smokescreen as my infantry moves forward. Once I had a thick screen I had my units cease fire to conserve ammo until the smoke started disappearing again, and then called for more 81mm. You can probably get 4 or 5 minutes of smoke barrage out of an 81mm spotter, and they're pretty cheap. One thing you cannot do when using a large smoke screen is dawdle. You have to commit to the approach, and get the men up and moving as soon as the smoke arrives. Don't wait to be sure every possible gap is saturated with smoke; you'll waste too much time and ammo.

In a current game, I had a platoon HQ captured by the enemy. One of the platoon's squads survived and fled the scene. On the next turn, I could select the squad and see a black "out-of-command" line traced from it to the presumed location of the captured HQ even though the captured unit was no longer visible to me. On the next turn, I could no longer do this. If BTS desires, I have the turn files.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Thanks for the compliment, Jeff and Leland.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I was going more for the self-aggrandizement, but there's nothing wrong with a little collateral aggrandizement along with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Why thank you for the kind invite Germanboy…you're a scholar and a gentleman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He's a gentleman and a scholar. And there are damn few of us left.

Concerning the CMMC, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, if you like that sort of thing, it's the sort of thing you'll like. It takes a lot of time and dedication, and you've got to be able to put up with long delays. ScoutPL and ... someone else; blast, I can't remember who it was ... were organizing smaller, more abstract campaigns that would presumably be faster-paced. I haven't seen anything about these recently.