Andreas

Assuming I have actually won it, my new opponent won't get a setup until 6th May, since I am off on hols now. Have not seen the final result yet, expect some gloating when it is here.

You were (still are) up against 5 T34, 5 Valentine Mk III, a whole battalion of motorised rifles (two rifle, one SMG coy), 2 76mm infantry guns, one 76mm Zis-3, one 45mm, 2 25mm AA guns, and, err, that's it apart from the jeep. Most conscript/green. I never managed to get decent LOS anywhere with that spotter, so I don't mind the barrage did not do anything. Still upset about falling for the ambush that cost me a T34. I was extremely worried about your IGs, which I thought would be real guns. Good fight towards the end, and my infantry almost let me down. The tanks saved the day, thank BFC for the improved MG modelling.

That does not address the manufacturing issues.

The gun was definitely designed to work in DF mode. I don't know what kind of special sights you need to hit a moving tank (it's not a helicopter or a jet, after all). Ordinary ATGs also did not have special sights for moving targets, AFAIK. You just lead it a bit (Vorhalten in German I think). I think tracking a target for multiple shots would be difficult, since the gun weighs in at just short of 1,800kg, so just moving it around would be a problem. Difficult to say without seeing the situation.

If the extra CD is the same that already went on sale in the UK, it will only have stuff that is already in the public domain on it anyway. I remember a lot of Der Kessel scenarios going onto that one.

Thank you - now I have a vision of Chewbacca sticking halfway out of the top of a Panzer 35(t).

They are modelled with different rounds in game. Soviet uses solid shot, German has a large HE burster. Remember that at least some types of early war Soviet AP rounds had manufacturing trouble, and that is modelled in CMBB.

Were you using the loss feature that reduces a unit upfront by x%?

Use the '\' to switch.

I think it is a vote for a world without rain. Because without rain, the sun would always shine, and I would go out more, instead of playing CMBB. Seriously though, at least as far as I am concerned, a campaign system is neither here nor there as a solution. I have no problems finding people to play against outside ladders (and I was never popular at school, so how hard can it be?), who are interested in fun more than anything else, and the Stug/T34 problem simply does not exist for me, and not for them, AFAICT.

v.Senger & Etterlin gives it a side traverse of 11°, no idea if that is to each side or total.

WWB - very good point about the number of units JonS made a comment to me regarding just that, in relation to one of the battles he is testing. Especially in early war, 1,500 points (BTW - this is not rarity adjusted) can mean a craptacular number of units on board, because all these guns and vehicles are just dirt-cheap. In terms of size, it usually seems to work out at about a slightly reinforced company of stuff, e.g. a pure infantry company, or two platoons of infantry with a platoon of tanks, in each case with some guns. Generally speaking. That is what I try to keep it at anyway - <3 companies on the board for both sides combined, if possible less. [ April 28, 2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

ISTR that this situation was what brought about the concept of Byte Battles™ at Der Kessel. This thread got me trying my hand at it for CMBB. New design criteria for CMBB Byte Battles™?

Some here may remember the concept of Byte Battles™, developed by Greg (Mensch) at Der Kessel. To recap, they were: </font> Combined 1,500 points total</font>Map max 480x480m</font>Length 25 turns max</font>Designed for TCP/IP</font> In CMBB, much of this is clearly unworkable for a good game. CMBB is slower, and the battlefield more deadly. Infantry reacts to danger now, and a single HMG can ruin your day quite easily. Another distinguishing feature from QBs was that they gave you a briefing, had better maps, and unusual force mixes and situations. I have started looking at whether a Byte Battle™ design convention is actually feasible in CMBB. I think I may have a formula that could work, and have done a few this weekend. They are currently out for testing. I initially thought not much was to be gained by Byte Battles in CMBB, since the maps are a lot nicer, and rarity would force more realistic force selections. Judging from a few recent threads that does not seem to be the case, so the features of unusual force and situations could still add value over a QB. We'll see. The current design convention we are kicking around would be slightly bigger in map size, significantly longer, and roughly the same forces. Hopefully we will have something for people to play with soon.

You are always going to have that problem with ladder players. Find somebody else to play if it really is such a problem. Wanting to play ladder games using less than optimal equipment is not going to happen. If you restrict particular choices, ladder players will just find a new standard of what is optimal, and you will see endless repetitions of that.

That sounds most likely in terms of organisation, Jason. I know that they mixed long IVs in with the IIIs when the former came out, e.g. in 6.PD during the Winter Tempest battles, and later during the Manstein counter-offensive. But at this stage I would guess something more organised based on the experience of 8-9 months would take place. Thanks all.

Gamey sods, those Jerries. That was fun...

I stand corrected,how else could they have stopped that great behemoth. </font>

Turn 30 - who would have thought. He has now gotten rid of one of my tanks, and immobilised another, at the cost of one platoon of infantry. His attempt to get to the large flag has faltered in a hail of machinegun fire from tanks. His Marder will soon be an ex-Marder, and join the bleedin' choir invisible. Some nice duels to look forward to. Lots of drama! BTW - cannister at 20 yards against a section in the open must be the mst effective weapon in CMBB. No survivors, and it works every time.

Jon, thanks for responding. My info is from the divisional history by Niepold, and it looks like a copy of the straight KStN sheet, so I would trust it more than Jentz or Nafziger. Actual numbers as opposed to runners are: 15 50L42 Pz III 15 50L60 Pz III 6 75L24 Pz III 2 PzBefWg 2 PzBefWg Pz III short 36 Pz IV long (4 non-runners) 1 Pz IV short 3 VK1801 (Panzer IIJ?; all non-runners) Problem with Nafziger: He gives 2 coys with 22 Pz III ea - that would be 44; only 40 on the KStN. Same for the IVs - there are just 37, not 44. And what happened to the seven Pz III Flamm that he says have been assigned on 18 June 43? Nafziger's detailed data seems to be covering a longer period, which is problematic, since the division was in heavy combat until April. He is completely missing 9 3,7cm PAK36 in PGR5's AT Platoon too. Hmmmm....

On the 1st July, 12.PD had a real dog's breakfast of tanks (runners counted). 15 50L42 Pz III 15 50L60 Pz III 6 75L24 Pz III 2 PzBefWg 2 PzBefWg Pz III short 32 Pz IV long 1 Pz IV short All of these in one Abteilung, with four companies. The strength return sheet indicates that the organisation in one medium, and two light coys was still active. Additionally, there was another medium company. Does anyone know the mix of short and long-barreled Pz III in the companies, and how the 75L24 IIIs were allocated?

I will do so, eventually. first I am off on holiday to Naples though, so don't expect anything soon.

Variable rarity? Examples I just tried for a July 1941 battle, central region, see the results below. There is some fluctuation, but not on the scale you suggest. The problem is that for the Soviet player, you almost force them to lose if you force them to use T26 or BT tanks, because these tanks are so hapless, unless you also insist that the German player brings no tanks or Stugs at all. Why would I or anyone start such a game if I play competitively? And if the answer is that it is not competitive, then why not use the scenario editor to knock yourself out? Why is nobody here arguing for forcing people to play unfit conscript pure infantry Romanians in 1942 during a snowstorm against Soviet vets with tanks? That also happened. That also makes for a crap PBEM game. Here are the results. T26 -5% All other T26 and some BT models (including FT) 0% KV1-1939 +10% T34/KV1-1940 +20% T34/BT/T26 0% KV1 1939 - 50% KV1 1940 - 125% T26 1933 -5% Other T26/BT makes - 0% T34 1941 - 20% T34 1940 - 40% KV1 1940 - 40% KV1 1939 - 100% T26 1933 -5% Other T26/BT makes - 0%/+5% T34 1941 - 10% T34 1940 - 40% KV1 1940 - 30% KV1 1939 - 100% T26 1933 -10% Other T26/BT makes - 0%/+5% T34 1941 - 20% T34 1940 - 30% KV1 1940 - 5% KV1 1939 - 5% T26 1933 -10% Other T26/BT makes - 0%/5% T34 1941 - 0% T34 1940 - 20% KV1 1940 - 20% KV1 1939 - 30% T26 1933 - 0% Other T26/BT makes - 0%/10% T34 1941 - 10% T34 1940 - 30% KV1 1940 - 50% KV1 1939 - 100%

The point of the report IMO was to show that the Soviets issued special orders on how to deal with Stugs. AFAIK they did not issue special orders for the Panzer III. What I referred to is an AAR by a German infantry division that does not throw in Stugs with Marders/SP ATG. This has nothing to do with revisionism - it is a real AAR of a real battle where the Germans kept the battlefield. Surprisingly to me the short-barreled Stugs emerge as the major tank killers, although a similar number of turreted tanks (III/IV) was present. Of course the report does not prove anything about 80mm Stugs, since it does not talk about them. It shows though that the Stug as a weapon system was especially feared by the Soviets. ISTR that another poster has some info about a Soviet order to just not engage Stugs, i.e. break off the attack if you run into them, and attack elsewhere. That may refer to the long Stugs. BTW - not every 80mm front armour stug is almost invulnerable. Just those with bolt-on armour an you can achieve weak spot penetrations against them, which jives with one report I have read by a German Stug commander. The kill chance for the ones with a single armour plate is low or very low out to >500m.

Cough cough - why don't you go for the T34obr43 with the 76 gun, instead of the 41 model? June 44 -5% (85 +5%); Dec 44 +5% (85 -10%); it is only in 1945 that there is a big difference, and even then variable rarity will probably affect that. The reason the obr41 is extremely rare is that presumably by 1944 there were none of them left. As for the general point - QBs are the competitive part of the game. People will cherry-pick. Play scenarios, or find yourself a PBEM opponent who is interested in exploring these situations and purchase for your battle in the editor. Asking random opponents to go for crap tanks which will almost guarantee them a loss is like asking them to watch the paralympics. It is a laudable and worthy thing, but it is never going to be as popular as the real thing.