R-Man

As I continue to read the accolades in one review after another, I cannot help but feel a personal sense of pride in what BTS and its partners have achieved. They made all of us feel like we were part of the team, answering our questions, listening to our suggestions and, most importantly, actually implementing some of them! Like many of you, I stumbled upon the game's development many months ago, and then waited anxiously as the game came closer and closer to fruition. The demos were outstanding, and only made the wait more unbearable. I'm sure we all felt a bit nervous about how the game would be received by the general gaming community, but we knew that at least WE would finally be getting the game of our dreams, even if it turned out to be a one-shot deal. But now…wow! Two sellouts (with more coming, I'm sure) and the best free publicity one could ever hope for. I'm…I'm…speechless.

Fionn, Thanks for the info. Just repeating what I've read. I've also read that a German commander once said that they could knock out 10 Shermans for every one Tiger they lost. The problem was that the Americans always had 11. (Or something to that affect.) Having been a Real Red fanatic in CC3, I would very much like to see some form of rarity introduced in CM. Even if it's no more than a "historical note" next to the unit in the purchase screen, or even in a readme file. Most of us don't know what the real deployment levels were of the various AFV's in the many campaigns, but would like to. Unfortunately, taking on a platoon of four Panthers with a platoon of five M4's in a Quick Battle is just no fun. As stated in a parallel post, those cats could take out Shermans at 3,000 yards. I have to flank within 400 meters to even have a chance with an M4 vs. a Panther. With the M4's costing approx. 150 points, Jumbos at 219 and Panthers and Tigers at about 200, the choice is a no-brainer. I'll take the Jumbos and kick @$$. If rarity were to be an option, it would have to be coupled with an increase in Allied point totals to approximate that "11th tank." [This message has been edited by R-Man (edited 07-31-2000).]

I was very surprised to read of the lack of mobility of the US tanks. Particularly, the lack of a "locking" track to allow the Sherman to pivot, and the wide turning radius. CM models the Sherman's as having the ability to turn and pivot quickly, and I can't imagine fighting an armor battle without such ability. The other deficiency which stands out is the near complete lack of HVAP ammunition. Four rounds per tank?! You really have to hand it to our guy's courage and determination to press the fight against such overwhelming odds.

Concerning the rarity of Jumbos, I just finished reading a couple of books in the last two weeks, one was a brief biography of George S. Patton, and the other a collection of war stories (including several concerning Patton's Third Army). One of them stated that Patton preferred moving his 76 mm Jumbos forward, ahead of the main tank force, to engage enemy Panthers before the main force moved into action. I do not know the exact tactics used, but it was certainly not uncommon for a detached platoon (or more) of Jumbos to enter an armored meeting engagement en-mass.

Hey! Is that really you Lewis, calling for cooler heads to prevail? Now we're making some real progress! An intelligent debate with little or no flaming. As for MERC's point regarding tanks "dancing" to find that hull down position, I find that a very real possibility. Having played as much CC3 and CC4 as anybody, there is nothing more infuriating than having your tanks show their backsides while hunting around for a waypoint. I've witnessed it on more than one occasion in CM, as well. Don't get me wrong, I would love a simple "hunt hull-down to target-point" command, but I can also see some problems with it. What happens when your tank crests the hill, hunting for hull-down, but ends up with some obstruction to the target point? Wouldn't that tank just keep rolling into the open? Or would it jockey back and forth, doing a little Close Combat dance-of-death? It may be more difficult to code than we imagine, and I would very much like to hear BTS's opinion of its feasibility. Finally (and this is not a flame), after as much time as we all have spent playing this game, you guys still don't know how to get into hull-down on the first try? Sure, it's not perfect, but simply moving the front edge of your tank to the reverse-slope edge of the plateau or crest in front of you will pretty much do it every time (relative to the same elevation on the opposite ridge, which is the most likely location of the enemy). If you don't get it on the first try, you should get it on the second.

1024 x 768, PII 333, 192 MB, TNT2. Runs fine, but gets a bit choppy when playing huge scenarios. If I'm STILL playing CM in 6 months (and why wouldn't I?) I'll upgrade to a new machine.

I have to agree that the bazooka/recon tactic is gamey. But, RMC brings up good points regarding the lack of recon teams (as in CC3), and the poor moral of squads separated from HQ units. I would really like to see inexpensive (-50 point) recon teams that can act independently introduced into the game to replace the gamey use of AT teams and snipers in that role. Although, we would still have the unrealistic global spotting. As for bunching tanks together, the only big downfall that I have witnessed is the hidden AT gun ambush. Enemy armor is much easier to deal with than that pesky, invisible 75 mm Pak 40 at the top of the hill. I'll have at least one tank brewed-up before I can even see its firing position, no matter how good my gamey recon efforts are.

Having played the game nearly non-stop since June 19th, I have developed some tactics that work extremely well against the Tac AI. However, I would like some feedback as to what the Grognards and PBEM players think of these in terms of their being "gamey." The first tactic is to use veteran bazooka teams as scouts, running and hiding from cover to cover. At a cost of only 15 points, these teams are expendable, and can uncover most of the enemy's tank, infantry and land mine positions. When advanced successfully, they are in a position to engage enemy armor at critical moments. The second tactic is moving tanks in close formation. I mean really close formation; two or three tanks will hunt side-by-side, nearly touching, and engage armored targets almost simultaneously as soon as they are sited. The third tactic is to area fire into spotted foxholes with my armor before any units are actually known to be occupying the foxholes. One tank area fires into the hole, while the others wait for the enemy to panic and reveal himself. It seldom fails, and coupled with the first two tactics, has devastating results. Gamey? You tell me.

Nope. Why eat hamburger when you can have steak?

Nope, no "spare" commanders. If you setup your Quick-Battle allowing for human force selection (rather than "automatic" computer selection) you will see that extra commanders are not available. The only way to get an extra commander is to purchase an entire company. You'll get a company commander and sometimes an extra platoon leader. I think the extra platoon leader may be a function of the number of "support" units purchased.

I very much enjoy the Quick-Battle feature, and I think that it is the key to the long-term re-playability of this game (much more so than TCP/IP). There is a problem, however. The 1,000 point limit is too low. The defender cannot even get a full rifle company with two main battle tanks! This limits the solo-player to only small, “quick” battles. I would VERY much like to see the limit increased to 2,000 points. The force mix is another issue that I would like to see addressed. Last night I played a 1,000 point quick battle as the Allies (attacking). I chose two M4A3E2(76mm) Jumbos, along with the usual assortment of combined-arms units. The computer chose only motorized infantry and two infantry guns. While I do enjoy popping halftracks, it wasn’t much of a challenge. My suggestion would be one of the following: either improve the computer’s selection technique, or add a few more unit categories such as anti-tank, heavy infantry, etc. to force the computer to select AT LEAST one tank or tank-destroyer. I have been playing the game like there was no tomorrow since I received it on June 19th, and these are my only complaints so far. The game is stable, the play is balanced, the units are accurately modeled, and the AI is pretty good. I have a 333 MHz cpu with 192 MB SDRAM and a TNT2 video card and play with all options on. The only slow down that I have noticed was when playing the 2nd map of the Villers-Bocage operation. Nevertheless, this may be the game that prompts me to invest in a new computer. Can’t wait for CM2! R Man

There are two problems with staying unbuttoned all the time. The first is, you tend to lose your TC just when he’s lining up a shot against enemy armor, and the ensuing shock of the crew keeps them from firing. Before you know it, you’re brewed up without even defending yourself. The second problem is not focusing on armored threats quickly enough when they appear. If I know there’s armor in the neighborhood, I will stay buttoned up so that the tanker immediately targets the enemy tank when spotted. Aren’t you sick of losing tanks because the TC was more interested in targeting an AT team some 5oo+ meters away, rather than the Panther rotating in your direction? Also, staying buttoned up while moving through questionable territory offers both better protection and better target selection (against armor).

I agree that mortars should save their smoke rounds after expending all of their HE shells. It makes no sense for them to use up all of their smoke just because the 60 second turn has not expired. This is a bug. Well, it bugs me, anyway.

The third time I played VoT, second time as Axis, I scored as follows: Allies Axis 193 (61 kia) 14 (3 kia) 47 captured 1 gun 3 mortars 6 AFVs 59 ok 191 ok 6 pt. 94 pt Axis Total Victory As I recall, the AI spent all of his artillery smoking my AT pillbox and Panther.