PatAWilson

QB usually. I'm still trying to work out paper rules for a campaign against the computer, then it might be self made battles.

I was thinking of a linked series of PBEM Quick Battles. There would be either three or four battles in the sequence depending on results. Rules: 1. Combined arms. 2. Time period and terrain selection remains consistant through all battles. 3. "Veteran" is max starting experience level. This does not mean that all troops must be Veteran, just no better than Veteran. 4. This one is critical: Max experience level drops one notch with every lost battle. 5. Player cannot buy armor if his max experience level is "Green" (at this point you have lost two battles and you don't deserve any ). Battle Sequence: 1. Start with a meeting engagement. 2. Player with superior max troop quality is the attacker. 3. If both players have equal troop quality then play another meeting engagement. Victory Conditions: 1. A player loses when his max troop quality is reduced to "Conscript". 2. Battle is a draw if BOTH sides are reduced to "Green" quality. Anyone interested? [This message has been edited by PatAWilson (edited 08-28-2000).]

Stuart here. Cool looking tank.

Panther: Love the lines. Tiger I is a close 2nd.

I played paintball once. I had a blast but I also learned that if it were RL I would be dead (too aggressive, too clever and too stupid). I'm also a terrible shot since I never had much of a chance to practice.

I'm with Grognard Frogman. I use them for recce but I at least try to give them movement orders that allow them a chance at survival.

The real question is: What would Brian Boitano (sp?) do?

My $.02 on Panzer Elite: It's fun in alot of ways but it shares one characteristic with most other games. The missions are more like puzzles than real missions. There are always cleverly laid traps and you are usually faced with overwhelming odds. Usually each mission requires several replays to get it right and you have to play each mission until you win. IMHO real sims allow for failure. Situations are dynamic and the decision is not just how to fight but whether to fight at all. Sometimes you have to retreat and come back the next day. This is rarely modeled and really cannot be modeled in a game with canned missions.

If it has a reasonably dynamic campaign structure I'm all over it. If it's canned missions I don wan no part uf it. I still play Red Baron II because every time you fly anything can happen. Too many games are more like puzzles than simulations. RB shares one thing with CM: good real life decisions (like let's not attack those 6 fighters when there are only two of us) are rewarded and stupidity is often final. Hopefully BoB will be similar.

Jeff: "So when my AT team apparently has no ability at all to defend itself from a man wielding a banana (2 cents to whoever catches the reference first)" How do you defend yourself from a man wielding a raspberry? Can we do pointed sticks next?

Sounds like your opponent picked a KT for the right map. If the KT has a clear field of fire then you're SOL. If the map has dense terrain then you can probably avoid it, concentrate on the other units, and eventually try to take it out with infantry. Only a well orchestrated attack or a TD with a 90mm is going to kill thing.

Lead with your infantry, especially in close terrain and especially x 10 in towns or villages. In RL many a tank was waxed by a faust or bazooka.

Eastern front is where it happened. Besides, I want to try to do an armored assault out of the Pripyet Marshes . BTW Dumbo: The KV-85 had the same 85mm as the T34/85 and the armor really wasn't that much better.

I'm reading the same book and decided to reply, so here it is - what Spook said . IMHO the "Small Solution" would only have made for a lesser eventual defeat at the Bulge and, since fewer troops would have been wasted, a slightly longer war. The political consequences that Hitler was looking for needed a huge victory to happen (IMHO even a huge victory would not have caused the US and Britain to split). The "Small Solution" would not have provided that victory even if it went exactly according to plan. Then you have the Russians ... in Dec of 44 the Russians were going to beat the Germans with or without the western allies. It was only a matter of time.

Remember that visually troops and vehicles are a lot larger than they really are, so unless you have all of the graphics set to actual size then seeing something visually "hit" or "pass through" a target is meaningless. The actual tank is sitting somewhere inside of that big tank graphic.

German mom and American dad, born in Germany but raised in the U.S. - I play either side. In general I prefer to play German but not so much that I don't play Allied. When playing Allied I like the Americans for the variety of equipment and the obvious reason that I'm American. The British make a nice change of pace though. I usually don't play Canadian, French, or Polish but that's mainly because there are only so many hours in a day.

If I had two tanks firing AT rounds at a fairly thin armored vehicle that is returning HE I would hang around too. The odds are all in his favor. That doesn't guarantee a win but IMHO you have to play the odds.

IMHO the odds were never even. The Allies always had numerical superiority. The Allies always had air superiority. The Germans usually had superior armor. Early on the Germans had more experienced and often better trained troops. Later the opposite was true. German tactical doctrine (combined arms, MG as the center of the squad, infiltration tactics, etc.) was better, but you need trained soldiers to carry out a tactical doctrine. There was nothing intrinsically superior about either Allied or German soldiers. It all comes down to training, equipment, experience and numbers. Each side had its advantages and disadvantages and these advantages/disadvantages could change or even invert in any given situation. The Allies had more advantages more often so they won. Talk about performance under "even" conditions is IMHO fallacious - "even" conditions never existed. Personally, I want all of the advantages I can get my grubby little paws on .

The only reason I would ever think about using a Nashorn is in a defensive situation where I had decent LOS. If you set it up in some trees hopefully you would be able to either kill something or force the Allied armor under cover. At very long ranges you might get better results not only in terms of penetrating power but also in terms of accuracy. Having said that it does need LOS, otherwise it's useless. In RL the Germans did use them and in the account that I read of a Nashorn at Villers Bocage it seemed to be used pretty much like a regular tank, ie. in a very offensive minded counterattacking role. Probably not an ideal situation but one does what one can with what one has.

One thing that I have noticed is that most of the included scenarios are harder to play as German. If you are having an easy time of it playing Allied try switching sides. As mentioned it is also more challenging to up the AIs unit count (I usually use +30%).

Going from memory here, but here it goes anyway: The gun looked like a 75mm AT. Did they also have a 20mm? At least one HMG too. IMHO the troop quality of the Germans should probably be "regular" or a cut below. The static defense troops were not the best in the German army.

Everything that I have ever seen CM do makes sense. If I charge with proper suppression, I get results. If I charge without it I get slaughtered. I have seen the same rules applied to the AI. Yesterday I was playing one of the scenarios. After stopping the AI attack cold I ordered an infantry charge to counterattack, thinking that I had all of the right ingredients in place for a success. I got chopped up. That's why I like this game, doing the right things usually produces the right results but there is always a change that it'll throw you a curve.

If the vehicles are bogged in try reversing, it works for me 9 times in 10. If they're immobilised then your SOL.

One of my favorite,if not my #1 war movie. Note that this title did not appear in the "Worst War Movies" thread. BTW Steiner, there's a Private Dietz on this board too. Now what's the name of the corporal who used the Russian equipment and wouldn't bathe? "Dirt and my natural body oils combine to make me waterproof".

In Kampfgruppe, for all of the AI's stupidity at times, it was amazing how fast arty got called in on an 88 battery. The interesting thing is that the Kampfgruppe "give order, calculate delay, move and fire" sequence is extremely imilar to CM in the sense that you could plot waypoints and the units woud just keep moving. Pretty good stuff for its time.