PatAWilson

Synchronised Prancing? Don't forget the nose plugs.

I got years of gameplay out of Kampfgruppe. I found a way early on to select forces for both sides and then get the computer to set up and play one side. I did campaigns where I was the Germans and the computer was the Russians. Since the computer tended to do human wave charges it worked out really well, as I generally gave it a 5:1 advantage. "Tanks!" from SSI was another one that I got decent milage out of.

I think move is the easiest, sneak comes next, and crawling is very tiring (try crawling through the woods some time and see for yourself )

Yeah, using Schrecks, bazookas and flamethrowers is somethingthat I haven't gotten the hang of yet. I think I'm way too aggressive with them and I end up getting them killed.

How's this for an AI algorith: Command is to go hull down on a nearby terrain location. AI approaches targeted point in a sort of "Hunt" mode until either the vehicle has LOS of n or more meters or the end of the movement point has been reached. Some slop is factored in based on crew quality. The idea is to keep the algorithm simple. This combines two things that the game already knows about, hunt mode and LOS. What it does not do is ask the AI to make subjective decisions as to the suitability of terrain.

Thanks Bastables. Being a well educated person I think I can handle multiplying by 12 ... umm, how about 3 ... maybe five thousand something or another?

Supertanker: I actually agree with all of your points so I hope that last post didn't come across too badly. About the 10 HTs being knocked out, again, that's possible as long as the opponent allows it to happen. No different than letting a 75mm go unmolested. OTOH if the AI treated the .50 as a target worthy of lots of suppressing fire then it probably shouldn't happen too often.

Kelly's Heroes inaccurate? Damn. Oh well, I'm off to pick up the pieces of my shattered life ...

Apologies if I am repeating common knowledge here, but when you're talking about the Panther you have to remember that for some bizarre reason the "D" model was the early model and the "A" came later. Thus the models used at Kursk would be the "D" models which were the early model which (presumably - when the conversation gets to face hardened plates I start to confess ignorance )would have had the inferior plating.

Some really good points have been raised here. IMHO firing ANY MG from a moving vehicle should usually produce suppressing fire, with direct hits being rare. The point about how seriously the AI takes a .50 cal threat is also an excellent one. If the AI saw them as having AT capability it might be a little quicker to suppress the .50. My experience with .50s is that they are deadly but not invincible. In a recent PBEM my opponent drove his Puma up to my .50 and engaged it. The result was that two of the .50's crew were lost and the rest retreated. Obviously the key to this battle was that the Puma took the .50 seriously and engaged with its main gun (no doubt because it was told to by my opponent). If the AI would do the same automatically we might have fewer complaints about the .50. A little later my .50 recovered and was attacked by a halftrack. It shredded the halftrack and its crew from about 50 yards - IMHO perfectly legit. As for the accuracy of the .50, yeah, Carlos Hathcock took somebody out from 2500 yards but there are two important things to remember: first, his fifty was stationary, sandbagged, and mounted a telescopic sight. The second is that Carlos Hathcock was shooting the gun . If anybody wants a good read pick up "Marine Sniper", what this guy accomplished was unreal.

Two questions: How large was a 6 Pdr round in mm? Anybody got any statistical info on the 6 Pdr?

"Wait till we get our BT-7s in CM2 " I once read a description of the BT-7: Light Soviet tank that was phased out in flames in '41 ...

From Andre: "I think a few (dead) soldiers from WWI would disagree with you on that point... " I'm willing to stand by my point. The casualties brought about in WWI were a combination of limited mobility and 19th century tactics against 20th century weapons. Soldiers attacked en masse shoulder to shoulder - talk about a target rich environment. Once new equipment like tanks started to show up and tactics started to improve (the German's were quite successful for awhile in 1918 with their storm troop tactics) the machine gun could be defeated. My point is this: even in the worst of conditions in any given battle MOST attackers were not shot. I am not saying that machine guns were ineffective; they were the key component of infantry warfare in WWI and WWII. What I am saying is that they were not invincible or all powerful. You shouldn't be surprised if an MG doesn't wipe out a squad.

Hello all: I just started 3 PBEMs so I'm loaded at the moment. Thanks to all that offered and hope to have at it soon.

I'll second the vote for Partisans, although thses might be tough as they would have to have very specialized missions.

About casualties or lack thereof caused by an MG: I have often heard it said that a good machine gunner will pick individual targets and fire short bursts rather than just spray. This was definitely true of the MG42 which had such an awful recoil that it couldn't be controlled for long bursts. Given this firing method it is not improbable that one squad would be decimated while the rest made it over. Deadly as they were MGs did not lay down an impenetrable curtain of lead. First, even "open" ground usually has some minimal bit of cover. Second, if there is some suppressing fire on the MG the MG's accuracy will suffer. Finally, as stated before, even an MG had to be aimed. You couldn't just hold down the trigger. The only problem that I see in the scenario is that the MG should definitely have switched targets once the first squad broke and ran. Since firing on unprotected targets has been modified with 1.03 and I haven't used the patch yet I can't really make any comments based on personal experience. Side note: is barrel heating modeled? I know this sounds awfully nitpicky but it would be pretty damned cool if it was. It would also show one of the key advantages of the MG34 and even more so the MG42.

Also looking for a PBEM, EST. QB, about 1500 pts. Version 1.03. Geier: If you're reading this, Pete and I are on the last turn of our battle. I'll upgrade to v1.30 as soon as we're finished and resend the start of the scenario.

Open question about Stugs: I believe that StuH42s were generally part of a four piece platoon with 3 Stug IIIs and a single StuH42. So if you want to be realistic limit your purchases to one or two. If I'm wrong on this one feel free to correct me. Once again this comes with the caveat that in the German army quite often there was no "correct" or "normal" setup. Whatever was available was used. Almost any mix of troops is feasible. What is generally not feasible is too much of a rare asset (King Tiger, JagdTiger, JagdPanther ...)

The eastern front offers an interesting challenge. At the moment skill and morale are tied together. While this is basically true of western armies IMHO it would be a good idea to split the two for the eastern front. Russian troops would fight and fight hard, but often not very skillfully. Lots of massed charges, etc., trading several Russian lives for a few German lives. Somehow the willingness of the Russian generals to use lives and the willingness of the Russian soldier to accept this should to be modeled. IMHO the reliance on a command structure could be modeled by a generally delayed response time under all circumstances, even worse response time if the unit is out of touch, and severely hampered response if the command unit is wiped out. Therefore if you can get the company commander or, better yet, the battalion commander you would really gum up the works.

TP_Bomber: I am at risk of talking out of my butt here but I'm sure others will be very happy yo correct me if I'm wrong. To make a Firefly they really had to squeeze that 17 Pdr into a Sherman. I don't know what the inside of the tank looked like but it's quite probable that it was very cramped which would lead to a slow reload time. The Panther OTOH was built with its gun in mind so operating it would probably be more efficient.

I generally like to have at least one armored platoon available. Halftracks are great for getting folks to a hot spot in a hurry. just make sure that you have cover.

Well,the defense of CM's killed vs wounded ratio has been successfully completed so I'm not going to beat a dead horse. Awhile back I commented that I thought the casualty figures were actually too high. Most troops tend to quit when they have suffered 30-50% casualties but 80% + casualties are routinely seen in CM. I was told that badly abused units don't recover quite as easily in 1.03. I haven't upgraded due to an in progress PBEM but I'm looking forward to it. Although I disagree with almost everything Dienkes said I am with him on one point: there should be more crew casualties in cases where a tank blows up and burns. Crews routinely escaped from knocked out tanks but not in cases where it blew. In particular the Sherman should be prone to catastrophic destruction. They weren't knicknamed "Tommy Cookers" for nothing.

The Chaffee's 75mm gave it the ability to pop some infantry that just wasn't available in the Stuart. Not a bad thing in a recce tank. The Stuart probably had to bug as soon as it encountered two guys in a building for fear that one of them might have a potato masher.

My $.02: Using the flanks isn't really a big deal. Usually the objectives are fairly centrally located. Usually the flanks are far enough apart such that units on flanks cannot support each other. Usually there is enough cover to preventany real crossfire from flankto flank. If you attack in force up a flank then you have concentrated your attacking troops with no place to manuever. Usually as a defender I will have time to react and redeploy, unless I have non-mobile troops. Now you have limited your ability to manuever and I probably still have a reasoable defense. If you attack down both flanks you no longer have your forces concentrated. Your ability to create strong points of attack has been limited. The right thing to do is to choose the proper attack lane whether its on a flank or central. As the attacker you will generally have superior forces. To succeed you need the ability to apply those forces in as concentrated a manner as possible. Using an edge might be a bit gamey but IMHO in this game it really won't be of much benefit if proper tactics are abandoned in favor of a map edge.

IMHO mixing forces is the toughest one. Almost any mix of German forces is possible since remnant units were often thrown together in Kampfgruppe. Fallschirmjager in 1944 were generally used as line troops and not as paratroopers. Mountain troops (I think) were more often used in their intended role. SS and Wehrmacht were thrown together often enough after their initial organization disintegrated. I believe that Allied organization tended to be, well, more organized. You wouldn't often see tanks with Glider troops with armor or Commonwealth and American combined arms. At the same time I wouldn't mind seeing US paratroopers mixed with some Shermans. The killer for me would be an "uber battle". No fun there. The solution for me is to do select combined arms so some variation is forced. I also wouldn't mind doing a PBEM with computer selected forces.