Kingfish

Great looking site Wild Bill!

Try these: Suite 101 Zhukov

Just some friendly advice: When soliciting the help of others in this community, it pays to: 1) Be polite 2) Don't post BS topic headers 3) Keeping your request to one thread. Anyway, here is what you are asking for: http://www.cmoutpost.net/lists/cmbo_british/ram-roo.htm Have a nice day

You can't judge LOS from a location until you are actually there. However, you can get a fairly good idea of how far you can see by doing a LOS in identical terrain before you arrive in the chosen location. This distance will be modified because of terrain features, such as dips or hills, but it does give a general idea to work with. When playing scenarios with exit zones, the side which does not need to exit units (in your case the Americans) will be awared bonus points for each German unit that is eligible to exit but is prevented from doing so. The bonus points will equal the value of that unit. So, a 100 point German unit that is suppose to exit, but does not, will give the American player an extra 100 points at games end. Furthermore, German units that are killed will give the American unit a double bonus - one for the kill and another because it didn't exit. What I suspect happended in your second game is that you failed to exit a sufficient number of units, and the bonus thus awarded to the American player exceeded your own points total, thus giving him the vic.

But can you honestly say you control the objective just because your battalion has passed thru the area and left no one to guard it? We are debating two different things here. In your example you have a unit on the objective that is capable of defending itself, and thus the terrain it occupies as well. In the original post Pak40 was referring to a unit that cannot defend itself. So how is this unit able to 'control' the objective? Securing an objective is unnatural and gamey??? :confused:

But that unit is no longer able to control the VL. For it to do so it must have the means in which to deny the enemy (whether 2 meters or 2 miles away) from contesting that control. A vehicle without ammo no longer has the means to do so. Yes, because that one round has a chance (however slim) from denying the enemy control. A vehicle without ammo has no chance at all. It is no more effective than a truck.

IMO, both should be treated the same way. Neither one has any way of defending the VL if it is contested, so why should they be rewarded the VL?

How can a vehicle with no ammo control an objective?

I'm testing Rune's Warsaw uprising scenario, and I have to admit that the map caught me by surprise when I first saw it. There are factories as well as large two story buildings which I presume are equipped with sewers. Therefore, it would appear that Rune has broken with the Boots and Tracks tradition of making crappy, child-like maps, and instead has now adopted the Voxman way of map making.

Thats the computer giving you the option of pulling your isolated tanks back into friendly lines. Think about it. Two of your tanks have advanced beyond the FLOT, and are isolated inside enemy territory. What are their options? Either they can sit tight, or pull back into friendly lines. If they sit tight they cannot move inside their blue buffer zone. If they pull back they can redeploy freely within their lines. Makes sense to me.

Here's a theory: The blue zone is not a setup zone, but instead a boundary that prevents your opponent from setting next to your now isolated tanks. Notice how your tanks are locked into the middle of the blue zone, with plenty of space all around. That space is a buffer zone. Because of it, your opponent cannot set up a dozen tank killer teams all around your tanks as long as the tanks stay in the middle of the blue. If you were allowed to reposition in the blue chances are you would deploy closer to an edge, negating the safety of the buffer zone.

Auto surrender will kick in if one side's global morale is 15% or lower, and the other side is at least 4 times greater. However, no matter how badly one side is being crushed, auto surrender will not kick in if reinforcements are due to arrive. In the AAR screen, does it show a unit that appears to have just arrived?

Pages 152 through 155 will cover the hotkey commands that affect the game in general, such as the shift keys (shift-T for tree coverage, shift-I to display smoke), the Alt keys (Alt-S for save game, Alt-U for surrender) and also the one button commands (Tab to lock view on unit, < or > to rotate viewpoint). Pages 156 through 160 will show the hotkeys that affect the individual units (F-fast, U-hunt, P-pause). This section will show not only the hotkey command, but which units are eligible to use it, and what color line you get for both infantry and vehicles (Move for vehicle is Blue, while for infantry it is Aqua).

WTF, I didn't get a sharpie with my manual???

Oh, you find that funny do you??? Well....ROW III is hereby put on indefinite hold until I get a new processor...and a new monitor (rune fried that as well)...and cable modem...and a new mouse...the one with the little red light...

Something to consider when comparing the vanilla Shermans against the late war Mark IVs, although the Sherman can take out the German tank in all but the longest ranges, it really wasn't designed for head to head engagements with enemy armor. Instead, it was intended to be used as an infantry support / breakthrough tank, while other vehicles specifically designed as tank killers would tackle the likes of the Mark IV / Panther / Tiger. For the Americans, they had the M10 / M18 series tank destroyers. The Commonwealth fielded the Wolverine and Firefly.

Achtung Panzer!

Caught this one at the bottom of page 1.

The LMG is a bipod mounted weapon, while the HMG is mounted on a tripod, a much more stable firing platform. The extra crew members for the HMG are there to help carry the tripod, as well as all the extra ammo. Check out the standard ammo load out for the two guns, you'll see why the extra crews are needed. Like Terrain said, the Flak 88 is a very effective AT gun. Rommel first used it on British tanks at Arras, then to even greater effect on the wide open desert.

You're keeping me busy... 1) What you can do is line the edges of the map with impassable terrain such as water or cliffs. A good example is Jwxspoon's 'Fire on the mountain'. 2) If the exiting units are listed as 'eligible to exit' and either do not exit, or exit off an edge that is not designated as an exit zone, then the opposing player is awared the value of that unit. If the unit is killed then the opposing player is awared a double bonus - one for the kill, and another for preventing the unit from exiting. I suggest you click on my sig and check out the Boots and Tracks times for December. wwb has written a nice article on the finer points of exit scenarios. 3) Not sure 4) Yes you can, but can't think of how off the top of my head. Someone will be along shortly to tell you how. [ December 03, 2002, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

Time to sound off! Please us this thread to freely discuss the scenarios in the Stalingrad Pack. We would like to hear your thoughts on the individual scenarios / ops, the Pack in general, and any questions and suggestions you might have. Also, please include any AARs that you would like to share with us. A few might even find their way into the Boots and Tracks website *******************SPOILER********************** * * * * * * * The following posts in this thread may contain spoiler info on the Stalingrad Pack. Do not read beyond this point if you want to preserve FOW!

None. It is hardcoded as impassable terrain, much like woods and marsh.

You've just guaranteed yourself a game against John Kettler and a Brigade of Katayushas

Just a quick update, 1 scenario completed and ready to go 3 more already designed and in the testing phase We are looking good for the January start. Soon we will begin working on the ROW section of our website. Each ROW will have it's own page, complete with screenshots and AARs. In addition, there will be an intro page which will feature Treeburst's tourney rules and an explanation of the Nabla system and how it works (as only our "never made a mistake in his tourney running life" tourney manager can explain)

I was going to run a few tests of my own, but then the WGAFF factor kicked in, so I decided to just enjoy the game...