Talenn

Fionn: Would you mind taking a look at a couple of test Scens I have set up? They are tiny, but I think they illustrate the point quite well. When the MGs are DIRECTLY charged, they perform adequately, but they cant interdict lateral movement worth a darn. I'd be very curious how you could stop the platoons with even 3 MGs. Like I said earlier, maybe there is some 'trick' to using the MGs in CM that I've missed. I certainly havent ruled out that possibility. If you can consistently gets results that I'm not getting, using the same conditions, then I'd just like to be let 'in the know' how to use them in the game. ; ) John Kettler: Someone tacked on a rather large picture to their post and that is prolly what is screwing you up. I dont know if they can edit the post and remove it or not. Talenn

Zamo: For every picture like that, I can post one that has the Ami's overrunning the poor little Germans too ; ) Plus, the Pillboxes seem remarkably effective and I have no question for them. Its the Regular Hvy MGs that dont seem to perform. Fionn: Yes, at the longer ranges, sniping at squads here and there, the MGs DO perform fine. I've never meant to imply otherwise. But when you are trying to prevent enemy movements between cover positions a few hundred meters away, they DONT stop (or even slow) them and dont inflict meaningful casualties. I'm not a moron, nor are my other players. We KNOW how to set up a defense using MGs. One of our players is Ex-Marine and he also commented on how easy it appears for troops to walk through MG fire unscathed. Further, I would wager that your opponent is taking those casualties because he IS advancing slowly in Recon Mode. If he was RUNNING, I'd wager most of his troops would be intact. THAT is my issue. Doing the 'proper' tactic gets you killed, but carelessly RUNNING in front of MG fire tends to work. This stems from the RoF issue AGAIN. As long as he slowly crawls and scrapes from position to position, he is going to get waxxed as the number of bursts that are fired add up over time and the effects of each burst seem about right. If he had just RUN though your fire, he'd most like have had to endure FAR fewer bursts and attained whatever objective he had tried for. The penalties for 'moving in the open' are far less than the penalties for 'crawling and taking tons of fire'. Talenn

IntelWeenie: Jarmo is correct-I just tried it. As soon as the MG had a better target, it shifted fire to it and ceased the area fire. The RoF was the same as before: occasional bursts, approx 3-4/minute. dalem and others about crossfires etc: It really doesnt make much difference in the game. I've tried placing MGs on both sides; front and side; with Infantry support; etc. It does NOTHING to increase the RoF or the effectiveness of the MG fire. Sure, when you put a platoon of infantry (German) with MGs and put other MGs on the other flank, they can USUALLY (not always) prevent the 'd#ck in hand' move across the open. BUT then you are talking almost numerically equivalent forces. It should NOT be necessary to have Platoon AND 3 MGs to stop 2 Platoons from moving in the open. And they dont even stop them in every case. And this is with NO cover fire, NO smoke, NO additional targets anywhere on the battlefield. In actual 'game' conditions, you DO need about numerical parity in order to succeed. This is just not right, IMO. If it was, the Russians WOULD have just swept the Germans back everywhere they attacked with nothing but Infantry. Personally, I think people are trying to read too much into the coding. I'm not trying to bash the game, or the code, but does it REALLY increase anything to have MGs near other units (other than command unit, of course)? Are there REALLY added benefits to crossfires other than simply the additional numbers of units shooting? I HAVE seen some of the effects of the 'grazing fire' in many of the tests, though. So I suppose there are some effects of proper crossfires, but certainly not to the degree to which people here seem to think. I think what people are seeing is the effects of more shooters, not that the effectiveness of any of them is enhanced by the presence of their comrades. As a further experiment, we played a regular QB (attack) with a regular map/objectives etc. The defender (German) selected a balanced force of Platoons/support/arty etc. The attacker (US) selected hordes of infantry with some arty and support (but mainly just a pile of grunts). All troops were Regular. Result: The Germans were powerless to stop the assault. Their positions were infiltrated and overrun in a tide of infantry. Sure, the Amis DID take casualties, in some cases, fairly high, but the Germans were soundly defeated. The Germans were deployed in Platoon and Company lines, with MGs back a bit and covering the same zones as the platoons they were supporting. The Amis used essentially Human Wave and boiled up through the terrain, across the open and into the German positions. It wasnt a 'close' call for the Amis either. Even though the losses were mounting at times, it was clear that the Germans would never stop them. At the end, the Germans ended up losing as many troops all told, most of which were Captured when their positions were overrun. Note that the sides were 'point balanced' and the Ami force, while infantry heavy, was not 'abusive'. The Germans were outnumbered by a reasonable margin, but the MGs did little or nothing to help stem the tide. It was the SQUADS who contributed the most (albeit with an inherent LMG). The HMGs were minor factors in an engagement that SHOULD have shown them off..ie men moving in the open in their fields of fire. They were supported/dug-in/interlocked and not under TOO much return fire. What else can they ask for? To be fair, a few Tanks or guns go a long way to stopping an infantry 'banzai', but this does nothing to make me think that the MGs are performing properly. An Infantry company, properly dug in, with decent LoF and proper MG support should have NO problems in stopping an Infantry charge across the open. Currently, its a good possibility that they will, indeed, not only fail, but be overrun in the process. Doug Beman: The questions dont sound accusatory, dont worry. ; ) They DO help to illustrate my point though. Tactics like the platoon advance by squad, with the others for cover developed because it WAS suicidal to send the whole platoon moving together in the open with no cover fire. Normally, 2 squads overwatch while one maneuvers etc. This is exactly the way I played CM the first few times and it works well...but its not necessary. A few times, one of us would surprise the other player with a hidden MG or with a platoon tucked in a treeline and catch an enemy platoon moving all together in the open. The results were VERY disappointing, hence the reason for the 'clinical' test in the first place. The 'historical' tactics for advance are often NOT necessary in CM. Try it yourself. Instead of the 'proper' advance by squad, simply pick up the whole mess and order a 'move fast' command. I think you will be surprised how easy it is to move in this way. Ok, so after all that, its pretty much a request for the same thing: a situational increase in MG RoF..either player controlled and limited to certain ranges/targets or TacAI controlled with it weighting the fire for men moving in the open and/or closing on the MG. Talenn [This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 07-05-2000).]

CommanderC: Some good thoughts, but I made sure to give the MGs a decent Platoon leader who kept all three in CC radius. All three MGs are fairly close together, not isolated. Even in games where I have a whole platoon line arrayed with MGs in support, the enemy can still often move through the MGs designated field with little trouble. Also, please note that the reason the 'clinical' test was set up in the first place was because I, and others I play with, were puzzled by the MG's lack of interdiction ability in the actual games we were playing. They were regular scenarios, using balanced forces etc., and still, the MGs failed to perform the role that I believe they should firmly be used for. No, its not a gamestopper, but I think its something that a few minor tweaks could easily handle, without making MGs the 'wonder weapon' that it is in some other games. :USERNAME: I wouldnt go so far as to say that Infantry firepower in general is flawed in the game. Most of the time, it feels about right IMO. I do agree that the vast preponderance of a force should be providing cover fire for a small maneuver element, and absent that cover, casualties should be high. Thats my reason for the 'issue' with the MGs. I see men moving forward by Platoon with NO cover fire, into MG firelanes and not being signifcantly affected. I seriously question that modeling in this case. Like you said, MGs were set up to 'cover' certain Zones because they proved effective at preventing any significant enemy movement while the MG remained unsuppressed. In the current CM model, this is not present at all, and the tactic of using MGs for outer cover zones leads to quick envelopment and destruction in the games I have played. I truly feel after this whole thread that the MG 'problem' I'm seeing is due to the low number of bursts being fired/minute. Some sort of variable RoF would go MILES down the road to making MGs feel like the interdiction weapons they were used for historically. Anyone from BTS think it could be worth a shot? Thanx again...man I love this forum! Good replies, and devoid of the 'flames' commonly seen elsewhere! Talenn [This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 07-05-2000).]

Doug Beman: Well, I guess we disagree on the concept of 'seriously screwed up' ; ) To me, taking the ground I want, after moving across the enemy's planned fields of fire with only half a dozen casualties out of 80 men is a godsend. I would have NO problems doing that again and again. There usually arent THAT many unpleasant areas of open ground to have to cover. I guess part of this is my predisposition to play the Reds in any game I can. If I've taken less than 50% casualties, everything is just peachy! ; ) I definately subscribe to the 'If you want to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs' theory. : ) And why WOULDNT the Leaders be going if the whole platoon was charging? I see no reason to ever leave them back so, I consider this the norm. Do most folks not send their leaders along on an advance? I guess I ALSO subcribe to the 'Lead from the Front' theory as well. ; ) Seanachai: Yes, there is a fine line between realistic and overkill. I know that. I would at LEAST like to see 3 HEAVY MGs give pause to two platoons of REGULAR Infantry more than 25% of the time. The casualties are light, and the progress is largely unimpeded the majority of the time. This is what I would expect from one or perhaps two MGs, but THREE covering the same area should be a perceived death trap that troops arent so willing to adventure through. I definately think that the test you propose is more realistic in some cases, but the fact remains that MGs were OFTEN deployed to 'anchor' a defensive position and interdict units from moving. Look at the way the Germans cleared blocks in Stalingrad: They would isolate a block (or building) by covering the accesses with MG fire, then advance down and clear the isolated troops. I dont see how this type of assault can be modeled when the MGs can't ISOLATE anything. The enemy can blithely walk/run through the MG fire and reinforce the center with relative impunity. And THAT is where the flaw lies IMO. I think that the actual effects the MGs have is prolly not too far off, but the PSYCHOLOGICAL effect is wrong. People dont WANT to walk into the MG fire. Its more of a 'bark is worse than the bite' type of a situation, I guess. If the troops DID brave the fire, the results werent often too catastrophic, but in CM, the troops seem a little TOO eager to continue on in the face of massed MG fire. I think the solution IMO, would be the 'rock and roll' option for the MGs. An alternate would be a bigger morale hit for MOVING while under MG fire. Either one would probably clear up the issue to my mind. Question is, would such a change screw up something else somewhere along the line? Thanx, Talenn

Ok, some further test results: I moved the MG's back to about 300-400m...more than that and they often didnt even see the men running until they were half-way across. I then situated the 3 MGs (MG42, Hvy) in buildings on a hill for one test, and on level ground for another. Note that at these ranges, it is not possible to even try to use the 'Ambush' command to direct the fire. The 'targets' were 2 platoons of Ami's, (Regulars, like the MGs). They started in Buildings and had 100-110m of open ground to cover before the next terrain. Their orders were alternated in the tests between Move and Move fast. All were sent simultaneously so there was no cover fire. Results: 10 out of 15 times: All Squads except one made it across in the first 1-2 Turns...usual losses were a total of 3-5 men. 1 out of 15 times: All squads across in first turn, 5 Casualties. 2 out of 15 times: 3-4 Squads make it across in first 1-2 turns; remaining ones Broken or pinned...total casualties 6&8 1 out of 15 times: Only command group makes it across in first 2 turns. All other squads retreated to start positions with 4 casualties inflicted 1 out of 15 times: 3 Squads and PL make it across with 1 loss, other 3 and PL are retreated to start line with 4 losses. From these results it appears that, in general, the MGs are COMPLETELY ineffective at interdicting movement. When the infantry 'Moved' they were less likely to make it in the first few turns. When they 'ran', the vast majority of time they arrived in combat shape, with minimal losses. In only one out of 15 tests were the Amis even delayed by a turn or two. In the majority of the runs, the MGs were barely even a factor. The Amis would have made it in the same amount of time with or without walking into the fire lanes of 3 HEAVY MG42s. Is this REALLY correct? I just have a hard time swallowing that, I guess. After watching it THAT many time, I can see some of the issues as to why it happens. Like you said, there is no ability for the MGs to fire 'sustained' bursts or to step up the RoF in any way. In general, the individual bursts were reasonably effective, but they occured far too infrequently. The average number of bursts fired was 3-4/MG. Thats only 3-4 Bursts/minute. That seems a bit low to me, and that might indeed be the culprit. Perhaps MGs should have a variable RoF? I realize that could cause a 'command' nightmare, so let the TacAI control it, but weight the usage so that it occurs at the 'optimal' MG ranges and/or if the MG position is threatened (perhaps if enemy infantry close to a certain range?). If the number of bursts increased to two or three times the current, the MGs would be quite effective in the Interdiction role. I think this is what is missing: the number of shots taken in a given turn. Note that this shouldnt be taken as a general request for an increase in MG RoF. For long range targets and 'area fire' etc, the regulated bursts seem appropriate. For covering a field of fire during enemy movements, the longer sustained firings would be more appropriate. Any thoughts on something like this? Possible? Desirable? Thanx, Talenn

Steve@BTS: Good point about the Range. Yes, I am pretty sure that optimal MG range is a bit farther out due to traverse and adjustment ability. I'll re-test at 400-500m as an exercise. The current test, however, is barely generating casualties, and CERTAINLY not along the lines of 50%. Note that this is NOT a 'rush the MG' test, but an INTERDICTION test. The troops are running THROUGH the MG fire Zones. Picture it as a 'T' with the MGs at base and the squads running from one side the the top line to the other..ie crossing the line of fire. If I was getting the results you describe, I would call that adequate given the limitations we are working with. Hopefully the 400-500m test will generate more substantial results. One thing here though: The 'Firepower' ratings should reflect the fact that MGs are optimized for a bit farther out if that turns out to be the case. The other misunderstanding seems to be in what results I am expecting. I do NOT expect them to singlehandedly stop the assault. It would, however, be nice if they delayed it by even a turn or two, which also fails to happen in the current test. Most of the squads simply move unimpeded, occasionally losing a man or two. Different, but related issue: Are there some sort of 'squad cohesion' rules in CM yet? By this, I mean that when a squad suffers 'x'% casualties, it should not be available for offensive actions. Often, I use, and see used, 'squads' of 2-3 men (out of 9-12) in late turn assaults. I would think that once half or more of the squad is killed (or combat ineffective), that the remainder would not be really interested in continuing the fight with the same gusto. This could also go a ways to penalizing the moving in the open, accepting the casualties with little long term effects. If a 12 man squad become useless for offensive operations once 6-7 or popped, it might give people more pause before charging headlong across the open plains ; ) I'll post tomorrow with the altered test results. FWIW, I dont place 100% stock in static test results, but it should at least generate 'ball park' results. It will vary on either side in actual games, but the results of the 100-200m MG Dash (a new Olympic sport!) cant be less effective in the game as the MGs really didnt accomplish all that much. Talenn

Steve@ BTS: Dont worry, all points are taken as intended. I agree with most of what you say in theory, but I guess I'm not seeing that theory match the reality in the game. I didnt mean to imply that they have been totally ineffective in all situations, only that they dont have what I consider to be near the proper results in IDEAL situations. FWIW, do you have an address to which I can upload my test Scen? I would be curious what type of results you can get (which may indeed mean that I am doing something incorrectly). I would just like you to see, firsthand, what type of results are common in a set test where the conditions should be HEAVILY in favor of the MGs. Even under ideal conditions, 3 MGs are proving to be inadequate to stop 6 Squads (not divided into team, and going with their PLs) from moving in the open while only 95-150m from the MG's (who are situated in buildings perpendicular to the route of advance). I have tested it numerous times and its VERY rare for the MGs to succeed. I would have expected just the opposite to be true. I know MGs arent effective ALL the time, but I have yet to see them work in this optimized test. I am not using 'Ambush Points' as they are harder to use in the game during a general advance due to the need for HQs. Also, IMO, the function of the MG is to independantly 'cover' certain areas and the 'Ambush points' seem to restrict them to a specific patch of ground rather than a certain 'field of fire'. I dont wanna make it seem like I'm being belligerant as that is NOT my intention at all. I am just completely vexed as to how that many people could have tested the game and not seen that a 'human wave' style attack is at least a viable tactic in the face of overlapping MGs. I dont see anything obvious that I could be missing, but I certainly dont rule out the possibility. Thats why I'd like to upload the Scen to you and compare notes. Thanx Talenn

BTS: OK, I'm glad I was finally able to make my point clearer! ; ) I guess what makes it so frustrating is the way the Ops are handled, apparently by how far the enemy has managed to advance a few men. I played the Stohlberg Line Op, and time and again, in the last few turns of the game, the enemy would simply throw its guys forward in a mad dash to take terrain. No amount of return fire is stopping these guy...they just move on like the Terminator or something. I had interlocking MGs and a few Squads interlaced (some of which WERE being pinned by fire, to be sure), but an MG here and there who werent under fire couldnt even so much as slow the enemy squads...end result, they take the terrain they wanted, and I get kicked back out of nice defensive terrain due to the MG's lack of ability to pin anyone. The same occurs in regular scens when the enemy wants to take VP locations. There is no way to stop them cold. They always seem to advance and at least get partial squads through which is often enough to 'contest' the VP locations. Even WITHOUT worrying about VP loss or whatnot, it should be possible to deny the enemy access to terrain when they have to move across the open. I guess count my vote for a LARGE morale hit when moving troops are subjected to automatic weapons fire. If they go to ground quickly, the TacAI can then switch to the next moving (exposed) Squad, put them down, move on to the next, etc until the units are all pinned (at least temporarily). From there, the attackers can try and pick themselves up, return fire and attempt forward movement again. But I LEAST would like to see an advance be halted when the MGs open up. Its not real likely that men would continue to walk forward, even if its NOT directly targeted on them. Once on the ground, with the situation made more clear (and perhaps with a bit of 'urging') they can pick up and go. Regarding WWI vs WWII, I agree completely. My comment concerning WWI was simply because that what appears to be happening in the game. The men simply stand and walk forward into MG fire, only in this case, it tends to work ; ) I know that WWII Infantry tactics were miles ahead of those employed in WWI (for most participants anyways). In fact, the Germans felt the MG was so important that they essentially made the entire squad simply a support mechanism for the central MG. I would just like to see a bit more reason for them to have wanted to do such a thing ; ) Thanx again! Talenn

BTS et al: You are absolutely right on the body count from MGs. I have no problem with that. But they seem to lack the ability to make men 'go to ground' as well. Thats where I think the problem really is. Its simply not possible to interdict movement across open ground with any degree of certainty. Not at all. This is the MGs primary role: not racking up an impressive body count, but preventing unrestricted movement. Yet, time and again, I find that enemy troops can easily move across MG lines of fire with minimal casualties. Perhaps MGs (or significant firepower from automatic weapons in general) should weight more heavily for morale purposes? I dont know many guys who want to advance across the open under MG fire. Once the first few bursts hit, the platoon should go to ground, identify the MG position, begin to return fire, and then commence a cautious advance. As it is currently modeled, they simply continue to walk to their appointed objectives. Often, they are barely even 'Cautious' or 'Alerted'. I just feel that the MGs are not able to be used in their proper role of area denial. Note that most of this is even MORE true for the US MGs. I have found the M1919 and the .50cal to be quite ineffective at interdiction. The German MG42 Hvy has more success, but still cant deny movement to a platoon advancing a mere 150m in front of it. In short, its not the casualties that seem off base. Its the lack of pinning ability that I see missing. In extreme cases of 'game cheese', it makes FAR more sense to split your squads into teams, making 6 targets instead of 3 for a platoon. In this case, even 3 MGs covering an area are insufficient to prevent (or even impede) movement. That just strikes me as completely contrary to what I have read and seen elsewhere. As an example, I have a quick test scenario set up. If anyone wants to see it, let me know, although its quite easy to replicate in a short time with the editor. For me, it was a real eye-opener to see that 3 MGs in buildings couldnt delay the advance of 6 Squads across the open for even a SINGLE turn. This is at ranges of 95-150m and with no terrain, weather, cover fire, NOTHING to benefit the squads. I cant believe that this can be an accurate model of MGs effectiveness. Perhaps it is, but then I dont see why it could possibly be the useful tool that it historically was/is. Thanx for your time and responses. Its good to see intelligent debate on this forum as opposed to some of the mindless drivel I've witnessed on OTHER Tactical Infantry combat game's forums! ; ) Talenn

aaronb: Ok, but keep this in mind. The concrete Bunker at least (not sure on the Wooden ones) have THREE MG! That means your example has 5(!) MGs vs the infantry....they had BETTER stop the advance ; ) Now try that same example (without any mortar cover fire) with 2 or 3 M1919's and/or .50cals. Better still, set up a field of fire between 2 lines of woods or buildings maybe 100-150m apart. Now run a platoon or two through that field with MGs trying to interdict that movement (ie, without the squads directly moving towards the MGs, but perpendicular to them). I have run this a few time and in the vast majority of them, the enemy covers the open ground with minimal casualties in a few turns. Only vs GREEN troops was I actually able to hold up the advance at all, and even then they eventually made it with acceptable losses. From my readings of many WWII accounts on the Western Front, an MG or two would often stall an entire column if properly sighted. There was simply no way to dislodge them without a deliberate attack (or AFV/Arty support). Simply running into their fields of fire was a death sentence. That same ability is NOT present to any real degree in CM. Troops easily 'suck it up' and close with the gun, and then overwhelm it. That just doesnt dovetail with the accounts that I've read concerning MGs in WWII. Talenn

s bakkar/Doug Beman: Yep, no problems here with that line of logic. If the MGs simply PREVENTED (or at least greatly restricted) the forward movement, I could easily see the low casualty count. Once troops go to ground, its difficult to cause mass casualties with direct fire. s bakkar hit it exactly on the head what does NOT seem to happen in the game. I want the MGs to pin the enemy down in the open where there is no cover, but unfortunately, the enemy can more often than not, continue the advance and GET to cover with minimal casualties. There should be a choice for the squad to make...1)Hit the deck and stay there: less casualties but little or no movement or 2)Make the mad dash for the cover, but accept near catastrophic casualties if the MGs are properly sited. Talenn

Manx, Thanx for the input. I understand that its not really supposed to be open flat ground everywhere. In fact, since Infantry smoke etc is not modeled, I even assume that some units are using that as well. I also assume that the visual 'd#ck in hand and walk forward' image shown graphically, is actually representing the men rushing forward by teams and using squad level tactics as well. But, that doesnt change the fact that it still seems far too easy for unsupported squads to advance into MG fire. Most open ground areas might not be 'pool table flat', but I would think that the Open tiles dont represent 'the Nam' either ; ). Also, how is the player supposed to know the difference when setting up a defense? Some places would be better suited for MG fire than others, but if it all looks the same, how can you position your MGs effectively? A certain degree of abstraction is necessary, there is no doubt. But when that abstraction begins to heavily cut into real-world modeling, something has to give. MGs HAVE to be able to cover 'open' ground or else their role in a defense is compromised. I dont see how the current model will function on the East Front, as the Reds will just walk OVER the poor Germans and their MGs ; ). I would just like to see MANY more instances of troops subjected to MG fire while on the move actually hitting the dirt and HUGGING it, not continuing onward unphased. Thanks again for your reply and for pointing out BTSs take on it. Talenn

Ok, I've had the game for a week now, and have been playing it pretty non-stop, both against the AI, and vs some local opponents in FtF. Before that, I had been playing the Demo for some time. One thing I'm beginning to question is the game's modeling of MG effectiveness (or lack thereof). No, I dont mean MG's firing at Buildings/Vehicles/Crawling Squads etc, but at men moving blithely in view, in the open, at ranges of 100-200m. Quite frankly, troops that do that should be BUTCHERED if a few hidden MGs open up. Unfortunately, while a few men may die here and there, they can often move through the fire and into terrain that is sometimes 50-100m from the point of first fire. I dont exactly how the 'firepower' formula works, but it certainly doesnt seem to carry over from unit to unit in an area as well as might be expected from MGs. The MGs can only target 1 enemy at a time, so if 3 Squads (or even Teams) are sent to 'banzai' across an area covered by an MG or 2, inevitably, one or more squads get across more or less intact. I have witnessed this on countless occasions. WWI proved that charging unsuppressed MGs is NOT a good idea, yet it seems to have a frighteningly high chance of success in CM. I am aware that many other games grossly overstate MG effectiveness, but IMO, men moving in the Open who are fired upon by MGs should either instantly go to ground or be cut down fairly quickly. They certainly should not be able to continue on to a destination far ahead as often as I have seen. Please note that none of this a intended as a 'bash' against CM, as I think it is by far the best thing going. I only want to elicit other's opinions on this matter. If others are experiencing the same things, then perhaps a change is in order. If not, well, perhaps someone could explain exactly what is being modeled when MGs open up on moving troops in the open and fail to prevent their advance. Is there some 'abstraction' going on or somesuch? Thanx for your time! Talenn

Wolfe: I would wager that with that much Arty, you could have accomplished the same effects WITHOUT TRPs. Perhaps it would have been a little later in the game by a turn or 2, but with the points you spent on 8 TRP's (240), you could have added more Arty anyways. I still dont see this as a problem for TRPS as the attacker. Massed arty is GOING to slaughter any one particular point of the map...period. Just out of curiousity, how big was the map that you had THAT many points on, anyway? ; ) I would think that 3400 points would need to be played out on a VERY large map, and IMO, this alone should dilute the firepower of the Arty. If the defenders have only a few objectives to guard, then sure they are going to get plastered, but IMO, they should have a nice set of SPREAD out objectives for forces of that size. Still, you do bring up some interesting points on the higher point battles and Arty effectiveness. I still dont think it really has much to do with TRPs for the attacker though. They get them in 'canned' Scens, and no one seems the worse for wear. I just dont see it as something to disrupt game balance if Arty itself is actually balanced (and it appears to be, provided the battlefiled is large enought per tube). Thanx for the input! Talenn

"OTOH, TRPs are quite cheap--a mere 30 points. So maybe they'd unbalance a DYO?" Possible, I suppose, but doubtful. If so, then the other work-around of having them in the 'Support' Category with an increased cost seems to be good a solution. To me it just looks like a slight oversight, not a balance issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but if not, its just something I'd like to see for a future patch if possible. Thanx, Talenn

Pillar: I'm not 100% sure, but from what I've read there is some sort of formula used to derive point costs. However there is no guarantee that any such formula can be completely accurate. After all, how do you compare Tigers to MG Jeeps. It doesnt matter how many Jeeps you have, the Tiger will always win (this isnt Op Art, you know ; ). Given that, it is nearly impossible to have a formula which can work in any situation. There has to be a certain degree of 'fudge factor' in determining costs that is based on ACTUAL game effectiveness. For examples, see the threads on the Puppchen and the MG Carriers. Both are surprisingly cheap because, overall, their effectiveness is slight, but in a certain ROLE, their effectiveness FAR outweighs the piddling costs. In that vein, I think that if a certain unit is 'not really worth buying' in the predominant number of game situations, the point cost should be 'fudged' up or down to compensate. Having designed a fair number of games and game systems over the years, I've come to rely quite heavily on adjusted 'fudge' factor numbers. Perhaps BTS already does this to a degree. I wouldnt doubt it as it's often a clean and simple fix for a lot of scenario balance issues. In this case, maybe the Rockets are just another item in need of a slight cost tweak. Thanx, Talenn

Bullethead: Yes, I mean in the Quick Battle DYO type games. In those, it restricts you to certain numbers of points in certain categories. There are no attacker points in Fortifications. In the EDITOR, you can pick and choose what you want without restriction, but every now and then, its fun to just mess with the Quick Battles, especially when playing 'hotseat' with limited time. Thanx, Talenn

Pillar & TeAcH: I think everyone wants them modeled as realistically as possible. I dont think thats an issue. But the 'point cost' should match the effectiveness. If they have crappy accuracy and limited ammo, make em cheap to buy in 'scenario points'. For me, I just use em in premade Scens where I'm not concerned about exact point values. Their usefulness is dubious, but there is nothing to lose if you arent needing to 'mini-max' every purchase point. Thanx, Talenn

Is there any chance that they can be moved in the 'purchase' category? I ask because the attacker is never allowed to purchase fortifications. IMO, the attacker should be allow to have certain 'pre-registered' locations for his Arty as well. I think this would probably almost be a necessity for any East Front Scens anyways...ie CM2. As someone who plays the Red Army in most games where they are available, I feel sorta lost unless I can 'pre-plan' my Artillery ; ) I like the ability for an attack to preselect certain hills and woodlines as priority targets. Maybe put them in BOTH 'purchase' locations and have them cost a little more in the 'Support' category? (40?). Any thoughts on this? Thanx, Talenn

As someone else pointed out in another thread, chances are you got 'air support' which never actually entered during the Scen (assuming it lasted long enough ; ) Talenn

Commisar: It was Robert Redford ; ) "...What? You cant stop...not now...Those are BRITISH Troops dying at Arnhem...and you're just gonna stop?...and drink TEA!?!?!" Great Scene, Great Movie. Talenn

So from everything here, I'd wager that most folks are in favor of increasing the point cost of the the gadget, yes? To me, that seems like a fair solution to the problem unless something is discovered in the coding that is making these things more effective than they should be (ie..bug fix). I just got my copy of CM yesterday (love it!), and I'm relatively new to the CM community so I dont know how responsive BTS is to such issues. Anyone else? Thanx, Talenn

I dont have the full version yet (still waiting... ; ), so I have a quick question: Is there any form of 'rarity' restriction on purchases in CM? I know CC had it and it was integral to ASL DYOs as well. I cant see how you can really allow player purchases for a competitive game without something like that in place. Its just begging for people to purchase 'cheeseball' forces and to throw TO&E out the window. Maybe an add-on will add 'historical restrictions' to force purchasing? Thanx, Talenn

Hi all, re Shogun: I bought it the day it came out and I really had alot of fun with it for a few days. After that, it paled quickly and was promptly returned to the store. There just really isnt any depth to the strategic game at all. Its only Single-player, and the AI seems to BLATANTLY cheat so badly so as to make it seem pointless. Its not impossible to win, mind you, it just seems silly that the ridiculous kill ratios you get vs the AI are not a reward, but a necessity in order to compete. All is not doom and gloom for the game, however. The tactical battles are alot of fun at the beginning. The troops look impressive, and the panoramic views are gorgeous to look at. IMO, they could really benefit from some objective flags to invalidate some gamey tactics (hiding units in obscure locations, scattering units and keeping on the run until time runs out, etc.). These gamey tactics keep the game from being much fun when played online. If you get the right opponent, its really fun, but far too many people are 'win at any cost' and are willing to reduce the game to 'hide and go seek'. I was also hoping for a bit more from the strategic level of the game. I had visions of the Diplomacy models in MOO/MOO2 etc. Instead, your Diplomatic Options seem limited to 'Offer Alliance'...Even that seems to not be worth the rice paper its printed on. Very shallow... Anyone who read the James Clavell novel SHOGUN would think that there would be intrigue and political maneuvering galore in a game modeling that period. Well, its just not present in any form in the game. Sure, you can send 'Spies' to determine troop strengths, and Ninja to assasinate enemy Generals etc, but the overall effect is lacking. Its really just a glorified battle generator for the tactical game IMO. All in all, if you want a very simple 'Risk on Steroids' set in Feudal Japan, with very pretty battle, you'll like Shogun. If you are looking for any long-term depth in your games, I'd leave this one alone. It comes out of the starting gate very strong, but finishes up amongst the back of the pack. Talenn