IntelWeenie

I'm somewhat suprised no one has mentioned my favorite tactic. Defend from within the building far enough back that your squads only have LOS to the front 1/2 of the building or slightly outside of it. This way, as the enemy approaches, he will not be able to spot or target you until he gets really close or enters the building when you can put the whammy on him with all those SMGs (that are useless past 100m). Of course, this works best when your squads are armed with lots of close-range firepower like SMGs, etc. since it maximizes their firepower at close range. (Edit for spelling) [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 01-23-2001).]

Including it would enhance the realism, but the question would be how to include it. Naturally, since the fron't line commanders had no control, it should not be something controlled by the user. Would it be purchaseable and funtion something like fighter-bombers? (buy them and HOPE they show up and bomb the right people) Could counterbattery fire be reflected in loss or hinderance of OBA?? Just some random thoughts.

Interesting idea, but I have no idea if it passes the cost/benefit test. There have been times when I thought a setting like this would come in handy, usually related to tanks firing at non-threatening (to the tank) infantry or units shooting small arms halfway across the map at some Infantry? target when I would rather them save ammo. When I read the title of the thread my first thought was a commander setting like in the old Broderbund "Sun Tzu's Ancient Art of War" game. (Was it just me, or was "Crazy Ivan" always the most fun to play against? )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: How a rocket propelled guided missile evolved from a rifled cased-propellant free-flight gun is one of the mysterys of all time. Panzerfausts are kind of recoiless non-rifled disposable weapon systems. But panzerfausts are not descendants of flare guns. Mortars are also not derived from submarines or landmines. They are not related to starfish either and have no likeness to battleships. Lewis PS They are mostly dropped from major armies that might concievably fight a real war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee, by that reasoning, modern rifles did not evolve from muskets, either. Maybe you should READ people's posts and TRY to THINK about what they are saying BEFORE you open you mouth and make an ass of yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: So why even bother with choosing dates for a QB? Why not just have the option of buying ANY unit? Seems that there is some "historical" constraints on QBs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I said, to produce at least somewhat beleiveable force structures, not ones with all Pumas and KTs. (or Jumbos, T8s and Crocodiles, if you prefer.) Allow me to restate my position: I see QBs are for relatively even play, such as for ladder or tourney play. BTS set up the purchase options to try and disallow totally unrealistic force compositions. A seconday use of QBs are for "fun" play when you just want to blow stuff up and romp on someone (or the AI) . If you want truly historical play, I see no alternative to making a (properly researched) battle in the editor.

One of the problems with using arty to clear mines is that the concussion is what actually detonates the mines, but most battlefield arty is not very good at producing this concussive effect. Lots of shells will dig into the ground before exploding, VT fuses set off the shell too high (for concussion to set off mines), shells designed to produce shrapnel, not concussion, etc. The only exception I am aware of where an artillery system was designed specifically to clear mines would be the "hedgehog" rockets. They were heavy rockets launched from modified landing craft and had special fuse extensions to ensure the warhead would detonate at a certain height above ground (about 1 foot, IIRC) to explode mined beaches. Naturally, the weren't used much in Europe after the Normandy landings.

THe whole idea of a QB being historical is absurd. How often would you see nearly identical forces engaging in battle in WWII (or any other modern war, for that matter)? Sure, BTS has set it up to try to alleviate the worst of the cherry picking and produce somewhat believeable force structures, but it still is not perfect. For the sake of ladder games, I think the points allocation should be identical for all nationalites unless someone can produce hard data of consistent TO&E for all forces at the company/battalion level . Without that data (which I doubt exists), all you are left with are guesses and prejudices. My humble $.02

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: They were loud, heavy, and have mostly faded away except for some specialized units.Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One could consider the modern ATGM to have evolved from RRs. The warheads are launched using similar principles, with the big difference being guidance systems and sustainer motors in ATGMs. Still, RRs were a major breakthrough for infantry AT weapons.

Good doctrine/tactics can nearly always overcome weaknesses with equipment (historically or in CM). Unfortunately, most people tend to get caught up in the blame game (the tank/gun/AI is broken!) than realise the problem is the way they are playing the game. I look forward to reading it!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: I think it can be argued that the BAR was the original assault rifle. It was developed to be a LMG, but it doesn't fit that role very well. Any other opinions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would consider the definition of an assault rifle to include use of an intermediate sized cartridge. Thus, the BAR (and M-14, FAL, G3, etc.) is not a true assault rifle, but an automatic rifle. By the same token, pistol ammo in a rifle-like gun would not be an assault rifle, either. (Like the M1903 Springfield with Peterson device )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: I think it can be argued that the BAR was the original assault rifle. It was developed to be a LMG, but it doesn't fit that role very well. Any other opinions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would consider the definition of an assault rifle to include use of an intermediate sized cartridge. Thus, the BAR (and M-14, FAL, G3, etc.) is not a true assault rifle, but an automatic rifle. By the same token, pistol ammo in a rifle-like gun would not be an assault rifle, either. (Like the M1903 Springfield with Peterson device )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: It takes a while to: a) secure the battlefield to where it's safe to get recovery vehicles in get recovery vehicles in and tank out to the repair depot c) repair tank d) recrew tank and drive back to the front<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but a) and (sortof) don't apply for a gun hit as the tank is still mobile and could drive itself to the repair depot. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When you consider that each battle in an Op is usually separated by a few hours, then a damaged tank that doesn't show for a few battles isn't out of the ordinary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would agree for some operatoins this would cetainly be the case, but why would the tanks show up as abandoned? Do they then count as kills for victory purposes? If I read ntg84's post correctly, the tanks were operational during the battle and abandoned sometime between battles.

What you seem to have here is a case of WYSINEWYG (What You See Is Not Exactly What You Get). Corners of buildings can sometimes appear to be transparent to fire, but it is just because the visual representation of the building does not correspond exactly to the representation of the building within the game engine. IOW, it can appear that you are firing through walls (according to your eyes)when you are, in fact, not (according to the game engine). ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

IIRC, they work the same as infantry when defending vs. attack or assault: they are "dug in" automatically if they start the battle unlimbered. I don't think there is any status indicator that shows this, though. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

The most fun computer wargame I ever got to play in the Army was an IntelEx run out of Ft. Huachuca. (don't remember the name, but it was designed by Lawrence Livermore Labs). It was a Division-level LAN game (units down to company size)whereby each workstation controlled one or two Brigades, another station for intel assets only, another for divarty (he had LOTS of fun), etc. It was run concurrently with a CPX at Ft. Riley whereby the console operators (incl. me) got movement/combat orders via telephone from the Brigades we represented and input the moves on our workstation. The system then generated SPOT reports, SHELREPS, and all sorts of battlefield intel that was automatically transmitted to and printed outat the relevant CP back home. The system took into account weather, elevation, LOS, smoke, vegetation, etc. And this was back in 1993! I always thought "Gee, too bad you can't play this on a PC!" Still, it revealed to me how "God's eye view" wargames can put TOO much control in the player's hands compared to Real Life . Several times I had to sit and watch friendlies get blasted while waiting for someone at the CP to realise what was going on and issue orders. Great fun, though! I think computer wargames (commercial or military-only ones) are an invaulable tool for teaching in the military. Despite the cost of some of the systems, it's peanuts compared to the cost of doing the same thing with real people and equipment. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

RES: Could be Reserve? (Isn't 45th Div a reserve formation?) I think "Radio Emission Surveillance" would more likely be called EW (Electronic Warfare) or ESM (Electronic Support Measures) ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

Side note on Bangalores: They have been replaced in US service by the MCLC (Mine Clearing Line Charge). It is a flexible line containing an explosive charge that operates on the exact same principle as the Bangalore. It is put into place by a rocket attached to the front of the line. (it looks sort of like casting a fishing line) Side note on Barrage balloons: Another neat, but lesser known AA device the Brits came up with was a rocket that fired straight up from the ground (or ship), dragging a wire with a mine-like device at the end. Using a parachute system, the mine would be dragged onto the wing of a plane that caught the line, virtually guaranteeing separation of the wing and plane. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

No problems with the gun...It's a regular 17lb-er. You can take out pretty much any German tank with it. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

Drop your infantry off the backs of the tanks when you close suspected enemy positions and use them to scout out enemy AT assets. Also, disregard the flags and go for the good terrain that lets you control the approaches to the flags. There are very few battles that don't alow you to take your time, clean the enemy's clock and then take the flags. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Comstr: Why don't they just build a new one? Isn't there plans for a Moniter-type ship carring 16" guns and a hell of a lot of missles?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There have been numerous proposals in recent years for "monitor" type shore bombardment ships, most armed with 1 or 2 6-8" guns and several missle bombardment systems like Tomahawk, Harpoon, and (my favorite) MLRS/ATACMS. MLRS would certainly be the biggest bang for the buck which is at the heart of this whole issue. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

FWIW, I think most (if not all) mis-IDs are "overs". PzKfw IVs reported as Tigers, SdKfz 7/1s as Wirblewinds, M20s as M8s. I can't recall ever seeing a case of anything being misidentified as a lesser vehicle. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

IIRC, the "area" of the current ambush markers is about 20-30m. Maybe CM2 could make this value variable? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JediJobu: Or have a gun in between 2 houses that covers anything that passes in front of it for 500m? In other words, setting up and ambush "lane" or "area" instead of just one spot. Of, course, the area or lane would have to be within reason...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If it has a narrow enough LOS, you normally won't need to set an ambush marker in this kind of situation. Just place it deep between the buildings and it will engage anything in it's LOS "lane". Don't forget ambush markers are currently limited to 300m, too. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

I couldn't get mine to recognize the CD being in my other CD drive until I reinstalled CM from that CD drive. That was on a much earlier version, though (1.01 I think).

The TacAI is supposed to hold fire when they see friendly units in the impact area. The key to remember is that they must be seen by the shooters for a little bit before they are recognized as friendly and fire is stopped. If you have a couple of squads pounding the front of a building while another squad makes a wide flanking movement to assault the building form the rear, the flanker may not be noticed in time to prevent casualties. ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1: Why did you post this four times?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WHOOOOPPPS!!! I kept getting a "server not responding error and retried it a couple too many times I guess! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: He's a teacher and he's stomping his foot to make sure everyone knows this will be on the test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hee Hee! I had a Russian teacher (he was Russian teaching Russian) and he did this all the time! ------------------ "It's a boy!" - My wife's OB/GYN Nov. 8th, 4:45am