Cybeq

I had a similar experience although it was against the computer. At the end of the game I had all the flags, the railway buildings were intact and the remaining Germans were in total disarray. My score was 55(allied) to 45 (axis). It said "axis surrender" on the after action report. My question is, if they surrendered why did it also say "draw"? I lost about as many men as they did, but more vehicles though. It seems like the flag points are worth very little in this scenerio. If I would have stopped at the bridge (1st objective) I would have had very few casualities and could have just coasted 'till the end. If the objective is to save your men (as opposed to taking objectives) then why fight at all? I'll just leave 'em in the deployment zone and hit "GO" 75 times. Hey, I should try that and see what the score is. You could drop arty and get some kills.

While Kitty's suggestion is nice it is far from a realistic solution for most married guys. My chances of getting my wife to play CM are about as good as her chances of getting me to take up cross-stitch. Some things are just "guy things" and some things are "girl things". While the two categories sometimes intermingle for the most part they are occupy two different universes. I don't have a problem pacifying my wife because she knows she is more important to me than CM ever will be. And just for statistical purposes: I've been married for 12 years.

I guess I'm not well known enough on this board. I would never intentionally try to be cruel. I was just trying to be funny. Albeit at someone's expense. We all know the only stupid question is the one not asked. I apologize for my remarks. They were certainly not meant to offend. So, in the future when you read a post from "Cybeq" you would be well advised to take it with a grain (or two) of salt for I'm not widely known as a serious chap. And just so you know I am, indeed, robotic.

Self-propelled artillery is artillery that is self-propelled. I.E. it propels itself. By propelling itself it is able to move about the battlefield without being propelled by somthing else. So it is said to be self-propelled. Here are some everyday examples to further clarify: A car is self-propelled while a rock is not. A motorcycle is an example of somthing that is self-propelled. A bicycle is not self-propelled. A horse is, a dead horse is not. Although living cretures are self-propelled when we think of things that are self-propelled we usually think in terms of machines. To help you define what properties would be present in a self-propelled machine let me offer these helpful guidelines: To be self-propelled the machine must have a self-contained power source. Usually the machine will have wheels or tracks or wings. Finally, the machine must be able to move itself without any help. If it meets the above criteria it is most likely self-propelled. Anyhow, that is my definition of self-propelled artillery. I hope my explanation didn't go over your head. In the future you may be able to glean helpful hints about the meaning of a phrase by examining the words themselves. For instance, the phrase "automatic transmission" my give you trouble at first but if you read it carefully and think hard you may realize that it is actually two words that you probably already know the meaning of. I won't tell you what automatic transmission means because I think you can figure it out using the clues I have provided. If you have questions ask anyone with common sense.

I was watching "tales of the gun" the other night and they were talking about Japanese small arms of WWII. What I found very interesting was this little tidbit: The Japanese frequently used a reverse-slope defense and fired their heavy machine guns over the hill onto pre-registered target areas. Wouldn't it be great if we could do that in CMBO? In effect it would be like calling in artillery except it'd be machine gun fire. Could this be implemented into CM2?

I don't really care for the hamster mod but I would defend anybody's right to modify CM's appearance for their own pleasure. Having said that let me just add that I think the hamster mod is a perfect example of what happens when a girl gets a wargame. Cute-ification to extreme. ------------------ "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." -Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

In reality commanders couldn't scroll across the battlefield and see every participant. They couldn't be everywhere at once. They couldn't command their forces one minute at a time and view each minute of action over and over from an endless variety of angles and zoom factors. In reality an M-7 Priest could fire indirect. In reality the men looked a tad bit scruffier and didn't say the same things over and over. In reality commanders couldn't quit, eat dinner, and come back to finish the battle on a full tummy. And in reality video games aren't reality.

I can't believe nobody mentioned the Sherman 105. I'd take one over a Priest most any day. It's more survivable on the CM battlefield and just as effective. When I play a scenerio and get issued a Priest I usually hide it until no enemy tanks remain then bring it out and give the remaining infantry what for. Under the same circumstances I'd bring my Sherman 105 out earlier so in my mind it's the better AFV of the two. ------------------ "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." -Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

Actually this post has convinced me to go back and re-install SPWAW. While not as "fun" as CMBO it does have some really cool features. I just remembered how much I loved sending my Soviet Partisans infiltrating behind enemy lines to attack their artillery positions. And I remembered that artillery is now more effective in SPWAW. I was thinking of the original SP when I said the arty was ineffective. Crud, in SP1 buying any arty less that 155mm was a waste of money. One more super-cool feature in SPWAW. I absolutely LOVE how SPA can be used both in direct-fire and indirect fire. It makes the purchase of Priests a viable option. In CM the utility of a Priest is severely limited because it must expose itself to fire it's gun. You'd love to bring that big 105 to bear on a machine gun nest but the second you expose it..... BANGO! ------------------ "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." -Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

I have both games and I like CM better. It is more realistic and you must use realistic tactics to prevail. In SPWAW once you find the little tricks you can perform all kinds of gamey little manuvers and humiliate the AI. Not so with CM. Example: turret speed is not modeled in SP. This rules out many realistic tactics that Americans had to use to best the German armor. In CM I can send a Hellcat speeding past a Hetzer and watch as the Hetzer tries in vain to track me with it's turretless gun. Try that in SP and watch as the Hetzer instantly rotates and fires off opportunity shots. In CM I once took out a Panther with a Stuart. I raced right past it, up behind it, and shot it in the butt. In SP the enemy reacts instantly. You cannot use speed as an advantage. Artillery is less effective in SP. I like the massive scope of SP but once you play the hyper-realistic CM you can't go back.

Default grass works fine for me.

Mr. Clark, I am by no means an expert on the use of mortars in the game of CM but here's my two cents. I never expose my mortars. They are always following, never leading. I never direct target with them. I always use a headquarters unit to spot for them. Sneak or crawl the HQ into position and have them hide. Make sure you're in C&C with the mortar. Whatever is in the HQ's LOS can be targeted by the mortar. Fire away! I run out of ammo much more often than I lose mortars to enemy fire. ------------------ "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." -Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

Why yes, Mr. Pud, it would be nice. I happen to like mortar carriers due to their large ammo supply and mobility. But I would like the ability to have someone spot for them. I keep them in the folds of the terrain way behind my main force. I use them for smoke and for recon by fire. I never bring them out into the open if the way hasn't first been cleared by another armored vehicle. Because of the way I use them and my anal way of protecting them I have rendered their utility somewhat dubious but oh, well. I'm the commander and they'll do it my way! As for FO's: Yea, the delay sucks but if you want the big stuff you get an FO. I use them to level towns. Fun, fun fun. ------------------ "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." -Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

The mod's are cool and all but to be honest I haven't found that many that beat the original. If you go off changin' this and mod'n that you wind up with a pretty muddled look in my opinion. Personally I use and would recommend the total interface conversion from Deanco and the explosion graphics enhancement. All are available from Madmatt's site. ------------------ "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." -Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

I just had a Churchill immobilized by a 20mm flak gun and another brewed up by one shot from a hull-down Stug at 525 meters. My other Churchill was snuffed by a freakin' schreck at 110 meters. They don't seem more survivable than a Tiger to me.

Truely this is the best wargame on the face of the planet. The only other wargame that even comes close is Steel Panthers World At War. Are there flaws in CMBO? No. Are there things I'd change? Yes. I want a roster screen. It's very frustrating when you lose track of your FO in the heat of battle and have to hit the "+" key a million times to find him. I'd also like the ability to re-crew abandoned vehicles and guns that are still funtional.

While I understand one's desire to put some kind of AFV limit on a PBEM game I can't seem to shake the idea that this is contrary to actual warfare. In our sometimes overzealous desire to make everything "fair" we might wind up with a PBEM more akin to chess than a simulation of a WWII battle. Why not just dictate all the armor pieces each side gets? I think the fact that the heavies cost more is a good enough limit in and of itself.

WWB_99: You seem to equate resourcefulness in the employ of AA weapons with the Germans only. In WWII the Americans came up with the slick idea of mounting a quad .50 in the back of a halftrack (M-16 GMC). It was intended to be used in the AA role. In fact, it was also used in the anti-sniper role in the Pacific. Not to shoot the sniper, but to cut down the tree he was hiding in! That's resourcefulness! ------------------ "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." -Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

Yea, that Hetzer is a tough nut to crack. But it's ultimate undoing is that fact that it has no turret and has to rotate to target. I was able to get a track hit on one with a greyhound. Once it's immobile, thump it 'till the crew bails or you get lucky.

I didn't really use the Greyhound until I read this thread. On my next scenerio I tried moving a Greyhound at "fast move" up the extreme left flank to see what would happen. After 3 turns it has taken out a halftrack (via machine gun), an infantry gun (via MG/main gun), and fired off 6 rounds at a Hetzer before reversing behind cover. All I can say is BRAVO!

I love the overall look of your site.

I was actually looking for a new wargame. I had grown disenchanted with Steel Panther's moronic (hey diddle diddle, straight down the middle) AI and was combing the net for wargames. Lo and behold I stumble upon battlefront.com. The game was still in development but they had a beta demo you could download. I downloaded it and actually thought it sucked. I liked the premise and potential so much though that I decided to monitor the progression of the game. When the Gold Demo came out I downloaded that and instantly ordered the full version. The game has come a loooong way since the Beta Demo!

Are you saying that no matter where you place your '88's the AI drops arty on them in turn 3?

I believe it's designation was M4E8. Hence the "easy 8".

Think of U.S. tank destroyers as mobile AT guns, not tanks. In WWII the U.S. needed somthing that would punch through the thick-skinned German armor. The easiest/quickest solution at the time was to strap the biggest AT gun they had onto a Sherman chassis. Forget about encasing the gun in an armored turret. That costs more and takes more time. Later in the war the U.S. would develop and field a 76mm gun in a Sherman tank but in the meantime at least they had somthing to hit the Germans with.