phil stanbridge

I doubt it I think this must have been a one off. I must have played this hundreds of times now, and not once have I ever received the top score. I've had major victories and such like but never with that score. This was a 500 pointer, by the way, automatically assigned units. I imagine I would have received around 700 points worth of units.

I know - it surprised me. I kept my infantry back (two platoons) until the last minute, which is normally where I differ. I sent my M3A1's forward to recon the area. They found the gun, (a 105mm recoiless rifle), several units of infantry, and the Marder. I think the ROF must have helped, as the M3A1's pinned down and suppressed the other teams I had my Stuart pummel the gun. They barely returned fire. I then hit the remaining infantry (whom by this time had run for cover in some houses) with my 81mm arty. My infantry platoon flanked the axis spotter, and took him out with ease, once again, before he could fire. I couldn't believe my luck at this point. Finally, at turn 12 (out of 30) all the enemy infantry had either been KIA'd or had routed. I met very little resistance. At one point my stuart had to button when he was attacked by a faust and sporadic gunfire but that was it as far as their defence went. I noted all the teams were regular - no vets. Even the M3A1's were standard.

I was the allied attacker, so I had to capture the flag. The most surprising part to this I found was my two M3A1's that knocked out a Marder III, a PSW 75mm and several infantry. Them 50 cal's are amazing. I also KIA'd the axis 150mm arty before he had time to fire it. I did rather well. Ahem.. It was against the AI, but that's still my best result. Not a single casualty. December '44, snow too. [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: phil stanbridge ]</p>

Yes, that's the idea. The depleted platoons are officially regrouped at a certain stage in the op. It would do away with the clusters of one man bands.

Disbandment may happen at higher levels. Whole battalions may be disbanded, rather than platoons, and this is maybe the line that BTS are drawing. CMBB will concentrate on the smaller level engagements will it not?

Just a bump. Anyone any thoughts on this?

Perhaps they're both fairly low on ammunition?

*Thursday morning bump*

I've just finished playing Carentan V2. (superb by the way!). I completed the 9 battles and was awarded an allied tactical victory for my effort. In total both sides had over a thousand casualties.. Pretty awesome stuff. Something struck me part way through the op, and has done before with larger scenarios/ops, and I'm wondering if this has been 'addressed' in the past? I won't give too much away for the people that have yet to partake, but after about battle 5 you start to end up with a LOT of depleted platoons. (In my case anyway). They aren't much good for anything IMHO because you're down to three or four guys, without perhaps an associated HQ unit, who aren't really good for much more than slowing the machine down - (recon perhaps? gamey... etc). Basically you own a mish mash of platoons. I tend to keep these guys back and use the fresh guys up front, which in turn generates more wasteage, for want of a better term. Now I think it would be good and more realistic if you could perhaps disband the platoons in question via some sort of switch before the battle commences? At map level, I like to organise my companies and actually see what I've got. At this point it would be great to have the choice to ditch those four platoons with five men a piece.. The following battle (in an op)could see the platoon/company regrouped. Agree/Disagree? I wonder how hard this would be to implement? [ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: phil stanbridge ] [ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: phil stanbridge ]</p>

I know where you're coming from on this but don't forget that modders can inflict as much graphical damage on the bmp's as they like.

Regards scenarios/ops do they have to be balanced in terms of points? ie. Can you ever be outnumbered from the outset? I don't think I've come across a scenario yet where this *appears* to be the case. Just reading the thread below made me think about this. Like in QB's both sides have equal points.

Any ETA on this pls?

I remember when Falcon 4 was released on the mac. I always did find that strange.

.. if you don't mind me asking sir, what kept you away for 6 months?

Vanir, sorry, we're at cross purposes. Of course, you are right in saying it's a 5000 point battle, but what I meant was how many physical points you get if you select attacker advantage. Maximum is 22500. Colonel_Deadmarsh, I think it depends a lot on your tactics and battle type as to whether or not it is too much. For example, although the map would be huge, you could always concentrate your forces in one area? Would this not be an option? I do find that on huge maps, it is physically very difficult to 'manage' your forces because of the map size. I'm wondering if CMBB may approach this differently, taking into account some of the maps may be a lot bigger.

..So people reckon 35-40 turns is enough to represent a large battle with 3000 points? Interesting point #2. I have played several huge scenarios, and have never gone for anything less than 50 turns. Admittedly, after around 40, normally the battle is over and I'm mopping up - but it does depend on quite a few things. Primarily, that I'm able to beat the opponent. Sometimes that is a struggle. I just can't imagine a QB against a person with 3000 points or above. I think I'm going to have to try it out. Anyone game?

Vanir, Are you sure about that? You can choose 5000 points, but if you increase the advantage by say 100% you just wait and see what happens.

So you can only have 255 or 256 units per side? So how does 22500 points fit into that? Surely you would be left with a lot of points if you had to go for an infantry heavy game? [ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: phil stanbridge ]</p>

This is very interesting! To throw something else in, when/if you play 3000 pointers how many turns do you have? I would imagine you'd have to have the maximum (60) in order to fully justify the point size. I know you could do it with less, but I can't imagine the time you'd spend plotting the battle. I've never played TCP with anything above 800 points, and even then I've only done that once. I normally do 300-500 point M/E QB's. These are really challenging I find. A platoon and perhaps one or two afv's. You really need to plan those moves. I've never taken so much care of that 81mm mortar before.. I really want to try something larger now - I need to find an opponent. I have played larger QB's v the AI and these are less intimidating I find, although still reasonably challenging, but boy are they fun. They also take less time to play which is the bonus IMHO. Finally, what is the biggest QB anyone here has tried? If I remember, I think mine has been around the 8000 point?? Is that possible I ask myself now WOOT! I've just tried the maximum point size, 22500! I did automatic setup and it took me more than a minute just to scroll across the map and the units. Now that is a challenge! Anyone tried one? I don't dare! [ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: phil stanbridge ]</p>

Redwolf, I don't understand. Do people prefer playing QB's against the AI, or against another bod?

What do people prefer? I can't make up my mind if I prefer the small QB's or the 1000+ pointers.. Do people prefer playing against another human opponent or the computer? Just curious.

Yes, I would definitely like to pre-order, in any means acceptable

I don't have a credit card anymore but I have a debit card. I imagine this will cause a problem when it comes to ordering...

Right. So if I was to use the hunt command following a set waypoint, would my afv try to find the best hull down position automatically?