FFE

What action does the hide command perform for vehicles? To the best of my knowledge it simply means the vehicle idles “low.” I performed a 100 meter open ground speed test to verify. I placed 6 T-34’s on an open map, 3 hidden the other 3 not hidden. First observation indicates as soon as the player orders the vehicle to move, the vehicle loses the hidden toggle even with a pause order. A player cannot order a vehicle to move & hide like foot troops. The speed test results do not indicate an “at start” hidden vehicle will be slower in a 100 meter fast dash. In quite a few of the tests, the previously hidden vehicles out performed the non-hidden vehicles. Conclusion from the speed test: coming out of hide does not influence a vehicle’s ability to accelerate. Another use for hide might be to prevent vehicles from firing at spotted enemy units. I created another test scenario to validate this. I placed 6 T-34’s in scattered woods and turn on their hide. I placed 8 PSW 222’s at 400-500 meters and ordered them to move fast at a parallel angle to the hidden T-34’s. T-34’s 20 meters deep in the scattered woods, hidden: 6 T-34’s spotted – direct fire commenced by both sides T-34’s 40 meters deep in the scattered woods, hidden: 5 T-34’s spotted – direct fire commenced by both sides T-34’s 50 meters deep in scattered woods, hidden. 0 T-34’s spotted – PSW’s not spotted while covering 200 meters. Conclusion: A hidden vehicle will fire at enemy units if presented. Hide does not seem to offer any logical benefits. It “may” prevent a vehicle being spotted at longer ranges. Yet, this is counter intuitive. If a vehicle is not moving, the driver will not rev the engine. There are a few exceptions concerning vehicle turret rotation speed being based on engine RPM. On a whole the vehicle hide command should not result in a difference with spotting at range since the vehicular noise will not be a significant factor. I cannot think of any action a vehicle crew can take to make their vehicle “more quiet” other than reducing engine RPM. Yet, a stationary vehicle will tend to be at low RPM, anyway. A possible abusive reason to use the hide command but without any specific testing: planes “seem” to attack hidden vehicles less frequently. If my observations since CMBO are correct, this would be illogical. Why would a vehicle “noise” factor influence a plane's attack routine? I propose the vehicle hide command be remove.

When the battle ends, a "Historical Result" screen pops up with information concerning the actual results.

There is something in need of pointing out. Rotating vehicles never bog. Moving vehicles may bog, depending on the terrain and weather conditions. This is just something I figured needs poiting out. Not sure if BFC will change rotation speed or not. [ September 25, 2002, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: FFE ]

Didn't the computer allow you to move the tanks during the setup? Infantry really ought not to care about passing armor, since it's all abstraction. However you bring up a good point. I think infantry on the move don't care if armor is passing. Only stationary infantry may care if armor is moving over their position. I do not recall infantry on the move intentionally moving around armor. I think they moved straight through, even in cmbo.

MG-34/42 HMGS will KO them M-17's, too. No need to break out the 20mm AA.

The registry is the backbone of the Win OS. Did you try to copy the game on to your desktop and install from there? If so and the game still does not run, then email matt@battlefront.com with your problems. He's the guy to handle this.

First check to see if openplay.dll is in the root cmbb directory. If yes, run dxdiag and check to see if your directx is up to date. (i.e. Version 8.1). If all of the above checks out, then it probably is a registry entry. However, you may want to try the following: Uninstall CMBB. Then, copy the entire cmbb installer from the CD on to your hard drive (like your desktop). Then run the installer from there.

Check the casualty settings. You are compensated before the computer auto-reduces your forces. Thus, you are given more points to start with.

Combatants: 1 Tiger and 1 Panther vs. 1 Cromwell VI Range: 150 meters Tiger notices a Cromwell move out from behind the corner of a building @150 meters. Tiger takes aim, fires, Direct Hit! Cromwell returns fire, misses! Panther hunts up behind Tiger, notices Cromwell, and takes aim, fires! Direct Hit! Cromwell and Tiger reload like molasses. Panther fires again! Direct Hit! Then like dueling banjos, Tiger and Cromwell fire at each other simultaneously. Hit! Hit! Double KO! Yes, this truly happened. It took 2 hits from a Tiger and 2 hits from a Panther to take out a Cromwell at 150 meters. Don't believe me? Ask my PBEM opponent, Sarge Saunders. It was *groan* his Cromwell.

The end game randomizer works wonders. Both players need to download the program. One player sets up the randomizer and includes the file at the appropriate time. I've used the program a few times and it has worked flawlessly.

I only seek to add constructive criticism. Sarge’s attack on my defense was very well executed. As he has already pointed out the German forces simply are unstoppable with their morale level, Coy HQ’s, Battalion HQ’s, and large number of halftracks. I count no less than 12 KO’ed halftracks, yet he has a wall of halftracks overrunning my positions down the road. It cannot be stopped, due to British infantry being unable to close assault a single halftrack with any degree of success. My artillery hit him hard at every corner. His advance was steady and unimpeded. My ammo levels are shot. Yet, he has two fresh platoons walking into my positions from my flank and his halftrack army is blazing away with their mg’s. He informed me the flankers were reinforcements. Piat’s may account for a kill here or there, but they simply are very ineffective when the German player uses infantry alongside their halftracks. Our game is nearing the end (last three turns) but the victory is totally in his court. As the British player, it is beyond difficult to defend from a four sided attack. The German infantry is vastly superior to their British counterparts, especially at ranges under 50 meters. Case and point: Sarge ran an entire platoon through an ambushing, fox-holed, reverse sloped British platoon. His men got chewed up on the way through, but the next turn they did a 180 and annihilated my entire platoon down to the last man. The British platoon quickly pinned and his veteran and crack infantry systematically mowed down the entire platoon from with 50 meters. It is to my understanding the German player can withdraw to at least three map edges. This ability aids his scouts immensely. I chose to defend a box and make the box tighter as he advanced, but used scouts myself. My scouts accounted for several worthwhile rear area kills such as an FO and a Stug. I counter attacked when the time called for it, which caused Sarge immense problems. But he did not break a sweat as his halftracks continued to decimate the British infantry. The end result is a bunch of German soldiers attacking where they choose. I rarely kept to my foxholes if he was threatening flank. Historically, the British fought off the German’s quite well until the 10ss came into the picture. Even so, the 10 ss took a massive punishment trying to dislodge the Argyll’s. In game terms: Defending is very difficult. Allowing the German’s to attack with superior forces from several sides simply spells doom for the British. This is compounded by a good German player. Instead of running the German forces into my positions, Sarge patiently waited for his reinforcements to get into position. Then he launched an attack. I’d be more than willing to play you in a game. To make my point, I’d take the Axis and see how you fair. I presume Sarge would be willing to play you in a game, too. Anything to help balance this otherwise excellent fight.

Add my vote! Thanks for the link.

A few things about these battles: The June 29th German attack on Gravus failed. The Argyll's lost but then recaptured the town. According to Reynolds; British heavy artillery and airpower were able to beat back the daytime attacks. "The Second Tactical Air force was out in strength and inflicted heavy casualties on the attacking tanks (172)." On the 1st, the Argyll's had to surrender their bridgeheads to the 10th SS after heavy fighting. But by the 1st, the Argyll’s were no longer cut off. Yet, they did not receive armor support. The Argyll’s did not surrender. Rather, they were able to fall back to British lines. ------------- SPOILER BELOW -------------- . . . . . . . . . ---- THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING ----------- . . . . . . . . . The scenario depicts, what I believe, to be the June 29th attack on Gravus. The German’s come in with a splendid force, but using far too many halftracks. Although mounted halftrack assaults did happen during the late part of the war (1944-45), I seriously doubt a mounted halftrack assault into woods would have been authorized. Germans did not have the luxury of riding in armored transport into battles by this time of the war. Nevertheless, there are no accounts of halftracks being combated neither by the Argyll’s nor by the sources listed. The German side also seems to be composed of many outstanding (crack and veteran) formations. Perhaps, this is too outstanding. In game turns, these guys don’t give up. They continue to attack until their dead or a 5.5” round lands with 5 meters of them. Since the German OOB for this scenario incorporates several (at least two) battalion HQ’s plus a plethora of Coy HQ’s, those Veteran and Crack infantry units are (should) never out of command. Balancing ideas: </font> Remove most of the German halftracks. (Germans are considered to be deployed for an attack with their transport being safely hidden).</font>Remove the German guns and replace them with 81mm mortars.</font>Remove the British 40mm AA guns.</font>Add several more TRP’s for the British and at least two (perhaps locked – Gravus and the southern Bridge area) for the Germans. Realize the limitations of CMBO engine while adjusting fire from TRP’s causes a lot of grief (to both players). The British need several more registered target locations.</font>Add to the British: several Typhoons</font>Add to the British: more rounds for all their artillery. This is, after all, Epsom.</font>Remove all but 3 brens and all the trucks. The Argylls reached Gravus by moving through steep hills and dense woods. They were cut off from the rest of their command on the 29th.</font>Tone down the Crack'ness of the German units. Far too many 'above veteran' formations running around. </font>That is all [ July 31, 2002, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: FFE ]

Yunfat’s idea is not far fetched. Right now CM is doing quite well if the feedback from BFC is any indication. BFC took a chance by going direct sales via the Internet, then an up and coming sales and marketing medium. The future of computers vs. console is narrowing. Now that consoles are going to be able to interact with the Internet things are becoming far fuzzier. Consoles are nearly pure gaming machines. They lack the entire overhead when you boot up your Mac or PC. MacOS and Win are very inefficient compared to consoles. Consoles have already started to break into different markets. Can you say DVD player with your gaming machine? That’s innovation. MS coming into the field is going to make for greater competition. Therefore a few issues arise. Does BFC want to tackle the corporate world so that they can make their game playable by millions instead of thousands? That is not an easy question to answer. Console gaming is the future. People un-rightly think consoles are solely for the first world shooter games or driving hopped up pick-up trucks through barricades. The only thing holding on to desktop/laptop computing is the business world. But when it comes to home entertainment, consoles are entrenched. People may think CM would become less of a game if the ‘common’ folk got access. This is purely an elitist point of view. Undoubtedly there are huge costs for the development and distribution. But the roots of CM would remain cemented by historical representation and operational standards. From a business point of view, it is a no-brainer.

Giving credit where credit is due, I like your idea JasonC. Nevertheless, the change in point values would go a long way in mixing things up a bit. Sarge Saunders is correct about the static'ness of many games. You can anticipate and gauge your opponents' capabilities. Sure it might be gamey, but after playing for two years it becomes a natural 'feel.' (i.e. Facing US opponent and heavy shells start to drop. You realize your opponent probably has fewer than 35 of these rounds unless the point value for the game is high). Hope BFC likes the idea enough to make it happen!

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The modifiers are to the unit's 'stock' ammo levels and has nothing to do with the unit's firepower. For instance the usual load out for infantry is 40 ammo points. A unit with Surplus would have 1.6x40, 64 ammo points. This could even be randomized a little, too. Hiram wrote exactly what I was thinking of. If you're defending and want to pay a little extra for more ammo, you could. Or if you're creating a scenario and do not want to select every unit, to muddle with thier ammo level, you would be able to preset. Plus the preset would also adjust the unit's cost, thus making overall force balancing a bit easier. [ June 18, 2002, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: FFE ]

Greetings. I would like to toss this idea out and see if it sticks. -Similar to choosing unit morale level, is it possible we could have an ammo toggle? The settings would be something like: Low, (not zero, around x0.4 modifier) Midly low, x0.7 modifier Average, x1.0 Above Average, x1.3 Surplus, x1.6 Of course some sort of hidden modifier could be applied thus changing the unit's value accordingly. This would help in the creation of scenarios and add a little flavor to purchased units. Thanks!

I'd pre-order

Re: Use of AA guns. I think any battle that has not specifically been tested with AA guns ought not to include them. Case and point: Today a single regular 37mm AA gun from 600 meters was able to Gun hit a hull downed Super Pershing, Track then gun hit a 76mm Jumbo, then plink away at another Jumbo that caused it to button up, and finally nuke a Priest. For whatever reason people may play with AA guns, I find them far too unbalancing. This includes the 40mm Bofors.

There are several places where players gather in chat rooms. For instance: Combat Mission HQ Chat Room There are others, but CMHQ tends to attract the non-ladder gamers. (Typically)

You folks considered using the end game randomizer? Might prove interesting if the battles are going to be conducted PBEM. Just a thought

Defending as Germans, I would purchase: 1 Vet Security Company 2 Vet Puppchens 1 Vet Hetzer 700 pt map is going to be small enough to allow the Puppchens to operate very nicely. The Hetzer can hopefully find a hull down position to cause the American player a nightmare. The Vet Security Coy comes with 2*HMG's and 2*81's plus the Coy HQ, which can be valuable if things start to get prickly. Option: In place of the Hetzer, 1 Vet StuH 42 (late). But this places a lot of stress on your Puppchens to perform.

Super Pershings are mean beasts. They can roam a battlefield, inflicting terror into all German armor. The draw back is their ROF. A Mark IV gets three shots per one from a Super Pershing. But put the Super Slug into a hull down position and watch your opponent cry a river!! The counter is a hull down Jadgtiger. Oh sweet mother of destruction!!! Nevertheless, I do not like either since their ammo load out is pitiful. Plus one little gun hit (rather common vs. German AA guns) makes either of them monsters into a roaming MG Pillbox.

More times than I wish to admit. But I have found a partial work around; button the vehicle. There's little one can do when a Hummel fires and connects with a building 15 meters away. But hey, folks on this forum have continuously stated war is hell and anything can happen. I think, almost certain, HE rounds had a minimum distance/time in flight before priming. Am I wrong about this?

A gentleman by the name of Cal lives a few condo’s down from me. According to his brother, Cal served with the 1st infantry division during WW2. He saw D-Day and Omaha beach on D+0. Another neighbor of mine who has been living here for 20 years told me Cal is “walking piece of metal.” This is due to a metal pins in his bones and, according to her, shrapnel. I have been told by both, Cal’s brother and my neighbor that Cal never talks about his army experience. Cal is also a very religious man. I know he attends a local catholic church several times a week. Out of respect to his silence, I have never breached the subject. If solitude is his desire, then I shall honor his wishes and quietly thank him for his service. Allow me to take this moment and thank every person and their families for doing what was necessary on June 6, 1944. All of them will forever be heroes. [ June 06, 2002, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: FFE ]