FFE

There be the problem. It is not a scenario. It is a campaign! And, oh boy, a monster it is.

Good ideas, the lot of them. I am shocked BTS allowed for so much hand-to-hand combat to happen. It is a regular event in CM. Entire platoons are wiped out without cascading morale loss. Squads reduced to 1 or 2 men are another contentious issue of mine. I absolutely hate how 2 men can draw fire from everything within 500 meters. Ever seen a 2 man MG-42 waddle its way a hundred + meters while receiving fire from four corners of the map? I would love to see the abstract ammo code changed to accommodate CM’s over-aggression shooting code. If target A has 1 or 2 individuals->Ignore small arms ammo reduction.

Far too many players are complacent. How often does one fiddle with weather and ground conditions? I can assure you that in certain weather combinations, the attacker needs more then a 50% bonus to conceivably win. Players are more likely to pick clear skies and dry ground. There are some players who play for ‘fun’ and jostle game conditions to make things more interesting. But the vast majorities I have played on the net tend to opt for pristine gaming environments. As I see it the key factors are time, map environment, and weather conditions. Generally weather conditions are ruled out due to the favoring: clear/dry (this favors the attacker). More time favors the attacker. Less time favors the defender. The last variable is the most random, map environment. Without enough cover the attacker’s infantry dies out in the open. But with too much cover the defender is able to continuously ambush and withdraw. So what I suggest to anyone who thinks the attacker is winning his lion share: muck with the weather. Set the ground conditions to mud and have ‘fun.’ Do not let blue skies and hard compact grounds be your only battlefields.

It is, it is! Very crudely; the angle shots are being deflected or fail to penetrate due to a horizontal sloping effect. The oblique angles offer greater resistance to incoming mg fire. This applies to all armored vehicles, too. German halftracks can fire while buttoned. I find this extremely useful since a good sharpshooter can quickly null an unbuttoned halftrack.

Care to expound on this and give us a few reasons why? Thanks

Don't forget the effects of stealth bonus. I recently had a 57mm ATG remain hidden for an entire game. When the smoke settled it had KO'ed 3 Mark IV's and Panther (Side Turret pentration). The little 57mm cap gun was being lead by double stealth bonus Veteran HQ. My opponent was highly dismayed. I was simply in shock.

I hope BTS takes into consider the negative issues they gave to west front Allied armor. Undoubtedly on the Eastern Front, Soviet armor from 41-42 was probably most often initially mis-id as a T-34. Yet when CMBB comes out will the German commander be plagued by the T-34 threat? I often find Allied armor running away from a Panther(?) or Tiger(?), yet watch in utter dismay as German armor never fleeing from a Sherman or Cromwell. In CM this invisible bonus given to the German side is not reflected in the point values. Sure it may be comical and have some historical merit, but it is not reflected in due course. In recent battle I had a troop of Sherman (Canadian) boxing a platoon of Mark IV’s. However one of the Mark IV’s was mis-id as Panther and all my 75mm Sherman’s backed up leaving my Firefly to die. Is this historical? Perhaps. Anything is possible. Is this invisible German attribute reflected in the point values? It is most definitely not. The enemy Panther(?) remained, dominating the battlefield for no additional point value. How can BTS grant such a huge bonus to a single side yet not reflect it in the point value? This topic falls into the old issues dealing with nationality bonuses. BTS decided to take things by the horn by emphatically dismissing any additional game code that grants a nationality a specific bonus. Yet when it came to armor, BTS decided to mix things up and label a very specific nationality bonus under Fog of War. BTS decided to impose the “Tiger!” nationality weakness. When a contingent of Allied armor faces off with German armor, most often the Allied armor over-id’s the threat level. Axis armor can generally punch a hole in most “TYPICAL” Allied armor. The exceptions are rare, such as Jumbo’s, Churchill VII/VIII’s and Pershing’s. What happens in historically typical situations Cromwell’s + Sherman’s face off Mark IV’s + Panther’s, is the Allied armor geting the brunt end of the deal. In rare situations when a truly heavy tank appears on the field (Tiger’s, Large Churchill’s, etc…), parity is achieved. Nevertheless, I hope BTS decides to either do away with over-iding threat since it is a nationality bonus, yet in disguise or adjust the game so that mis-iding does not favor one side over the other.

No. The Whirblewind is an expensive tool, unlike the rest. Cost is suppose to mirror effectivensss. This is not the case with most 20mm mounted AA guns. The light independent guns are capable of crippling heavy armor and remaining fully cloaked.

I do not think this has been brought up before. So here it is: Allow third person setups. Both players would contact the host. Once the battle data has been transmitted, the host disconnects and the players start. This would allow for seriously blind tourney and campaign fights. For instance: The host setups the fight, say a QB. Buys the troops for both players, then 'waits' for both players to connect. The host never enters the setup phase nor do they see the map. The host could substitute a scenario or campaign in place of a QB. After both players connect the host vanishes. This way the host knows both players connected and the game launched. [ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]</p>

This is a very good sound mod. Well done and thank you for sharing!

That is excellent. Bravo Bravo!

One could use the 'n' shortcut. It cycles through all available targets. It is a good command to use in the event one is trying to pick out a specific target in a messy situation.

A simple test result: Single Regular US Rifle Squads advancing on foxholes at move speed in November 44 with clear weather and dry conditions. Range at which foxhole is detected;: Open terrain: 100 meters Scattered trees: 50 meters Woods: 15 meters The foxholes located in the woods were placed along the fore-edge. The double line foxhole tactic may be viewed as gamey by some and not so by others. This is a given concerning any debate on this board. The use of teams was never clearly laid down by BTS. Players wanted it. They implemented it. Nevertheless, if double foxhole usage truly bothers some it can be circumvented by a simple house rule prior to engaging in a game. Asking for special rules is good communication. I am often asking for special rules to re-balance the game in my own eyes. There are a plethora of special rules being used by many players. Some players are adamant against flakwagons, others feel that SMGs are too inexpensive, and yet others believe the overuse of onboard 3" mortars may sway the game unfavorably. To quote foxhole sources in historical context is beyond the abstraction found within this simulation. Prepared defensive positions were sometimes taken, re-taken, and taken yet again. What the game lacks is bogus contact positions such as fake guns, armor, and movement echoes. Playing a pro-longed operation with a counter attacking defensive force is a good example of how foxholes are reused, re-created, and sometimes use to deceive the opponent. A waxing and waning MLD over the course of several battles will fashion the environment into a pot marked landscape riddled with foxholes and craters.

I would not consider this a cheat. Experienced players will tend to split squads into teams to create empty and/or double line foxholes. This sort of ruse happens quite a bit.; an opponent seeing three foxholes all lined up in what appears to be a defensive line. How often this transpires in game ultimately depends on the terrain. I have used this technique in an attempt to drain my opponent's artillery assets. It works well, and better yet if the foxholes are nestled right at the edge of woods so their discovery occurs quickly.

The problem lies with ammo consumption and its corresponding usage via a ratio against total ammo carried. Your Hellcats, for all intent and purposes, were firing at an armored vehicle. The game engine does not provide an internal-loop feedback so it has no conception of what the last shelled fired achieved. The Hellcat fired the more plentiful ammo at an armored target. I suppose 1.12 loosened the ratio requirements for the firing of special rounds; but when a Hellcat is at near full or full ammo capacity the probability of a special round being used is near null. As a whole this limitation hurts the Allied side far more than the Axis side. Many US-Commonwealth vehicles have a limited number of special rounds when compared to their total ammount of HE. If their total HE is exceedingly high compared to the number of hollow rounds then HE will be fired even at armored vehicles. The game also permits AP rounds to be fired at soft targets. This is not historical. If anyone can point to a single source clearly exemplifying AP rounds being intentionally fired at a soft target, I would greatly like to read it. AP round expenditure at soft targets was generally done to quickly clear the tube. The mid-44 Commonwealth Fireflies suffer immensely from this limitation since they do not enjoy HE rounds at all. A gamey way to defeat these limitations is to expend large amounts of ammo early in the game. I often use large Sherman formations to create stop gap smoke screens simply to prevent the Sherman from using these rounds later in the fight. 95mm Cromwells/Churchills with several hollow rounds are often found to be blowing up entire city blocks to lower their HE vs. C round ratio. I know this is a ‘tad’ gamey, but when the game engine itself is the limiting factor I do not feel so bad about wasting ammo. It is fun watching a Churchill VIII put a 95mm HE round through the side of a Panther. Luckily for the Allies the Axis did not import Finnish Tankers.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by russellmz: wait, if my us halftrack gets hit with one casualty it can still fire mg?<hr></blockquote> M3/M5 ... No *not sure why* M3A1/M5A1 ... Yes, after it unbuttons *suppose to be this way* [ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]</p>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg42 gunner: JUst thought it would be intresting to have a third building class in cm2 fortified more cover than heavey. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This will need to be a necessity. There are several instances of invulnerable buildings (i.e. factory works, silo, Reichstag etc...) which resisted destruction. As a side note, there might need to be a provision established that makes certain buildings immune to burning.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degus: As for HQ units, do casulties affect their comand bonus?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From observation the answer is no. However HQs that lose a few men are more likely to panic, thus negating all their bonuses. I often use reduced Company HQs as backup command posts. From this I clearly see their command abilities are not diminished whatsoever.

The Churchill Crocodile's flame device is mounted on the hull. When the Croc is hull down the flame device will not function. The device will fire only forward of the hull. The AI will not fire the device if friendly units are too close to the target. Generally a player is more successful when they target a specific building with the Croc and order area fire without the main gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>GravesRegistration wrote: How about the silly tactic of weakening many buildings in the suspected avenues of approch then have a 20mm shoot at any units comming in to them... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Big Time Software Wrote: This is, of course, a totally "gamey" tactic. I suspect that many people I know would refuse to play such a person again if they did this. As I said, it is impossible to eliminate all gamey tactics. This is, afterall, a game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who is more the fool? The person ordering men into a collapsing building or the person who expended ammunition destabilizing the structure? GR points out a single 20mm round will force men out of a '**' building. Although true, I smile when my opponent tries to use '**' buildings against me. '**' buildings are not a secret for they are easily viewed by your opponent. A single, large round tends to level a severely damaged building allowing infantry to occupy pleasant rubble terrain. I always expect my opponent to use damaged buildings against me. Buildings are death traps. This is a flat out reality and not something to be considered 'gamey.' Gaminess entails running trucks around the side of a map trying to take a sneak peek at your opponent forces. Gaminess entails running trucks around to distract enemy fire and then use the truck crews to secure VL. Gaminess does not entail waiting for enemy forces to cross a bridge, then opening up on the bridge itself. Buildings in CM are modeled fine. If BTS wishes to give building damage more detail then I am all for it.

AFVs, ATGs, and mortars will fire smoke in self defense and when the target is threatening a friendly unit. You probably encountered the smoking in defense of friendly units. This is an automatic reflex and there is little you can do to stop it. One option is to fire off all your smoke rounds early in the game. This prevents the AI from kicking into self defensive smoke mode. Nevertheless, armor being encroached within 100 meters by infantry are liable to start thinking defensively. This range is truly too close for comfort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Anybody interested in the topic of "gamey" tactics should use the Search feature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great info in your post! Thanks. As for the search... Search Words: gamey tactics Search Forum: Combat Mission Search In: Entire Message Search By Date: Any Date Would you please test this? After a ten minute wait the result is "The page cannot be displayed."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tread Head: What are the CM "gamey" tactics?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My definition. Gamey tactics: Simply anything intentionally done to debase intended game engine operands. Do not confuse gamey tactics with incidental combat. It also denotes a departure from reality (historical usage). A sly armchair commander knows how situations in the game react, thus uses this information to wrestle superiority. The common theme revolves on, "Winning at all costs." Threat level: The game prioritizes certain units in favor of others. Vehicles deem anti-tank teams as high threat. Vehicles will blatantly attempt to eradicate this threat, no matter the range. A player criss-crossing an anti-tank team(s) over open terrain far behind the main fight is using game tactics. He/she knows vehicles become fixated on the anti-tank team(s) and can use this pre-determined knowledge against their opponent. Flame-throwers, forward observers, and mortar can be used similarly. Over usage: A few unit types are not properly modeled. Over using these units tends to unbalance the point values result. Those are the two main ones I can think of. Undoubtedly this discussion will lead to a gamut of individual definitions. [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: I must say I was a little surprised no one else answered the second of Cauldron's two questions, the one about how the Germans dealt with Russian heavy armor in the first 18 months of the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The answer to this is multi-directional. German command did not have to specifically deal with the superior Soviet armor, because the Soviet combat doctrine was lacking. It was not until late 42 did the Soviets revise their combined arms warfare tactics. As already pointed out in 41 the Soviets did not enjoy fleets of T-34s and KV-1s. The Soviets used these AFVs similarly as the British used their armor formations in the early to mid stages of North Africa. Instead of supporting their tactically superior vehicles, Commonwealth and Soviet doctrine reinforced independence. The German formations were able to strip support elements, isolate Soviet threats, and counter via superior tactics. C3 issues heavily favored the Germans against the Soviets. And in 1941 the Germans were able to maintain air superiority, thus hampering Soviet logistics. Comparing ballistic information versus armor penetration is purely superficial. This sort of evaluation is misleading due to absence of tactical C3 factors. In game terms: A platoon of T-34 with a company of rifles enters on to the field. The Germans noticing the presence of T-34s quickly rely this information to all formations. The forces engage. German ATG assets are already placed to counter the Soviet armor threat. One must not forget the linchpin; the command T-34. Isolating this vehicle was common knowledge by late 41. With the command T-34 simply immobilized, the rest of the T-34s were operating blind.

Perhaps I stumbled upon a virgin topic: Should mortars be able to fire while occupying Tall Pines or Woods? I have been thinking it would be a bad idea if a round connected with a nearby tree.