FFE

This is an easy Quiz. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. Decide to rush over the wall, over clear terrain, at a 45 degree angle from the entrenched germans in an effort to reach some exposed woods less than 50m from the german positions? (the germans are probably smgs but no firm ID on them). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had a Priest versus pillbox situation two days ago. The veteran Priest enjoyed hull down position 600 meters directly in front of a 75mm pillbox. When the pillbox noticed the Priest, the Priest thought it advantageous to crest the hill and charge to cover behind a two story building. Needless to write: the Priest made a very poor choice. The end result was a knocked out Priest. It should have put itself into reverse and backed away. Even if the Priest made it behind the building, my opponent would have simply used the 75mm Pillbox to level the building. I was not amused.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I have often wondered why the designers made the assumption that gunners do not lead the target, and that more experienced gun crews do not do a better job of it. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michael, I can offer but a guess since no official answer has been provided. My guess is the game engine would be swamped by excessive calculations. I surmise the designers had to juggle system requirements. We know by observation that vehicle hit and damage calculations greatly delay turns. And if infantry are forced to calculate a vector to lead their target, then a vastly more complex turn completion would be required. The designer's deduced this rationale: the lack thereof a firing resolution vector would not hamper the game. Yet it does in a minor way when the range from firer to target is greater than 150 meters; especially if the target is moving fast and across the perpendicular axis of the firer. The end result, as you very well know, is the shot landing behind the target and the invisible blast radius of the shot failing to encroach on the target. I also believe infantry fire is not 100% accurate. It undergoes invisible scatter. This is why targets that hunker down behind a ridge, thus barely able to draw LOS over the crest, are far harder to effect. It would also explain why, sometimes, long range perpendicular fire strays into fast moving infantry and deals some sort of damage. Perhaps infantry fire does not scatter and my observations concerning this are wrong. You be the judge.

You might very well be correct concerning mortars. I have never tested them while using an HQ as the spotter. In the light of Cooper's statement, let me pose a totally new theory: All units exert a blast radius and firepower rating. This would explain: 1)Why nearby friendly units take casualties from enemy fire that is not directed specifically at them. 2)Why nearby friendly units duck for cover from enemy fire that is not directed specifically at them. The exceptions would be: 1)Mortars using indirect fire by spotting from Hqs use the characteristics of the HQ. Thus an HQ with combat bonuses would directly modify the mortar's firepower rating. This theory is satisfactory. It would explain the close proximity collateral damage and make game mechanics (coding) less of a boon. To continue on with my personal theory: all units have a firepower and blast radius rating. We are given the blast radius for non-infantry, but not its firepower rating. We are given the firepower rating for infantry, but not the blast radius. The damage calculation from exploding weaponry suffers diminishing returns as the radius from the point of origin gets larger. This also would explain why infantry moving perpendicular to the firer tends to suffer fewer casualties. If the firer does not lead the target (as with Mgs and Infantry) then by the time the shots arrive at the point where the target use to reside, the target might no longer be within the bast radius. Thus, the target suffers nothing.

Combat bonus applies only to firepower rating. Since 'Guns' do not exert a firepower rating the leader's bonus is null. HQ morale bonus augments guns. This is a critical factor. Guns being directed by +2 morale HQ are less likely to be suppressed, thus less likely to abandon, and more apt to return fire.

I find it comical whenever a Sherman takes a hit, the crew bails, then the crew melees a Shrek team. Yet for the last ten years I have never come across a memoir or passage exemplifying a heroic deed similar to what transpires in-game. Maybe every Finnish tanker was trained in this manner, however I do no recall a single instance on the Western Front when this happened. Crews ought to 'disappear' one turn after they are on the field. If a vehicle is knocked out on turn three, the crew should remain on the map for the duration of turn four, then disappear at the beginning of turn five. Why? 1.I do not believe crew members are accounted for in the point values. Some vehicles have eight men crews whereas other vehicles have two men crews. 2.Vehicle crews, unless in a very unique situation, generally withdrew from the combat field. 3.The targeting AI relishes wasting ammunition at crews. I despise seeing an entire platoon and supporting vehicles burn 25%+ of their allotted ammo points attempting to wipe out a single crew.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SurlyBen: The only surprising thing to me was the win percentage for the british.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First let me write, thank you for compiling this information. It has been my belief, ever since I engaged in Case's SMG ladder several years ago, that the true balance of any game can only be measured by competitive play. Casual playing tends to lead to casual results. While ladder games might constitute the worse aspect of game play, it unquestionably displays significant trends that can directly link game balance issues. With that in mind and since I am a veteran of CM ladder games, there's a good reason the British win % is significantly higher. It's called, Churchill VII/VIII. The Axis player, tending to be fixated with Hetzers and Panzer IV/70's, has a bear of a time trying to take on the British Behemoth. Other reasons the British tend to fair well; 3" mortars, Paratroopers, and Wasps. As a trend, I agree it's easier to win as the Axis. Most conflicts are played on a limiting map: the Axis side has more instruments to deal with whatever map is presented. Personal statistics indicate I tend to win more often with the Axis than the Allied. Although, my personal preference is to play the Allied side.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Funny, I'd have said that nice straight line of tracer was more than adequate as a pointer, myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've never seen a 40mm AA tracer, unless the AA gun has been identified. Generally one can spot the muzzle blast. But often enough the location is wrong, because the muzzle flash is from a sound contact. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, the Archer was a very successful and populat SPAT gun. It lasted in the British Army well into the 1950's and in several Arab ones into the 1960's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And the Archer dies to 20 mm rounds at 800 meters. The game does not handle Archers well. The vehicle can't hunt in the correct direction. Thus for the points, it's overrated.

Correct me if I'm wrong. It appears the 75mm test used 40 wooden targets. The rest of the tests used 100 wooden targets.

Overrated: Archer. 99 points worth of pure junk. 20mm death, almost for certain. Underrated: 40mm Bofors. "Death from where???" Great weapon. It kills all Axis light AFVs, chews through buildings and infantry. Added benefit: hard to spot over 400 meters. [ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

Thanks for the feedback. I've done some tests and the results are very close to Vanir's approximation. M4 mgs seem to have about the same firepower as two M1919s. The Sherman was buttoned and ammo zeroed out. The Mark IV under similar conditions place it beneath two MG-42 HMGs, but significantly greater than two MG-42 LMGs. My simple test involved running infantry across a two hundred meter open area between cover while receiving flanking fire. I switched out the AFVs with MGs to get a comparison base. I did the test several times, each time using fast moving infantry squads at differing ranges. But the tests never had more than a single squad in the open at any given time. All units were set to regular morale levels.

Has BTS released the firepower rating @ range for the mg's mounted on AFVs? I'm wondering what the effective range of these mgs are. Btw, I tried to do a board search. The net result is 'page not found' after waiting several minutes for each of the searches.

Jeff, You sound very similar to Hegel and Feuerbach. Nice post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lars: Only light resistance expected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You forgot to mention the stuff before you get that one line... Combat Mission *click* Play Game *click* -- Scanning Disk for Scenarios... -- Scenario Name: From Peng to Infinity Description: 120 turns, Huge Allied and Axis forces square off in a massive 50k Meeting Engagement, which will surely destroy your processor as soon as you press Go.

What else can I write? "Very sweet looking mods!" As soon as I can get my grubby fingers on the download button, they'll be welcomed to share in my CM Experience.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: It is true that the Nashorn provides protection vs. infantry small arms...but I almost never have AT guns taken out by infantry small arms, as AT guns tend to be deployed far enough back that infantry can't bring effective fire to bear..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You cannot have it both ways. Ideally, the Nashorn ought to be used like an AT gun, at (long) range so small arms (and even .50cals) are pointless. I've laughed many, many times when I see 600+ meter .50 cal shots at light skinned vehicles. Great! Waste them .50 cal rounds. But as a counter position, why is the Archer more costly than a 17lb ATG? The Archer has no turret and the hunt command is all but useless. It is true the Archer has 10 less ammo, similar to the Nashorn vs. 88mm ATG comparison. Yet we find the Nashorn costing less. Turrets are not that advantageous. A turret will turn and fire off at infantry, while the tank is using the hunt command. This is not generally a good thing, especially if the tank is trying to hunt enemy armor. Many, if not all, players have experienced at one time or another a tank turning its turret 90+ degrees to get a partial shot at some pointless target when you wanted the tank to hunt enemy armor. Turrets are not that much of an advantage. Besides, how often does does an immoblized tank live? Sure a turret does help, but when a tank loses its mobility it tends to die fast. Using this rationale, ATG's die just as quickly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hanns: Title should say it all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aye, it does. The best use of rockets is en masse. Target likely hiding places or place the shells along the axis of attack. Do not target too close to the edge of the map or you’ll lose rockets to areas off the map. Try using 2 or 3 lower caliber rocket FOs in conjunction with one another. You can either blast a huge section of the map all in one turn or space out the delivery over several turns. The large caliber rockets ought to be used as early into the game as possible, unless you know your opponent is receiving reinforcements. Sometimes it’s plain mean (and yes, gamey) to orchestrate a rocket delivery when your opponent is expecting reinforcements. One method to make rockets pay off is by using TRPs. The rocket and TRP combo facilitates rapid munitions delivery as needed. The low cost of the rockets promotes the use of TRPs deep in enemy territory. All in all, the use of rockets is similar to Russian roulette. A few well placed (lucky) rounds on a concentrated enemy force will result in total devastation. However if you’re unlucky and the rockets veer every which way other than on top of the enemy’s head, you’ve lost important artillery assets (read: Points).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agua: BUT, the IV/70 has a real low silhouette and if you're in hull down, you'll probably out last the Pershing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Panzer IV/70's will bounce shots off the front of a Super Pershing at 500 meters about 70% of the time. Since it's four on one, I would wager the Axis player should be able to KO the pershing before it polishes off all the Panzer IV/70's. As you already mentioned, being hull down is vital. There's an off chance one of the four Axis tanks will score a gun hit, thus making the Super Pershing null and void.

A lot can be written about split squads, especially when one writes about the Axis side due to their various infantry formations. But in a nutshell I shall attempt to gloss over my basics when utilizing split squads. First, and probably the most important, is to find a platoon or company HQ with a double command radius of the best morale level. I try to locate a company HQ unit with a double star, so it can be in command of the vanguard. Then, I break off one or two squads from their parent platoons. These squads come from platoons with poor platoon HQ characteristics. For example a platoon HQ with a single stealth bonus and nothing else would suffer a squad reduction to facilitate the manning of my company HQ recon platoon. Be sure to keep the reduced platoons close at hand in case a serious fight develops. This permits a double overlapping of HQ’s when things get grim. Having the company HQ out in advance also increases the command envelope, which is great if your men must run between cover. The company HQ platoon will stagger itself, with a single team out in advance, followed by the rest of the squads all broken down into teams. This is a great lure tactic when engaging a real opponent. He (or she) will see, at a distance, 5 squads of men making their way around. Teams tend to be hard to spot when using the move command. The lead team will not run, simply move to their designated position. Once there, another team will advance past the first team (leap frog) to the next designated location. If the enemy decides to shell, they’re hitting only two squads with a company HQ. Pay careful attention to the company HQ. Since these units have six men by default, they can stand up to a lot of punishment. But the trick to make sure they are not completely wiped out. A company HQ that’s reduced to but one man is still capable of full command! In some cases it’s more advantageous to fan out two teams in front of the company HQ platoon. The terrain ultimately determines who goes where, but generally never on fast move. If a team starts to take on direct small arms fire, change their move command to crawl. This allows them to receive more fire, but remain commandable. If they start to take on heavy direct fire from enemy armor or gun emplacements, run like the wind! [ 08-05-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Louie the Toad: The other AAA was taken out by a well placed shot of a hidden sniper.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you sure it was the sniper? You can line up 100 elite sharpshooters at 200 meters facing a 7/2 to no effect. It's amazing what boredom can do to the psyche. All the elite sharpshooters blazing away, simply wasting ammo. A 7/2 is cheaper than a 37 AA gun. They both have the same ammo load out. Hull downed (reverse sloped since they don't have true hull down status) 7/2’s are pretty tough to knock out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sven: What do you think of such a tactic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Buildings are death traps. Plugging them full of holes and waiting for them to fall down, although fun, isn’t always prudent. Sometimes it’s best to put a few rounds into them to leave them partially damaged. Your opponent will generally vacate as soon as possible, anyway. And if you don’t see any men running away, then don’t bother wasting the rounds. Sometimes it’s best to level your own buildings, so you can defend the rubble. Rubble is great to defend if you don’t mind drawing some fire. Defending behind the building in foxholes is good up until your opponent turns your flank. And given that most players will gravitate their attack along one side or the other, your flank will become open in due order. Come to think of it, I cannot remember the last time an opponent has attacked up the middle of the map. There’s generally little reason to do this maneuver, since off center-axis attacks tend to make the attackers’ assets less vulnerable. Town and village destruction is typical and historical: especially when you consider the towns and villages in CM are but small villages and hamlets. True urban areas were much tougher to crack if the defender was keen on defending.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: SO now I have a new respect for the Flak guns and will be using them more often. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Flak guns are the best value for the bang in the game. Their super-stealth mode allows them to bang away until they run out of ammo or until your enemy is walking on top of them. Okay I'm exaggerating a little. Yet, it's easier to spot a HMG at 1,000 meters than a 40mm or small flak gun. The 40mm Bofors is quite the Flak gun! The German side has cheap, high ROF, 20 mm flak guns which chew through light Allied vehicles like a samurai sword through a liquid pool of margarine. The high ROF gives them insanely high accuracy within a few short seconds. The overuse of flak guns will grant you the label, “Gamey Bastard.” So be careful!

It was exceedingly rare to unlimber 76+ mm ATGs while in contact. There are two main draw backs with unlimbering within LOS: <LI> The transport vehicle is generally big, slow, and full of ammunition. <LI> The size of the gun makes it a priority target. The game could model hits on transports more accurately. You might argue ATGs are too vulnerable, yet I would not. The game does not model ammunition stockpile hits. One small fire anywhere near the stack of rounds would make the bravest of men run. A dug in ATG is presumed to have its rounds more carefully laid out and thusly less exposed to incoming fire. A quickly unlimbered section won’t have the time to remove all 50+ rounds (especially large caliber rounds) from the transport vehicle, position the rounds a safe distance away from the crew, and lock the ATG into firing mode. The transport/ammo vehicle is the weak link while unlimbering. Shredding the vehicle early in the unlimbering processes makes the ATG useless

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stoffel: Where on the net can I find that program.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.zonelabs.com/

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olandt: Anyone know if terrain has an impact when firing on the move.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aye it does, but only to allow time for the tank barrel to position itself. A tank moving along a bumpy ridge (road, elevation change, whatever) causes the barrel to bob up and down like a yo-yo while it tries to line up the target. Once (and if) the barrel gets situated, the tank will fire off a round.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: This issue was discussed just a couple of days ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you Vanir. I missed it entirely.