Kanonier Reichmann

Is it just me or does anyone else find it significant that 2 of the most famous guns to emerge from WWII were both firing shells that were 88mm in size. It's as if the magical number "88" represents the ideal calibre to deal with either enemy tanks or troops in that particular war. Regards Jim R.

So Kingfish, any chance of some Nabla adjusted results yet and the final winners? Regards Jim R.

You might be right redwolf. The fact remains that this appears to be quite a severe problem which I feel needs to be addressed if we're having to hold out for approximately 2 years before the all dancing, all singing version of Combat Mission CMx2 is developed. I'm really hoping for one final patch to be released on CMBB before all BFC's resources are solely devoted to the new incarnation of the Combat Mission engine. Regards Jim R.

I wish I'd thought of placing my gun pillboxes on the islands in the middle of the river. They would have been unassailable and no doubt have done alot more damage than they did. I'm wondering whether the scenario designer intended this possibility to arise where certain fortifications would be unable to be assaulted? Regards Jim R.

Actually, I believe Italian engineers were way ahead of their time. They were the first ones to invent the blow out panels on their tanks in case of being hit except they got it slightly wrong and designed them as blow out panels when trying to do the hitting. Still, you've got to admire their foresight if not their application. Regards Jim R.

I'm mentioning this "bug" in the (probably forlorn) hope that BFC may address it with just one further final patch to CMBB to correct a rather disturbing problem. The problem lies in an attacker/defender scenario or QB where certain fortifications purchased by the defender equates to instant victory points to the attacker. The fortifications that cause the problem are any form of minefield, wire, roadblocks and TRP's so that once purchased, the cost to the defender in purchasing them are automatically credited to the attacker as casualty V.P.'s. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself. Chose a low point value, limited turns attack/defend style QB but on a pre-designed map where there is no way possible for the attacking forces to reach the defenders side of the map due to a giant impassable cliff face through the middle of the map (if you like). Only allow 1 small V.P. for the defender to defend and then purchase over 100 points worth of wire, TRP's, minefields etc. If you're playing as the defender hide all your troops so that there's no chance of them firing at anything and ensure the attackers forces have no F.O.'s or anything then simply wait until the turns expire. You'll notice right from the outset that the defenders starting winniing percentage is looking sick before a shot has been fired. It will stay that way throughout the game and when you see the "victory" screen you'll see that you've actually lost as the defender due to the so called casualties your side has already suffered right from the start. My question is, should this be considered a reasonable situation perhaps based on the defender already having the advantage of hidden positions etc? If it's considered far less than desirable shouldn't it be reasonable to have a patch to fix this problem and not make it a double whammy for purchasing perfectly useful and desirable fortifications for a proper defensive position? Regards Jim R.

The Owen Gun. They were specifically designed in Australia to function in the most adverse jungle conditions possible and lived up to their reputation for reliability no matter how badly they were treated. One was buried in mud for a period of three months then dug up, cocked and it still fired its entire magazine without jamming. They were so well regarded by the Australian army grunts that they were still highly prized for the in close jungle fighting in the early years of the Vietnam War until they were officially withdrawn from use. Not bad for a machine pistol design that was pretty much regarded as old hat after WWII following the advent of assault rifles. Regards Jim R.

Jeez, you had me worried there for a moment H! Regards Jim R.

Right, I've just redone the "What general would you have been" questionnaire and now I've landed General Walter Short. Now surely he was O.K., wan't he? Regards Jim R.

I don't supppose you considered incorporating a bugler like sound going through the death throes much like the action in the film "The Party"? Regards Jim R.

As a general rule it's usually not a good idea to use very long rotate waypoints because this appears to be the constant that triggers an abberant move or move fast order to replace the rotate order. From my experience it's better to only have short drawn rotate orders at the end of a movement order to minimise the chances of this happening again. Regards Jim R.

Just to clarify my previous statement, I'm assuming here that Ariel hadn't previously agreed in any pre-battle negotiations to not use pre-planned barrages. As I'm reasonably sure that Ariel wouldn't break any such (hypothetical) agreements then no way was his use of the pre-planned barrage "cheating" or "unethical". I still regard his opponent as a whiner and a bad sport who can't stand losing in the circumstances I've described above. Regards Jim R.

The only trouble is H is that I'm not one of the finalists so I wont be receiving the email Kingfish refers to in his post. It appears you're on your own on this one. Regards Jim R.

Your logic is perfectly sound. Your opponent is a whiner. He took the risk, he takes the consequences. Accusing you of cheating is ridiculous when the game engine specifically allows you to do this. Regards Jim R.

Kingfish. I believe that Holien is currently on holiday overseas with his newly betrothed so I'm not sure how long he'll be away before being able to read his emails. He left a bit over a week ago. Regards Jim R.

Good to hear from you John. We've missed your incomparable AAR style in the ROW tournament. Regards Jim R.

Good to hear from you John. We've missed your incomparable AAR style in the ROW tournament. Regards Jim R.

Good to hear from you John. We've missed your incomparable AAR style in the ROW tournament. Regards Jim R.

What, you didn't like the idea of F5's being used to represent the pinnacle in Soviet fighter technology? Shame on you! Regarding using real tanks in war films, obviously soon after the war there were quite a few around that were used in films e.g. real Panthers in the documentary style film Theirs is the Glory but as time marched on the real deal units steadily disappeared. Regards Jim R.

Thank you, Dr. Science. You've discovered a CMBO vehicle that would eject rounds through the back of the turret, or did rounds circumnavigate the game world and come up on the other side?</font>

Now that's what I call a real multi-colour yawn. BTW, is that individuals name "pencilneck"? Regards Jim R.

I tried that "most brilliant general" type questionaire as well. Was General Graziani any good? Regards Jim R.

Interesting place to attack Frunze. I contemplated that area as well but I was concerned that my forces could be caught in a cross-fire between enemy forces located in the town which had some LOS to that area and defenders in the woods themselves. How did you go about capturing the nearby woods V.L. without being susceptible to flank shots from the town defenders? Myself, I simply rushed a platoon each of T34's and SU 85's loaded with infantry to the eastern and southern side of the woods losing in the process a T34 to a solitary Stug defending the gap in the woods but overwhelming it with multiple shots from my attacking AFV's. There was about a platoons worth of infantry defending near the gap in the forest but my one & a half platoons worth of SMG's plus supporting fire from the AFV's soon overwhelmed them. The only downside was, most of my squads had used up virtually all their ammo in such a close ranged firefight so early in the game. From there on in I had to tread very lightly as any further engagement would have seen my infantry on that flank without ammo after 1 more turn (at best) of firing. Regards Jim R.

G'day all. I wanted to thank Kingfish and the guys at B&T for coming up with another set of thoroughly original and challenging scenario's to test our CMBB skills. I certainly appreciate all the effort you've put into the ROW series to date and hopefully into the future with the upcoming CMAK. My views on the scenario's area s follows and if others wish to play them at some future date I recommend you not read on as they may contain some spoliers. ******WARNING- POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD****** / / / / / / / / / / / / The Petroskov River Bridge presented the defender with a choice of whether to attempt to gain as many victory points as possible with the exiting of re-inforcements or use the bulk of them to bolster ones defences. It becomes a juggling act of what to utilise in the defence and what to let attempt to cross the one bridge that leads to the exit edge. My view is that provided the Soviets haven't managed to break through the German defences early and decisively, especially around the area where the German re-inforcements appear, it would be difficult for the Soviets to pull off a victory. As the Axis side you can keep feeding in the re-inforcemnts as needed to stabilise the line but if your line is already breeched and the re-inforcements enter in the LOS of marauding Soviet units, you're in trouble. The High Road was a very interesting (and time consuming) exercise for the Soviet defenders in how to setup a good defence against a threat that could come at you from a number of places including behind the village you hold. Placement of the 2 wooden MG bunkers and concrete gun emplacements are critical to the defence and they should be in places where they're very difficult for the attacking side to reach and close assault. Clearly I didn't place mine too cleverly as I lost both my concrete bunkers to close assaulting infantry while one of the wooden MG bunkers was taken out by a firing slit penetration. Overall however, I was glad to be the defender in that one rather than the attacker as it struck me that there would need to be alot of movement plotting and manouevering required to play the Axis side well and that can be a bit tiresome before too long. One thing I will say, don't rely on your AP minefields to do much in the damp conditions. I had an entire German platoon run through one of my minefiled tiles while they were under fire and not a single casualty was caused! Combined Arms was surprised to see it there once the game had finished as he had no idea until the final screen appeared of its existance. So much for the idea of protecting the rear of ones bunkers with minefields. I tend to disagree with Frunze on how much of a doddle Koltov was as the attacker. The main disadvantage the attacker has from my POV is the lack of infantry to properly scout out potential ambush spots. You may get lucky by risking a large proportion of your force in rushing through a gap in some woods or a section of town but then again you could also loose big time to ambushing German infantry that were well armed with anti-tank weaponry. I played the safer option and although my forces never came within a bulls roar of the centre of the main town that was never my objective. Realising what is achievable and what isn't is probably pretty critical with this scenario and despite my best efforts to carefully scout ahead with whatever infantry I had, I still managed to lose over a platoons worth of T34's plus almost the same again in SU85's. This scenario is truly a challenge to both defender and attacker alike and I thought it was pretty well balanced in terms of testing ones attacking skills versus the defenders choice of where to defend and what with. Regards Jim R. [ November 06, 2003, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

If my eyes aren't deceiving me I believe we may be seeing 3 storey buildings judging by the screenie of the Pommie infantry in the desert. Question is....will we able to utilise the 3rd storey? Regards Jim R.