Slappy

In my limited and not statistically significant experience it is a uniform distribution for all variables independently.

Thanks Gremlin. I remember reading these as a newbie back in CMBO times myself and finding them very useful.

It really was a shame. Grumlin likely would have pulled out a draw if he had managed to either hold onto that StuG or trade it for the KV. My feeling on the poor armor choice is that the StuGs don't 'remember' the engagement 3 turms ago. In my experience, each 'contact' is different. Armor almost has to have a bounce for each different LOS to a target in order to switch to AP. This seems a bit extreme. On the other hand, the TacAI probably dosen't keep track of what units engaged what others when and how that came out. The AI dosen't learn. I just don't know how good units first pick round selection was in reality. If I did, I'd have a better idea of whether to be pissed or not.

Perhaps the march of science will continue to find out how many HTs in the clear are necessary for survival. That's why I described the experiment in such detail, so that others could carry on the work.

I didn't intend to post it as a 'bug', which would probably be better off in the main forum, but as a 'tip' on aircraft spotting. I think that the results are a bit ahistoric, but within the limits of reasonable simulation. It's also a good example of what you can learn with a little creative hotseating.

'Private Joker! Show me your war face!'

My first suggestion would be to quit BB, delete the 'Combat Mission BB Prefs' file in the CMBB directory and restart. This will allow you to choose a different screen resolution and may fit better on your monitor. If this dosen't work, I'm not sure what's next. I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to ask you about your drivers.

I enjoyed it, and I thought that it was a good read. The suspense and 'mental game' of playing out what had been discussed on the forum came through. I'm always a bit mindful of my posts and how they might be perceived by people I'm playing against. One constructive comment I'll give is that I found some aspects of the battle tough to follow. It's always tough to communicate everything in an AAR, particularly as you are so close to the battle. A more frequent review of the units in each of your 'task forces' likely would have helped, as would have a few more 'lower level' screenshots. Good work though, I'll read Part II if it comes out.

Maybe, here is the problem I have with the results: When there are no vehicles in the open, the HTs in the trees are killed just as quickly as if they were in the open themselves. I would have expected better survivability on vehicles in trees than those in the open. They should have lived longer, or maybe been unspotted. That only seems to happen when there are decoy vehicles in the open.

In the spirit of coldmeter's nicknames, the Sherman was well known as the Ronson by the british. Ronson being an english equivalent of the Zippo cigarette lighter. They were well known for going up in flames if looked at sideways by a 'Tiger'. p.s. You can still find today, even in the US, Ronsonol brand Zippo fuel and Ronson flints for the same brand of lighters. The derivation is the same. [ January 01, 2003, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Slappy ]

The links don't seem to be working for me.

I'd put security and luftwaffe up against a variety of deep breakthrough or partisan opponents. They were generally rear security, and these are the types of actions that would lead to allies fighting non front line units.

Daimler AC. For the points, it is the best vehicle in the game. 40mm gun can take down all but the biggest of the cats from the side, and it has the mobility to get to the side. No HE rounds is the only drawback. If you want those, you have to go to the Greyhound. And a vote of support to the Firefly. It is to the Tiger what the Daimler is to a StuG.

The answer is, well, complicated. For the bunker, there is no need to issue further orders once your men are in the position shown. Bunkers are an immovable form of vehicle in the game (their guns and armor work in 'essenially' the same ways). In CM, vehicle assaults are abstracted. The grenade you saw thrown represents the squad close assaulting the bunker. They will continue to do so until they are overwhelmingly threatened by some other unit, suppressed or they succeed in taking down the bunker. This generally takes 1-2min for wooden bunkers and 2-3 for concrete. Your men do have to gain entrance to the bunker and subdue the crew. It is likely that they had the presence of mind to lock the door when you came knocking for a cup of sugar. Flamethrowers will generally do the job much faster, but probably should be given a target order. Engineers will throw demo charges at the back door. This is particularly effective, but means that they, and all other units should be at a safe (20m?? not sure) distance. Bazookas were fairly effective at this in CMBB, and I suspect that their lend lease friends and shrecks, etc. would work fairly well in CMBB. In short, sit tight and that bunker will be down in a couple of minutes.

Agreed. Maybe at the same time we can do something about the 'battles of the apocalypse' (Snow in July and such).

It depends VERY heavily on my PAK Size to Front Armor Thickness Ratio. PAK/FAT > 1 = Anywhere I damn well please. PAK/FAT < 1 = Flank Shot Positions screened by infantry.

My contribution is in 'Air Attack Test Results'. There should be a number of tips to be found in there.

/* Disclaimer: Non Statistically significant test results follow. These are intended for entertainment use only and no claims or representations are made regarding them. The tests were in fact carried out, and were faithfully recorded, I just don't want to get into the usual clownshow about test results that tends to happen around here. */ Abstract: Tests were done to determine the effects of air attack on lightly armored targets in open ground and in scattered trees. In both cases where vehicles were all placed in one or the other, all vehicles were destroyed. In testing where vehicles were placed in both terrain types, those in the open were destroyed and those in the scattered trees were unharmed. Initial Setup for all tests: 0. June, 1943, Clear, South, Dry, Mid Day, Breeze, 15 turns. 1. Take a standard, flat 800m x 800m map. Fill in alternating 100m patches with scattered trees. You should now have a standard 8x8 checkerboard of scattered trees and clear. 2. For allies, place on depleated ammo spotter, hidden with LOS to nothing in a wooded corner of the map. Subject map to attack by the following: 2 Lavochkin La-5 Fighter Bombers 2 Yak-9B Fighter Bombers 2 Il-2 Type 3 Ground Attack Aircraft Test 1: Turkey Shoot Test Specific Setup: Purchase 16 SPW 250/1 HT for Axis. Place in the center of the 16 open areas nearest the center of the map. None will be in the outer rim, but most of the inner 6x6 will have a HT in it. All HTs are separated by at least 200m from another. Let loose in hotseat. Don't move anyone. Test 1 Results: Axis autosurrender by turn 11. 6 Abandoned HTs, 10 Knocked out. 2 HTs were crewed at the time of surrender. Aircraft are credited with 4 abandons and 10 kills. No surprises here. Test 2: Hide? and Seek Test Specific Setup: Same purchase for the axis, but place the 16 HTs in the center of the scattered trees squares as above. Test 2 Results: Axis autosurrender on turn 12. 4 abandoned HTs, 12 knocked out. 1 HT was crewed at the time of surrender. Aircraft credited with 3 abandons and 12 KOs. THE TREES HAD NO NOTICABLE EFFECT ON VEHICLE SURVIVABILITY. Test 3: Take your Pick Test Specific Setup: This time, purchase 32 SPW 250/1. Place one in each of the most central tiles (32 of 64). 16 in clear, 16 in scattered trees. No HT should be within 100m of another. Test 3 results: HTs in Clear: 3 Abandoned 13 Knocked Out HTs in Scattered Trees: 1 Shocked 3 Buttoned, no other damage 12 Fine All HTs in clear were destroyed by turn 10. Despite no remaining living HTs in the open, aircraft continued to attack the dead HTs in the clear. The one casulaty to a HT in the trees was due to an errant rocket intended for one of the HTs in the open. Conclusion: Aircraft AT massively favors targets in the open. So much so that it appears to favor targeting dead vehicles in the open over live ones in trees. However, in the absence of targets in the open, it will track down and successfully attack those in cover as effectively as if they were in the open. I leave the rest of you to draw your own tactical conclusions from these results. [ December 31, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Slappy ]

I'l bump this with my explanation for the situation, because I am interested in the 'real' answer. I have seen this and always assumed that it was by design. Having the forward units immovable within their zone, but movable back to the full zone gives the player two choices: 1. Pull them back (simulating having withdrawn those units between battles). 2. Live with them where they are (they are cut off and subject to only limited input from the CO. Essentailly, the crappy position in the new zone is the price you pay for starting with units that far forward.

Two thoughts: 1. Why not just play the tactical simulation first and then add the planes to the scenario if they get through? 2. Not even for a second would I consider trading safe PBEMs for this. If you really want surprise, enlist a 3rd party GM to set up your QBs. That would seem to eliminate all of your issues.

Currently, there is no way to do this. I don't know if there are any plans to fix it. It's come up before, but there dosen't seem to be a great deal of outcry when it does.

If you're interested in a PBEM, send me a setup. My address is in my profile. That was easy.

My understanding is that the next patch is considered the patch patch. (1.02 will solve the 1.01 problems and a whole bunch of new ones)

It's not a radio spotter. You can embark a radio spotter on a tank. Non-radio spotters communicate by laying field telephone lines behind them, impossible to do on a moving vehicle. They are also much slower moving on foot for the same reason. This is why you pay extra for the radio.

I've had mixed success using the PAKs and infantry together. Against the AI, use the infantry as a screen forward of the AT guns to prevent overrun. Against humans, position them so that they can fire on AFVs that come up to dislodge infantry positions. In general, I have found 37mm and below to be fairly useless from both sides after '41. After that, 45mm to 76mm are fairly even on the quantity v. quality tradeoff. 88mm are only worth the points in the out years when uber-tanks are derigour for both sides.