Slappy

Actually, I think that playing this as the russians would be a breeze. Here's why: ~70% of the Axis player's points need to come from exiting the trucks. Remember, those are Elite trucks, and he paid (39 * 6 = 234pts) for those, double if they don't exit. A soviet ATR or MG can take down a truck at 300m in one turn easy. If the Soviets can remain in cover until the trucks show up, he can bag those and be assured a draw at worst. If he can keep up a 1-1 casualty ratio, this goes up to a major victory, even if he dosen't keep the flag (100pt flag by the way).

I have also had no luck in this department. The final indignity for me: Soviet veteran tankhunter team, throws a molotov from 12m at an unsuspecting 250/1 (open top)! The tankhunter scores a top penetration on the HT with no effect! HT drives on as if nothing had happened. It's been two steps down from that for regular infantry.

I've been a fan since CMBO, but they are far more useful in CMBB. With the importance of suppression in BB, you need every bit you can get. They are great for MGs and guns as was mentioned. I also use them to suppress on the attack. Even the 50mm is very effective at suppressing or breaking units in woods up to regular quality. Gone are the CMBO days when units would hang around for treeburst after treeburst. The same and more when defending. A couple of well placed 50mm rounds can stop a platoon dead for 2-3 min.

On a very similar topic: I have been wondering for some time if the 'buffer' around units was bigger in BB. It seems to me that in setup and throughout the game units need to be farther apart than in BO. It is really messing with my intuition about platoon placements in buildings and small patches of trees. Playing 'Pavlov's House' I actually had a platoon HQ walk off the map because he was unable to find a place to sit down in the first floor of a heavy building, leaving his platoon leaderless for the rest of the battle. Is this just my imagination, or are othere experiencing this as well?

I have (had) a system non unlike yours. I bought my PC at a dead dotcom garage sale and it was essentially a business, not a gaming, machine with no AGP slots. I picked up a 64MB PCI card which perked things up dramatically. I went from not being able to run CMBO with any hi res mods to running most CMBB scenarios quite well. There aren't that many 64MB PCI cards made (most are 32 PCI or 64-128 AGP) but they are worth tracking down. I picked one up for about $150 without a lot of looking and installed it in about 30min and I am not a computer person. This may be an option that prevents system replacement, and it's worth $150 to try it before you kick in for an entirely new system. You can always sell the card on e-bay if you're still not happy.

I would look at the unit info window (hit enter with the unit selected). This gives you the firepower for infantry by range approximately. You'll find that unless a unit has some sort of LMG they're good for suppression only at further than 100m. Vehicle HE shells have the same effect (more or less) regardless of range because they act based on explosives, not kinetic energy. AP round effectiveness drops off based on muzzle velocity and range. Either way, the unit info windows of the two vehicles should allow you to compare armor to penetration for shells to armor rating for target to get a rough kill chance. Of course, if the enemy is in LOS, the target line will tell you all of this.

There have always been two real BTS objections to this (if I may summarize liberally from my forum readings) 1. They really don't have the interest in modern combat that they do in WWII. It sounds fun to many of us (myself included), and would probably sell, but it just woulden't be the labor of love that CM is. 2. The vast differences (i.e. engagement size, weapons, electronics, aircraft) are really too big to bridge with anything like the CM engine. AI, armor calculations, LOS and artillery to name a few would require so much rework that it would be a different game. You can't just put bigger guns in the mix and expect things to work out. These add up to not much cance of it happening. They have said as much for the modern period and actually for Civil War and Napoleonic periods as well.

They do, and should, get priority. On the other hand, they get it much less in BB because of EFOW. It is now much harder to spot a FT as such.

I picked up a major on the first try, but was helped by some bad AI placement at setup. I can't imagine playing this against an even semi-competent human and taking the town. I placed the IG, MGs and 50mms near the front of the woods facing the town and used them for suppression. The infantry pushed up the extreme right flank supported by armor to cross the road and get into the woods. Once you've turned the flank, its a matter of continuing pressure from the front and moving the assault force up the road to the church. Feel free to drop any building giving you problems with the IG. Worked for me.

A Warm Place to Sleep? I think that's the title. Small meeting engagement. Seemed to be close to balanced, maybe a little Axis biased.

Mustang, I agree with the above and it is VERY true in CMBO where FTs were as good as dead within 100m of any enemy units. There have been several long threads on CMBO FTs that seem to be split into two camps. Camp A: You need to suppress everyone within 100m of a FT to use it. If you do this, they can be very effective. Camp B: If I could do that, I woulden't need the FT! I'll just use them on defence. That said, I have found FTs in CMBB much more effective, even on the attack. I have maneuvered them into range and routed units with them 4-5 times in 2 CD scenarios which I won't list for spoiler reasons. I think the differences are due to the following: 1. Extreme FOW- FTs remain spotted as Infantry? much longer and so don't draw nearly as much fire moving in. 2. Better suppression in CMBB- Area fire and MGs are much more effective at keeping the defender's head down. 3. Better FT mobility- They don't have access to any of the new move commands (assault, advance) but when moving, they keep up with the rest of the platoon putting them in a better position to fire. Just some of my observations. Slappy

I was humbled by the AI in my first outing. I tried to use my tanks like infantry (i.e. scouting the trees, one AFV up front to spot trouble, etc.) and was picked off one by one as a result. My advice is keep everyone together. Keep your platoons in nice bunches and use travelling overwatch. The key to citadel for both sides is to create 4 on 1 or better situations. Also, the only real threats in citadel are the guns. You may lose one tank to a ATR, but the Maxim's are useless, the tank hunters are only a threat in the trees, and the KVs are a joke if you gang tackle them.

After the battle all kills, not just confirmed are displayed. Very useful for tracking performance, particularly of FOs for whom many kills are out of sight in trees/rubble. I just finished Pavlov's House on the CD, a very enjoyable scenario, as the Allies with the following selected results: Mild Spoiler Follows . . . . . . . . . . . Green Rifle Squad: 42 casualties, 0 lost Regular Rifle Squad: 47 casualties, 0 lost 82mm FO: 102(!) casulaties +4 mortars, 1 lost These three units contributed a total of 191 out of 330 casualties. A total victory, medals all around.

I understand the space issue, but the dual CD was really one of the greatest things about CMBO for me. I am a dual platform user (Mac desktop, PC laptop) and appreciated not having to shell out twice for the same game for once. Any word on the chances for a discounted Mac version for PC buyers?

Package arrived in San Diego on the 23rd. I may be an exception, but I'm a happy exception.

Holding 'shift' down in the map editor while you increase/decrease map size does this from the West/South not the usual North/East. You can put your village wherever you want.

To me, a briefing should give me, in brief, what information / intel the commander on the field would have at the time, and what the goals of the mission are. Examples: 1) Has the area in front of me been reconed? 2) How lond ago, by whom, to what result? 3) Am I tied in with other units on the flanks? 4) Why is this engagement important? 5) Is there armor in the area? 6) Are reserves available? The briefing may turn out to be correct or incorrect (just as field info would), but it sets me up in a grounded situation from which I can make decisions, not just on a random field somewhere.

Great. Ordered. That said, the bundle pack I'm looking for is the CMBB combo Mac and PC CD. I've got both platforms sitting in the same room and it was the first game I've ever bought to come with both formats on the same CD. It really made computer management with my fiance easier. Any chances?

This has not been as issue with scenarios the size of those in the demo, but I can imagine that being quite different with more units to keep track of under extreme FOW. With several square km map, lots of woods and a batallion or two on either side I can imagine having to watch the replay time after time looking for faint tracers.

In my experience: 1) ~20m 2) Yes 3) ~2min [ September 05, 2002, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Slappy ]

On a related note: (this may help or not) The squad that surrenders with one combat effective remaining will likely have a half dozen injured non-KIAs which surrender as well. It has always mystified me that these are not considered captured for score purposes, even if there is a global surrender. In this case, you get credit for all combat effective surrenders, but the wounded captured are counted as killed, as are the wounded who escaped off map with the rest of their units. It seems to me that most non-lethal casualties would still allow prisoners to be interrogated within enough time to be of use. Any thoughts on whether this was: a. Overlooked and a mistake? b. Overlooked because wounded non-KIAs are not tracked in general. These guys could be 1000m from their unit by the end of the battle? b. Intentional - Captured wounded are more trouble than they're worth and so don't count extra?

As xerxes points out, the issue is not that the wall dosen't provide cover, it's that the Tac AI dosen't realize that it provides cover. You can effectively hide behind a wall if prone, and it will stop a fair amount of fire. On the other hand, when under fire, the Tac AI only sees that it is in open ground. It will then react as if fired upon in the middle of a football pitch (i.e. flail around looking for cover and generally get mown down). The only real solution is to be in some sort of cover behind the wall. Units in foxholes or some sort of woods but within ~10m to the wall do fairly well. They only 'see' the cover they're in, but the get the benefit of the wall.

1. OG, some feedback on the types of questions you're asking. They have improved greatly over the last several days, tending to be more either very specific or quite conceptual. This is appreciated. It is very difficult to answer what is a conceptual doctrine question with a specific move related answer, as you have seen. In CM, there are few true rules of what must be done, and there is a great deal of ground where intelligent people can disagree. Much improved though. 2. Many of the things you want to know at the tactial, move order level can be answerd by doing one of three things. a. Use the Scenario Editor. b. Hotseat scenarios against yourself. c. Hotseat scenarios that you designed in the Scenario Editor against yourself. There really is an amazing amount to be learned here at the tactical level. For your woods, open ground questions, you can run this over and over in an hour with different combinations of season, tree type, infantry type, tank type and enemy reaction as well. It will soon be apparent what the major factors are, and what, in general, should be done. I believe that this is the best way to answer some of the 'What should I do with this unit when this happens?' questions. There are just too many variables for a text description to do this much justice. 3. Some thoughts on scouting and infantry teams. Disclaimer to Section 3: I am not an expert, I do not pretend to be an expert, and what I am going to discuss only works about half the time for me in PBEM. End of Disclaimer. Scouting team points are not 'given away' to the enemy. These are not intended to be disposable. The intent is that all of these guys will make it home to their girls after the war. This is really important. To that end, scouts should be deployed in the vicinity of their home units. Sending lone teams to the flank, 300m from their platoon HQ will not hold the flank, and will almost certainly get them killed. Use the scouts in front of the platoon, just inside of / outside of command range of the platoon HQ. I try to sneak the entire platoon with the team moving in front, followed at 30-50m by the HQ who is trailed 10-20m by the rest of the platoon. This gives me decent response time on move order changes to the scout, and means that if they are stopped by enemy fire, the HQ will catch up and put them within command radius for the start of the next turn. This means that, in that next turn, I can either: a. RUN up the other half of the team and rejoin while the forward team is in command (should avoid panic if within command) along with the rest of the platoon for suppression and to prepare for an assault. b. WITHDRAW RUN the team away (needs to be in command for this) and get the scouts out with minimal damage and plot my next move on the defended position (Artillery). If you're not going to have a platoon right behind, don't use teams to scout. They're expensive, they're not that quiet, and they are move valuable elsewhere. If you don't have a platoon to commit to an area of the front, use a sharpshooter or an AT team. These are both far more stealthy than a rifle team out of command. Sneak them up. Get a nice view, and have a 2nd line platoon or and AFV that can swing their way if the 2nd Armored looks ready to counter attack in their sector. Slappy out.

I have to agree with this one. In addition to the normal skills like moving quietly and shooting straight, higher quality units would tend to pick up some other important skills like: Ammo conservation Stealing stuff when available and holding onto it I would fully expect crack troops to be better at finding, getting and keeping all sorts of supplies in rear areas when they get the chance leading to better small arms and especially faust loads ON AVERAGE.

I gotta go with Juju here, I thought the music was a joke. On the other hand, within the limits of 2 years of high school spanish, the site looked good.