Slappy

I don't get the feeling from the info that's been released so far that the auto resolve will actually play the battle in CMBB behind the scenes using AI on AI. It sounded more like a probability table resolution based on force sizes along with some modifiers and random casualites. For example, Side A has 2000 points attacking Side B which is dug in with 400 points. At a 5:1 ratio, Side A needs a 5 or better on a 2d6 to win, but defender get +1 for dug in and +1 for night engagement, so the attacker actually needs a 7 or better. Computer rolls a 9 (Tactical Victory). Sector goes to the attacker. Attacker takes (roll again, 3) light casualties and the defender takes (roll again, 7) moderate casualties. Assign 200pts of losses to the attackers and 200pts to the defenders, or something. This is based entirely on my reading of the tea leaves, but seems much simpler and faster than AI on AI battles and less likely to lead to unrealistic outcomes and huge losses from auto resolved encounters.

I think that Phillipe has gotten the point I was trying to make here. I'm not talking about gamey blocking moves or splitting a whole division up into platoon size elements. That said, I do think that there are legitimate regimental / devision level engagement uses for small units. 1. Flanks. I'm not going to have an entire batallion+ across every km of a 10km front, particularly as an attacker. I'll hold parts of the line with considerably less and parts with more. In these out of the way areas, I think it is perfectly possible and historical to have most of the action be sub company sized recon, counter recon, spoilers and feints. Relatively static fronts often have most of the action between the MLRs. 2. Recon and Screening. Even where the main thrust is coming, the front of the column is rarely heavy armor or large foot infantry formations. One of the things that I'm looking forward to in Campaigns is actually getting some advantage out of formations like armored car units and motarized / armored infantry that are expensive and largely useless in traditional CMBB play. Sure, there are some times when PSWs are useful in traditional play, but no one plays with armored PzGren formations as they are far too expensive and blow up too easily against any real armor. In the campaign however, faster movement makes them a real asset. Why wouldn't I have small, fast units out in front of my main line trying to grap information and real estate and hold it until relieved by a more combat oriented but slower unit? Let's say that I have a scouting / spearhead unit (armored inf platoon and armored car platoon) that has moved into a village quickly and is trying to hold it for time or is trying to push through a lightish defensive picket of a platoon, a light gun and a couple of MGs. This could be an important engagemet to determine who holds terrain for the next several hours. Do I really need a 1000m map to accomodate these actions? Do I really need a map that big at night in the fog and rain? It just seems like a hassle to push my units around for the extra 300-500m. Citizen's FOW concern though is legit.

I like the big maps for the campaign, but am wondering if there is provision for smaller than 1kmx1km maps for smaller unit engagements. It looks like there would be plenty of opportunity for relatively small MEs to meet up, particularly in the early phases of an engagement, and out of the way of the main thrusts. If two platoon or company sized units are engaged, is there a way to use a smaller engagement map? I could easily see these smaller units fumbling around a square km of wooded terraing for an hour without engaging each other. It would seem that fighting these battles on the large maps would make small unit engagements less likely to lead to real estate changing hands or at least less enjoyable for me (more unit pushing, less actual fighting). Any word or consideration on this?

I don't believe so. You'll just have to Alt-Tab if your boss shows up.

It's worth noting that aircraft will attack, in general in the following order: Live armor in open Dead armor in open Live armor in cover Dead armor in cover Infantry, maybe Any armor on fire If you hide all your vehicles in trees, the air will find them, but if you leave one or two in the open, they will continue to be attacked over and over, at least until they burn.

I am sure that the bigger unit is easier to spot, but I have no confirmation that it spots easier.

I think the time to unjam is highly variable. I've had regular units jammed for up to five minutes at a time. It doesn't happen often, just when an entire batallion needs to walk through their fire lane to flank my entire defence.

There are way too many unit types and variations to really give a good description, not to mention the variety of mission types and weather/terrain conditions that will influence the answer. Regardless of the parameters, think combined arms. 1. You'll need infantry to take and hold ground as Flenser mentions. Unless you are in the openest of open desert terrain, this is your primary arm. You may lean a little SMG or LMG heavy depending on terrain, but expect to spend at least 1/3 of your budget on infantry. The most common leg infantry or motorized types are usually servicable for most uses. 2. Armor. This is to control long lanes and take out enemy armor. Look for a big high velocity main gun and good front armor to brush off enemy fire. These are the two big criteria I use. 3. Artillery. You need at least a minimum amount for harassment and smoke. Get some more if you like. 4. Support. Get mortars, MGs, antitank teams, etc. to round out what your infantry formations don't come with and to provide local on map fire support. Once you've filled out the basics, you can get cute.

1. Don't know. That's when I generally have seen them, but I can't say for sure that it is the only time. 2. Map exit will not help. 3. Inpacts ammo replenishment and vehicle repair times. More supply = more ammo and better chance for faster repair. As for the actual algorithim, I have no clue and I doubt it's ever been released or tested in enough detail to know.

Hi mom.

Regular infantry will take down bunkers just fine. It will just take a while. Park 2 squads 10m behind the door and wait. The occasional grenade throwing will occur and sooner or later you'll get a kill from one of the hits. It will probably take 3-4 minutes. Remember, bunkers are 'vehicles' in the game. Think of it as assaulting a bogged King Tiger with no ammo. Your men will get the job done, be patient.

Larger also tends to last longer, but if you plan to drop again to save your bacon, it's probably too late. I recommend "walking" the fire around a bit to keep some rounds falling after a good screen has been established. This can be a little tough with LOS blocked by the smoke already out there, but it's better than nothing, particularly for small cal. short adjust time mortars.

And bigger often takes longer to appear post impact.

You are correct in that hull down is binary not continuous. There is no turret down and no degree of hull down. All are the same for to hit percentages. All vehicles are indeed two dimensionless points for sighting purposes. Right or wrong, you can either see the whole thing, only the top half or none. There are no shades of grey. That said, degrees of relative elevation are considered in the penetration equation, so you may be better off in a more sloped hull down position than a less sloped, but only for penetration purposes.

Infantry squads will only accept command from thier original Platoon HQ or a higher level HQ (company, batallion), never another Platoon HQ. Teams (MGs, Mortars, Guns, etc.) will accept command from any HQ and always the nearest regardless of the original command. This should explain most of your issues. Suqads are picky and won't go listening to anyone, unless they rank high enough. Also, armor has its own chain and will never listen to infantry HQs. Mixing and matching is often highly effective and encouraged. Some examples to think about: Spreading out your AT assets (one shrek per platoon for example) Creating on board mortar units (3-4 with a HQ) to concentrate fire against enemy guns. Add a MG or two for a general long range support team. Have Company COs take on a squad each from 2-3 platoons. Now you have a four platoon company instead of a three platoon company. The platoons are each a squad short but you are now able to cover a longer line while staying in command. Guns like to be in command. They shoot better and are more resistant to abandoning due to mortar fire. Company/Batallion HQs are good for gun command. Often they'll be toward the rear for this as they frequently have the star (wider command radius) bonus which is more handy there. You can probably come up with a lot more once you think about it.

The central hidden location is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how effective it would be. If they were able to open fire earlier, why not have them do so? You're almost always better off applying twice the firepower once than you are applying half the firepower twice. Concentrated fire will break the attackers faster and multiple firing bases will mrean more flanking shots. One thing to consider about reserves, they don't always need to come from the rear. Even if you have a fairly forward defence, the attack almost never falls over your whole line, at least not in force. Forward units that don't catch the main thrust are now freed up to react. They can move to the center or flank to support other defenders, or even more forward to attempt to flank the main thrust. Additionally, you may want to leave your reserves in the rear but behind the defenders caught up in the main attack. Let the initial position be overrun, but have your reserves waiting behind it. Combine this with using less impacted defenders for flank attacks and you can pull the attacker into a 'bag' where you can cut him up pretty badly.

If you are set up in mines and don't move, you will not trigger them. I've done this once or twice. Problem is, if the unit panics and runs that may set off a mine and show the enemy the mine marker, blowing the surprise.

Is this thing still going on? Worst thread ever.

Hi mom.

Are you sure this wasn't just a leftover prop from an 'A Team' episode that the Danes imported? This looks an awful lot like what BA would whip up in the last ten minutes of every show.

Get a ton of troops and hope their stugs run out of ammo. I believe they only carry about 30 HE rounds, not enough to dislodge a platoon in trenches. It hurts, but it works.

I've done some testing and have an answer to the original question, but it's a bit complicated. If you have armor in trees and in the open, the planes will always attack the armor in the open, even if it has been knocked out (but not burning). If you have armor only in scattered trees, it will attack the armor in the trees. The air targeting routine is a little strange, it seems to hit easily seen targets first, but will find less obvious targets if there are no slam dunks available pretty easily. Given friendly fire probabilities, it may even attack friendly armor in the open if all of yours is hidden. The safest strategy is actually to leave all the armor you want to protect in the trees and have a couple of trucks or HTs in the open to draw the easy fire. Hope this helps.

This looks great. One feature I would love is the ability to compare units, that is pull up the stats for two or three units side by side on the screen. This would let you for example compare the differences between model varients or pull up vehicles from different sides to see how they match up. This is something that I use the scenario editor for today, but I find a hassle to have to. Just a thought. Great site.

I believe that casualty points are awarded by the weapon the soldier carried with adjustments for experience and unit type (pioneers for example). This is the same way that costs are calculated. This has several interesting effects: 1. HQs and crews tend to be worth less as more of them carry pistols only. 2. When casualties happen, other squad members have a chance to pick up weapons better than their own from downed comrades. Interestingly, riflemen seem to die faster than LMG or SMG gunners in mixed squads for this reason. You may have to kill everyone in a squad to get the full casualty points. On the other hand, maybe you'll get lucky and gun down all the expensive ones first. 3. It makes pioneers expensive to buy and very expensive to have killed. Many refuse to buy them in QBs for this reason. Also, you are correct. There are no points for damaging vehicles.

You sure can. If you drive off the captors and get some friendlies nearby, they will revert to uncaptured. They should still be unarmed, but your opponent won't get the captured points or the casualty points.