Slappy

As Redwolf points out, this has been a topic of nearly endless debate and discussion since the earliest days of CM. Much testing and gnashing of teeth "seems" to have shown that for a given interval of time fast move is more likely to bog but for a given amount of ground covered they are pretty much the same. I tend to think of armor moves in terms of where I need to get, not how long I want to move in a given direction. Thus, I ignore the bog chance and choose the speed appropriate for the tactical situation.

For its time, it's a fine AFV. I'd rather have a Sherman, but I'd rather have a Pershing too.

1. Yes. 2. Stop targeting it and it will go away.

Oh, and while I'm at it. Multiplayer strictly equals 2. I'm pretty sure that 1 player is single player and that there is no provision for fractional players in the current engine.

It depends on how long you live. Earlier comments have not ruled it out for the next CM engine, and some interpritations of those comments seem to indicate that it is planned. Only time will tell.

1. Open the scenario editor, line up a ton of armor options and compare and contrast the pen stats. 2. The Force Purchase screen won't give you the pen values, but it will give you the main gun size in mm and length (as a multiple of diameter). So a 75mm/L43 is 75mm in diameter and 3225mm in length. Two thinkgs make a gun penetrate better, size and velocity. Velocity goes up with lenght. The 75mm/L48 has significantly higher penetration than the L43. You'd be surprised what you can infer from these figures, at least in a relative sense. If you want the highest pen possible for a given area, find the biggest diameter first, the longest relative length next. 90% of the time, you'll have found the highest penetration. 3. In a totally rough sense, you want mm of gun greater than mm of armor you want to penetrate. There are a million ways this can go wrong, but just from the QB purchase screen info this can be a help.

I think it also supports the ammo system in CM pretty well. No real resupply in the 40min window, but you can scrounge enough rounds to take potshots now and again.

They are also fairly effective against guns and other heavy weapons.

Remember, AP rounds do have a small blast value in CM. They're nowhere near as effective as HE from the same gun, but they will suppress and damage if the round impacts close enough. Hell, I'll use them against infantry if the situation is dire enough or if I have enough excess AP. To Mr. Kettler's point, most gunshields are several mm thick and designed to protect against small arms and shrapnel. AP rounds, even from small guns are going to go straight through.

Agreed. Air support works better the more open the terrain (air finds it easier to spot targets) and the more armor the enemy has relative to you (those planes are going to drop their bombs on something and if they can't find an enemy tank, you're will do fine). I find it a pretty big gamble. I generally get far more bang out of a 200pt artillery spotter. The only really useful situations seem to be out in the desert (really open, lots of armor, lack of cover makes spotters easy targets).

I started some of these for BB, even handed two out for playtesting (company size axis attacks with infantry only over sparse cover and in a small town). They were designed to teach proper infantry advance tactics when armor support was unavailable. I'll make an offer here. If someone is willing to host and put some framework around it, I'll contribute a couple of small v. AI training scenarios.

I agree, but this is just as true for PC to PC. Many internet mail services want to append the file to the text or otherwise strangely format it. .zips are just safer all around.

Well, hold on a second. Are you saying that you didn't give the mortar a fire order; that it fired without LOS on its own? That would be an anomoly. You have to give the mortar an area target order if it has no LOS of its own.

I don't know about $100, but I would put in $20 for a shot at $900 (assume 50 players and a 10% house fee). What the hell, a little something to make it interesting.

Reality: Should not be able to hit. Game: Will be able to hit.

Well, I have experience between 3 and 7 extra turns. It depends on what you mean by 'work properly'. If you mean ending or not by determining whether flags are changing hands/contested, no. If you mean adding some uncertainty to the end turn, yes.

Actually, they will do that even if they are in command of the local company HQ. The double click for select whole platoon is always in effect (panic/routed squads excepted).

While technically possible, it is so rare that I would recommend not trying.

I'm a particlar fan of this with four squad to a platoon formations. I much prever four three squad platoons to three four squadders. It allows me to cover far more ground on the defense and create more effective reserves on offence.

I've seen this happen, although generally a little closer to the dead vehicle. Spillover files are fairly common in CM.

This created a little more tension than your average Tip or Trick. Let's see if we can bring a bit of synthesis to the conversation. I think the following resolutions can be widely agreed upon. Resolved: 1. FTs are expensive. 2. FTs are, in many situations (crossing almost any amount of open ground under fire), extremely difficult to use effectively. 3. FTs can be, in limited circumstances (urban, heavy trees) very powerful, but even then they are not a sure thing. 4. FTs are also easy to kill and have low ammo making them a limited use weapon. 5. All of these make FTs hopeless in many situations and a bit of a gamble even in the best of situations. 6. Skilled use, the right terrain and a bit of luck can get good results, but they are not a panacea and not for the feint of heart or the inexperienced. Use at your own risk and practice if you want to get positive results. If you are uncomfortable or inexperienced with FTs, you can probably find something more consistent to spend your points on. Discuss.

They suck. Don't intentionally buy them. If you're given them (scenario or you need to buy them to get an engineer platoon to clear mines), use these suggestions on how you may be able to make them more than useless if you're skillful and lucky.

I had decent success splitting my infantry and going in both directions. Don't push too hard and don't bunch up too much. It makes it too easy to have multiple units suppressed by one shooter. When you ID someone, pound them with heavy weapons or use demo charges. Take them out one at a time. There really is no other way in my experience.

I generally find them pretty useless on the attack, but have just used them to great effect twice in an ongoing PBEM (CMAK). My opponent had a trench set up inside of a woodline (no LOS outside of the trees) in an area that I needed to cross to avoid some nasty bocage. I'd already had most of a platoon shot to hell on an earlier attempt to storm the trench. In the next run, I sent squads on advance into LOS followed immediately in the same turn by the FTs on move. The squads drew most of the fire and the FTs were able to get off several bursts. One was ordered to area fire in front of the trench (no actual LOS needed). 90 sec later, the units in the trench were in a full on rout and my troops were catching their breath in the enemy position. Same method worked well in taking a position further back on the same line of advance. Here's my assessment on why this works, particularly in the later versions of CM. Greater FOW, particularly in dense areas like woods doesn't allow the other player or the TAC AI to pick off FTs the way it sometimes will. Everything looks like 'Infantry?' in the woods. Also, FTs are area effect weapons with great morale impacts that have been bumped up in BB/AK. Area fire is nearly as effective as targeted fire due to the large spread and a near miss is enough to make all but fanatical units run for it. Smaller ammo loads and faster ROF will eat up most if not all of the fuel in a US FT in one turn, but that's better than being shot up. Just some new thoughts on an ageless topic, based on real experience.

The algorithim that determines targeting in game is a little confusing. It uses a combination of threat magnitude and kill chance to determine the actual target. Here are some outcomes given my experience. Actual results may vary. Given two identical targets (two grans say) it will target the one that it has the best chance to kill. Sometimes this will mean targeting the Grant with its side facing you rather than the one pointing at you (bigger actual thread due to hull mounded gun). I don't think 'current threat' counts, just 'general vehicle threat'. For two mismatched potential targets, it will generally take the bigger threat (Grant over Stewart). Unless, that is, the chance to kill on the bigger threat drops below some threshold. I think this is 'low' or worse on the kill chance. So if it has a bad chance at taking down the big threat, it will focus on the smaller. The AI in a Sherman will almost always target a PzIV before a Panther for example due to this rule unless it was a front shot on the IV and a rear on the V. Of course that's if you can get your Sherman to stand its ground at all v. a Panther and not pop smoke and run. Hope this helps.