Priest

Kalli, I currently have an opponent who has learned otherwise, and I was the teacher. Generally you are correct, but you have to realize that is not automatic, the commander still has to be as good as the one he is fighting.

While I am no Fionn, I usually win the "Armour Battle". Without a doubt recon is important, the location of all units with AT capability is essential. The higher the percentage of known AT assets and their location, the higher the survivability rate of your own AFVs. I actually use a doctrine based on Fionn's own force allocation methods. And while I cannot speak for Fionn I believe his is probably more apt to kill infantry with infantry than me. I use direct HE fire from tanks to kill infantry. I also use tanks and ATG guns (especially on defense) to take out other tanks. Hmm the above statment is not as clear as I would like, let me try another method. Here is how I like a battle to go, it is basic and applies to both the attack and defense. An aggressive (not stupidly so) recce/picket screen of my forces. Combat groups built around a strong armour force with AT put first (I will explain this in a moment). I will use my main ATG forces to engage the enemy outside of effective infantry range and hope to take out most of the enemies MBTs. Once this is done, and the infantry battle is joined I will assign my main AT forces on overwatch and my infantry will focus on screening my designated HE throwers. My HE throwers will blunt the enemy advance and attrit the enemy. Once any local man portable AT assets are eliminated the infantry can join in the destruction of the enemy with the now "indestructable" HE thrower. The designated AT assets can watch for the possible reserve forces and act as a reserve themselves for me. Before the main infantry battle the "HE throwers" also can act as an AT reserve (I will explain). Now for the explaination of my earlier statments about my AT assets and HE throwers. Most would assume I believe that I would be talking Hetzers and Jacksons for the AT assets and M8 HMCs and Stuhs for the HE throwers, actually I usually take the same weapons systems for both. An example: Normal AT group armour layout: 5 Panthers for the Germans or possibly 3 Sherman M4a3s with the 76mm gun and 2 TDs. Normal HE group armour layout: 5 Panzer IVH for the Germans or 3-5 Shermans (75mm or 76mm guns). I would happily sub the Panthers for the Panzer IVHs and while I would lose some effectiveness in the 75mmvs76mm gun tradeoff I have few qualms using the 75mm gun in the AT role. I also prefer more MGs on an AFV compared with caliber of main gun. An example would be that I prefer the Panzer IVH over the Stuh42. The Panzer IVH has more MG ammo and more MGs (IIRC) than the Stuh. This will allow my small arms immune tank to fire on infantry with MGs pinning them, allowing my HE, infantry, or artillery to deal the real damage. There is a limit obviously as a Stuart is not as desireable as say a StugIII. Regardless the armour fight deals with you seeing the enemy, achieving position on that enemy with a locale superiority in main guns, and maintaining the initiative by constricting the operational room the enemy AFV has to manuever. Just some thoughts off the top of my head, can you tell I am at work [ June 01, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Priest ]

Jason I think you confuse confidence with over-confidence. I read Fionn's post like this: You have to go into a battle feeling as if you can win. Trusting that the way you see the field before you is and the way you interpret it is correct. You cannot second guess yourself. And you have to do this always. I have fought Fionn and he was not over-confident, he was confident. Regardless the "mental" game is the game. Think about it, you have a decision to make, do I move this platoon or let them sit? If you have confidence you know the answer, you make your decision and commit yourself totally. If you are not then you second guess or half ass it. If you are over confident then you will most likely make the wrong decision without considering all of the factors. In a game the other day I lost a platoon all at once as I walked into an ambush. I was dismayed that I would allow that to happen. Then I looked at the field, re-adjusted my plan, compensated properly, and lost zero momentum and time. My mindset allowed me to put it behind me and not allow my opponent a moment of initiative as I tried to regroup. I flowed with it and continued my advance (and I was on defense). And Wreck a cool calm calculated approach only comes from someone with confidence, someone without is simply too busy trying to figure out what he/she is doing wrong.

Tarq The answer is as always playing style and situation. I tend to like the battle to play out before me and I flow with it. I have learned to trust my instincts (yes I have instincts for combat, admittedly non-real simulated in my game room not being shot at video game combat instincts, but instincts nonetheless!) If I believe my Tiger can make an immediate impact and scatter my opponents forces thus breaking up an attack I do so, but most of the time I pick and choose my spots. I make the other player react to me and overcompensate. One of the keys to battle is to make your opponent commit his reserves to the wrong area all the while he believes it to be correct. His momentum becomes his enemy as he carries and wastes his strength on nothing. There is no always.

Matt you can be first in line! At least I recognized it! I am a horrible Grog! (intentionally mysterious) Moon, Steve, Kwazy, Matt lock this one up please it was just an announcement of permission to call me a fanboy!

I will forward that email address. And Fionn and NightGaunt if they choose to avoid the mental game so be it, one more advantage for the "cagey" ones!

Hmmm Hide works fine for me. Of course I do not use it to ambush tanks per se. I use to hide my true force strength in relatively safe locations and from air attack. If I ambush tanks it is from them moving into my firezone not "hiding" in theirs

From experience, he is that damn good.

My turn! Okay first off IIRC correctly HIDE also is an abstracted to represent things like tanks with their engines off and such. I have had great success in keeping vehicles hidden all the way up to 200 meters or so in only light woods. I have also found rain and snow to really increase this chance (and of course Fog and darkness but that is too obvious!) I use the move command quite often and not just for convoys. It is a tool for coordination though. You do not always want to have a tank or vehicle get somewhere as fast as possible, especially when you setting something, shall we say, "deliberate" up. The other thing move (and fast) does is tell the tank that the manuever is more important than any targets that may present themselves. Also I did not know that MOVE was a set speed for every vehicle. Hmm I will check this tonight, I thought it was roughly 1/2 full speed. If memory serves me correct a Churchill does about 16mph on a road, a Sherman does about 32mph(???)both at full bore. Does that mean a move command brings everything on the map regardless down to what, something below 16mph??? No that cannot be. I do know (pretty sure) that off road a MOVED Sherman is faster than a MOVED Churchill. I will check it. Later [ May 30, 2002, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Priest ]

Time to chime in. First off I think we are all talking about some different things. Jason is concerned with small maps and in game issues, Fionn and Aust are talking about higher level ideas on tactics, and some AARs are thrown in for good measure. Jason, in QB small maps you are correct, the solution is to play scenarios or even better operational games. This is similiar to the French tank fiasco on the SC forum. The tools are there to fix this, I think you are looking at a worse case scenario. Fionn and Aust, I think you are both right. That being said I am one of the folks Fionn has demonstrated (mostly through AARs, you never really got a chance in CPX) that an aggressive defense is a good defense. I of course have my own spin on it, but that is realistic. No one attacked exactly like Rommel but a lot of other commanders used the same principles. Can static defense work? Sure! Can aggressive defense work? Sure! It depends on the situation and the commanders involved, because it always depends on the situation and commanders involved. Not to mention the troops and so on and so forth, but in CM it is really the sitaution and commander (players) that are involved. Everyone else, cool, I love to know how other people are playing! I like the Hetzer buy myself btw, but I would have bought an ATG to support it. Maybe a 50mm or two.

Hey thanks. Yeah, your "Robin Hood" manuever is still talked about today, a legend in you own time eh? I figured as much, I was outclassed and did not understand how to attack. Still the way your defenses were arranged even now the initial result would have been similiar. The best part is that the reason I had 10,000 rounds is that I was the only one to issue artillery requests that turn! LOL! And you are correct, behind me was nothing, it would have been a cake walk. But then again a certain General would probably not have been killed, a nice write up about that also. If only he would have listened to his Major Wittman.

No I never did get a chance, I had to run actually backwards and fought at Lorry (my only other loss ever in a "Operational" game) and had a smashing success on the Sillgeny road. If you go over to CMHQ there is an article about me even Currently I am having a lot of fun, and possibly my greatest accomplishment ever in CMBO occurred a few months back, but FOW prevents me from talking about it. Haha that was fun as hell! Man talk about intimidation, FIONN was my first PBEM opponent ever!!!!!! I had done some hotseat but wow that was new experience. Good to see you back, have been enjoying your posts. Well back to work! Ken

Well I know for certain that I owe Fionn a lot. I had the "joy" of facing him in a battle that was part of a Beta Test of one of the more shall we say successfull campaign games that is still going on! His ability to critique you as he is whooping you arse is amazing, truly unique Of course I have rarely lost in that operational game since then, I took what I learned to heart. Fun AAR Fionn, keep them up, I still re-read the ones at CMHQ from time to time.

Possible yes, easy not sure, but I bet we will see Kwazy say something about VRAM limits.

I am in the process of reading all of the posts but let me just say one thing that I have noticed so far. If you want operational level games, or at least CMBO games that take that into account then join CMMC or any other operational game currently going. And before you say "but I do not have time for that" or "I want to control everything" realize how unrealistic that is! A.) If you cannot make time for it, then you really do not want it that bad! b.) IIRC more than one guy actually makes decisions in an army! BTS has not given out it's source code (rightfully so I might add!). They have stated time and again that CMBO is a TACTICAL GAME! And finally many inspired fans have put together some very fun and very very realistic operational games together! If that is not enough, then too bad! This is the really real world and you do not always get what you want, especially if it is not realistic (please refer to the really real world comment above!). CMBO is an excellent game, CMBB will most likely aslo be an excellent game, if you do not like excellent games then you have a plethora of horrible games to choose from. Finally remember that most of the gamey tactics, and "unrealistic" blah blahs are caused by the player (let me say it slowly P-L-A-Y-E-R) and not inherently by the game engine. I have played since the demo and never seen a single jeep rush, over use of FLAK guns or truck, nor anything else that is written here. Mainly because I play with a great group of guys (and gals) or I play within the constraint of an Operational game. Again if you cannot take responsibilty for this yourself and do either, well welcome to "Its Your Own Fault Land!". I will finishing reading the posts and give my full impression afterwards. So far the original arguement is lacking.

Stugs and Stuh have to be used correctly that is all. Lets take a basic example of an action. You have an American platoon in a wooded area. They have two Shermans (M4a3's lets say with the either the short 75mm or the 76mm it matters not.) They have some zooks in the woods too of course. Now as the German attacker I have one platoon of German infantry (stock rifle troops), a group of three Panzer IV's (I like the 'H' variant so I will use that) and 3 Stug III's. Just south of the Ami's position is a small strip of light woods. I move my platoon here and engage the Ami infantry, I move my PIV's in for support. I concentrate on the armour versus armour duel, I can supplement my forces with my Stugs if I begin to lose. Once I have dealt with the Ami tanks, I move my Panzer IV's with a half squad each to picket positions within the locale area to make sure no more armour gets through. The remaining squad and a half engages the enemy infantry and the Stugs support them. The Ami infantry is defeated. Now this is very "clean" op described above but if you are experienced enough in using your overall forces and applying pressure to defending units (thus holding them in place) you can achieve these situations rather easily.

And we have a winner folks, please collect your prize from the angry bald man with the padlock near the door.

Always good to see another Moorcock fan, Elric one of my true favorites. Now we have a member on this board called Stormbringer, Arioch had best watch out! Ken

(from the shadows you hear the voice of PENG) IT STARTS!

Hey Karch in response to your sig, you bought a Mac and then had no software, catch 22 don't you think Back to the horsy thing. I am not against horses in the game, just as I am not against Mauses in the game, or any other experimental one-off what if vehicle. Heck I would love to see an Abrams in the game! Just to see ya know. I am not against any of it, but if Charles and Steve pop in and say "TOO HARD" then I say "OKEY DOKEY" because it is just an extra.

No problem, most likely your video card can handle a higher refresh rate than you monitor. Also you probably are not using a specific driver for your monitor (probably windows default) which means that your video card has "rank" so to speak. That was the issue I had. BTW most Monitor companies no longer send monitor drivers, preferring to rely on the built in Windows INF file. Just an FYI [ May 22, 2002, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]

Ceasar Hit 'F8' and choose VGA mode for startup. This will allow you to start windows in 'full' mode with all options, including changing your refresh rate. Once you change the refresh rate restart the computer and allow it to boot to normally and your problem should end.

I knew some of those MODS were hot but this is ridiculous! (And yes I know how bad of a joke that is!)

Depends on the situation and resources. Hard question to answer.

For added reality, use only reverse for the trucks to limit their "gamey" speed!