Priest

Congrats, good luck, and God Bless!

Oh thank you BFC, oh thank you. (walks backwards remembering to bow ever half step and to avert eyes away from the greatness that is BFC)

I would rather not on the forum but if you have a good reason feel free to email me, the address in in my profile and to be honest I would love to hear a good reason why this is a big deal.

Right an interesting conversation that basically boils down to READ THE FAQ. Wow that was a whopper of a conversation. And if is no big deal how about no caps in the subject and few less "!"'s. Just a tip...

AFAIK there is no patch per say. Not sure what the big deal is. Anyhow I would be saddened if there was a patch because that would mean that someone bothered to try and hack the CM code to some extent. That is not cool. So maybe you can tell me a good reason why this is even an issue, no one else has?

Phil, I understand your opinion and I can see how it is a viable one. That being said let me state a couple facts. a.) This was blown way way out of proportion by way too few people to be an issue. b.) The answers are already available readily. And there is a mod. Just go down to the appropriate thread already stated.

(slaps forehead) Uhm try about the billion other threads about this pointless topic. Geez! [ October 17, 2002, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Priest ]

So any takers on how long till the padlock a comes a knocking? BTW in the CMBO forum somewhere there is BFC's answer to this. IIRC (and I may not) the answer is the system is not set to work like that and it is not really worthwhile to make the conversion blah blah. Basically that means you got the IS-3 so we did not have time for some math formula. Oh well And never forget... HI MOM!

It is called the scenario editor, you can pretty much do as you wish there.

Rest in peace and thanks...

It is a very good game, but my description would not do it justice, just head over to the forum. The game's creator is almost always around.

It would unrealistic to allow the automatic use of captured equipment in Operations under almost all conditions. There just simply was not enough time to acclimate to the new weapons system.

Funny I have yet to see a Stug of any type in one of my games.

Talenn I am still not convinced that we are looking at the whole diverse issue. In Steppes with flank protection the STUGS will do well as long as it is a clear day. Hmmm that seems like a lot of things have to go right to make the STUG as feasible. Another issue to remember is that you increase your chances of being killed by smaller faster vehicles. The Panzer IV can track a target as it skirts past its frontal aspect and gain more gun on target time (hence more shots) than a STUG can. Also the Panzer IV can move to safety while still focusing on the target (due to its turret). With a Stug either the TacAI or you have to decide whether to run and hide or risk turning to engage. IIRC you can get two light tanks and probably an ATR for the price of one STUG (do not have CMBB in front of me). Now since your arguement primarily exists in a most basic situation lets look at it this way. Even generated maps have some cover. So lets assume a basic map, set to all the defaults. Lets say it is a clear day and we will say the units are out of LOS on turn 1. The Stug needs to get across the map, the enemy needs to take out the Stug. EFOW of course. Germans Stug IIIF or F8 Russkies 2 T-70s or 2 T-60s or whatever works 1 ATR Basic high percentage plan for taking out the Stug: Put the ATR hidden in a position that gives the unit the best possible LOS over the map. Keep the armour in hiding and not moving. At range open up with the ATR on the STUG. This will button and slow the STUG as it hunts for the ATR. As the ATR is opening up at maximum range there is no chance for penatration but also little chance of being spotted. Once the Stug (still buttoned and under ATR fire) gets within a decent distance of the light tanks, both Russian vehicles sprint from their positions at fast speed. One goes hard right, the other hard left. Now this is where a turret is important. Your Stug will a.) have to stop to track one of the vehicles. This is due to waiting until the STUG is decently close. b.) Reaction will be slow due to the fact that the STUG is buttoned. By the time the STUG will be able to react the flanking vehicles will be most likely past the STUGs field of fire. Now the STUG must decide to break for it (ground pressure could cause bogging and the STUG is not exactly a speedster) or go for one of the tanks. Turning to face one will expose itself to the other (possibly from the rear) and if the ATR is still active it will have at least side shots from a decent range. End result is that a turreted vehicle could continue movement, continue to engage at least one tank, and still use it's hull mg (most tanks have them) to harrass the ATR if it finds it. The turreted vehicle would better be able to engage the other tank on the opposite flank also. That is very basic example and will not always work but it does convey the fact that the STUG is far from an UBER weapon. Especially on the attack.

Redwolf Uhm did you read my example? It is feasible in some situations. Also as said earlier in this thread, it is not likely they are going to add new foxholes or something in a patch. As far as being insulting to a soldier, not sure what you mean, the foxhole is appropriate for the type is supposed to be portraying. Even more importantly you are forgetting that your complaints only hold merit on a randomly generated QB.

Actually I refuse to "crack" any Battlefront product, this company has earned my repect and I will play the games in the manner I agreed to. As far as real time goes, my opinion is that is is sub par to the WEGO system in CM games. Just my opinion. Others enjoy RTS and that is perfectly fine.

Three words for you with regards to advancing too that make the turreted vehicles superior in CMBB. Cover Arc Command [ October 10, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Priest ]

I may use Stugs in my assault formations but I would use the Panzers in my AT formations with regards to attack. Stugs are horrible flankers, and bring their guns to bear to slowly to track fast moving vehicles. If you stand way way back and fire long distance then maybe but if they are advancing then turrets are definite advantage. Also in an assault I will be closing with infantry. That means that I want MGs. 75mm HE is nice except that when you hit the lines you cannot slew around a Stug fast enough to cover a lot. Just my opinion. And oh yeah you have to spend more resources protecting its flanks, negating any percieved points/cost advantage (see above post by me).

Welcome, prepare for a totally new experience. I have tried Sudden Strike (the demo) and then a week later played the CMBO demo. I do not own a Sudden Strike game, I bought an extra CD Rom so that i never had to take my CMBO disk out. That should tell you something. Go easy guys he knows not what he has done

Uhm RedWolf, What exactly are you proposing? So either I cannot have trenches in foxholes on the same map. Or the foxholes have to get better (more prepared). Or what? We need a solution for both hasty defenses and lengthy defenses. In a perfect world we would have more choices but we do not and added options for such probably are not going to be coming in patch form. So far this is only an issue in a QB, as scenarios and ops are controlled environs. As far as a realistic scenario goes try this one. Company A is in their nice MLR trench network. The captain receives a phone call from HQ, recce forces have spotted enemy troops imbound from the East. Damn the commander thinks, that is behind us! Richardson take platoon A into the copse of woods over there and dig in, the enemy will be here in less than an hour. See trenches and hastily made foxholes realistically on the same map.

Talenn, Here is another thing for your points assessment. You stated that there are counter moves to flanking manuevers and you are correct. The problem is that most of those counters involve using some form of weapon system to cover the flank trying to be taken advantage of. This means putting infantry, ATGs, armour, or all three on the flank of every Stug formation. That in and of itself would cost you points that would then raise the overall points you are dedicating to your anti armour contingent. Fionn said it best in one of his AARs in CMBO. To have a complete formation you need to have a recce element, an artillery element, an armour element (anti), an assault element, and a reserve element. Now the assualt element obviously changes to MLR element in a defensive formation blah blah. (BTW Fionn if you read this I hope I am displaying your ideas correctly please correct me if I am not.) Even small games (400 pts) you are probably going to buy a sharpshooter or two, thus your recce element. Size of each element is not important but most folks in one way or another have even fuzzy breakdowns such as the one displayed above. Now if you take your example of counter against the Flank Attack then you take resources (units) away from the other elements of your formation. So those two infantry platoons with AT teams you have sitting on either flank might prove to be very handy when two heavily supported infantry companies hit your MLR (your MLR element). Or maybe if you had those platoons out in forward postions the spotters now reigning down accurate steel death would not have gotten such good LOS. Or maybe the tactical flexibility of being able to shift those platoons to trouble spots would be comforting. You see everything you do has a cost. So why the Stug does have a period where it is superior you are thinking purely in direct confrontation terms. I do not even have to kill a Stug to make it a non-factor. If you approach its flank, most smart players are going to have to fall back with that unit, thus freeing you assault units to advance or manuever. Also if you have a STUG you are going to be more apt to support that STUGs flanks over a turreted tank and thus if I pressure your flanks with my armour element I may force you to commit your reserves in which case I weaken you response to assault element. And it goes on and on. So is a T-34 going to win at 1000m versus a Stug, well probably not. And that is realistic, but that situation will normally only arise on a test gunnery field or something. Using smoke, cover, and tactics you can overcome that distance and with the advantages of the T-34 can then move to flank the Stug. I will end with analogy, no one expect to be able to shoot with a sword or slice something with a rifle. No one should expect the t-34 to be a great standoff weapon after a certain point in the war, especially against a very good stand off weapon in the Stug. That is why tactics have evolved past the oh so wonderous Revolutionary War days. Great discussion, hope I made sense, just about to leave work and a bit rushed.

Uhm CMBO is great, CMBB is great. Who cares which is better? CMBO is a classic, and CMBB will be one also. And do not fault a game for poor tactics, I use the forces in CMBB just fine.

Charles himself is taking a look at this. It does not look to have anything to do with the German or US versions. I am sure BFC will keep us informed.

A cattle prod would not be enough, my guess is the drug Speed.

Thought it was funny as hell. And he was not a professional actor, that is what made it real. Take out the drinking, add a second player, and you have Heaven, well Grog heaven, I would want a pass to Playboy heaven also, just to stop in and such.