Kestrl

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cooper: I agree with you Kestral. You probably don't remember but about 7-8 months ago I played you. I was a newbie, had game about 2 weeks. You trash me throughout the game, but(because of a couple of rambo .50 cal. and one squad) I only suffered only a minor loss. But my point is, I learn more by talking to you, tactics, counters, blah, after getting my ass handed to me than I did with 20 ai battles. The best part of playing someone is talking tactics after the game. See what worked and what didn't. The fact that he quit sucks. How many battles have I played where I had the upper hand late and then get the cards turn on something stupid I did. That why you play it out to the bitter end, especially when playing me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Cooper, Thanks for the support i really appreciate it. I'm happy there is a lot of people in the CM community who show some etiquette when playing TCP/IP battles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: You killed his Jumbo with a Pz IV? How very gamey of you! Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I setup a nice ambush on the buttoned M4A3E2 (76) Jumbo with my small Pz IVG and it fired three times and the first shot missed, the second shot bounced off, and the third shot got it right in the side.. knocking it out and thats when my opponent admitted defeat and quit without a word during turn nine.

Here is the scenario, I post in the opponet forum and setup my end for a Meeting Engagement 25 turns, 800 points, Farmland, heavy woods, small hills, April 1945 and let my opponent purchase his own units The person who joined tonight purchased a Sherman Jumbo and was reckless and after losing his expensive armor to my Panzer 4, up and quit the battle before the action turn ended, this individual didn't show any maturity and is a pathetic loser. When my infantry, armor, and ammo was expended in a battle, I had the common courtesy to surrender. The way i see it this individual has admitted defeat by quitting, so at least surrender and admit defeat like a man and not a pathetic loser.

Has anyone designed a scenario yet with the Archer in it?

I guess you haven't used that Endgame Randomizer (BER), sorry didn't know the acronym for it earlier today. Look at the post that says final verison of Badco's Endgame Randomizer. There isn't a Macintosh version of the BER. Combat Mission is the same for PC and Mac folks. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: We have????????????????????????????????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the PC folks have a Variable turn ending option program for CM but there are no plans for a Mac version. How does this variable turn ending program work? if the battle is set for 20 turns are you at least guranteed 20 turns or will it maybe end before 20? This thing about people rushing the flag at the last minute with crews and FO is really dishonorable and nothing i hate more is when after i knock there halftrack or armor and they bring up the crew to the frontline to fight. I normally spend some extra time after knocking out armor and continue firing to disable the crew.

I hope BTS doesn't waste their time on adding the Maus because who wants a tank that travels at 13 km/h (8.07 mph) and is so heavy that it would bogged in any weather. I'm guessing it would never make it to the frontlines in a QB. I don't understand why anyone would want it or even purchase one because it would take several turns to move it around the battlefield. I would rather like to see BTS add the M16 Multi gun motor carriage with four 50. cal MGs

Ok i saw a post a couple weeks back about all fully-tracked allied vehicles able to cross bocage. I was looking in British and American tanks of World War II and saw a picture of a M5A1 Stuart with a Cullins hedgerow device attached and its dated Normandy 1944. The Stuart has a Cadillac Twin V8 220Hp which must give it plenty of power to cross bocage. They also show a picture of a Cromwell "Prong" with a Cullin hedgerow device installed. I don't have any problems with allied armor crossing bocage. i can't see a Mg carrier or a universal carried crossing bocage. I'm very pleased with this book... British and American tanks of World War II by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, I can't wait to get the german one.

Hey nice pics.. I like the hezter <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sascha: A friend over atAGW suggested that I should post these pics here as well. http://community.webshots.com/user/elvis17 Click on the link on the bottom right (Technik Museum Sinsheim). Enjoy! Sascha<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Sorry if this was already answered somewhere, but I can't find it with a search. 1) Will the damage of buildings be modeled better? I mean, shooting them into pieces, leaving a ruin, or will we still have a flat square that's only called 'rubble'. In this case, a late Stalingrad map will look very...boring. 2) Will the convoy movement problem be solved? Why can a friendly vehicel not simply move trough another friendly vehicel like through friendly infantry? 3) Will it be possible to damage enemy like unarmored vehicels or guns by rammming them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1. No just better looking rubble and diffrent shaped buildings.. like building blocks and only two story buildings 2.Why would you want to a vehicle through a vehicle? I don't think that is going to change. 3. I doubt that happened a whole lot and there would be a pretty good chance you would'nt make it that close to ram something before your vehicle getting knocked out.

You could create a scenario in June 44 so no one can traverse bocage. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ninotchka: I cant believe it would be that difficult to change the vehicle data relating to bocage access. If I remember correctly one of the patches enabled the M3A1 and Humber scout cars to traverse hedges.. Are the current rules really 'the best of all bad solutions'? CM takes such pride in accurately modelling the capabilities of vehicles, weapons and men and this arbitrary bocage apartheid just doesnt seem to fit. Let say (hypothetically) we could establish that only American Stuarts,Shermans and M10s were fitted with bocage tools in any numbers wouldnt it be good to see this reflected ingame rather than the current fallacious fudge?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how it could be "Gamey" when a allied fully-tracked vehicle moves through bocage its speed is extremely reduced and it has poor LOS and is easy prey for AT infantry, AT gun, or a enemy tank. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ninotchka: Thanks for the responses, most illuminating. Ive been doing a bit of homework with the scenario maker and discovered that CM does attempt to simulate the use of plows/hedge-cutters over June-July period. In June all allied vehicles cant pass thru bocage. In july all tracked allied vehicles can pass thru bocage. Its a reasonable solution but still lacks the subtlety/realism we have all come to expect from this wonderful game. From everyones contributions and my own research it seems that bocage-busting tanks were only used in significant numbers during the Normandy breakout (Op Cobra) in the very last days of July. Even then figures seem to indicate that 40% of US tanks were not equipped. British/Canadian use at this time is unclear but I believe (contradict me please)that it was much less widespread. The hedgecutter was a significant factor in the success of Op Cobra (Culin the inventor was awarded Legion Of Merit)and I dont think it is beyond a CM ethic/engine that models the small diff between a M4A3(75)W and a M4A3(75)W+ to also model Shermans, Stuarts etc with bocage penetration capabilty and without . Obviously no visual adjustments would be possible or expected. As it stands in any July+ scenario all tracked allied vehicles including universal carriers, self-propelled guns, and churchill AVREs can slice thru bocage banks like knives thru pilfered French buerre whilest axis armour in accurately-mapped bocage country (the scenarios included with CM give a pretty poor representation of the claustrophobia of pocket-handkerchief fields and labyrinthine sunken lanes) is effectively forced to sit-tight or move via roads. This makes for seriously gamey bocage engagements. What do you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You will never see Hedgerow cutters fitted to fully-tracked Axis vehicles in CM. Look in the CM manual on page 34. German Vehicles also cannot enter bocage Note: Starting in July 1944, all fully-tracked allied vehicles are assumed to have the so called "Rhino" attachments - steel prongs welded to the front lower hull of a tank enable it to smash through the dense bocage hedges of the Normandy. Germans did not use this equipment and therefore are not allowed to cross bocage. Straight out of the CM manual. I've read that Shermans did use a M1 dozer blade attachment to bust through hedgerows.

I purchased a veteran Archer and only got one tungsten round but had a few AP rounds. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boy_Recon: I think they're quite handy defensively if you can buy them at Vet or above as they tend to get a good few tungsten rounds. Use them for ambushing at long range, get a few shots off then nip off to another spot. Don't get too attatched to it, but if used carefully it can at least make your opponent twitchy. BTW ,and I'm going to have to go home and check this, but... IIRC the Archer was not the only WW2 (or thereabouts) AFV with,for whatever godforsaken reason, a fixed rear-firing main armament. Anybody any ideas as to nationality, model, etc?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure it will be more detailed but you won't see all twelve guys on the battlefield . QUOTE]Originally posted by securityguard: will it be more detailed? will we be able to see every little guy out there fighting their hearts out?

How about a Archer with the 303 cal Bren MG (AA) in CM? I think the Archer needs to close in defense against infantry and light armored vehicles.

I'll do that when i deploy them next time in a QB and see what happens maybe one will survive. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: If you're having trouble deploying you're archer that's an historically accurate dilemma. the Brits simply hated the beast and it was quickly withdrawn and replaced with towed guns. never did see fighting in the desert. My 2¢ on deployment. try keeping them as far back as humanly possible. Keep them out of sight, let the infantry be your 'eyes'. When the occassion presents itself (a buttoned Panther occupying itself shooting up your infantry) reverse into position to get off a couple shots. You might want to add a delay to your orders so it'll just have a few seconds exposed during the turn and you can quickly order it back out of sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kestrl: I'm sure someone could design a large scenario where the Archer could take advantage of longer ranges and hills to hide behind, fighting in a town or village and having the Archer in a good ambush position where it could get the first shot would help it. The 76 mm main gun has got to be worth something and the only hard part of using the Archer is its rearward facing main gun and no Hunt command. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure someone could design a large scenario where the Archer could take advantage of longer ranges and hills to hide behind. I'm sure fighting in a town or village and having the Archer in a good ambush position where it could get the first shot would help it. The 76 mm main gun has got to be worth something and the only hard part of using the Archer is its rearward facing main gun and no Hunt command. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by REVS: My understanding of Archers is that they're not really suited to the small-scale fighting of the CM game system. They're best off in longer-range defensive spots where they can take advantage of their small target status. Plus, their rear-facing armament meant they could withdraw rapidly. In the western desert (I think) they were very useful. In CMBO, they don't really have a useful role. My best mates are all German specialists, and I've always liked to be a Russian (just an old left-winger from way back), so I'm hanging out for CM2. In the meantime, I've amused myself with Allies in CMBO, and I'm afriad items like the Archer aren't that much chop in the close-quarters fighting that you often find in CM scenarios. Sounds horribly defeatist, but give up on them, unless you have a large game with lots of bare hills as terrain to hide behind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've had the same experience with the Archer slow ROF and poor accuracy. I did a QB last night and purchased two veteran Archers and one got knocked out before it could fire a shot and the second knocked out a couple AFV but was destroyed but a light tank. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by moosehead: My experience is 0-2. They seem to be very slow ROF and poor accuracy. Plus they seem to be like a big magnet for incoming rounds of any kind. I'll never waste my points on them again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct it says in my book of British and American tanks of World War Two that the Archer is a Self-Propelled gun. I just think its a cool AFV and I'd like to learn better tactics when using it on the battlefield. I just saw that under specifications that the Archer MK I had as a secondary armament 1 X 303 cal Bren MG (AA), wish we had that version in CM. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: It is essetially a stopgap to employ the 17lb gun before any tanks were specifically designed for it. It's not a tank destroyer as such, just a self-propelled antitank gun. It is vulnerable to mortar fire. If you want to employ the 17lb gun to its best advantage, get a Challenger. Or a Firefly, but I love Challengers to bits. Think of the Archer as just a mobile 17lb antitank gun. Keep it hull down, away from harmful bullets and explosions and such. It withdraws forward, a characteristic you can use to your advantage, quickly retreating to a new position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure how many people purchase and use the Archer in a ME, Probe, Attack, or Assault type battle for defense but I haven't had much luck with deploying it defensivly on the battlefield. Has anyone esle had any luck with the Archer? I do like its compact and low silhouette and its 76 mm main gun. I've been positioning the Archer up front but after having two veteran Archers knocked out, I'm thinking thats a bad idea. A better tactic would be to have them behind the lines in a defensive position with good LOS over the battlefield where they can get some long range shots at enemy armor. A hull down position behind your main defensive line where they can engage enemy armor but since the Archer doesn't have a hunt command you have to judge if its in a hull down position or use the LOS tool. The Archer is a very challenging tank destroyer and I look forward to learning how to effectivly use it on the battlefield. [ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Kestrl ]

What happens to your new veteran tank crew after they get their tank knocked out or disabled? do they return as veteran or regulars in the next battle. I don't think a campaign option is needed in CM. I don't think its going to happen in CM2. [ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Kestrl ]

I'd like to see those Finnish ski infantry try skiing uphill while my T-34/85 tank opens up on them with its 85 mm main gun. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu: In CM kind of game it could be strategically important. Skis would enable you to flank the enemy quicker than they can react with its own troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go was playing a QB probe against allied armor and had one veteran Jagdpanzer IV and it knocked out 3 M4 Shermans, 1 M4A1(76)W Sherman and caused 8 infantry casualities all in a hull down position behind a small hill. I never used one before because a Hezter is cheaper. I like that it has more HE and AP rounds and also faster ROF.