Smoker1

Bump!

My zook record: 178 meter first shot kill of Puma. Schreck record: 206 meter third shot kill of Churchhill Smoker out.

Ten minutes max before going unlimited doesn't appeal to me. I would like to see at least a choice for 15 minutes. 20 minutes would be even better. Smoker out.

Very interesting Dervulf. Do the USMC Scout/snipers carry radios? How far from friendly forces do they operate? If they don't have radios and do operate out of LOS of friendlies then they must move back after sighting something in order to report it. In CM this is not the case. If the USMC scout/snipers do have radios then they are not comparable to WWII sharpshooters which I don't think had radios. Even if Marine scout/snipers in WWII had radios there are no Marines in CM. The problem is absolute spotting. What one unit sees, you as the commander also see. In reality this would not be the case except for units with radios or those operating within LOS of a radio (hand signals). Sharpshooters in CM can communicate with headquarters telepathically. They can take advantage of the game's limitations. That's why some people think that a whole squad of sharpshooters is gamey. Smoker out.

The use of sharpshooters as scouts can very easily become a gamey tactic in some situations. Give me six sharpshooters in a 3,000 pt. armor battle with some trees and I'll know where every one of your tanks is by turn 10. Not only that, they will all have to stay buttoned for the rest of the game. This is only possible because of game limitations. Therefore it is gamey. How could I possibly know that a sharpshooter 300 meters from the nearest friendly and out of LOS has spotted a platoon of enemy armor? Six sharpshooters cost about 150 points. Not a bad price to pay for the complete removal of FOW and a buttoned up enemy. Smoker out.

That's very interesting Sgt. Steiner. It makes sense too. The only problem there is that you would have to have your scout teams in C&C, thereby risking an HQ unit on the scouting mission. Cross of Iron was a great movie wasn't it. Smoker out.

David Aitken, I think all units, including sharpshooters and FOs, have trouble spotting while they are running. Your FO was just unfortunate enough to run straight into a Wirbelwind. The forward observer OTOH was not quite finished with his dash to the woods at the end of the movie so you got no info on the Wirbelwind due to poor spotting while running. Deanco, In a 3,000 pt. armor meeting engagement with modest hills, large map, and moderate trees I used six sharpshooters. By the second third of the game they had infiltrated deep enough that I knew where every enemy vehicle was at all times. The vehicles would occasionally slip out of view but I still knew where they were since there were very few places I could not see. On top of that, all the enemy tanks had to stay buttoned at all times (I killed two TCs). In some situations, such as open maps, sharpshooters might be less effective since they can't infiltrate as easily without being spotted. In general however, due to the absolute spotting limitation of the game sharpshooters are very powerful IMO. For one less tank or platoon you can wipe out FOW for yourself. This may not be worth it at the 1,000 pt. size but from 1,500 on up I wouldn't hesitate to give up a tank for complete removal of FOW and guaranteed buttoning of opposing vehicles. Using sharpshooters in the same role as half squads would be used appeals to me. The sharpshooters are more difficult to see and see better themselves. The problem is determining when the sharpshooters cross the line and begin taking advantage of the absolute spotting limitation of the game. Smoker [This message has been edited by Smoker1 (edited 10-25-2000).] [This message has been edited by Smoker1 (edited 10-25-2000).]

Sharpshooters are great for use as scouts. The problem is that they are SO good at seeing and not being seen that 6 of them for 150 pts. can totally remove FOW for the side using them. For this reason I try to get my PBEM opponents to agree to a max of 2 sharpshooters. I guess the solution is not to hide your advance teams. They will see the enemy that way and probably take fire if the enemy is there, but they will have done their job. Also, it's probably best not to act on what the scout teams see (don't see) for a solid minute after they are in their positions. If they arrive at a position near the end of a turn and appear to see nothing, and you act on that info in the next orders phase you could be asking for it. They may spot something 5 seconds into the next turn and you've already given orders assuming nothing was there. Smoker

I've encountered the night spotting issues many times at dawn on overcast days too. In those cases I always saw units I shouldn't be able to see according to the LOS tool. In the case above I clearly should have been able to see the tank just as he saw me; unless spotting ability is greatly reduced for hiding units. Smoker

Thanks Sharpie! I just read that in the manual myself. I just never noticed a reduction in the spotting ability of hiding units before. It's not an obvious thing to pick up on. I'm very interested in the results of your tests. Smoker.

This may interest some of you. I moved a team through tall pines to a position about 10 meters from the edge of the trees so they could see out of the woods. The team was in position and hiding 30 seconds into the turn and saw nothing for the rest of the movie. Five seconds into the next movie the team was fired on by a tank in the open only about 150 meters away. They did not see the tank until it opened fire. The tank was sitting there all the time because all approaches to the location of the tank would have been visible to the team. The tank was that much in the open. There's no way it could have moved into the position it fired from without being spotted. (No sound contacts made either). My question is this: How can a tank in the open spot a hiding infantry team in tall pines before the team spots the tank? Especially when the team has been in hiding for a full 30 seconds. Are hiding units penalized in spotting ability because they are hiding? This would seem reasonable to me if true, but I'd sure like to know if this is how the game works. I will hide less often. The only other partial explanation I can come up with is that the team was spotted by the tank as they (the team) moved into position and the tank did not fire because it had hide orders itself which were removed on the next orders phase. Still, I think the team would have spotted the tank during the last 30 seconds of the turn while they were in position facing it. We're only talking 150 meters here, tank in the open, clear dawn. There is a spotting lesson here, but I don't know what it is yet. Again, does a unit that is hiding have more trouble spotting enemy units than it would if it were not hiding? Thanks! Smoker

I'm with you Jadayne! Give me an accurate model of the weapons, troops, and vehicles and let me apply the "what ifs". I'm a physical simulationist too I guess. Smoker out.

I got tired of Meeting Engagement QB's where the map favored one side or the other so I made a PERFECTLY fair map. No matter how you bisect the map, north/south or east/west, both halves are exactly the same with one half being rotated 180*. What this means is if you have a large hill on your left side your opponent has exactly the same large hill on his left side. By opening the file in the Scenario editor you can whip up a quick scenario since the time consuming map work is already done. All you have to do is decide on scenario parameters, define setup zones, and choose the units. To preserve FOW you could let a 3rd party put the units of your choosing into the scenario for you. I would be willing to do this for people who want to use the map. If you want to check out the map just email me and I'll send you the file. If people are interested in truly fair maps I will make more of them. Smoker out.

I think this is a very good PBEM scenario. I'm at turn 23 with a guy now and it's still up in the air. Very well balanced IMO. Lot's of fun to play. Smoker out.

What we need to know here is the AVERAGE traversal rates of the tanks in question in a combat situation. This information is probably impossible to obtain. After all, who's measuring traverse speed in the heat of battle under a myriad of different conditions. Why not just set the traverse rate of the tanks in question to 50% above minimum. This is just an arbitrary solution but probably isn't too far off base. If this speed seems to be out of line on the Eastern Front, where it seems to be most important, adjustments can be made up or down. Just a simple suggestion from an average guy for a not so simple problem. Smoker out.

I think people download scenarios as soon as they notice a new one. Getting around to playing them is a different story. I've got 84 scenarios in my scenario folder(including the originals). I've only played 12 so far and I've had the game since the end of June. PBEM games take most of my CM time. You can probably divide the number of downloads by 10 and arrive at the number of people who have actually managed to find time to play the scenario. I do think that, if a person does play a user created scenario, he should be kind enough to rate it for the guy who put in the time and effort to create it. Rating a scenario also gives the rest of us an idea of what players think of it. If there are less than five votes I disregard the rating completely. Smoker out.

PzKpfw 1, I assume that the current cost of Tigers and Panthers corresponds to the vehicles' current combat abilities. Turret traverse speed is a major factor in a vehicles'combat abilities so cost should be changed appropriately if traverse speed is increased. All tanks have thin side and rear armor. The Achilles heel of Tigers and Panthers is the slow turret traverse rate. It's much more difficult to flank a fast turreted vehicle for the elusive side shot, which is often necessary against Tigers and Panthers as you pointed out. Smoker

Griffin Cheng, Once you send the first PBEM file your opponent will see the map (if forces are chosen by the computer). The problem is that the guy who sets up the battle can generate several maps until one comes up that favors him. He can also preplay the scenario to find good positions. Unless he sends the "raw" QB file (that is saved BEFORE he chose his side) to his opponent, his opponent can do none of these things. Smoker

I'm with you Kiwi Joe. BTS made it so you have to pick your units before you get to see the map. I like this. Saving before choosing sides allows you to get around that fact. I must say I like the mirrored battles aspect of the deal though. Smoker A way to handle this problem to a certain extent is to reserve the right to reject a map once you see it if you think it is too one sided. Some people do this already. This does not fix the problem of a guy preplaying a QB to determine excellent positions that are out of his original setup area. The map may be fair, but one guy has scouted it out for the best LOS positions. It's like having a cumbersome point to point LOS tool not depending on unit location. [This message has been edited by Smoker1 (edited 10-11-2000).]

If faster turret speeds of Panthers and Tigers are needed to better simulate the way it really was then I'm all for it, BUT there should definitely be a substantial cost increase for these much improved vehicles since their Achilles Heel is being removed. Smoker out.

Oh great, Tigers and Panthers with faster turrets. They should cost 400 pts. each with Regular crews. That would also cut down on the number of these tanks we see. Smoker out.

I always tell my opponent the parameters that I used in generating the map. That is only fair since I know the information. The same goes for weather. By doing this both players have a general feel for the map, know the weather, and can choose units with these things in mind. When one player can study the ACTUAL map it is almost equivalent to having played the scenario before unless you let the computer pick the units. He can actually preplay it if he desires. Smoker

Your first opportunity to save a QB is just BEFORE you choose Axis or Allies. At this point the map and weather are generated. This means you can play a QB with an opponent and switch sides using the same exact map! I've tried it. It works. This also means that it is possible for the player who generates a QB to look at the exact map BEFORE he chooses his units. All he has to do is save before choosing his side then run through the procedure until he sees the map. He then goes to the real game (saved before choosing sides) and selects his troops. He could even open two instances of CM and switch between the map and his unit selection screen. He could go so far as to play the bogus game awhile and determine prime LOS spots that are not in his setup area, completely scouting out the map. I love the fact that I've found a way to play QBs using the same exact map, but the cheat potential is definitely there. Smoker.

Your first opportunity to save a QB is right before you choose your side (Axis or Allies). I believe this is after the point where the map is actually generated. All the map and weather parameters are already entered at this point, but nothing else. Perhaps this will do it. Smoker I just tried this. It works perfectly. The same exact map with one map showing the German setup zone and the other showing the Allied zone. The feature already exists! Just save the QB BEFORE choosing which side you want to play. [This message has been edited by Smoker1 (edited 10-11-2000).]

Here's a good one. The old kubelwagen recon trick drives within 50 meters of 3 Shermans in clear terrain on a rainy night (no fog) and does not see them. The space from Kubel to tanks is unobstructed and flat. The tanks watched the whole thing happen. Visibility appears to be about 150 meters for the tanks in the direction of the kubelwagen.