Banshee

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: I never buy engineers, I can't see the point in them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right now they serve a couple purposes, 1) clear mines 2) Close assaulting tanks, with the satchel charge they are pretty effective. Also you get a free Flamedude ™ with every purchase! Great for defense! Limited time only, offer not valid in California. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

Alright you! It's all fun and games till someone gets hurt! ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

I came up with these threads : http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004864.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/005066.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/005452.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008334.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008346.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008767.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009768.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004163.html I realize they currently can't blow barbed wire, but why not? Clearly it is one of the engineers jobs to do under battle conditions. Just wondered everyones opinion on this and if BTS would weigh in. It's a small thing but I think it would add a some flavor. Thanks. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grognerd_Fogman: I've brought this up a couple of times in the past two weeks but I still haven't found a response to as why people are not willing to use Ambush markers early on in the game for all their rear forces that they wish no-one to recon (tanks, antitanks, guns etc...)and expose early on. All guns and HQ units can plot these things really really close to the other units (in command) and supposedly in version 1.05 they will make them stick to them even better than before so they won't open up when they see something a little beyond the marker. If they don't open up on the recon unit, it would really have to be close just to see it, especially when hidden too. You can still keep your normal spotting units un-markerized and unhidden (like half-squads reconners) and maybe a machine gun on each flank so that they can see better and take out a light skinned recon vehicle if encountered. Maybe this only seems to be working for me and others might see flaws with it or it's not to their liking for some reason. Would like to hear why people aren't willing to do it. Is there any inherent risks in doing something like this that I haven't seen? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The recon vehicles retain very good spotting capability against infantry going at fast speed (esp unbuttoned, which a jeep always is). So even hidden forces can get spotted. And ambushing that same recon force behind your lines gives you the benefit of taking out the vehicle, but the opponent still gets valuable recon. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

I think it underwent so many hits that subsequent penetrations should be looked at with a wary eye. The structural integrity was quite comprimised. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

The point system wasn't designed for historical accuracy (thus the whole, if I was an american commander in 1944 I would have XX shermans vs this one german tank, is moot). It designed to give an equal balanced force when points are equal. Now just because in this instance you had advantageous terrain for your Panther doesn't mean the game is unbalanced it is just bad luck. If you wish to give more historical accuracy bump up the force % in the QB editor. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Faust: I suppose one solution for AT gun longevity, (practiced on numerous occassions during WW 11), was to have an accompanying tow vehicle. The German army was a master of hitting with AT 88's, then quickly moving them down a few kilometers, set them up again etc. Not always with success, mind you, but certainly increasing their long term effectiveness. Perhaps buy some trucks with AT guns's during random set ups. I'm surprised that CM scenarios use numerous AT guns but with no transport? Not totally faithful?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was using my HT (a 250/1 IIRC) to move around a 50mm AT gun that the computer bought for me. It worked well, the gun was moved 3 times before the enemy got to close for me to move it away easily so I left it in place and moved the HT elsewhere to support the defense. Most trucks have a towing capacity (never checked tanks) , I just dont think people use it much. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

Just to confirm , it is a road that you tried this on and not pavement as in towns? Pavement in towns you can't do this, but roads you can, was this it? ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

usually i stick to 500-700 pts because I dont have that much time to play, I did a 1200 pt attack the other day on a large map and the computer gave me 1 whole tank (a hetzer! doh!) , It turned out to be quite fun, the infantry did well and I had 4 HT's which did great shuttling around troops to the decisive points in the battle. And the AI was wonderful in counterattacking, I think because there was so many flags placed around the map. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Because in the real war it would yield no borg-like information gathering and transmission. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But the good news is that CM is ready for a Star Trek port, No design changes needed! P.S. BTS can you look at the "Nice & Courteous PBEM Challenge Thread: Post Here" thread and comment on the feasability of getting a dedicated PBEM/TCPIP forum? Thanks. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

David, I've set up UltimateBB a couple times and adding a new forum is "trivial". I put quotes in because even though it is easy to do it is one more thing to get done and I believe the BTS crew is quite overworked as it is, maybe if they stop by and see this thread they can add it to their very long list of things to do. p.s. if you wish to see just how trivial follow this link : http://www.ultimatebb.com/tour/tour6.html ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-20-2000).] [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-20-2000).]

I disagree , with a forum you know immediately if a certain challenge is still valid or if someone has already accepted. For example in this thread I could say: "Email me, QB, 500 pts, meeting engagement".. now 5 other people may post there own QB's and not accept mine because of different paramters and on the 6 message someone responds to me saying they accept. you would be constantly searching back and forth to make sure you aren't trying to get a PBEM with someone who is already has their plate full. In the forum on the other hand, I would post that same message, someone would respond, and the thread would die. It would be quick, fast, and painless. And if I wanted multiple games I just post multiple threads. Only people who want PBEM games would be in the forum so it wouldn't annoy anyone, and a forum becomes even more useful when TCP/IP is released since that is very time sensitive. I think another cesspool thread (meaning endless) is a bad idea for the general forum thread. just mho. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

Most other game companies with forums and online multiplayer usually have a seperate forum for such things, which usually works out very well. BTS should just add another forum for people looking for PBEM (and later TCP/IP) ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

I was watching "Weapons at War: Mechanized Forces" last night on the "History Channel" and it was very topical on this discussion I thought, they had a whole section on the development and testing of the Jeep. They showed many times Jeeps barreling around plowed fields and the like (maybe 30 mph's , my estimate), and it was funny to see how hard those people were trying to keep from flying out of the jeep (no seatbelts ya know!). And my "great" realization as to why Jeeps were so great in the "fast recon" role was that they NEVER could get into a "Buttoned Up" status, which would severly limit spotting. Using any other vehicle (ok not kubelwagons ) you could make the vehicle button up and it would have severly limited spotting capability. Anyways I've enjoyed the discussion here and will be interested to see the changes that BTS discussed, I think they would be minor (15% reduction on speed, maybe 20-25% reduced effectiveness on spotting). ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

I went the Pascal->C->C++ route. Taught myself Java, Javascript, VB & VBScript, Delphi (Object Pascal). And I think for your very first programming language you should take a quick class at the local community college (most of them around here have the intro language as Java , Pascal, or C). After that if you want some really fast learning take your 1 class and find a job (trust me, it ain't hard people are DESPERATE in the states for anything IT). After the first month of the job you'll be set, after you learn one programming language learning a multitude of others is easy since you are just learning the concepts and you leave the coding details to the very end (I rarely remember syntax right at the beginning when I switch to a new language, I leave syntax to the reference guides, help files, and the web). *IF* you find a good teacher (always a big if) at college learning is easy. Well anyways that is what worked for me. Got my first job right after I learned Pascal. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: OK, let's consider the following situation: when blitzkrieg forces broke through enemy lines and rushed into unknown enemy territory, did their recon units move at a walking pace? Of course not, they would then fall behind the armor. When mechanized forces moved 100 miles a day, as often happened in WW2, their recon forces had to move at that pace or faster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Compare this too my previous comment: "Where I have heard of "fast recon" is after a force breaks through the front lines and rushes into the rear, many , many times recon forces would be spread out looking for an open route, possible counterattack forces, etc. But this is after the defenses in depth have been breached. This would fall into the "meeting engagement" part of CM." I think this is a fundamental flaw in you're logic, movement to contact against prepared defenses is much different that running around behind enemy lines after the lines have been breached. Hans Von Luck's autobiography has a nice section on this when he is storming through france, avoiding contact, and when he gets near the objective (a port on the coast of france) he deploys his forces. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: And I believe that professional soldiers here can confirm that recon forces generally had to be FAR ahead of the main force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again after they broke through. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Now because of the size of battles in CM, it is not feasible to have a realistic WW2-size recon force, and it is not feasible to have maps 60 miles long. I am not complaining nor criticizing the game, but this places a lot of unrealistic contraints upon game play. That the player is sometimes constrained to use allegedly unrealistic gameplay once in a while is therefore not surprising. How many battles in WW2 do you know of where the commander was told that if he didn't take the objective in 20 minutes, he would lose the battle? Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is why I suggest you do a movement to contact operation with recon elements, it might give you a better feel of what our side of the argument is, I've never tried "A day in the life of the cav" in the operations part of CM but it sounds promising. you're looking at the WHOLE battlefield while CM is usually looking at small slices of the battle ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Reaper: Hey, That doesn't work. I always allow for the Human purchase element, but I can't pick Regulars and Elites in the same battle because you have to pick Low (Green and Conscript), Medium (Regular and Veteran) or High (Veteran, Crack, Elite) at scenario setup. There is no "ALL" option. Thanks anyway. Reaper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <-- misunderstood the question <-- is a moron <-- is leaving now *sniff* ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: In sum, I feel that the two main arguments against fast recon, that it is ahistorical and that it is originates from criminal intentions rest on shaky ground. henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think there is many more than 2 arguments against this, but anywho let me reply. A) Ahistorical: never have I heard of, seen, or seen suggested in any book anywhere that a movement to contact / attack / assault against prepared defensive positions was made by a bunch of jeeps rushing (ok zig zagging) towards the defensive positions. But in many many places have I heard of recon platoons using overwatch and bounded movements. But I am no way an authority on ww2, tactics, and the like, and I know absence of proof does not proove my point, I would just like to see a few anecdotes about it. Where I have heard of "fast recon" is after a force breaks through the front lines and rushes into the rear, many , many times recon forces would be spread out looking for an open route, possible counterattack forces, etc. But this is after the defenses in depth have been breached. This would fall into the "meeting engagement" part of CM. Also it's unrealistic because of the completely advantageous way that spotting is made. IRL that unit would have had almost zero effect on the battle because it was lost behind enemy lines out of communication, so it's basic effect on spotting would be nil. Criminal Intentions: Well that term is a little harsh. But I do believe people send their jeeps deep into enemy territory with the belief that they will die, but hope that they might make it back (so they can do it again). For example , in a QB I have plotted a course that runs a jeep through enemy lines across their backfield and out the other side. Now I could argue that I have every intention of that jeep coming back alive since I plotted a course back, but in reality it is highly unlikely. But before it goes I bet it will expose a signficant percentage of the enemies combat power (esp vehicles and AT guns). ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

Just switch the purchase units setting to "Allow Human" in the QB screen ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: As I said before the Germans did use similar recce tactics in RL to flush out defences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've never heard of germans doing anything like this. I've read of them drawing driving out of treelines to be intentionally spotted and hoping to draw fire. But usually they still limited exposure quite a bit. With the jeeps speed you can be exposed quite a bit but still can't be tracked and shot at because of the high rate of speed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Or is it the other way around ? People who can not counter unexpected moves made by their opponents call it gamey to get the moral high ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That comment didn't come out as intended but I'll respond to this anyways. With the way jeeps are modeled now I believe that there is no effective counter tactic. If there is any significant amount of open ground the jeep simply wizzes by without getting hit. Like I said I used this tactic in QB's before and saw it's effectiveness. 90% of the time units were firing on it they simply couldnt hit it, when jeeps were lost it was because they had to slow to turn because they hit the edge of the map. I could just plot a course out staying generally out the way of any major obstacles and I was impervious. It was like paying 19pts (or 38 or 57) to turn off FOW, no problem I'd pay it every time. The jeep tactic isn't some brilliant strategy, everyone here stumbled on to the fact that it could be done. It is a gamey tactic that takes advantage of the game engine. It may be just a point that you and I differ I think. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: And most people probably agree that sending one is legitimate recon. So where is the line? How many vehicles can you send before it becomes gamey? Two? three? Only one? And what kind? Two jeeps are out, but two Pumas are OK? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The difference between 2 pumas and 2 jeeps is great. Besides being slower (the jeep is so unrealistically fast on uneven terrain IMHO), the loss in points from losing 2 pumas is much greater. The point loss vs intelligence gain is extremely low for a jeep. It's a case of apples and oranges. Because the jeep is soooooooooo fast on pretty much any terrain it lets it get much deeper into enemy territory before being blown up. Because of the way spotting works this gives you great knowledge of the enemy positions. Where IRL at best it would give you where NOT to go. (Hey did bob make it back? Nope, ok we dont go that way.) If the US army did recon that way in WW2 it would have run out of jeeps by August of '44 ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Well that comment sort of rubs me the wrong way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right, I withdraw that comment, it came out much harsher on re-reading than intended. Please ignore. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-19-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: What challenge? As MTanker stated, if both players agree to tactics, no problem. Nobody is defending a 'tactic', only defining it as opposed to recon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The challenge of finding the opposing forces. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

I think people have a hard time calling it gamey because it is so damn effective. The ends justify the means in their minds. With a (1) jeep in a QB I exposed 3 squads, a mortar, a AT gun, AND took out a hetzer (rear shot) and a HT before succumbing to fire. For 19 pts! It was maybe my third QB ever and I knew right then that it was gamey. How did I know? At the end of the battle I didn't feel satisfaction for winning a WW2 simulation, I felt like I would feel after winning in Minesweeper or Mario Karts, nothing. It was a tactic that turned the "game" into a "game". If that makes any sense. Most people buy this game because it depicts WW2 combat better than any game out their. That's the motivation for buying and playing, because if you just wanted a gamey game you could play nintendo and playstation. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: > I just can not see it gamey for a commander to conduct a deliberate penetration of suspected enemy positions, with whatever resources he has available, to find out if the enemy is there or not. Even if he does it repeatedly to the point where I get dizzy. It means also he risks running his units into hidden minefields, onto hidden enemy units and potential ambushes. Recce is what it is all about, finding out what the opponent has. Ruining the opponents plans is not prohibited, I think. :-D <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A) IRL (note: In Real Life), Resources are finite, in the game they are "infinite", if you lose a unit right here , right now, it doesnt matter to the next QB or PBEM. "Recce is what is all about", yes, but with these unrealistic tactics you could only recce for one (small) battle, the next battle a click down the road, you'll have nothing, but the game doesn't reflect that (yeah yeah I know operations blah blah, the ratio of QB's and scenarios vs operations is huge). If you did this during an operation it would be somewhat less gamey because those forces would be unavailable to you in the next battle. So what I am saying is that you are taking advantage of the "slice in time" that the game is being played in, while the people on defense don't have that advantage because they have less forces than you and don't need gamey recon because you have to expose your forces to come after them anyways. The unrealstic spotting (necessitated by the game engine) makes the value of the jeep recon outweigh it's actual point value. C) The "terrain factor" , terrain is very smooth in CM which allows for great speeds of wheeled vehicles, IRL this is not the case, a smooth looking field is anything but driving over it. IMHO jeeps rockin at 40mph across the terrain is unrealistic, the guys would bounce out of their seats. Try taking a vehicle across a field of "open ground" and see how fast you can go. as I said before, yes it is VERY effective, but it is so effective because it takes "advantage" of the game engine not being able to model RL. Try using real recon tactics, it's much more rewarding. I think the "jeep tactic" is for people who can't handle the challenge. Just MHO. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki